French labour laws trigger immense protests

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Spiffor, this is a question for you.

I do not understand the question

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Currently, the rents and property prices are skyrocketing, which dramatically hits the young's and the middle-class purchasing power (the older poor often benefit from social housing, but there's no room for younger households).
However, a small part of the population benefits from this, i.e those people rich enough to own enough housing that they can rent some.

... More and more people earn the minimal wage, whereas productivity is very strong.

I would like to complete your information :
1. More that 50% of the households own their housing.
2. The minimal wage is now around 1300€ per month; as a result, many jobs of low qualification are no longer offered; this is one of the reasons of the unemployment of the youth. A standard commie policy is to claim for a dramatic increase of the minimal wage.

[DanS]

I agree with LoA. It's a victory for the street, not the ballot box. An undemocratic process. It's a victory for the status quo -- malaise.

Well, I can certainly say is that I'm glad I don't have to live with the consequences. So rock on, Frenchies!

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I do not understand the question

I am always pleased to help you :

why do you treat your universities as necessities for all?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I know commies have allergic reactions to statistics, but do you have any?

For housing prices:

http://www.fnaim.fr/infos/lettre-de-conjoncture/DossierPresseJanvier05/cahier.pdf

(page 7-9)

For rent in the private sector:

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-022/r03-0221.pdf

(read part III . A . 3, though the document is interesting overall)

As to the increase of the workers paid at the minimal wage

http://www.lexpansion.com/art/15.0.140669.0.html

(this comes from a business newspaper, hence the spin)

Finally, the base monthly wage only increased by about 17 to 18% (total, not yearly) for workers and employees since dec 1998. Quite a difference with the increase of the housing prices.

http://www.travail.gouv.fr/IMG/xls/Series_longues_maindoeuvre_diffusion_060227_.xls

(read the salaTRI tab)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I would like to complete your information :
1. More that 50% of the households own their housing.

Yes, but the prices explosion barely benefits those who don't rent out their property (which is the large majority of owners). If they want to move in another house they own, they'll get much money from their previous house, but will have to shell out much money also for the next one.

As far as I can see, the only situation where "middle-class owners" would strongly benefit from the high housing prices are people who can afford to sell their home while having to pay much less for a new one. Old actives or young retirees whose children have left home; old retirees who sell their home and rent a new one, for a time they expect to be short (with death approaching), or heirs willing to sell family heirlooms.
Not exactly a situation that is fitting to all middle-class owners.

2. The minimal wage is now around 1300€ per month; as a result, many jobs of low qualification are no longer offered; this is one of the reasons of the unemployment of the youth. A standard commie policy is to claim for a dramatic increase of the minimal wage.

This claim of yours is spread in liberal economics, but it isn't true. Fundamentally, the minimal wage prevents jobs with low added value to be provided. Many untrained jobs provide sufficient added value that they're worth their cost, thanks to productivity. The minimal wage goes against market mechanisms when determining the price, which means that would-be workers don't compete against each other in a reverse auction. The added-value remains the same (and pretty high at that in France), but much more of it goes to the pocket of the capitalist instead of that of the worker.

[Spiffor]

why do you treat your universities as necessities for all?

1. A competent, well-educated workforce is essential to a modern economy where people aspire to live comfortably.

2. Considering that the system crushes those who are low-paid, and that wages are determined in a market-like fashion (i.e where rare skills are expansive, whereas common skills are cheap - fortunately, there's the minimal wage to guarantee at least some decency), it is good that people have rare skills, and can live a better life.

3. Getting an education is really important in one's individual development. This basic human dignitiy shouldn't be restricted to some elite or other (be it intellectual or financial).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Le SMIC: +30% (minimum salary)
Average weekly hours worked: 38 hrs a week in 99 to 35,65 hrs a week.

Construcition workers: +27%

Total (all professions): +17%

The 'panier de la ménagère' (consumer goods basket) has increased by only 13%. i'd say your purchasing power has been increasing for the poor.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Fundamentally, the minimal wage prevents jobs with low added value to be provided.

the flip side is that those who have low productivity (namely students and other disadvantaged workers) cannot find jobs.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Le SMIC: +30% (minimum salary)
Average weekly hours worked: 38 hrs a week in 99 to 35,65 hrs a week.

You are reading the hourly minimal wage, which has dramatically increased with the 35 hours workweek. I'm talking about the monthly minimal wage, i.e what the people are actually having in their pocket.

Construcition workers: +27%

The explosion of the housing sector has benefitted construction tremendously. Good for them (most of my colleagues on the construction site were above the minimal wage - a few had very good pays), but it's not like they represent the entire working population, far from it.

The 'panier de la ménage' (consumer goods basket) has increased by only 13%. i'd say your purchasing power has been increasing for the poor.

Does "le panier de la ménagère" take rent or mortgage into account?
Also, I remember a contention that it takes things into account that are far from being vital (such as air-travel, whose prices have dramatically dropped).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You are reading the hourly minimal wage, which has dramatically increased with the 35 hours workweek. I'm talking about the monthly minimal wage, i.e what the people are actually having in their pocket.

no, im reading from SalaTRI, which is trimester salary.

Does "le panier de la ménagère" take rent or mortgage into account?

it does take rent, dont know about mortgage.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the flip side is that those who have low productivity (namely students and other disadvantaged workers) cannot find jobs.

Funny thing, a friend of mine found a job (as a waitress) one day after putting her resume on the net. She had no particular training in waitressing (well, she IS damn beautiful).

Another funny thing: the sports store for which I have been working on and off for the past 6 weeks employs many students for 10 to 20 hours a week.

And yet, they are at least paid with the minimal wage. I guess even their untrained labour force has more value than a SMIC. What exactly would happen to them if the SMIC was removed? Wage drops I tell ya.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Also, I remember a contention that it takes things into account that are far from being vital (such as air-travel, whose prices have dramatically dropped).

not, it shouldnt, since it is weighted by importance.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no, im reading from SalaTRI, which is trimester salary.

First column: "SMIC horaire"
Third Column: "SHB" (Salaire Horaire de Base)

The salaTRI sheet is trimester data, not trimester income

Edit: When you compare monthly SMIC (that is, by multiplying the hourly SMIC with the average week), the SMIC has only increased by about 20% since Dec. 1998. That's far from being huge.

Also, I was talking about the evolution of base salary in this statistic (i.e, average salary, not minimal wage). It is an average, ergo it is imperfect in that it doesn't show the differences in wage increase between the rich and the poor. But even this average pales in comparison with the increase of housing prices.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Funny thing, a friend of mine found a job (as a waitress) one day after putting her resume on the net. She had no particular training in waitressing (well, she IS damn beautiful).

Quand je viens te visiter . . .

Another funny thing: the sports store for which I have been working on and off for the past 6 weeks employs many students for 10 to 20 hours a week.

And yet, they are at least paid with the minimal wage. I guess even their untrained labour force has more value than a SMIC. What exactly would happen to them if the SMIC was removed? Wage drops I tell ya.

and you know what? thats awesome. but with 20% student unemployment, when wages would drop, more students would get jobs. Studens who have lower productivity than your friends, who are now out of jobs, and can then find lower paying jobs.