quote:

---

libertarian wrote:Nothing about this in MSM
Revolts by workers and youth in France http://tinyurl.com/lgzo9

---

quote:

---

Which war was it they surrendered in?

---

quote:

---

posted by robbie_dee: Hephaestion has started a thread with a proper thread title, and in any case, I am a little perturbed with the francophobic turn to this thread, ironic or not.

---

Eyewitness report from a Sorbonne student:

quote:

---

The anti-CPE movement at the Sorbonne started a week ago – we organised our first general assembly of students on Friday 3 March. Over the next few days more students started getting involved, so we decided to go on strike and occupy the university.

The occupation started on Wednesday of last week. We blocked off the Sorbonne overnight so that we wouldn’t need lots of students having to sleep there overnight.

Around 100 people occupied the site, while the rest of us organised demonstrations outside in support of them. There were a few clashes with the police outside and by Friday night the atmosphere was getting tense.

The Sorbonne has had special status since the May 1968 student uprising, so the police had to get permission from the university authorities and the ministry of education to raid the site.

The police went in on Saturday morning at 4am with tear gas and batons and arrested people. The Sorbonne has been closed down by the university since then – a move designed to prevent more students from getting involved in the movement.

This has caused us some problems – it’s difficult for us to find places to meet and talk. But we’ve set up information points around the city and have had a good response from students. They’ve all seen what happened and want to know more.

There are big demonstrations planned against the CPE on Thursday and Saturday of this week.
...
The media were originally hostile to us, but this has recently changed. The turning point was huge demonstrations across France on Tuesday of last week. A million people took to the streets in joint anti-CPE protests called by students and the trade unions.

Public opinion has now turned against the CPE. At first people thought maybe it could tackle youth unemployment, but now the majority think it’s a bad thing. People at our general assembly were shocked by Villepin’s remarks. We’ve heard similar arguments before, but never said quite so crudely.

---

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Where's ohara to complain about the anti-French slurs around here?

I wonder why these redneck yahoos don't make Dunkerque jokes, or mock the Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes (who surrendered on the first day, without so much as a dirty look towards the Germans) and Greeks, all of whom also surrendered.

---

French and Italian Jewry had the highest survival rates of the occupied countries, according to Canada's David Matas. He says that analyses of that period indicate that the fascists could not have rounded up and terminated as many people without collaboration. So yes, I don't understand the ridicule either. I think resistance was a dangerous thing to be doing in the 1940's.

quote:

---

So yes, I don't understand the ridicule either. I think resistance was a dangerous thing to be doing in the 1940's

---

quote:

---

For more than a decade, France's overall unemployment rate has hovered around 10% - one of the highest in western Europe. But it is the punishing level of youth unemployment that sets the country apart. Nearly one in four young French people is out of work, and unemployment among the under-25s has persisted above 20% for a generation.

Although some EU countries in eastern Europe have higher rates, most of these are moving down. France's rate increased in 2002 and has grown steadily for the past four years. The braindrain is worsening, with desperate young people - including many with good degrees - leaving for other EU countries such as Ireland.

---

Chatting by e-mail with friends in France, we are amused that here we are fighting FOR the CPE and in France the movement is opposing CPE. Of course our CPE is the early childhood education/daycare system, theirs the "first hiring contract", an attack on the employment rights of young workers.

Here are more photos of some of today's protests and clashes. The rainbow flags aren't the gay flag, they are the Italian PACE flag, which has become an emblem for global justice youth, especially since the protests in Genoa.

Anyone else remember:
"Ce n'est qu'un début
continuons le combat!"

quote:

---

A quarter of a million people took to the streets in some 200 demonstrations around the country Thursday, in a test of strength between youth and the conservative government of 73-year-old President Jacques Chirac.

Most of the violence — and the arrests — were around the Sorbonne university in Paris, where police fired rubber pellets and tear gas at youths who pelted them with stones and set cars on fire. Fifty-one police and riot officers were injured, and a total of 272 people were detained nationwide, 187 of them in Paris, the Interior Ministry said.
....
The next major test will come Saturday when unions and students march together.

---

quote:

---

French trade union leaders are threatening to call a general strike unless the government withdraws a new youth employment law by Monday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You must be a Yank.

---

I am.

And, while they're at it, I hope they reduce their maximum work week to 20 hours. That will make them completely uncompetitive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Actually, I don't. We're all better off if France has a healthy economy. But, the insanely inflexible labor laws in France are not helping achieve that goal.

---

Yes, it's really bad to have labour laws that allow people to form unions, grant people some time off during the week and vacations during the year, prevent employers from arbitrarily firing workers, and that mandate employers to offer safe workplaces. (ETA) And employers really should be entitled to discriminate on such grounds as race, religion, age, or gender.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Yes, it's really bad to have labour laws that allow people to form unions, grant people some time off during the week and vacations during the year, prevent employers from arbitrarily firing workers, and that mandate employers to offer safe workplaces. (ETA) And employers really should be entitled to discriminate on such grounds as race, religion, age, or gender.

---

back attcha...

Only about 15% of the workforce is unionize here in the states (and the percentage is getting smaller all of the time). So, virtually everyone here is an "at will" employee (including myself) and can be terminated at any time, with or without cause.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
What are two of the worst industries here, financially? Probably the auto manufacturers and the airlines. They are also two of the most heavily unionized industries in the USA. And, they're going down the financial shitter in no insignificant part because the companies have next to zero labor flexibility.

---

quote:

---

Only about 15% of the workforce is unionize here in the states (and the percentage is getting smaller all of the time). So, virtually everyone here is an "at will" employee (including myself) and can be terminated at any time, with or without cause.

---

And its a country where not only is there no paid maternity leave...hell there wasn't even unpaid maternity leave till recently IIRC, and in some states women can still get fired for becoming pregnant. 40 million people have no health insurance coverage and where there are some of the worst labour laws of any country in the developed world.

If only 15% of the workforce is unionized its because the U.S. government has made it very easy for employers to intimidate workers and very hard to unionize.

It's not a society that I would want to emulate in any way shape or form.

quote:

---

What are two of the worst industries here, financially? Probably the auto manufacturers and the airlines. They are also two of the most heavily unionized industries in the USA. And, they're going down the financial shitter in no insignificant part because the companies have next to zero labor flexibility.

---

100% pure unadulterated bullshit.

The crisis in the airline industry (which is worldwide) is largely because of the implementation of deregulation policies that allowed corporate raiders like Frank Lorenzo to wreak havoc on the industry.

The crisis in the automotive industry has to do with a whole mix of things...everything from trade policies, to the failure of the U.S. to implement a national medicare system (part of why US auto companies operating in Canada have a huge cost advantage) and the "big three" refusal to shift their product lines to meet market conditions in a timely manner.

The UAW does not control what models GM, Ford or Daimler-Chrysler decide to produce.

As for your earlier posts about Ireland, part of the reason for the Irish economic boom was due to massive government investments in healthcare and education...those investments are now paying off.

Management at Ford & GM has been atrocious; product decisions have not been in step with the marketplace for some time now.

At the same time, the unions (the UAW especially) have refused to recognize the overall change in the automotive market (the Korean manufacturers were still generally regarded as "a joke" when the last UAW contract was signed). This inflexibility is going to hurt everyone in the end: a bankrupt GM, for example, is a GM that can simply walk away from any agreements currently binding them financially.

There is very little light at the end of this tunnel for all concerned; both sides seem to be doing everything possible to destroy the "big two" which will have a catastrophic effect on the US economy in general.

Not good.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: lagnaf ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Meanwhile, the workers who are carrying out the company's instructions in making the cars the company tells them to, are suffering because of the bad decisions made by the higher-ups. What consequences to the higher-ups have to suffer for their decisions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
You might buy this idea that everything will be all hunky dory if we just let the corporations do whatever the hell they want to but I don't.

---

Because I believe in labor flexibility doesn't mean that I think corporations should do "whatever the hell they want".

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagnaf:
The American auto industry woes are not black-and-white: the blame cannot be pinned on one group exclusively.

Management at Ford & GM has been atrocious; product decisions have not been in step with the marketplace for some time now.

At the same time, the unions (the UAW especially) have refused to recognize the overall change in the automotive market (the Korean manufacturers were still generally regarded as "a joke" when the last UAW contract was signed). This inflexibility is going to hurt everyone in the end: a bankrupt GM, for example, is a GM that can simply walk away from any agreements currently binding them financially.

---

quote:

---

By the way, what states allegedly permit the firing of a female because she's pregnant?

---

Whatever protection there is under U.S. federal labour law for pregnant workers only applies to those workplaces where there are more than 15 workers.

Some states provide addtional protection for workers in smaller workplaces while others don't.

So if you happen to work in a "small" workplace where your state doesn't happen to provide additional protection you're S.O.L.

The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act only requires employers to treat pregnant employees the same as other temporarily disabled employees...the same as if you had a broken arm or whatever.

Quite true it isn't as bad as it was before the law came into effect during the Carter administration, but it isn't real job protection for pregnant employees.

The U.S. federal law sets a "floor" and as I understand some states will build on that. But if your state doesn't, again you're S.O.L.

In Canada pregnant workers are able to draw on federal unemployment insurance benefits during their maternity leave. In unionized workplaces its common that unions negotiate "top ups" so that women are able to receive full salary during maternity leaves.

Our system is far from perfect but it's miles ahead of the U.S. U.S. labour laws are barbaric...and they're barbaric because only 15% of workers are unionized and the unions don't have the political clout to improve rotten U.S. labour laws.

In Canada 30-35% of the workforce is unionized and our labour laws reflect the greater political clout of the labour movement.

In Sweden as I understand close to 90% of workers are unionized and their labour and social legislation reflects the political clout of that country's labour movement.

It seems that I remember:

"Wrestling inflation into the ground"

"Increasing productivity"

getting rid of "disincentives to work"

getting rid of "entitlement programmes"

"Free trade"

"Privatization and deregulation"

"Outsourcing"

Each one of these things was supposed to bring about nirvanha on earth. If only the corporations could get what they wanted, there'd be a chicken in every pot.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the French gov't hasn't backed down from this plan. It really sounds like the protests are heating up to serious levels.

France: PM 'set to stand firm'

quote:

---

The protests have provided a useful rallying point for left- wing parties and unions who were set to meet on Monday to decide on their course of action.

"We've got to continue our mobilisation ... The prime minister is like a pyromaniac who has set fire to the valley and then withdraws to the hill to watch," said Jean-Claude Mailly, secretary general of the Workers Force union.

Unions and the left were in favour of a general strike on March 23, said Olivier Besancenot, a popular young Trotskyite leader.

Opinion polls show the main opposition Socialist Party has failed to capitalise on the protests and many student marchers said that, despite their opposition to the law, they remained wary of the Socialists.

...

During rioting in Paris after Saturday's protests some 17 protesters and seven members of the security forces injured, according to the Paris prefecture, and 167 people were arrested. (Full story)

Organisers estimated the turnout nationwide at 1.3 to 1.4 million, with up to 400,000 of them in Paris. As usual, the official count was lower -- the Interior Ministry reported 503,000 nationwide, with 80,000 in Paris.

---

BBC News item

And mayakovsky there may have been some folks who engaged in acts of violence and/or vandalism but to characterize the whole movement this way is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
No one sees the irony? Meet question of employablilty with night after night of rock throwing and fires! Surely the french students and left could come up with a better response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
No one sees the irony? ...

---

No one sees that mayakovsky was being ironic?

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

With this legislation an employer may at least be willing to take a chance on giving them jobs. Maybe it will work out...maybe it won't and they'll be let go in 2 years. Surely that is preferable to no job at all.

---

That is assuming you accept the premise that this is a "job creation measure". I don't accept that premise for one minute...and neither do French students and workers.

IMHO this is simply another measure to undermine the standard of living of the French working class by creating an underclass of super-exploited young people.

No new workers will be hired by this measure at all...all that will happen will be that "older" workers will over time be replaced by a desperate and docile young workforce constantly in fear of losing their jobs.

Unions the world over have always resisted such "two-tier" wage systems...sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

Employers have always presented two-tier systems as "job creation" measures. But their real purpose is to undermine the solidarity between new workers and existing workers.

Left in place, "two-tier" systems generate resentment between new and old workers...because you end up with a more "senior" group of workers with higher wages, benefits and other protections working side by side with a group of younger workers with less or in the French case...no protection at all.

When you create this kind of division between groups of workers its very easy for the corporate elites to pit one group of workers against another the next time you want to impose an anti-union anti-worker measure...and you end up in an ever downward spiral where everyone loses.

International Herald Tribune story

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Fortunately French workers and students have a long tradition of uniting to defend their common interests and so it isn't going to be easy for the French government to implement this new law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
...and France can continue to have double-digit unemployment for as far as the eye can see.

---

What radiorahim said a few posts above yours bears repeating:

quote:

---

That is assuming you accept the premise that this is a "job creation measure". I don't accept that premise for one minute...and neither do French students and workers.

IMHO this is simply another measure to undermine the standard of living of the French working class by creating an underclass of super-exploited young people.

No new workers will be hired by this measure at all...all that will happen will be that "older" workers will over time be replaced by a desperate and docile young workforce constantly in fear of losing their jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Here's a question for you. You claimed that labour inflexibility is a major reason why the airline and auto industries are failing. Do you think it's a good thing for companies to hire people, pay them low wages with little or now benefits, and then after several years if these people are not needed, to simply let them go, no pensions or severance packages, and the time and energy these people gave up so the company could make money is wasted?

---

I've also seen a lot of chomeurs on the streets, but I've also seen a lot of adverts calling for workers.

I could have emigrated there and had a job right away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
A guy in France told me a couple of years ago that if you want to work there, there's work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Why not design your economy so that everyone can find well-paying work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
And how might you do that, exactly?

---

For starters, you don't do it by scaling back labour, environmental, and financial security regulations to chase after capital investment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
What I favour are businesses that are owned, operated, and managed by the employees.

---

So, business owners are just going to give their companies to their employees?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, business owners are just going to give their companies to their employees?

Let's say you work for 15 years, risk everything you have and you manage to have a little business that has 50 employees and you are able to take out a reasonable salary from the remaining profits. Are you going to give your company away?

---

Probably not. I don't know if it's possible for such a setup to arise, short of a total economic collapse where business abandons the area, and the workers take over the closed businesses and run them (sort of Argentina-style after the big crash, but I'm drifting here).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Ever dealt with call centres, for example? They field thousands of customers per day. Do you think these large entities really care one way or the other about you? These entities don't see their employees as people, more as numbers and statistics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I see. So, at my company (which is a "big corporation" that has 25,000 employees world-wide), no one cares about the employees. Weird, I guess that's why we have countless people with 20, 25, 35 or more years of service.

---

Maybe your company is different, but there are several corporate entities that are like that. Sometimes, people stay with their companies not out of any sense of loyalty, but because they like being able to eat.

quote:

---

l s'appelle Cyril Ferez. Il a 39 ans. Il travaille à Torcy pour l'opérateur de téléphonie Orange où il s'est inscrit à SUD PTT. Hospitalisé à l'hôpital Henri-Mondor de Créteil (Val-de-Marne), il est tombé dans le coma après avoir croisé, samedi, le mauvais peloton de CRS, sur la place de la Nation à l'heure de la dispersion de la manifestation anti-CPE. (...)

---

His name is Cyril Ferez; he is 39 years old. He works in Torcy (a Paris suburb) for Orange telephony and is a SUD PTT trade union member. Hospitalised in Henri-Mondor Hospital in Créteil (another Paris suburb), Ferez fell into a coma after encountering the wrong CRS riot squad on place de la Nation (large square in eastern Paris where many demos culminate) as the anti-CPE demo was breaking up. (...)

The outlook is guarded and seems grim...

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

To anyone who cares about Europe's future, the French demonstrations and street riots protesting the government's new labor law must be profoundly disturbing. It's the French against France -- a familiar ritual that mirrors Europe's larger predicament. Hardly anyone wants to surrender the benefits and protections of today's generous welfare state, but the fierce attachment to these costly and self-defeating programs prevents Europe from preparing for a future that, though it may be deplored, is inevitable. Actually, it's not the future; it's the present.

The dilemma of advanced democracies, including the United States, is that they've made more promises than they can realistically keep. Their political commitments outstrip the economy's capacity to deliver. Sometimes the commitments were made dishonestly. Sometimes they were made sincerely based on foolish assumptions. Sometimes they've been overtaken by new circumstances. No matter. The dilemma is the same. To disavow past promises incites public furor; not to disavow them worsens the country's future problems.

Look at France. Its needs are plain: to assimilate a large and restless Muslim population of immigrants and their children, to pay for the rising health and pension costs of an aging society and to compete in the world economy. But its economy is lackluster. From 2001 to 2005, annual growth averaged only 1.6 percent. By accident and design, the French have discouraged work. In a recent study, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reported the following:

-- From 1994 to 2003, unemployment among prime-age adults, from 25 to 54, averaged 9.9 percent; for those 15 to 25, the average was 24 percent.

-- In 2003, French workers spent an average of 1,431 hours on the job, the third lowest among 26 advanced countries. Italy (1,591 hours) was 11 percent higher, the United States (1,822 hours) 27 percent and South Korea (2,390 hours, the highest) 67 percent.

-- Among those 60 to 64, only about one in six have jobs. In the United States, the comparable figure is about one in two.

This cannot continue indefinitely.[/QB]

---

Back to the demos! Seems there are some 3 million people in the streets!

More than twice as many demonstrators than 18 March

Stop CPE - unitary website against CPE

Down with those who want to stick it to the working class!

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

French workers walk off job in national strike

quote:

---

PARIS — Flights were canceled and commuter trains curtailed as workers across France walked off the job Tuesday in a nationwide strike against a new jobs law for youths, seen as a major test for the country's outspoken prime minister.

Thousands of people were expected to take to the streets in about 200 protests throughout the country, or just stay home from work for the one-day strike. Police were stepping up surveillance on the rail network to prevent violence that has marred previous demonstrations.

---

More at the link.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
A reminder, this is a progressive board, and the mandate of this particular forum is to discuss labour and consumption issues from a pro-worker point of view.

---

So, it’s “pro worker” to look at an French employment picture that has two workers supporting ever pensioner and not consider looking at the social “safety net” to see if it’s a tad to broad and expensive to put on the shoulders of that shrinking percentage of workers?

In the USA, we have social security. All employees pay a little under 7% of their wages into social security (plus the employer pays another equal percentage). When a person hits retirement age, regardless of their wealth, they get social security payments. Now, why should a low-wage worker be paying anything to support a person through social security if the retiree doesn’t need it? If a person has income of, say, US $50,000 (or US$75,000, or whatever) or more, I wouldn’t give them social security. But, if you start cutting away at the “middle class entitlement” (like they are trying to do with labor reform in France), holy hell is raised. If a person needs government support, give it to them. But, broad middle class social programs do no favors, long term, to the employed.

Also, is it “pro worker” to have persistent double digit unemployment?

What I am interested in discussing is strategy and tactics and how we can bring the unification of the student and workers' movement going on now in France over here to Québec, where we have also gone through major student and labour mobilisations but have not yet succeeded in achieving the same degree of unity.

My friend in Germany reports that this is what people in his trade union are proclaiming:

Wir woll französische Verhältnisse,

aber keine amerikanischen Zustände.

We want things to move like in France, but we don't want the state of affairs, like they are in the USA. (his translation - Germans love commas).

Continuons le combat!

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I'm not in the slightest interested in discussing this mobilisation with you, as you are obviously on the other side of the barricades, dragging up a rightwing US "news" board that belongs over at FD, not here.

What I am interested in discussing is strategy and tactics and how we can bring the unification of the student and workers' movement going on now in France over here to Québec, where we have also gone through major student and labour mobilisations but have not yet succeeded in achieving the same degree of unity.

Continuons le combat!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I wish the students the best of luck. I also wish I had a crystal ball for them to look into (30 years hence) if they get what they are demanding.

---

Not JUST students... From the link I linked:

quote:

---

An array of public service workers, including bus and subway drivers, air traffic controllers, utility workers and unemployment office staffers, joined Tuesday's strike.

Public transportation was disrupted in 76 cities and towns, LCI television reported.

About 7 in 10 subway trains were running in Paris, but commuter trains were as few as one in two.

One flight in three was canceled at airports nationwide, according to the national civil aviation authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, it’s “pro worker” to look at an French employment picture that has two workers supporting ever pensioner and not consider looking at the social “safety net” to see if it’s a tad to broad and expensive to put on the shoulders of that shrinking percentage of workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Tiger:
Not JUST students...

---

Yes, not just the students. Give all of the protesters what they want. In thirty years, the French economy will be but a tiny fraction of what it otherwise would have been. And all French will be the poorer for it while the Asia-Pacific countries, the USA and other free-market driven economies leave them in the distance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Now, if we as a species can figure out how to design new and innovative ways to kill people (and as is the case in the US, running up unprecedented government deficits in the process) we can certainly figure out how to provide for elderly pensioners and workers and each one live a comfortable lifestyle, even if pensioners outnumber workers.

---

Here are some more photos of today's protests, from BBC. More coming! Obviously I haven't heard from any friends in France, as they are all on the marches!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
It would be interesting to see an experiment that had one country (France) that was completely "pro worker" and another country that was completely free market. And, people could choose to live in one country or the other. And then, see how they fare over the long haul.

---

But American's already made that choice when they ditched Herbert Hoover and embraced New Deal socialism in the 1930's. Let's face it, Sven, not even big business desires a return to Smithian laissez-faire capitalism. The U.S. has been rather successful with Keynesian-militarism since WWII. Why fall back on dollar a day wages and little red school houses at this point in time?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
In some respects, we'll probably get a chance to see that experiment. France will go one way and the USA and the Asia-Pacific countries will go another. Who will have a better standard of living? Let's just see...

---

You mean how the standard of living in the US has declined, especially for the poor, while the rise in the Asian economy (coming at the cost of your own country, by the way) is due to more state intervention than you would ordinarily suspect? What good is a "prosperous" or "productive" economy if most of the people in that economy don't have the means necessary to survive? Did you know that in the 30s, that Italy and Germany were considerd good places to do business, while the business community on this side of the Atlantic wanted Canada and the US to be more like Germany and Italy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Yes, not just the students. Give all of the protesters what they want. In thirty years, the French economy will be but a tiny fraction of what it otherwise would have been. And all French will be the poorer for it while the Asia-Pacific countries, the USA and other free-market driven economies leave them in the distance.

That will be unfortunate. But, that's what the students (not just the students, the protesters) want. So, give it to them.

---

Yes.. in the race to the top (or bottom depending on how you look at it), people will compete globally "to stay ahead of the game".

/Drift
Standard of living, you said. Let me drift for a moment...

As a matter of fact, I live in Asia... Japan, to be exact. And many of the workers here work six days a week. Many of those work 12-14-16 hour days each of those six days --- no joke.

Quite a few get less than five hours of sleep a night. The gov't of Japan reported that approx. 1/3 of "salarymen" spend something like three to five waking hours a day with their families. (can't find a link tho, I'm afraid)

Many of those workers are expected to attend business social gatherings on their day off (ie: golf trips or meetings with the boss). Most feel obligated NOT to attend funerals of their loved ones if they happen to fall on work days... I guess that's why so many funerals happen on Saturdays.

And you know what? Much of the population out here still goes on about how they have to streamline this, or sacrifice that, or the all popular "Must Work Harder and Longer" in order to compete in this ever changing global economy.

My question to many of my close Japanese friends: "But at what cost to your life and your health? At what cost to your family that never sees you because you are always working? At what cost to your future when you wake up at age 65 and all you've ever known/done is constant hard work?

AND YES... their health. The Japanese even have their own word for "death from overwork" - KAROSHI. Nevermind that the suicide rate is insane for men in their fifties.

Yes Sven... I think I've seen the future, and it's coming straight for us if we aren't careful.

WHEN does it ever quit? WHEN do we say that competing like this is destroying the very people we are and the things we cherish? Why is it that profit for some bloody company can come completely before OUR OWN LIVES? And when we reach that target, a new target is set... and then another, and another... it never ends.
/End Drift

Getting back to the main topic:
Many people of France obviously find the new youth employment law unjust. I'm certain that many of them recognize how this law will just lead to youth being exploited by the organizations that hire them -- no doubt in my mind. One wrong move and POW!.. you lose your job. Or how about the fact that companies can 'recycle' workers every few months or couple of years using this little law? How will THAT affect the economy?

It really bothers me when people associate Asia and the USA as the 'role models' for the world. So much of the *reality* of these places NEVER makes it to the press.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=370547&Template=GALERIE&Objet=62634 photo gallery from www.liberation.fr

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
I remember seeing an interview on CBC many years ago with a famous man from the left warning us that with the rise of the right we were in for tough times and that he figured it would take about 20- 30 years for the rioting in the street to start. Venezuela, Brazil, France they are all examples of strong movements to the left that have grown from the grass roots, they could serve as examples to the world.The ruling classes know this and that is why the French president won't back down.(for now)

---

WCT, those are all really good observations.

One concern that I have is that if a person wants to work long hours (like I do) and get compensated (relatively) highly for that and, in exchange, I give up a 9-5 lifestyle (where I never have to work weekends, and don’t have the worries of work problems to think about, etc.), what I don’t like is people saying that I owe them all of these taxes to support middle class programs (in contrast to programs for the truly poor) for them if they choose not to work like that. It’s a choice. I don’t have kids and I don’t want them. My sig other and I have professional jobs and we work a lot of hours…we do it for work satisfaction (psychic rewards) as well as financial rewards. If we had four kids, life would be different. But, that would be a choice.

There are plenty of people who work 9-5 jobs here (I live in the capital city of Minnesota and there are thousands of government workers downtown here and they leave their buildings in hoards, like clockwork). And, if they want that lifestyle, then they should have it. But, they can’t expect to have the same financial condition as those (like me) who work long hours at something that people find valuable.

My life is not all work. I travel a fair amount (just got back from the Caribbean), I spend loads of time with my nieces and nephews, I ride at least 5,000 miles a year on my motorcycle, I read voraciously, I do pro bono work, I have a family history video project, and loads of other things that keep me really busy (I’m never...ever...bored).

But, people need to understand that if they have a system that will give them six weeks of vacation (plus government holidays), fixed work weeks, jobs-for-life, etc., etc., that system cannot be sustained long term, particularly when there are two workers for every pensioner (I got that backwards in an earlier post). If a society wants the rich rewards of hard work (including generous social programs), they don’t come free. You’ve got to work hard to create that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
Sven while you're travelling internationally on the message boards of the World you should pick up one of those Canuck kits they sell in the states with the little Canadian flags and a little booklet that tells you how not to be the obnoxius proverbial "ugly American".
Every world situation is solved with Americans proclaiming the world should be more 'American' and then everything would be peachy.

---

Actually, I’m not. The French can (and should) do whatever they want. They can have limited work weeks, long and frequent vacations, and aspire to jobs-for-life. And, they can try to do that in an environment where each pensioner is supported by two workers. Good luck. Have at it. But, meanwhile, for those countries that do not accept that, like the USA, they will have a much different standard of living over the long term. It’s their choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

But, meanwhile, for those countries that do not accept that, like the USA, they will have a much different standard of living over the long term. It’s their choice.

So, no, I don’t care if they adopt USA standards or not. But, if they don’t, they cannot realistically expect USA wealth, either.

---

Our standard of living comes more from the exploitation and devaluation of labor and resources from other countries than it does from our own hard work.

You could be a lawyer working 100 hour weeks, paid richly, Sven, but you are not earning as much as your lifestyle is costing in terms of natural resources and labor. You could never pay for your lifestyle if every person who worked on every product you consume were paid a livable wage in his/her own country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
We have wealth because we steal from others, not because our USA professionals just work so goddamn hard.

---

So, engineers, doctors, product designers, lawyers, psychologists, technical writers, accountants, research scientists, librarians, nurses, software designers, journalists, etc., etc., etc., etc. just steal from others and their hard work doesn’t create wealth because they are professionals?

Let's talk about an engineer. He starts his day with some fruit picked by illegal Mexican laborers in Florida. Illegal labor drives down the price of the fruit, he can afford it no problem.

He gets dressed in clothes made by impoverished workers in Asia (that Asian Tiger economy at work!). His house is nice and warm because of 80% coal heat. That coal was mined by workers in West Virginia who have been facing health problems for generations. The coal company doesn't much care about that, though, and leaves the catastrophic health care costs to the state of WV. That keeps the price of coal affordable -- this engineer has a nice warm house paid for with the health of men and women elsewhere and with the taxes of another state.

He gets into his car (I don't need to get into oil, do I?) and heads to work. While at work he uses paper products shipped from overseas. Again, the paper's cheap because the costs to the people native to the land where the wood pulp comes from is not factored in. And so on and so on and so on...

lagatta, those are great photos. I noticed a bunch from Rennes, which interested me because I know it a bit and am so impressed they would be so active.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
I was being a little more subtle than that, but since it didn't work let me spell it out.

---

Well, perhaps you might like it if the USA was completely isolated with no trade of any kind with other countries. We wouldn’t “exploit” anyone from any other countries. Admittedly, our standard of living would decline significantly. But, not anywhere near abject poverty. We’d manage. And, then, the poor “exploited” workers of the world? Many of them would be slammed into abject poverty (how many millions of Chinese would lose employment without trade to the USA? Ditto other parts of the world.

I suppose that “worker friendly” world would appeal to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Well, perhaps you might like it if the USA was completely isolated with no trade of any kind with other countries. We wouldn’t “exploit” anyone from any other countries. Admittedly, our standard of living would decline significantly. But, not anywhere near abject poverty. We’d manage. And, then, the poor “exploited” workers of the world? Many of them would be slammed into abject poverty (how many millions of Chinese would lose employment without trade to the USA? Ditto other parts of the world.

---

What about the fact that in several cases, the factories came in and displaced the people from whatever economic activity they had been doing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
One concern that I have is that if a person wants to work long hours (like I do) and get compensated (relatively) highly for that and, in exchange, I give up a 9-5 lifestyle (where I never have to work weekends, and don’t have the worries of work problems to think about, etc.), what I don’t like is people saying that I owe them all of these taxes to support middle class programs (in contrast to programs for the truly poor) for them if they choose not to work like that. It’s a choice. I don’t have kids and I don’t want them. My sig other and I have professional jobs and we work a lot of hours…we do it for work satisfaction (psychic rewards) as well as financial rewards. If we had four kids, life would be different. But, that would be a choice.

---

Maybe you've made a conscious choice to give up a 9-5 lifestyle. But for many who work beyond 9-5, they have no other option. They have to work long hours and leave little time for enjoyment because they have a tough time making ends meet. As for the "fruits of labour" argument? Increasingly, the people who actually perform the labour (company employees) are rewarded less and less in proportion to the amount of rewards that the people at the top receive. Many workers feel that their bosses don't care about them and are exploiting the workers so they can make money. (And before you say, "if you don't like your job, apply somewhere else," there are too many workplaces that operate on that basis.) In many cases, the employee either goes along with what the company says, or goes to the unemployment line. This I feel is wrong, because when you are giving up your most valuable resource (your time) so someone else can profit, you deserve to have a say in how you are compensated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB]v michel: standing ovation!

---

:echos the ovation.
It's a hard pill to swallow I know but learning and understanding just how dependant we are on the "cheapness" factor of the products we consume and the global network that we are tied into whether we want to be or not is an important step to creating a more equitable system over all.

In fact for many, who generally care about the wellbeing of people it can be emotional and in some cases soul destroying when the realization hits. I've seen this happen over and over again in the work I do. People then seem to fall into two camps which I call the 'deniers and the reconcilers.'

The "North American" lifestyle is just simply not sustainable as it is configured now. 5% of the the worlds pop. cannot keep using 25% of the worlds resources (human and non human) in perpetuity, especially when many of those resources are non-renewable. (oil is the biggie here, cheap energy subsidizes the entire economy)

But anyways back to the topic. I'll admit that I haven't been paying attention as much attention to this as I should be. Without a great deal of analysis of the underlying situation my thoughts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Sven? v michel was not proposing an end to trade.

She was proposing that we-all - and Americans first of all - start paying fair price for what others produce.

---

Yes, I am not anti-trade, You suggested above, Sven, that Americans are able to enjoy a high standard of living (including such things as Carribean vacations and motorcycling) because Americans work very hard. I am saying that we enjoy our standard of living not because we work hard, but because others who produce what we consume work so very hard.

I'm not saying you should give up biking, but I am saying you should appreciate the true costs of what you consume when you tour. Who worked a 16 hour day in a factory for poverty-level wages so that your bike component could be affordable for you? Who sacrificed her childhood to a sweatshop, so that your rain gear is affordable for you? You have these things because others paid high prices to see them created.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
I don't know how to right that wrong, but I do know that those of us in the US have no right to feel self-righteous about our hard work. Much less any right to correlate our standard of living to our own hard work. Our long hours may net us high paychecks (if we are lucky), but the sacrifices of others are what make our consumables affordable and allow us our high standard of living.

---

I think you raise interesting issues worth exploring. I was principally looking at the USA model versus the French model being sought after by the French protesters. France is not an impoverished third-world country that is being exploited. My point, viz., France is that their model of limited work weeks, long and frequent vacations, virtually jobs-for-life in an environment of diminishing fertility and a rapidly shrinking worker-to-pensioner ratio is unsustainable. The USA model is somewhat different (labor flexibility, etc.). The result is that we have half the unemployment rate of France and social wealth that is growing more rapidly than France’s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
And, I return to my point: They’re free to do whatever they want and I wish them luck.

---

And I return to my point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
what do you think about your country's trade and budgetary deficits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Sven: the "U.S. model," to put it as politely as I can, is something like rip-off artistry.

Are you truly so impervious?

---

You are always very polite, skdadl, and that is one of several reasons why I like you.

I think the implied assertion you’re making is that if A has more wealth than B, then A is necessarily “ripping off” B.

Our former CEO retired after working for the company for 43 years. He started as a street sales person and retired worth tens of millions of dollars. When he started with the company, the company was microscopic. He was the primary engineer of a business concept that is fueling, and will continue to fuel, our company for many, many years. It’s now a company that has about 25,000 employees world wide (when I started here eight years ago, we have about 11,000 employees).

I don’t begrudge our former CEO having, say, $50 million in his pocket. There are thousands of people here with great jobs at our company, jobs that would likely not have existed today without his leadership. He didn’t “rip off” and “exploit” the employees, even though he became fabulously rich.

And a computer graphic on trade and student union vs police crowd estimates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
what do you think about your country's trade and budgetary deficits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I think you raise interesting issues worth exploring. I was principally looking at the USA model versus the French model being sought after by the French protesters. France is not an impoverished third-world country that is being exploited. My point, viz., France is that their model of limited work weeks, long and frequent vacations, virtually jobs-for-life in an environment of diminishing fertility and a rapidly shrinking worker-to-pensioner ratio is unsustainable. The USA model is somewhat different (labor flexibility, etc.). The result is that we have half the unemployment rate of France and social wealth that is growing more rapidly than France’s.

---

This Bush's economy lost so many living wage manufacturing jobs in the first term that team Dubya tried to have McBurger employment re-classified under the same category. In fact, Dubya's was the first net job loss economy since Herbert Hoover while not one net manufacturing job was produced for some 42 months after the start of his first term.

The unemployment rate in the U.S. only counts people who qualify for benefits, not those who've given up looking for work or working part-time and need full-time work to support a family. The real U rate in the states during Dubya's first term was estimated to be just under 11 percent for several months in a row. The BLS and HRDC do telephone surveys and ask a sample of 60K people each months whether they've worked in the last month. It would seem that if they were more confident about the free market spread of prosperity, then they wouldn't be tying strict qualifying criteria to employment status for the sake of political expediency.

The rich don't like full employment, Sven. The slightest bit of inflation has them screaming blue murder. And your country does like to shovel a greater percentage of its national income to the fewest people possible.

In addition, the U.S. already owns the largest lowly paid, non-unionized, low skilled workforce in the developed world, as well as owning the 2nd or third worst rates of child poverty with Canada not far behind in boasting this same dubious free market achievement. The whole world knows this, Sven. The only one's envious are poverty-stricken third world'ers who the U.S. relies on for population growth since 1970. The weather in sunny Florida, right-to-work states and California makes upside-down socialism for the rich bearable for tens of millions of low wage workers in a country with higher infant mortality than 29 other countries with socialized medicine and Cuba. You won't hear this on right-wing radio because it's the truth.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Economic opportunity.

Every country has economic flaws, including the USA (and, yes, Fidel, even Cuba). But people are voting with their feet and their futures by flocking to the USA in the millions.

It's economic opportunity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, I say to the French, go ahead and give the protesters what they want. Let the USA citizens live in the economic system they want (and millions of immigrants here want). I'll bet on the future of the USA if the protesters get what they want (a far lower standard of living than they now have).

---

Sven,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
what do you think about your country's trade and budgetary deficits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Fidel, if the USA is so awful (particularly to the poor, in which group I would classify a very large percentage of immigrants to the USA), why are people pouring into the USA faster than we can handle them (and faster than all other western countries combined)?

---

I seriously doubt the "faster than all other western countries combined" part, but I know that the US is no more generous on immigration -- per capita -- than it is on foreign aid.

Just as an example, with a population of about 300,000,000, the US takes in about 500,000 immigrants per year. Canada, with a population of about 32,000,000, take in about 200,000.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

You've never addressed this point. Why not?

---

After you asked me that twice (before I even had a chance to read it the first time) and then after you asked it a third time...I thought, "WTF???"

And, now a fourth time?!?!

Look, if I'm making an argument (like because of A, B and C, therefore D) and you ask me something about those elements, I'll feel a slight compulsion to answer). But to throw a question at me and to feel entitled to an answer, and then badgering me, is a big WTF.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, just for fun, I've decided to wait until you have asked it one hundred times...and then I think about answering it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Every country has economic flaws, including the USA (and, yes, Fidel, even Cuba). But people are voting with their feet and their futures by flocking to the USA in the millions.

It's economic opportunity.

---

How many people from Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Singapore or Denmark have moved in to your town in the last ten years, Sven ?.

If I was a Philippino, Mexican, Salvadoran, Haitian, Guatemalan or any other country whose right-wing dictators have been propped up by Washington in the past while I lived in abject poverty, I'd want to go anywhere other than where I was, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Come to think of it, considering that immigration to "all other western countries" excluding the US and Canada might well exceed 300,000 per year, I'd like to see a source for your claim, please.

---

In March 2000, there were at least 28.4 million foreign born immigrants in the USA.

In March 2002, there were at least 32.5 million foreign born immigrants in the USA.

That’s about 2 million immigrants per year (that are counted). The undocumented number would raise that number significantly.

In contrast, “the EU receives several hundred thousand newcomers a year, including returning citizens, immigrants joining settled family members, asylum applicants, and up to 500,000 unauthorized foreigners”. In 1995, for example, there were 270,000 immigrants to the EU countries.

So, let’s take your number of 200,000 for Canada (even though you were off by that a factor of four with regard to the USA number) and an EU number (let’s be generous) of 1 million immigrants per year (legal and illegal). That’s way less than the USA (even on a per capita basis).

ETA: So, let me reiterate: Immigrants are pouring into the USA at a much higher rate than Europe and Canada combined.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If I was a Philippino, Mexican, Salvadoran, Haitian, Guatemalan or any other country whose right-wing dictators have been propped up by Washington in the past while I lived in abject poverty, I'd want to go anywhere other than where I was, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

So you've admitted that you can't respond to the fact that your country's economy is a house of cards about to fall, and the budgetary and trade deficits are playing a role in that?

---

Where did I admit that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

So you've admitted that you can't respond to the fact that your country's economy is a house of cards about to fall, and the budgetary and trade deficits are playing a role in that?

---

One (final) point on this subject (by way of illustration).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You'll note in this thread that I asked Stargazer a couple of questions in my last post. She didn't answer in a subsequent post. Am I to follow your example and ask her the same question, repeatedly, until I finally force her to answer? No. She's perfectly capable of reading my question. And, by her not answering is not an agreement with my assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Then, why on earth would they want to move to the source of all of that evil?

---

Because it's too hard to get into the EU and Canada.

quote:

---

I was principally looking at the USA model versus the French model being sought after by the French protesters. France is not an impoverished third-world country that is being exploited. My point, viz., France is that their model of limited work weeks, long and frequent vacations, virtually jobs-for-life in an environment of diminishing fertility and a rapidly shrinking worker-to-pensioner ratio is unsustainable. The USA model is somewhat different (labor flexibility, etc.). The result is that we have half the unemployment rate of France and social wealth that is growing more rapidly than France’s.

---

The U.S. model is that workers have very few rights compared to those in other developed countries.

And the protests in France are about laws that would create a different set of rights for workers under the age of 26. It's age discrimination pure and simple.

This law is simply an attack on French social legislation dressed up as a method to lower the unemployment rate. Both workers and students in France are capable of seeing through this charade and thus you have the protests.

This "labour market flexibility" that you speak of is simply the latest mantra that our ruling elites are chanting to destroy previous social gains.

Why is it workers that have to be "flexible". Why is it always workers that have to "tighten their belts". Why is it workers who always have to "do more for less".

I don't see any CEO's lined up at the local foodbank. They're all doing very well.

Now France might have a higher unemployment rate than the US, but I'd rather be unemployed in France than in the U.S. The U.S. is not a country I'd want to live in if I were poor and unhealthy....not that I have the faintest foggiest desire to live there anyway.

As well, U.S. unemployment statistics are not necessarily all that accurate. Someone who works one hour a week is considered employed. Someone who has given up looking for work because they can't find a job isn't counted as being unemployed. Someone who is working part-time at a "McJob" when they really want a full-time job is considered employed.

The U.S. also has the largest prison population of any developed country. So if the poor are in the slammer instead of in the job market that's going to lower the unemployment stats.

The U.S. also has the largest military of any developed country and lots of poor folks join it because they can't get a job.

And to finance this enormous military ... currently involved in some rather nasty business in Iraq the U.S. government has had to borrow
astronomical sums of money. And don't forget they cut off a major revenue stream by giving a huge tax cut to the well-off. How sustainable is that?

quote:

---

In March 2000, there were at least 28.4 million foreign born immigrants in the USA.

In March 2002, there were at least 32.5 million foreign born immigrants in the USA.

---

The (rounded-off) US population rose from 263 million in 1994 to 293 million in 2004 for an average annual increase of 1.1%

The Canadian population rose from 29 million to 32 million in the same period for an average annual increase of 0.98%

In the U.S., 0.58% of that was due to natural increases in population and 0.52% was due to immigration. In Canada 0.39% was due to natural increases and 0.61% was due to immigration.

So certainly during that time period immigrants saw Canada as being a somewhat more desirable place to move to than the U.S.

Life expectancy at birth is 2.7 years longer for Canadians (79.7) than Americans (77). The French have a life expectancy of 80, Germany 79, Italy 81, Japan 82 and the UK 79.

So those of us in developed countries outside the U.S. must be doing a few things better than Americans if we're living longer. It might be ...umm...err...having some form of public healthcare system?

In any case people in third world countries will always move to more developed countries where they hope for better job opportunities.

I recall back in the 1970's and 1980's that pro-apartheid apologists would often say that "apartheid wasn't all that bad" because folks from surrounding countries were seeking work in South Africa.

Anyway Sven, been there, done that and got the t-shirt.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

This law is simply an attack on French social legislation dressed up as a method to lower the unemployment rate.

---

Just out of curiousity, what's the government's rationale for this? That if employers can fire a young employee for any reason they wish, they'll suddenly develop a need for another employee, and also the budget to pay them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Because it's too hard to get into the EU and Canada.

And you never did say how many Finnish, Danish, German, French or Swedish emigres have chosen to sweep floors or deliver pizzas in your neck of the woods, Sven. Why is that, do you think?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
When W is gone and the bills come due the U.S. economy is going to tank big time.

---

Can we mark your words?

quote:

---

Just out of curiousity, what's the government's rationale for this? That if employers can fire a young employee for any reason they wish, they'll suddenly develop a need for another employee, and also the budget to pay them?

IOW, even on paper, how does this raise employment levels??

---

That's the French government's spin as I understand it. "Labour market flexibility" is the mainstream media's latest catchphrase.

Conservative policies don't have to make any sense you've just gotta believe.

quote:

---

Can we mark your words?

---

Go right ahead.

quote:

---

Like I said, I'll take my chance here and let the French protesters do what they will.

---

Bye bye Sven. Have a nice life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Just out of curiousity, what's the government's rationale for this? That if employers can fire a young employee for any reason they wish, they'll suddenly develop a need for another employee, and also the budget to pay them?

---

The "rationale" is that under the currently existing laws, employers are supposedly reluctant to hire young workers because, once they've served a standard "probationary period" of typically between one and three months, they can only be fired for "just cause" -- that is, because they commit infractions, or prove to be incompetent -- or laid off for lack of work.

[Parenthesis: It's the same operative principle as in Canada (in unionized industry only, I should stress), once an employee is past probation. And, if the worker disagrees, her/his union can grieve the matter and ultimately an arbitrator decides whether there was just cause or not. Note that in non-unionized environments in Canada, there is generally speaking no right to reinstatement, even if dismissal has been found to be unjust - only to x months of notice or pay in lieu thereof.]

Under the new "CPE" law ("contrat première embauche", or first-time-hired contract), as I understand it, employees on their "first" job, under age 26, can be let go any time within the first two years, for no reason whatsoever -- could just be the boss's whim. This, it is argued, will allow employers to hire youth without worrying that they will be acquiring some long-term liability which they can't get rid of.

It may be noted that in Canada, similar arguments in reverse are always heard from Chambers of Commerce and small business associations every time a province raises the minimum wage - namely, that "we won't be able to afford to hire any young people". As if the raison d'être of businesses is to create jobs - or, as if businesses could survive two seconds without a constant flow of fresh labour power to exploit, and hiring is purely a "choice".

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

This, it is argued, will allow employers to hire youth without worrying that they will be acquiring some long-term liability which they can't get rid of.

---

Is the high unemployment rate of young people in France disproportionately skewed to the poor immigrant population, frequently Islaamic, who are less well educated? Because if that is the case then those young immigrants are not participating in the work force in any meaningful way because the students who are the protestors have the jobs locked up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
Are the students who are protesting the ones who actually have the jobs from which they can't get fired?

Is the high unemployment rate of young people in France disproportionately skewed to the poor immigrant population, frequently Islaamic, who are less well educated? Because if that is the case then those young immigrants are not participating in the work force in any meaningful way because the students who are the protestors have the jobs locked up.

Can you be fired for any reason if you are under 26 in France? The whole situation seems unusual and as always I have more questions than answers.

---

quote:

---

In 1987, Yale historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in which he argued that "military overstretch" - where conquering nations engaged in more foreign military adventures than their economic resources could support - led to the eventual decline and fall of empires.

---

Edited to add: please continue the discussion on France here.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Very few. About the same number of Americans who emigrate there, I would imagine.

---

I dunno, Sven. I think seven million is a lot of people. That's almost a quarter the population of Canada. And those are just the one's who can afford Greyhound bus fare to beyond the state line. I think European's vacation and travel abroad more than anyone else in the world, but I think most of them return home.

And more American's than ever live in poverty.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]