French are pissed off at... Higher retirement age?!?

[Adorno]

No it wouldn't. There are already vast differences in productivity and generel economic policies between countries - and have been for decades.
Nothing has gone down the toilet. It's up to us to decide what kind of economy we want. And it's struggles like these in France (and hundreds of others around the world)
that determine how the labour markets are, and will be in the future.

 

[Wheem]

No it wouldn't. There are already vast differences in productivity and generel economic policies between countries - and have been for decades.
Nothing has gone down the toilet. It's up to us to decide what kind of economy we want. And it's struggles like these in France (and hundreds of others around the world)
that determine how the labour markets are, and will be in the future.

Nations with lower productivity have a lower standard of living - this is very basic economics. Assuming no subsidizing from other sources, low outputs = low returns. Starting work at 30 and retiring at 60 (presumably with benefits, rather than simply one's own savings) will severely limit the output of any nation currently in existence. There's really no way to argue otherwise.

You can't simply suspend the laws of supply and demand because it makes you feel good. Reducing work time will reduce output (assuming other factors remain the same). Reducing output will reduce supply. Reducing supply will increase prices of all domestically produced goods and services, which means that each person will be able to afford less - and perhaps have certain things priced entirely out of their reach. And this is only illustrating domestic markets - it'll limit the ability to compete internationally as well.

"Going down the crapper" doesn't necessarily mean that the entire nation will instantly collapse, but such limitations on working ages would absolutely drive down the standard of living for most of the population.

 

[Wolfang]

France is like the french speaking part of Belgium; they don't work.

 

[Adorno]

No it wouldn't. There are already vast differences in productivity and generel economic policies between countries - and have been for decades.
Nothing has gone down the toilet. It's up to us to decide what kind of economy we want. And it's struggles like these in France (and hundreds of others around the world)
that determine how the labour markets are, and will be in the future.

Nations with lower productivity have a lower standard of living - this is very basic economics.

I'm not sure how you see 'standard of living', but if we're talking poverty then a high productivity does not necessarily mean low poverty.
countries like USA and Singapore, like shown in the chart below, have a relatively high productivity, but are economically very 'uneven'.
The chart also shows violence in societies measured in homicides, to indicate the relationship between poverty and crime.
All in all a country can have a high productivity with much wealth overall, but still have a large degree of poverty and crime.


http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world#InequalityinIndustrializedNations

Notice many west Europen countries with a long tradition for well controlled job markets (negotiations between employers and unions)
and relatively low retirement age are placed down and to the left.

 

[Almalexia]

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Flanged]

USA! USA! USA!

It's a reflex!

 

[Wolfang]

USA! USA! USA!

Someone forgot to tell the US they were going the wrong way.

 

[Taimat396]

I had to spend a few minutes trying to find them on  the chart

 

[Selothi]

They start work at about 30 and are complaining that they have to retire at 62 instead of 60.

Most people here  get a job at 16 and retire at 65. Oh, and thhey get way less hours and better pensions.

That's because they fought for it to be that way.  Unlike us, they believe it is their right not to have to work all the hours god sends for a miserable pittance from an employer that couldn't give two ****s about them only to be thrown onto the scrapheap without enough money to pay their heating bills at the end of their lives.  I agree with them.  It is their right.

Maybe we should fight a bit harder for our rights. 

Then, instead of being jealous of the lazy French workers (who lazily organised multiple strikes over decades, and lazily stood on picket lines for weeks at a time, and lazily marched in the streets, and lazily faced down their armed police, and lazily embarassed and beat their long procession of sh1tty governments) we'd have the same rights as them.

Start work at thirty, retire at sixty, with shorter hours and a better pension.  I'd have no objections to that.

EDIT:  I'm serious with that argument, but not trying to be a cnut or anything.  Sorry if that post comes off as an angry rant.  It is, but not at you.

Point is: the French, due to these shorter work hours and such (along with more holiday and sick leave than at least England) have an easier life than most of the rest of the world. Moreover, when you're French, it's common to study FOREVER. It's quite easy to end up starting work at 22 as a desk jocky, and around 30 as a doctor. And of course, the "fonctionaires", that's paper pushers, basically can't get fired. The process is so annoying the boss would much rather treat you like **** but keep paying you. So once you've got a job, it'll take time to lose it unless you breach the contract rules or such.

It's fair for people who work longer hours to say "Get over it !". They've had nice rights for a loooong time, and go on strike for ANYTHING, even stuff way less serious than this, and now, the economy needs a boost, and people don't want to work longer. Hanging on to their 'laziness'.

But yeah, in regards to his policies regarding foreigners, Sarko's a ****. Although "racaille" isn't half as bad as what that bloke makes it out to be: a racaille is a chav in English, a track-suit wearing, rap-listening arab usually, who's fairly stupid, but not utter scum of the Earth, just nowaday's youth.

Blah !

 

[Flanged]

Although "racaille" isn't half as bad as what that bloke makes it out to be: a racaille is a chav in English, a track-suit wearing, rap-listening arab usually, who's fairly stupid, but not utter scum of the Earth, just nowaday's youth.

Blah !

Thanks Selothi, I did wonder if the guy was overplaying it a bit - anything described as a "verbally fascist insult" tends to raise my free-speech hackles a little bit.  But it does specifically refer to Arabs? 

  Sarko is a font of stupid.  *shakes head emoticon*

 

[Selothi]

Well, it's associated to Arabs. Any ethnicity has "racailles", but you think of the Arab chav first. Then the filthy blacks. And then the pretty fly white guys.

(EDIT: Filthy blacks is irony, god-damnit, okay ?)

 

[Flanged]

Racaillest!

 

[Flanged]

Nations with lower productivity have a lower standard of living - this is very basic economics. Assuming no subsidizing from other sources, low outputs = low returns. Starting work at 30 and retiring at 60 (presumably with benefits, rather than simply one's own savings) will severely limit the output of any nation currently in existence. There's really no way to argue otherwise.

So... what outside source was subsidizing the French nation and it's relatively high standards of living throughout all those decades of high living standards before Sarkozy came to power?  Debt?  Delusion?  The remnants of their colonial empire and it's income?  Or had the country just saved up a lot?

It seems to me that the French state, and nearly all other Western European states, are funded primarily by the taxes garnished from the earnings of their workers, plus the income from their exported produce - although export revenues are not much to shout about in western europe at the moment, as we all know. But that's another (very pertinent) story.

So...  are you really just saying that the French and the rest of us worked a lot more harder in the old days, and now we're ****e?   

BTW, Wheem, I apologise for the rubbishness of this reply.  I spent ages on it, 'cos I'm drunk as hell, but i do have real arguments against your points.  It'll have to be another time, though, 'cos this post's a write-off.
 
Christ, I even put "pertinent" in it.    Sorry.  The overall point still stands, though.

You've beaten me for now, but I'll be back!