I’ve been keeping up as best I can with everything that’s going on here in the France. My problem is that I don’t really know much about modern French economic history.
People from the States tell me all the time, “Well, you see, this is just a failure of the French system. Everyone praises that 35 hour work week and all that vacation time. The French might be finding out that they’ve just got to start working.”
Personally, one of the reasons I like Europe is that I feel like people appreciate more WHY one works, not the work itself. I often get the impression that in the states people work so much that they don’t have time to even enjoy the fruits of their work. They don’t travel (though, it’s hard to believe that when you’re abroad, because all you see is Americans in most places), they don’t take long lunches, and when that’s all addressed they often make a reference to retirement and how we’ll do it all then (at least in the South).
I’ve read reports that the 35 hour work week in France actually created jobs (though not as many as they expected), and all I’ve heard of the paid vacation time is that it’s good for the economy because people go spend money in southern France.
I’m not questioning the riots. I don’t think that that really has anything to do with it (I could be wrong). For instance, last night on the news there was a kid from Trappe who had a degree and spoke fluent Japanese, but he couldn’t find a job. The mayor’s office (one of the biggest employers in the city) said there are about twenty people a day that come in looking for jobs.
I’m wondering where all these problems are coming from. Are the French economic problems a failure of the “French Model” as people often tell me?
Depends. What is the French Model supposed to do? If it is to encourage a safe, peaceful Europe, a culture that is more than just work and a zillion kinds of cheese, it is doing pretty well. If its purpose is something else, the effectiveness of it is open to question.
Certainly the French Model is a failure measured against the US standards of what an economy is supposed to do, but that is keeping score by another game’s rules.
So one could argue that the FM is doing just what the French want it to do. It is hard for me as an American to understand that on one level. On another level it makes perfect sense.
Americans tend to work their asses off for 45 years or so for their “career” and “for their family.” All looking toward the day that they can retire and finally enjoy life.
What a farce.
Screwed up families for lack of attention. Death for many shortly after retirement because they have no idea how to relax or to retire.
(One nice thing-------the kids get to get your money when you die.-------which they will probably blow)
Americans should follow the French model and start living for the enjoyment of today.
Lots of good things about the FM. Lots of bad things. I suppose many of the bad things are inseparable from the good things. (Sort of like the yellow flaw in Green Lantern’s ring which weakens his power, but is vital to it.)
So if the Americans went with the French Model would we have to house our immigrants in ghettos? Most seem to prefer the suburbs in America. Would the Americans have to give up on the idea of populism in favor of French elitism?
Would the Americans get free health care? Great! Who would do the research into advanced medical technologies?
Would America have to have a Ministry of Sports and Culture? (Office of Square Dance and NASCAR?)
It is wrong to say one or the other model is completely better. Both have good and bad points. I suppose that is why we have different countries and cultures.
I spend a week or so a year in France. I know several successful businessmen there and I see the problems from all sides. I love France in general. However, I get the idea that socialism has taken over much of the thinking there. The main practical problem with this is that capitalism is seen as a (necessary?) evil and something to be sucked off of like the tit of a giant cow with the enlightened members of society feeding off of as needed. Because of this, you see oppressive regulations like the inability to hire and fire workers as needed. Actually, I believe this is the single biggest issue with Europe’s unemployment problem and fairly easy to correct. Other problems are the 35 hour work week and lengthy vacations. From my American perspective, I can see how that would cause problems during periods of booming business and the ability to adapt to extraordinary circumstances. Google and Microsoft would never have started or suceeded under that type of mentality.
I see capitalist economics as a set of natural laws that you only avoid or work at your peril. They tend to go as a set and you can’t really pick and choose the parts that suit you the best if you want to compete in a global economy.
I admit it is hard to wrap my American head around the European socialist model. They want all the advantages of capitalism, but without paying the price. Nice if it works, I guess. One must admit it does not look sustainable.
Some of them are headed for a real crisis over the next 20-30 years as the population continues to age and receive the same benefits without having the expanding number of workers needed to support them. In some ways it’s a lot like the problems the United States will have with Social Security except on a much wider scale. I’m not saying the sky is falling and the French way of life will come to a screeching halt, I’m just saying it’s a serious problem they’re going to have to deal with.
How is that in any way different from the crisis the United States faces? I’m really not understanding the claim being made here than France’s model is “unsustainable” but the USA’s is sustainable.
Which country has more government debt? Which is running higher deficits? Is the U.S. population not aging?
Who said the US doesn’t have the same problem? The post clearly says that Social Security is a problem in the US. But France’s looks to be worse, as their numbers of workers are shrinking faster, those workers have less work anyway, and their pensions are quite a bit larger.
The US population is not graying at the same overall rate, and has a higher birthrate to sustain the population, so it’s not as immediately serious, but it will need to be addressed.
Because the US’s economy is more dynamic than France’s I’d say. The US doesn’t tolerate as high a level of unemployment for one thing. Companies have more flexability both in letting go of employees AND in bringing more on due to our ‘system’ and the French do.
The US. But so what? The US has more debt and runs higher deficits…but also has a hell of a lot more global committments than the French do. Not to say that such things are good but we’ve ridden them out before and we will again. The French can and will as well…but their system isn’t as flexable as our when it comes to this.
As for the aging, certainly our population is aging. 2 things though. First off, our birthrate is higher than Frances. Secondly our immigration rate is higher over the long run…and our immigrants tend to integrate more into US society than (appearently) French immigrants do. For one thing we don’t force immigrants to conform to some idealized version of ‘American culture’, whatever that is. For another thing, ‘American culture’ is ALREADY fairly wide spread throughout the world, making it a bit easier for immigrants to know what to expect.
The structural problems France is facing are an order of magnitude greater than what the U.S. is facing. The Demographic crunch that’s going to cause a Social Security and Medicare problem in the U.S. is going to create an absolute disaster in France. France’s regulations and taxation are much higher, meaning they have very little room to move to address these issues. The population is increasingly split between an older, ‘traditional’ French population with French values, and a young, unassimilated French population that has 40% unemployment, speaks argot, is uneducated and not really fit to replace older French workers who retire.
In addition, France’s social programs are much more extensive, which means a proportionally higher cost to the state when more French people retire and avail themselves of them.
Also, France exists inside of the European milieu, and most of ‘old Europe’ is facing the same problems. That’s going to lead to a lot of European strife and political conflict which could ultimately serious damage economies all through Europe.
Demographically, the Europeans are screwed. (The French rate-of-growth has been disappointing since Napoleon’s time.)
American retirements are a whole lot of savings with some dodgy government programs on top. European pensions are lots of dodgy government promises, with a less amount of savings.
Further, there is a problem with immigration (You may have noticed the headlines.) The rasinette for the French Republic is to have a place in the world where you can be French. A bunch of North Africans (or whatever) messes up the whole idea.
America has few such hang-ups. We will allow a lot more newcomers, they will pay taxes and those taxes will go toward my greens fees. Our government programs are less stressed than the European ones.
Of course it is the Japanese who are really behind the demographic eight ball. That is a whole 'nother story.
Just the sheer amount of benefits the French population expects in comparison to the United States. I think that’d probably be the main difference and I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth. I didn’t say the system in the United States is sustainable simply that France, and others, face a greater crisis.
Not only that, but the nature of the demographic crunch is much more severe in France, because their natural birthrate is much lower than in the U.S, making them more reliant on immigration to maintain a workforce to support the retirees.
The numbers are dramatic. Today, the United States has about 4.7 workers per retiree. In 2050, that will have dropped to about 2.7. In France, workers per retiree today is already down to 3.5 or so, and by 2050 it will be under 1.6. That’s a disaster.
And making matters worse is that the U.S. immigrant population is generally productive and well integrated into U.S. society, whereas France’s immigrant community is neither.
Another major factor - the U.S. can grow itself out of its fiscal problems, because U.S. economic growth is higher than the interest on the debt by a significant margin. And the U.S. deficit is trending down, and at current trends the U.S. debt is predicted to hit about 70% of GDP - just about where France already is.
Finally, the U.S. has a lot more ‘breathing room’ than France, because the U.S. taxes its population much less. Taxes in the U.S. are about 25% of GDP. France is at 44%. French tax rates are already seriously hurting productivity in that country, so there just isn’t any room to increase them more without destroying the economy and not gaining revenue anyway.
Europe in general, and especially ‘old Europe’, look a lot more like France than the U.S. This is going to have serious foreign policy implications over the next 40 years. Either they are going to scrap their outdated socialist model and face reality, or old Europe is going to implode and create a gigantic mess we’ll all be dealing with.
Comedic effect achieved – I was picturing some sort of Sartre-esque duality involving “Raisinettes” and “Goobers” (chocolate-covered treats… mighty good to eat).
Why are you laughing? They consider Jerry Lewis a genius.
Cite, please? Comparative divorce rates and mortality rates would be a decent start, though your claims are so broad we’ll probably need more stats before we are through.
