But what we are talking about is the fact that it's an unilateral change to the whole social compendium, which includes for instance the fact that workers are paid less in France than in other places because a lot of the services that they need to buy elsewhere are already covered by the social security net. Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income.
Twenty years of such chipping away at rights have created a new class of working poor without eliminating unemployment, because companies abuse the new categories of jobs and have never fulfilled their promise of hiring more if they got such "flexible" job options.
And as to the story, it was not about the underlying issue, but about the assumptions hidden in Pfaff's arguments. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Are they? That's interesting. Do you have any statistics?
Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income.
I did not understand that.
companies abuse the new categories of jobs and have never fulfilled their promise of hiring more if they got such "flexible" job options.
I'm generally not a pro-business person; at least in the US I wasn't. And companies have squeezed wealth out of labor to enrich, well, its top management to begin with. There is an awful lot of corporate abuse.
That said, philosophically, I'm in favor of the State helping its poor, giving them work (à la FDR), not directing the business world, which seems the automatic assumption in France (Father Knows Best).
And as to the story, it was not about the underlying issue, but about the assumptions hidden in Pfaff's arguments.
I'm with you there.
Off-topic, I think you should collect all your essays in book form.
, not directing the business world
As a matter of cultural interface I urge you to write a diary about this, because it is one of the biggest chasms between the US left and the European left.
It's a really emotive and difficult subject to communicate on, because it goes to the heart of the deepest assumptions in society. It will doubtless be a horrendously flame-filled debate, but hey, ET survived talking about Iran and Cartoons, I'm sure it can survive this one.
I will say, however, that my philosophy is for the State to provide assistance and encouragement or chastisement, not manage by proxy.
Or else let the State run its oewn business, like SNCF, Airbus, etc. Then they can make their own rules.
I think the French are really wrong over this, but it's their country. Well, mine too, now.
Exceptions for matters of public order and general welfare, of course.
As it happens, I think you're really wrong over this and claims of "management by proxy" are just hyperbole.
I'd put it to you that in fact your basic premise is that "employment relations are not in Lupin's view contributary to the health of society, therefore is no role for government in regulating them" and I would take an opposite view.
But coming back to your comment. First of all, "management by proxy". Reading the stories about CEOs retirement benefits, buy-out benefits, "golden parachuts" (? spelling), aren´t CEOs of large multinational companies acting as "proxy owners" too? (I won´t even mention their - sometimes ridiculously - huge direct and indirect salaries.)
And why are the share prices of a company rising as soon as they announce a lay-off? With nobody at a stock exchange even analyzing if the lay-offs make sense in the long term? Instead of in the next quarter?
In my experience - I´m an engineer in Germany - some of the lay-offs inevitable involve needed and important service and design personal. Giving us much poorer service and help in the future...
("Right now, we´ve got only four two-man teams available in Europe for regular service and emergency repairs. So you might have to wait a month or two..." "Well, they did retire the most senior design and construction engineers so right now we´re just scrambling to rediscover their wealth of knowledge..." "You know, the company was sold to GE - General Electric - and they suddenly raised the prices for spare parts by 300%..." Just some of the things I´ve heard in last few years.)
Of course, profits will rise in the short term - hooray for the current CEO! - but will hurt the company in the long term IMO.
Not to mention the fact that in a "hire and fire" society, not a lot of companies will spend money to educate and qualify its workers. If you do it, a competing company can just lure away your most qualified workers. Using some of the money they saved by not educating anyone. Leaving you with the costs and no profits from it.
If however firing people is made somewhat harder, it makes sense for a company to educate and qualify them for more demanding work. Provided that every company faces the same regulations. Although I do admit that the same requirements make it harder for "new" people to find employment.
It certainly isn´t a perfect solution! Let me just remind you though that Germany is doing pretty well on exports... A lot better that the USA...
Everything that makes jobs less "real" for other social purposes (pension rights, unemployment benefits, and things like finding housing) without compensation elsewhere are a direct hit on the life of those that rely only on their salary as income. I did not understand that.
What I mean is that pension rights, for instance, are proportional to the time spent in full time employment. Temporary jobs or part time jobs add almost nothing to the minimum pension you are entitled to in any case. So anything that weakens the permanent job model also weakens the living standards of future pensioners.
Another example is that of healthcare. While the big things remain covered 100%, the smaller stuff (doctor visits, basic exams, and things like the dentist or glasses) is increasingly covered through a two-tiered system: la Sécu covers a portion (typically 65%, but less for some stuff), and a mutuelle (private or mutual insurance companies) pays for the difference. Most full time jobs have a mutuelle as part of the package, whereas other kinds of jobs usually don't - so these workers need to buy that additional insurance themselves, or pay for part of their healthcare.
And so on. When you get dropped out of the full time CDI job, you drop out of the middle classes into what can quickly be a very precarious situation.
Thus the working poor and the panhandlers that are now a frequent sight in big cities - they did not exist 20 years ago, beyond the odd clochard. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
