French workers fight for the right to be lazy

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes.

Ah well. The evolution over here was completely different. I guess it doesn't help, when unfettered capitalism relies on a State that kills worker activists.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

This is not the problem. There hasn't been any serious study linking our unemployment rate to welfare. Some people abuse welfare, of course, but it is not known how many there are. In all cases, the mantra of all French right-wingers (that the unamployed are lazy bums who feed off welfare) has never been proven. It may reduce unemployment to force people to take any job (that's what the Germans are trying, forcing people to become prostitutes), but it may not as well: as the pressure rises on currently employed people, because of unemployment scare, and if the employer is free to have them work 15% extra time (up to 220 overtime hours a year are allowed now), it's absolutely not sure that there will be room for the now-motivated unemployed on the job market.

cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates.
the phillips curve model even shows how increased welfare means increased unemployment at equal rates of inflation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Wine, adultery and vacations

Save for the adultery part, that's exactly what I need right now

[DanS]

Oerdin: The bright capitalists figured out that it made a lot of sense to run their factories on three 8-hour shifts rather than two 12-hour shifts. It's true that the unions had a lot of impact on this realization, but once you do just slightly less than 12-hour shifts, the 8-hour shift becomes much more attractive than a 10-hour shift, for instance. By 1938, the 40-hour work week was in place, well before the crazy socialist system we have now was instituted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates.

Because the rates are counted differently. We have the same rate of unemployment as Europe, when you add in people who've lost their benefits, never had jobs, are in prison, or can't find enough work to meet their needs. For example, I'm not counted as unemployed in the U.S., though I don't have a job. My benefits ended two months ago, so I'm no longer unemployed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Oerdin: The bright capitalists figured out that it made a lot of sense to run their factories on three 8-hour shifts rather than two 12-hour shifts. It's true that the unions had a lot of impact on this realization, but once you do just slightly less than 12-hour shifts, the 8-hour shift becomes much more attractive than a 10-hour shift, for instance. By 1938, the 40-hour work week was in place, well before the crazy socialist system we have now was instituted.

You mean six 12-hour shifts were replaced with five 8-hour shifts.

And what crazy socialist system do we have?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates.

There are plenty of reasons. Unlike most West European countries, you guys have a low-wage sector. You allow yourself to have workers paid like dirt (the phenomenon of the working poor, which sounds absolutely shocking to European ears), and as such, plenty of jobs can be held, which wouldn't exist if there were decent wages. The fact that you allow this kind of indignant jobs for one, and the fact that you force people taking them increases employment (because they are confronted with the choice of taking these jobs or not feeding their families). That's absolutely not quality employment though.

The US has also much more productivity (with fire at will laws, for example), and the employment rate benefits from it, because employers can hire and fire very reactively... Hiring somebody for an undetermined time, in France, is much more of a commitment. This may result in a better rate, but it also results in a lower quality of life, where your livelihood is very dependant on little bosses.

the phillips curve model even shows how increased welfare means increased unemployment at equal rates of inflation.

Maybe that's my sociology background speaking, but I don't care about this kind of models. Basically, it confronts one developed country (the US) that stands out on plenty of aspects in comparison with other developed countries, and it blames one of these aspects for all the findings.

Until I find a study that actually inquires on how people behave (rather than using abstract rationalist theoretical models or confronting macrolevel data), I will have no reason to believe that the impact of unemployment benefits on job-motivation is significant. Considering that argument is the one I repeatedly hear from all free-marketeer politicians (who are in power now in Europe), who don't back it by any actual study of human behaviour, I conclude it is tripe.

[DanS]

The progression as I know it was six 12-hour shifts to six 10-hour shifts to six 8-hour shifts to five 8-hour shifts. All before 1940.

And what crazy socialist system do we have?

The one in the US nowadays. The proportion of government spending in relation to the economy has almost tripled since the institution of the 40 hour work week. We're all spending more time working for the government.

I find it fascinating that we have the same basic labor setup nowadays versus 70 years ago. In context, the French fight for a 35 hour work week is small potatoes.

[Kuciwalker]

There are plenty of reasons. Unlike most West European countries, you guys have a low-wage sector. You allow yourself to have workers paid like dirt (the phenomenon of the working poor, which sounds absolutely shocking to European ears), and as such, plenty of jobs can be held, which wouldn't exist if there were decent wages. The fact that you allow this kind of indignant jobs for one, and the fact that you force people taking them increases employment (because they are confronted with the choice of taking these jobs or not feeding their families). That's absolutely not quality employment though.

Yes, we have working poor instead of unemployed people living off of government money. I'd say that's a more than fair trade.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There are plenty of reasons. Unlike most West European countries, you guys have a low-wage sector. You allow yourself to have workers paid like dirt (the phenomenon of the working poor, which sounds absolutely shocking to European ears), and as such, plenty of jobs can be held, which wouldn't exist if there were decent wages. The fact that you allow this kind of indignant jobs for one, and the fact that you force people taking them increases employment (because they are confronted with the choice of taking these jobs or not feeding their families). That's absolutely not quality employment though.

the only effect low wage workers have on the economy is a decrease in costs and prices. having on high wage workers would push prices up, but wouldnt necessairly result in unemployment. only when they can make more by not working then if they had worked, do high educated people choose not to be busdrivers. these high educated workers just need to take pay cuts. but they dont want to because they get paid by the state not to work.
(and do you have low wage workers, youve got the north africans, who all live in Rueil Malmaison, the 10th Arrondissement, or Seine St. Denis)

Maybe that's my sociology background speaking, but I don't care about this kind of models. Basically, it confronts one developed country (the US) that stands out on plenty of aspects in comparison with other developed countries, and it blames one of these aspects for all the findings.

actually, the phillips curve is the best fit line of the (x,y) coordinates (x=unemployment, y=inflation) of a large sample of countries, including most of europe, parts of asia and oceania, and parts of the americas.

[chequita guevara]

You still fail to address the fallacy of my not being unemployed, despite my not having a job. This is why U.S. rates are lower, not because our economy is more efficient at creating jobs.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You still fail to address the fallacy of my not being unemployed, despite my not having a job. This is why U.S. rates are lower, not because our economy is more efficient at creating jobs.

unemployment rates are measured the same way in all OECD countries. you wouldnt get counted in france either, even if you collected unemployment benefits. since you havnt looked for a job in 4 weeks, you are out of the workforce. in fact, its more likely that in france, the number of people experienciing discouraged workers syndrome is higher (they get more money, are less likley to immediatly look for a job, so they drop out of the workfroce, even tho eventually they want to get one)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
since you havnt looked for a job in 4 weeks, you are out of the workforce.

And where do you get the idea I haven't looked for work in four weeks? The U.S. government counts unemployment as those who are collecting benefits. That's it. If you don't collect benefits, you aren't unemployed. I am not a discouraged worker. I am actively seeking work, I'm just not unemployed.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And where do you get the idea I haven't looked for work in four weeks? The U.S. government counts unemployment as those who are collecting benefits.

no they dont, they use the same formula that every other country uses. the rate of unemployment is the number of people who dont have a job and who have activly looked for one in the past 4 weeks divided by the number of people in the workforce times 100.

thats why you can have a net growth of jobs and have unemployment increase: people who werent counted before are now looking actively for jobs.

[chequita guevara]

Except our government has no way of knowing who is looking for work, unless they are collecting benefits.