Posted on 03/31/2006 9:34:50 AM PST by the anti-liberal
UN MOMENT DECISIF
Jacques Chirac is expected to take to the airwaves at 1 p.m. EST and inform France's youth that, no, they're not entitled to lifetime job security by age 26. French auto makers are already bracing for a spike in demand. Stay tuned to this post for updates in case protesters respond with insufficient "nuance."
Brussels Journal reports that the issue has made for an odd reversal of political polarity:
The French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin told his party, the UMP, that there is “no question of withdrawing” the CPE bill. However, Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister and UMP party president, at once undermined Villepin’s statement by suggesting that the recently approved bill should be put on hold....
Sarkozy is behaving just like Villepin did last November: During the November riots, when immigrant youths went on the rampage for several weeks in the French suburbs, Sarkozy proposed a hardline “law and order” approach, while Villepin took the position of trying to “appease” the thugs. This time the two antagonists have switched roles.
French public opinion, predictably, is squarely on the side of free lunch:
Several polls reveal a strong majority wants the law withdrawn, with French youth especially opposed. A poll conducted March 21-22 by the French polling organization CSA found that 66 percent wanted the law withdrawn, while 25 percent opposed withdrawing it. Among those aged 18-29, three-fourths (74%) want the law withdrawn. The highest support for withdrawing the law was among 25-to-29-year-olds—78 percent; among 18-to-24-year-olds it was 72 percent.
Make sure to follow the link and examine the graphic illustrating public approval of free market systems generally. Compare the numbers for France to those of, say, China.
And one more poll, because I can't resist: Gallup's survey of Republicans' and Democrats' favorite foreign nations. Note which countries are at the far ends of the divide.
My prediction: Chirac will approve the bill, but suggest that things need to be negotiated.
He must straddle.
If his favourite, Dominique de Villepin, had not staked his political life on the CPE, Chirac would disapprove it and get rid of an issue.
But de Villepin has taken an impossible stand.
And so now Chirac must stand with him. But he has to give some sort of wiggle room, and out.
Everyone was holding his breath yesterday and hoping that the judges of the Conseil Constitutionnel would throw the government a face-saving lifeline. But the judges remained squarely on the law and didn't look over their bench to see the riots. So now it is in Chirac's famously clumsy fingers.
So, I expect he'll approve, with a call for negotiations.
There will be no negotiations, because the unions and students do not want to negotiate.
New and bigger strikes will surge into a general strike, property destruction and violence will spiral upwards, the authority of Chirac, Villepin and their whole party will screw into the ground.
Paralysis could be utterly total for months.
It has not happened before that a government did not cave in to a general strike. Chirac and Villepin may decide they have nothing to lose and clamp down and refuse to let up.
In which case, as the economic desperation of a general strike begins to deepen and seriously dislocate life after a few months, many segments of the French population will become radicalized, and the government will be violently overthrown in a revolution, unless the now-professional Army chooses to side with the existing government.
In which case things become wild and unpredictable, as the President perhaps invokes Article 16 of the Constitution and suspends elections and assumes plenary power.
At some point, the military divides and ceases to support him.
No government can stand against 80% of its people.
Are Chirac and Villepin the sort of men who are stubborn enough to take things to that extremity? There is no indiciation that either possesses anything like the sort of will to actually attempt such a thing.
It will be interesting to see this test of power between a democratic people and a stubborn modern government.
I've got my popcorn either way.
Thanks for the analysis - spot on. I'd be interested to hear your take on what likely scenario comes from NOT passing the bill.
Not passing the bill would by far be the best thing for France.
The immediate effects would be the end of the strikes and tensions, and a return to the social status quo.
Dominique de Villepin would be well and truly finished, and would either resign (which would be best) or will somehow be preserved as a sort of powerless homonculous of the President. Meanwhile, Sarkozy will take all of the power in the UMP for himself and will emerge as the candidate of the center-right in next year's elections.
The best thing for everybody...except Villepin, Chirac, and the businesses hoping to be able to profit from unprotected "McJobs"...would be for Chirac to refuse to promulgate the bill.
Bad choices either way, eh?
When are the next elections scheduled?
I just wonder how long France can survive the 'status quo'.
"Life-time job security"? How do you keep a business for closing or its owner from dying? The Russians used to shoot people if they tried to go out of business just because all the assets were gone.
Fascinating analysis. Thank you for posting.
..the businesses hoping to be able to profit from unprotected "McJobs
Youre not a little bit of a histrionic Socialist, are you Vicomte?
Imagine! Being held responsible for your own work until youre 26!! Its so... American! So much better to get a govt job where you can sit on your butt and "work" 35 hour days and 6 weeks vaction, and to He*l with those vermin immigrants and their 50 % unemployment rates!
The stupidity and childishness of the pampered Caucasian French will be the END of them, no doubt about it, Vicomte.
Whether that's true or not,
what do you see as the result if the government DOES back down and retains existing practices?
Seems to me that to do nothing only guarantees a different sort of decline and fall.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yes, mustn't have those evil companies thinking about anything like economic factors, now, or help reduce youth unemployment by making it less of a risk for employers to hire untested school leavers on a trial basis. Nothing must stand in the way of pure socialism and the elimination of that evil "anglo-saxon" capitalism, which of course Chirac has said is "just as bad" as Communism. Give me a break! I have zero xympathy for these little spoiled brats. As loathsome as De Villepin is, he is right on this eminently rational move. Just as the unions' ever higher demands ultimately spelled doom for America's automakers by pricing themselves out of the market and opposing efficiency and rationality, France's economy is doomed by that nation's utter hostility to even the most timid of efforts at economic rationality. And for youth to demand job security is even less justifiable than union workers with families to support.
The next elections are 2007, unless the government falls before then, in which case there will be parliamentary elections whenever that happens, but the Presidentials will still be in 2007.
I do not think that withdrawing the law is a bad option, other than politically, and for certain interests.
Withdrawing the law will establish a bright-line rule for all future partisans: France cannot be led forward by elimination the social model. If the social model is understood - by the crackup of Villepin and this government - to be untouchable, then, and only then, will French politicians of the business-oriented right begin to work with the center left to improve the things which COULD be improved within the existing model.
Right now, there is still the belief among Villepin and others, that the American model can be imported by stealth or by force. It cannot be, because French people do not want it. This time, the political calamity will be so complete, and so clear, that the right will well and truly stop dreaming of installing it "en cachette" and will be forced to focus on the better prospects for improving the situation which exist within the French model itself.
There is nothing that focuses the mind as well as the approach of the executioner, and with this bill being put up and decapitated decisively, the executioner will be on the scene for the center right. Then, and only then, will their be focus.
Now, there are many things that a more rational political approach should be aiming at. For one thing, it should be noted that the overall state of the French labour market is NOT bad. What is bad is the intial entry into it. THAT is where the logjam is, and where the backlog of the unemployed is high. Those utterly incapable of work due to alcoholism and mental problems were driven out of the workforce long ago. The adult workforce is stable, employed, and the industrial workforce has the highest productivity in the Western World (yes, you read that right). A reason for that is relentless automation, in order to avoid having to hire low-skilled workers to do absolutely ANYTHING.
Now that North African immigration in France is much better in hand, the current unamassed unskilled labor pool is not rapidly growing by massive new arrivals.
It is likely that this bottleneck will remain in the 23-28 year old market. Once one has a job in France, it is easy to remain employed, and if one is skilled, it is possible to obtain another job. It's the entry job that is hard, because of the protections. This is the bottleneck. And because it is the young and aggressive who suffer from it, the pressure and unrest it creates is obvious.
If one looks carefully at the American model of employment, and the numbers that go into the American unemployment statistics, the two things France could do which would have the greatest effect on bringing down unemployment would be to mimic the American practice of incarcerating hoodlums and petty offenders. There are 2.1 million of the American underclass, the violent troublemakers, in prison in the USA. France has perhaps 55,000 in prison. The American absolute number is higher, but the RATE of incarceration is also 8 times that of France (all figures are rough).
So, in America, this troubled underclass is not on the unemployment rolls, boosting American unemployment to approximately 7%. They are in prison. Prison is more expensive for the budget, per capita, than unemployment benefits, but a high prison number is not as politically and socially explosive as a high unemployment number is.
In France, this same underclass is on the streets, and voila le hooliganisme!
The fastest, sharpest expedient to bring French unemployment figures down by several percentage points, closer to American numbers, has nothing to do with creating McJobs - a bad American idea that does not need to be imported into France and should not be. It is a much more hawkish focus on law and order, with much higher incarceration rates for hooligans who destroy property. Imprisonment in France probably costs less than unemployment benefits (a reversal from the American situation; American prisons are much more pleasant places than French prisons), but an important side effect would be the dramatic drop-off in property crime.
The French government has been very stupid in trying to mimic America, by mimicking the worst parts of American social policy. Law and order, and suppression of crime, and real incarceration of property-destroying hooligans for extended periods, American-style, would make most French people feel MUCH more secure and ultimately happier about life. It would also lower the unemployment rate by about 2 percentage points, as the criminal unemployed, who are currently on the street in France, become the incarcerated and off the unemployment rolls, as they are in America.
France needs a lot more law and order. And law and order would sharply reduce the unemployment rate AND the rates of property damage and costs of insurance and the general unease that women feel in the dark. That's first.
The next thing that France could consider doing which would sharply reduce the unemployment rate, as it has in America, would be to judiciously expand the size of the military. France's youth unemployment rate grew substantially when Chirac ended the general conscription of males, for obvious reasons. The Americans include their military in the work force. The French do not. But it is not simply a matter of making the numbers LOOK better. It is also a matter of giving the young something to DO. A judicious expansion of the armed forces would give France greater capacity to police areas of interest in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific, and would employ tough young people in a profession likely to discipline them.
It is these two things that, combined, account for perhaps 3% of the difference between the French and American employment rates. These aspects of the American model are much more in keeping with the desires of the people of the Republic than McJobs. Implementing a serious law and order and incarceration campaign is as capable of being done by Mme. Royal and her Socialists, when she is elected Presdident next year as by the right, were the right able to think clearly. Likewise, an expansion of the military would only modestly increase the costs of government, given that the unemployed currently are paid benefits anyway, and cause substantial damage.
Simply do those things, and French unemployment starts to look more like 6.7%, instead of 9.7%. That extra 2% differential with the Americans, McJobs, are best left on the table. People eventually find employment within the French system, and perform appropriate functions. By contrast, McJobbers often never transition into serious work, and move from job to job to job without substance.
The French system experiences the strain at the entry level.
In 30 or 40 years, it will be the American system that experiences the strain at the retirement level, when McJobbers and odd-jobbers are utterly reliant on the state, having accumulated no resources because they were never in the position to.
France's economic model does not need to be fixed.
What needs fixing is the law enforcement and incarceration model. Making France safer would, by itself, decrease unemployment substantially, because it would do as the Americans have: take the bottom of the underclass OFF of the unemployment rolls and put them INTO jail cells, where they do not harm other people.
French business is competing very well with American business the whole world over. There is no reason to be stampeded by false impressions and trade the working French economic model for the American economic model, which certainly does not perform as well as the French does in the industrial sector at any rate.
That was a long answer, and probably far more than you wanted. I apologize, therefore.
You cannot go against such a large majority and survive in politics.
Villepin has a losing issue on his hands. He was elected by the majority to represent their interest, not to represent the interest of the small minority who wants this law.
I re-post, with apologies, because this answers each of your questions and it is, therefore, more efficient to do it this way.
The next elections are 2007, unless the government falls before then, in which case there will be parliamentary elections whenever that happens, but the Presidentials will still be in 2007.
I do not think that withdrawing the law is a bad option, other than politically, and for certain interests.
Withdrawing the law will establish a bright-line rule for all future partisans: France cannot be led forward by elimination the social model. If the social model is understood - by the crackup of Villepin and this government - to be untouchable, then, and only then, will French politicians of the business-oriented right begin to work with the center left to improve the things which COULD be improved within the existing model.
Right now, there is still the belief among Villepin and others, that the American model can be imported by stealth or by force. It cannot be, because French people do not want it. This time, the political calamity will be so complete, and so clear, that the right will well and truly stop dreaming of installing it "en cachette" and will be forced to focus on the better prospects for improving the situation which exist within the French model itself.
There is nothing that focuses the mind as well as the approach of the executioner, and with this bill being put up and decapitated decisively, the executioner will be on the scene for the center right. Then, and only then, will their be focus.
Now, there are many things that a more rational political approach should be aiming at. For one thing, it should be noted that the overall state of the French labour market is NOT bad. What is bad is the intial entry into it. THAT is where the logjam is, and where the backlog of the unemployed is high. Those utterly incapable of work due to alcoholism and mental problems were driven out of the workforce long ago. The adult workforce is stable, employed, and the industrial workforce has the highest productivity in the Western World (yes, you read that right). A reason for that is relentless automation, in order to avoid having to hire low-skilled workers to do absolutely ANYTHING.
Now that North African immigration in France is much better in hand, the current unamassed unskilled labor pool is not rapidly growing by massive new arrivals.
It is likely that this bottleneck will remain in the 23-28 year old market. Once one has a job in France, it is easy to remain employed, and if one is skilled, it is possible to obtain another job. It's the entry job that is hard, because of the protections. This is the bottleneck. And because it is the young and aggressive who suffer from it, the pressure and unrest it creates is obvious.
If one looks carefully at the American model of employment, and the numbers that go into the American unemployment statistics, the two things France could do which would have the greatest effect on bringing down unemployment would be to mimic the American practice of incarcerating hoodlums and petty offenders. There are 2.1 million of the American underclass, the violent troublemakers, in prison in the USA. France has perhaps 55,000 in prison. The American absolute number is higher, but the RATE of incarceration is also 8 times that of France (all figures are rough).
So, in America, this troubled underclass is not on the unemployment rolls, boosting American unemployment to approximately 7%. They are in prison. Prison is more expensive for the budget, per capita, than unemployment benefits, but a high prison number is not as politically and socially explosive as a high unemployment number is.
In France, this same underclass is on the streets, and voila le hooliganisme!
The fastest, sharpest expedient to bring French unemployment figures down by several percentage points, closer to American numbers, has nothing to do with creating McJobs - a bad American idea that does not need to be imported into France and should not be. It is a much more hawkish focus on law and order, with much higher incarceration rates for hooligans who destroy property. Imprisonment in France probably costs less than unemployment benefits (a reversal from the American situation; American prisons are much more pleasant places than French prisons), but an important side effect would be the dramatic drop-off in property crime.
The French government has been very stupid in trying to mimic America, by mimicking the worst parts of American social policy. Law and order, and suppression of crime, and real incarceration of property-destroying hooligans for extended periods, American-style, would make most French people feel MUCH more secure and ultimately happier about life. It would also lower the unemployment rate by about 2 percentage points, as the criminal unemployed, who are currently on the street in France, become the incarcerated and off the unemployment rolls, as they are in America.
France needs a lot more law and order. And law and order would sharply reduce the unemployment rate AND the rates of property damage and costs of insurance and the general unease that women feel in the dark. That's first.
The next thing that France could consider doing which would sharply reduce the unemployment rate, as it has in America, would be to judiciously expand the size of the military. France's youth unemployment rate grew substantially when Chirac ended the general conscription of males, for obvious reasons. The Americans include their military in the work force. The French do not. But it is not simply a matter of making the numbers LOOK better. It is also a matter of giving the young something to DO. A judicious expansion of the armed forces would give France greater capacity to police areas of interest in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific, and would employ tough young people in a profession likely to discipline them.
It is these two things that, combined, account for perhaps 3% of the difference between the French and American employment rates. These aspects of the American model are much more in keeping with the desires of the people of the Republic than McJobs. Implementing a serious law and order and incarceration campaign is as capable of being done by Mme. Royal and her Socialists, when she is elected Presdident next year as by the right, were the right able to think clearly. Likewise, an expansion of the military would only modestly increase the costs of government, given that the unemployed currently are paid benefits anyway, and cause substantial damage.
Simply do those things, and French unemployment starts to look more like 6.7%, instead of 9.7%. That extra 2% differential with the Americans, McJobs, are best left on the table. People eventually find employment within the French system, and perform appropriate functions. By contrast, McJobbers often never transition into serious work, and move from job to job to job without substance.
The French system experiences the strain at the entry level.
In 30 or 40 years, it will be the American system that experiences the strain at the retirement level, when McJobbers and odd-jobbers are utterly reliant on the state, having accumulated no resources because they were never in the position to.
France's economic model does not need to be fixed.
What needs fixing is the law enforcement and incarceration model. Making France safer would, by itself, decrease unemployment substantially, because it would do as the Americans have: take the bottom of the underclass OFF of the unemployment rolls and put them INTO jail cells, where they do not harm other people.
French business is competing very well with American business the whole world over. There is no reason to be stampeded by false impressions and trade the working French economic model for the American economic model, which certainly does not perform as well as the French does in the industrial sector at any rate.
That was a long answer, and probably far more than you wanted. I apologize, therefore.
"He was elected by the majority to represent their interest, not to represent the interest of the small minority who wants this law."
He wasn't even elected!
He was appointed from his position as Foreign Minister, by Chirac to become Prime Minister when the European Constitution was rejected by the people.
Villepin has never been elected to any major office.
And he never will be.
Hate to dissapoint you, but the US leads all nations in productivity and the spread is widening.
International Comparisons of Productivity
Revised estimates for 2004
GDP per Worker
Revised data for 2004 continues to show the UK's productivity performance, on a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per worker basis, lower than that of France and the USA, similar to that of Germany, and above that of Japan.
UK productivity in 2004, as measured by GDP per worker, was behind that of the average of all other G7 countries. The USA continues to be the productivity leader with productivity 27 per cent above that of the UK. Germany's productivity performance was the same as that of the UK. Differences of a few percentage points between the productivity estimates for individual countries should not be seen as significant and so the 2004 figures suggest that the UK and Germany have similar levels of productivity.
Revisions to the data covering the period 1990 to 2003 are also included in this release. The revisions are small in magnitude and are mainly the result of revisions to the Purchasing Power Parities and GDP source data.
Also published today are estimates of international comparisons of GDP per hour worked. As with GDP per worker, users are advised to allow a margin of error of a few percentage points when making comparisons across countries.
Source: Office for National Statistics
Notes:
Data sources for this release are as follows: GDP from the OECD Main Economic Indicators, January 2006, PPP estimates from the OECD PPP website, updated January 2006, Employment from OECD Annual Labour Force Statistics, August 2005, Average Hours Worked from OECD Employment Outlook, July 2005.
In previous releases the OECD source for UK employment and average hours worked were adjusted to include Census and other population adjustments in order to maintain consistency with the ONS Labour Market Release. The OECD source data now includes these Census and population adjustments and so no separate adjustment are made.
Following the methodological change in the compilation of the UK official productivity estimates, with effect from September 2004, the definition of our headline productivity measure, i.e. Gross Value Added (GVA) per worker, for the whole economy is now closer to that used in ICP.
Published on 23 February 2006 at 9:30 am
"That was a long answer, and probably far more than you wanted. I apologize, therefore."
Dude, I just wanted to know when elections would be held! LOL!!!
I understand that you are addressing other folks on the thread.
From the Wall Street Journal:
"However, productivity levels per hour in France, Germany and the U.K. are nearly equal to those in the U.S. In comparing 2002 GDP-per-hour levels in the four countries with the U.S. fixed at a base of 100, France tops the list at 103, Germany comes in at 101 and the U.K. bottoms out at 79."
"Dude, I just wanted to know when elections would be held! LOL!!!"
I hope that I had the courtesy to at least answer the question you wanted answered first!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.