Prague Spring? Or Approaching Apocalypse?
April 10, 2006 7:26 AM   Subscribe

Will it be a Prague Spring? Protestors in France have actually influenced their government as this morning Chirac scrapped the Youth Job Law. Will the immigration bill protestors in U.S. streets be able to equally influence the American government? With Latin America shifting to the left, and with Berlusconi probably shifting out, and if FitzEaster delivers a special basket, is it a sign of the tide turning? Is another Prague Spring in the making, or is a long, dark, Russian Winter more likely before the approaching apocalypse?
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III (86 comments total)
 
With much of the world also turning to fascism and xenophobia, I doubt this "Prague Spring" theory.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:37 AM on April 10, 2006


Let's not be melodramatic...
posted by sbutler at 7:38 AM on April 10, 2006


I heard it was melodramatic Monday though.
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 7:40 AM on April 10, 2006


Protestors in France have actually influenced their government as this morning...

OMFG!!! The French government actually bowing to the will of the people of France. C’est une révolution.
posted by three blind mice at 7:44 AM on April 10, 2006


Whatever your opinion on the Youth Job Law and surrounding issues, I do find it heartening to see citizens take to the streets in (sometimes) non-violent protest and effect change. I wish it happened more often in the States.
posted by NationalKato at 7:44 AM on April 10, 2006


*affect
posted by NationalKato at 7:45 AM on April 10, 2006


This post makes my head hurt.

That said, the protests in the US will be cool to witness. People peacefully taking to the streets and all, pointing out the obvious fact that if you don't want immigrants, don't have a raging need for them to prop up the messed up American economic system.

Honestly, I'm not smart enough to understand what was going on in France.

on preview: What NationalKato said.
posted by bardic at 7:46 AM on April 10, 2006


The French government is spineless and unprincipled, so it bows easily to populist pressure. The US government is unprincipled, but not spineless, so the only way it will listen to its own population is if 50.1% of the voters speak at the same time. Is the immigration kerfuffle that widespread?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:53 AM on April 10, 2006


The French government is spineless and unprincipled, so it bows easily to populist pressure.

Based on discussions with different friends in Paris, the CPE was deeply unpopular across a wide range of the population. Several told me that the government would have to back down.

"Spineless and unprincipled" is an interesting way to label a government that responds to the wishes of the governed.
posted by three blind mice at 7:57 AM on April 10, 2006


Peaceful protest in the U.S. streets would be nice. The cops need target practice.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:58 AM on April 10, 2006


Who's being melodramatic?

I think we're more likely to see a Munich 1923 Spring rather than a Prague Spring.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:59 AM on April 10, 2006


On the surface, it looks like a big win for the protesters in France, but this legislation will be retasked and put through again, by stealth. That's what they call capitulation these days.

And the references to a Prague spring and Apocalypse are a little overwrought, there's no need to add links that mean nothing at all just to appear complete.
posted by gsb at 8:01 AM on April 10, 2006


Don't forget Save Darfur: Rally to Stop Genocide.
posted by caddis at 8:11 AM on April 10, 2006


I'm liking this spring a lot today :-)
posted by funambulist at 8:15 AM on April 10, 2006


*effect
posted by found missing at 8:20 AM on April 10, 2006


Peaceful protest in the U.S. streets would be nice. The cops need target practice.

Yeah. Especially since they failed to violently suppress all those recent protests in the U.S. The facist regime is getting lazy don't you think Thorzdad? All those illegal immigrants protesting and not one was shot as an example! This is no way to run a dictatorship.
posted by three blind mice at 8:21 AM on April 10, 2006


non-violent protest and effect change.

*affect

*effect


I love Metafilter.
posted by freebird at 8:27 AM on April 10, 2006


Prague Spring was about liberalization, deregulation, freedom of markets and freedom of capital. What on Earth does that have to do with what's going on in Paris, the US or Latin America? The Czechoslovaks (their government, by the way, not "protesters") tried moving to the "right" and were forced back to the "left". I don't think the protesters in Paris (let alone the Marxist strongmen in Latin America) have anything at all in common with the ones in Wenceslas Square in 1968.
posted by loquax at 8:31 AM on April 10, 2006


lol @ Thorzdad

Have you ever attended a protest?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:31 AM on April 10, 2006


So wait... the fact that various parts of the world are moving towards various political extremes is a *good* thing?
posted by Krrrlson at 8:41 AM on April 10, 2006


Yeah! Unemployment-producing mob rule prevails in France!

What a joke. What a disgrace. Although, Chirac and his PM were already a disgrace, so...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 AM on April 10, 2006


loquax: I think saying they wanted to move the right is absurd. They wanted to move to the center.
posted by empath at 8:49 AM on April 10, 2006


Metafilter: Melodramatic Monday
posted by mortisimo at 8:51 AM on April 10, 2006


BuhBye France.
posted by HTuttle at 8:52 AM on April 10, 2006


"On the surface, it looks like a big win for the protesters in France, but this legislation will be retasked and put through again, by stealth. That's what they call capitulation these days."
posted by gsb

My take, sort of, too.

It was either a moronic waste of time to try to bustle through such obviously unpopular legislation at this time, and then call it quits after the predictable outcry.

Or there's a softer, rejigged version waiting stealthily in the wings - with politicians banking on the noisy youth protesters having shot their bolt.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 8:53 AM on April 10, 2006


Prague isn't even having a Prague spring...it's cold and rainy here. Apparently coldest winter here in 200 years!
posted by piratebowling at 8:54 AM on April 10, 2006


loquax: I think saying they wanted to move the right is absurd. They wanted to move to the center.

Which would be a movement towards the right from their pre-1968 position on the political spectrum, abandoning entitlements, the command economy, and full employment policies.
posted by loquax at 8:56 AM on April 10, 2006


Hating on France is so 2003.
posted by bardic at 9:01 AM on April 10, 2006


Wow. I haven't been paying attention. I didn't realize that A.N.S.W.E.R. has been behind a lot of the immigration rallies/protests in the US.

Perhaps the Fall of 1917 is a more apt comparision than the Spring of 1968?
posted by loquax at 9:03 AM on April 10, 2006


I didn't realize that A.N.S.W.E.R. has been behind a lot of the immigration rallies/protests in the US.

I think it's more that they are "involved with" rather than "behind" the rallies.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:12 AM on April 10, 2006


Yeah! Unemployment-producing mob rule prevails in France!

What a joke. What a disgrace. Although, Chirac and his PM were already a disgrace, so...


Um, weren't the mobs protesting rules that would greatly destablize the employment rate..? Why is this a joke? Who or what does this disgrace?
posted by dobie at 9:15 AM on April 10, 2006


With over 25% youth unemployment (and much more among minorities), it is a darn good thing the French abandoned their plans to reform their job markets. The current system isn't sustainable as it stands.

So what is the point of this post? That increased socialism in France and rallies is the equivalent to the defiance of a communist dictatorship? I am baffled, please explain.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:22 AM on April 10, 2006


The legislation would have made it easier (or possible) to fire young workers in the first two years of employment (actually, I thought the probation period was already 6 months, but I guess not). It's a joke because this is precisely why unemployment is so high in France: you can't fire shitty workers, so you only hire when absolutely necessary. These people are just dooming their own futures.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:23 AM on April 10, 2006


I think it's more that they are "involved with" rather than "behind" the rallies.

Maybe, but that's not what they claim (granted, however, that they are liars):

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition provided logistical support and mobilized for today's demonstration in Los Angeles. Thousands of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s yellow and black placards reading "Amnistía, Full Rights for All Immigrants" were held throughout the march. A.N.S.W.E.R. also organized a major contingent in the march.

The rally was co-chaired by Juan José Gutiérrez, Director of Latino Movement USA, a member of the A.N.S.W.E.R. LA Steering Committee...

I have no comment on the subject matter of the protest, I don't know enough about the immigration/amnesty issue in the states, but what happened in 1968 has nothing to do with what ANSWER wants to accomplish.


Um, weren't the mobs protesting rules that would greatly destabilize the employment rate..? Why is this a joke? Who or what does this disgrace?


They were protesting changes to French employment law that would make it easier to fire younger workers, but conversely easier to hire them too because of the relaxation of the long-term commitment to them. That's relaxation, not elimination. Those protesters would lose their minds at the concept of "at-will" employment, or even "two weeks notice" employment, let alone the insult that is 1 week vacation per year. Unemployment rates among the groups represented at those protests is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25%, mostly because it costs too much to hire someone in France, a problem the changes in legislation would have attempted to address. Destabilizing the employment rate could only bring that number down, however without the long term entitlements. (What was that book written by the woman who did nothing all day, but write a book about how she did nothing at work and her employer still couldn't fire her?)
posted by loquax at 9:24 AM on April 10, 2006


Also, this is not a democratic success but an abject failure. The fact that the legislation was proposed at all shows how detached from public sentiment the legislation is/was. Protests of this kind prove how pathetic France's democatic institutions are.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:25 AM on April 10, 2006


If there wasn't a France, it would be necessary to invent one.
posted by airguitar at 9:27 AM on April 10, 2006


Those protesters would lose their minds at the concept of "at-will" employment, or even "two weeks notice" employment, let alone the insult that is 1 week vacation per year.

Who wouldn't? Why would anyone tolerate those conditions?
posted by biffa at 9:28 AM on April 10, 2006


The protests were against rules that were intended to increase job chances for the underprivileged/immigrant youths (effectively removing any job security for young people).

But the protesters were mainly students, least likely to be affected by these rules.
posted by beno at 9:33 AM on April 10, 2006


I love how everyone can be an expert on politics in France with just the click of a button.
posted by funambulist at 9:33 AM on April 10, 2006


This post makes no sense. The Prague Spring was a populist movement aimed at creating a democratic society and moving away from a totalitarian state. The other groups listed do not have anything in common with this goal.
posted by turner13 at 9:35 AM on April 10, 2006


/softly hums "April in Paris"
posted by pax digita at 9:36 AM on April 10, 2006


This truly represents a triumph for the forces of stasis in France, and a victory for employed, white, middle-class Frenchmen everywhere. Vive le status quo!
posted by mr_roboto at 9:37 AM on April 10, 2006


ANSWER are a just a bunch of parasites. They attach themselves to every march that looks like it's going to get them into the news.
posted by empath at 9:40 AM on April 10, 2006


If there wasn't a France, it would be necessary to invent one.

You mean like the Bush administration did when they demonized the country that has been an ally of the U.S. for over 200 years.

There is broad support in France for reform of the labor market, the CPE was deeply unpopular because it went too far. Imagine, for example, the reactions of the Republicans zombies if Herr Bush had the courage to suggest raising taxes?
posted by three blind mice at 9:41 AM on April 10, 2006


rules that were intended to increase job chances for the underprivileged/immigrant youths

Vastly unsupported statement...

mainly students, least likely to be affected by these rules.

Also vastly unsupported and counter-intuitive, twice so - students are in the position of those just about to enter the job market, therefore very much affected by definition; the majority of the population supported the protests.

But I'm not suprised, given the predictable prevailing take of the anglo press on this.
posted by funambulist at 9:41 AM on April 10, 2006


Despite the snark in my previous comment, I think the CPE was a pretty awful law. A half-hearted reform that would likely do little to effect unemployment rates in the long term, passed on the sly, with an undemocratic stink about it....

The French employment market needs wholesale reform, and it needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to undertake it. It looks like nothing will happen until after elections.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:46 AM on April 10, 2006


Who wouldn't? Why would anyone tolerate those conditions?

Just a comment contrasting French employment law with American or Canadian employment law, so that anyone who thinks that that the proposed law was an injustice of the gravest sort could put it into a bit of perspective. I agree that at-will employment is absurd, but so is the "permanent job".
posted by loquax at 9:53 AM on April 10, 2006


Why do the same people who trash France's poor economic policy pretend that the US's record debts, deficits, and corporate welfare make good economic policy?

Don't you see how anti-free market our economic policy is right now?

Don't you see how, despite political lip-service to entrepreneurialism and capitalism, your taxes pay to keep you in a lower income bracket, to keep unprofitable corporations afloat?

If you're smart enough to criticize France's labor laws for being based on invalid principles, why don't you give a damn about the rate money if being printed, about M3 being discontinued, about the (tax subsidized!) outsourcing of real wealth-producing industries, asymmetric bankruptcy laws, the unprecedented sell-off of American assets?

Why don't you see that inflation is a tax? That war is socialist?

You know who you are.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:53 AM on April 10, 2006


sonofsamiam writes "Why do the same people who trash France's poor economic policy pretend that the US's record debts, deficits, and corporate welfare make good economic policy?"

Who's doing that? I don't see any comments of that tenor in this thread. Personally, I agree with your assessment of current US policy.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:59 AM on April 10, 2006


Here's an analysis of what sunk immigration reform in Congress. The protests don't seem to have played much part. Rather, it was Harry "Won't Get Fooled Again" Reid standing up to Frist.

Here's an analysis of the labor reform law proposed in France. It speaks against the claim that France's high unemployment rate is caused by the laws that would have been changed, by comparing to other countries.
posted by Aknaton at 9:59 AM on April 10, 2006


Inflation? Inflation is low. What are you talking about?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:01 AM on April 10, 2006


I don't see any comments of that tenor in this thread.

Some of the same people talking smack on France here have, in other threads, pretended that the US's own policies are actually strengthing our economy and are good free market practices. (rather not name specific names)

I can think of no consistent position that could oppose these students on the grounds that they are just some lazy socialist kids, but would not also oppose current US policy. It makes no sense.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:03 AM on April 10, 2006


ParisParamus writes "Inflation? Inflation is low. What are you talking about?"

I think he's suggesting that the high current accounts deficit puts the US at risk of inflation. Which we can argue about, but it's certainly not an outrageous suggestion.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:03 AM on April 10, 2006


If the US can suck lots of capital into its markets from abroad, that's a problem for "abroad," not for the US. Would you prefer that the US not be vibrant and attractive for investment? Stop sounding like one of those mindless French politicians from the 1980's!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:05 AM on April 10, 2006


I love how everyone comments on the principle of the CPE reforms (France change increase flexibility) without actually knowing what the law said in exact terms.

The main topic of dispute between the french gvt and the people (and myself, being a french student) was that:

1. The law is not in accordance to the world treaty of working regulations that France signed, therefore should be outlawed

and

2. it increased precarity amongst the already precarised youth working class.

I for one am very class the term social movement still means something here!
posted by Sijeka at 10:14 AM on April 10, 2006


students are in the position of those just about to enter the job market, therefore very much affected by definition; the majority of the population supported the protests.

Right, because they are, how you say, stoopid. As suggested above, they were the broken system that has lead to 25% unemployment in their demographic. The students are "conservative" in the most literal sense. The current French system imposes dead-weight losses on the job market that cost everyone and the protesters helped keep things that way. Not the kind of thing I would bear a breast over, personally.
posted by yerfatma at 10:14 AM on April 10, 2006


Also, from what I understand:

Increased flexibility in the workplace in terms of work contracts and deductible taxes works when:

- The rate of unployment in the country is relatively low, so if you are fired, you can quite easily encounter new employment opportunities (US)

and

- The social prestations /compensation system are high enough to ensure that the person on the dole will not be starving if he finds himself suddenly fired from a company which uh, say, 'needs' to delocalize itself (this model works well in Demark)

This is simply not the case in France as for right now.
posted by Sijeka at 10:19 AM on April 10, 2006


This is not about being conservatism. This is about wanting chages that will not fuck up with your future career choices. This is about refusing reforms which will NOT ensure you a secure working future.

French youth is all for reforms, I believe. But good, sensible ones which protect your rights.

They have to be in agreement with world-signed work related treaties, and if they don't send into precarity those who will need it most (i.e diplomaless youth, etc).

Then again what do I know, I'm just a political sciences french student, gasp.
posted by Sijeka at 10:22 AM on April 10, 2006


I for one am very class the term social movement still means something here!*

* Um, I'm very glad...
posted by Sijeka at 10:23 AM on April 10, 2006


Sijeka, sorry for your plight. Your nation should adopt, perhaps gradually, a more hire/fire at will employment regime. Et si rien ne change? The same or greater level of chommage forever. You country is dieing, with a declining birthrate, and much of its creativity being forced to leave (or never forming). This has been going on in France for at least 25 years.

You need mass protests, manifs massives to DEMAND the right to fire workers with 15 minutes notice! Ok, how about two weeks' notice....
posted by ParisParamus at 10:25 AM on April 10, 2006


ParisParamus writes "If the US can suck lots of capital into its markets from abroad, that's a problem for 'abroad,' not for the US."

I'm talking about the current account, not the capital account....

I don't think anyone (aside from the occasional demagogic populist politician) is arguing that foreign direct investment is a bad thing.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:25 AM on April 10, 2006


Mr_roboto, by current account, I think you mean trade deficit? Same thing. We are trading goods for $s. And those dollars are only valuable here.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:28 AM on April 10, 2006


Also, we've been down this road before, in the 1980's. The doomsters thought Reagan was destroying the US economy and the world. Only the opposite happened: we got more powerful; not less.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:29 AM on April 10, 2006


You country is dieing

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
posted by bardic at 10:31 AM on April 10, 2006


Yeah, as a french student (read as: student of french) we had to do a debate about this in my french class. Basically everyone in the class was against the CPE at the outset, but a number of us were forced to argure for it.

As we went through the debate, a bunch of us realized how messed up the employment system in France is. Virtually none of it is at-will -- as I understand, it's almost entirely done by long term contract (as loquax basically said). This is a totally foreign concept to a lot of people in the United States (especially those of us who haven't really entered the professional workforce yet, i.e. my french class), and most of the other people in my class didn't even understand how it worked at all.

I agree that the current system needs changing (still), but I don't think the CPE was exactly the way to go about doing it. It didn't matter what it actually did (which, reflecting on it, was not all that horrible), it mattered what people thought it did. And what people thought it did was give employers license to fire them whenever they damn well pleased for absolutely no reason. Thus it failed.

On preview:
Seems like I'm in agreement with nearly everyone.
posted by malthas at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2006


And crap I screwed that first link up. It should be this.
posted by malthas at 10:37 AM on April 10, 2006


With over 25% youth unemployment (and much more among minorities), it is a darn good thing the French abandoned their plans to reform their job markets. The current system isn't sustainable as it stands.

Am I correct in assuming "it is a darn good thing" is sarcasm? (It's so hard to tell around here.) In any event, despite ParisParamus's usual childishly taunting manner, I have to agree with him on the facts: the whole sequence of events, starting with the mindless protests and ending with the government caving in, is sad and will do France no good. Is it really that hard for people to see that forcing employers to hire only people they're going to be stuck with for years is detrimental to people's chances of getting a job—especially the marginal workers who need a chance the most? I can understand those who already have jobs wanting to preserve their cushy situation, but the fact that students who haven't entered the job market yet are campaiging against their own interests is pathetic and doesn't speak well for French education.

I've been let go a number of times, and always found another job reasonably quickly because the US system is so fluid. I'm glad employers were willing to take a chance on me, which they wouldn't have been if they'd had no chance to get rid of me. And lifelong employment sounds more like life imprisonment than security to me.
posted by languagehat at 10:50 AM on April 10, 2006


"And what people thought it did was give employers license to fire them whenever they damn well pleased for absolutely no reason."

Welcome to the real world. You know what? People don't fire you for a whim in most cases: its too much trouble, and they actually need someone to do the work you were hired to!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:52 AM on April 10, 2006


Right, because they are, how you say, stoopid.

oh, of course, I forgot that people who don't live in the country in question must have a better understanding of both the situation and the actual content of the laws (rather than the much taunted magic words reform flexibility etc.) than most of the people who do live in it.

Numbers don't make right, but neither does pontificating from a distance and pretending that if model A works in country A it must be applied in country B regardless of all other factors that affect things in country A and are not present in country B, and viceversa.

Also, as other said, the opposition was not to reforms per se. It was to these specific reforms. There may be a reason in the laws themselves, incredible as it may sounds!
posted by funambulist at 11:36 AM on April 10, 2006


Numbers don't make right, but neither does pontificating from a distance and pretending that if model A works in country A it must be applied in country B

Who's pontificating? I make no claims about the rightness of capitalism, but I don't think the "success" of the US (or Japanese or wherever) job market has to do with happy coincidence of approach and geography. Making all hirings lifetime appointments puts a cap on the efficiency of any company in the system. It's not a model or a philosophy, it's a supply and a demand line on a graph and as close to hard truth as you are going to get in social sciences.

And college students are stupid, regardless of where they are located. They are passionate and wonderful but given to reinventing wheels that time and perspective have proven less than useful.
posted by yerfatma at 11:48 AM on April 10, 2006


Just out of curiosity, does anyone on Metafilter support a probation period of 2 years in which you can't be fired?

It seems to me that irrational socialist economic policies are responsible for France being in its current condition. Compare it to eating at a restaurant, if you will.

You go to a restaurant where the food and service suck. Under normal circumstances you leave and don't come back, but the government has made a law stating you have to stay at least 2 hours and visit 4 more times. Because of this law, restaurants know they're guaranteed your business and have less incentive to provide excellent food and service.

Now, knowing the situation described above, are you more or less likely to eat out next time you're hungry? When something is a pain in the ass to do, you're more likely to try to do without.
posted by b_thinky at 11:50 AM on April 10, 2006


yerfatma, capitalism doesn't exist only in the US or Japan, it exists pretty much everywhere, you know... the issue is not capitalism vs. communism or whatever here. It's specific reforms. I'm not myself making any claims about the absolute wrongness or absolute rightness of those laws or those protests; I just observe the usual rhetoric of USA vs. France - generally, not you specifically - which seems to dominate much of any discussion related to France here and comes even before any interest in understanding the actual situation in its own context.

Making all hirings lifetime appointments

That's a big nice straw man there.

And college students are stupid, regardless of where they are located

Oh okay then...
posted by funambulist at 11:55 AM on April 10, 2006


They aren't lifetime appointments, but just imagine something like the General Motors union employment hell expanded to include most of the economy.

The French PM, that vile individual from who used to be France's man at the UN, actually came up with a good idea here. And in typical French fashion, the law was rejected by the Youth Mob.

This is just more French myopia and spinelessness, although this time, domestically. No pain, no gain, garçons et filles!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:04 PM on April 10, 2006


The employment system in France is a mess. I'm a big fan of lots of vacation days, but the price they've paid as a society is enormous. It seemed like the attitude in France was "the customer is always wrong" when I was there. My experiences might be unique, I will admit, but it just felt like their focus was misplaced. Good for the individual is not always good for society, there needs to be a balance. I believe it's possible, I'm just not sure how...
posted by blue_beetle at 12:14 PM on April 10, 2006


ParisParamus writes "Mr_roboto, by current account, I think you mean trade deficit? Same thing."

Not exactly. But this really isn't the place to get into it.... Suffice it to say that, coupled with the trade deficit, the low personal savings rate and growing government debt make inflation a threat. The Fed recognizes this, though, which is why they're keeping money tight. This might be enough to control inflation, but I'd really like to see an increase in savings and a return to government surpluses. Especially with increasing costs for energy resources.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:26 PM on April 10, 2006


It's always interesting to compare different countries mentalities and approaches to life, work, holidays, school, etc.

But it would be a lot more interesting to actually know what is in those laws in detail, what was being objected to/supported and by whom and why, and what the situation on the ground already is in terms of employment policies. Since that is the issue after all.
posted by funambulist at 12:28 PM on April 10, 2006


Making all hirings lifetime appointments
That's a big nice straw man there.


I prefer to think of it as a Reductio ad absurdum. I apologize for not sticking to the facts like everyone else, Det. Friday.
posted by yerfatma at 12:30 PM on April 10, 2006


Pretty good summary of the CPE on Wikipedia, with external references, and another on the French economy.

Despite figures showing a higher productivity per hour worked than in the US, France's GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US GDP per capita, being in fact comparable to the GDP per capita of the other European countries, which is on average 30% below US level. The reason for this is because a much smaller percentage of the French population is working compared to the US, which sinks the GDP per capita of France, despite its higher productivity. In fact, France has one of the lowest percentages of its population at work among the OECD countries. In 2003, 41.5% of the French population was working, compared to 50.7% in the US, and 47.3% in the UK. This phenomenon is the result of almost thirty years of massive unemployment in France, which has led to three consequences reducing the size of the working population: about 10% of the active population is without a job; students delay as long as possible their entry into labour market; and finally the French government gives various incentives to workers to retire in their early 50s, though these are now receding.

posted by loquax at 12:41 PM on April 10, 2006


Marianne!
posted by homunculus at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2006


I'd really like to see an increase in savings

I would, too, but government efforts to get people to save more seem just to cause people to spend more. IIRC the savings rate in the U.S. is approximately 0%.
posted by oaf at 1:42 PM on April 10, 2006


Blue_beetle's picture says, "Hard Work Never Killed Anybody, but it is Illegal in Some Places."

I dunno, it killed John Henry.
posted by caddis at 1:47 PM on April 10, 2006


The WSJ had an article several months ago who opined that the real US savings rate is, in fact, much higher than many think because a lot of that savings is locked up in housing equity and other assets. Less some %ge of value for "bubble" prices. this makes sense. In fact, if I recall correctly, said economist concluded that

In any case, the US savings rate has been, supposedly, low for decades; again, like the other indicia that are supposedly bad, when do the chickens come home to roost? At some point you have to conclude that there are no chickens, or at least, far fewer than feared.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on April 10, 2006


And actually, there are some wonderful aspects to French social and economic policy, but for many years, they have been submerged by a rigid labor market and suffocating taxation. Worst of all, these things have been in place for a generation, so there is an anemic entrepreneurial culture.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:20 PM on April 10, 2006


After many a Prague Spring comes a Nixon Autumn, alas.
posted by Creosote at 8:11 PM on April 10, 2006


Income Gap More Like a Chasm
posted by homunculus at 1:04 PM on April 12, 2006


Homunculs, there's a lot of truth in that article. I really think its time to tackle healthcare, but I also think its time to, relatively speaking, seal-up the border. It would be nice to see mass protests in the streets in favor of a serious immigration policy that seals up the border (avec fence, surveillance, whatever it takes). THEN we can turn to raising wages and health benefits. Actually, the wages would rise all by themselves since there wouldn't be so large an underclass willing to work for peanuts.

And Americans: MOW YOUR OWN LAWN, DAMNIT, OR GET A SMALLER LAWN!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:27 PM on April 12, 2006


« Older Easter Camping Down Under   |   Seeds of Imagination Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments