Why Sarkozy keeps France on its short work week

It's 10 years ago this week that France adopted the 35-hour working week. You would think that a decade would be enough to decide whether the scheme, which has not been matched anywhere else, was a success or failure. Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency last year denouncing the Socialist law as a disaster and conventional wisdom holds it responsible for France's relative decline. Yet Sarkozy has no plans to scrap the world's shortest official working week, some experts defend it and millions are not prepared to give it up. What is going on ?

The 35-hour week has come with heavy costs but it has also improved life for many, especially the middle class wage-earners who benefit most from it. It's easy to see why people like it. The RTT -- extra time off during the week -- has changed family routine. It has enhanced the "work-life balance" which has deteriorated for so many in the USA, Britain and elsewhere. It helps explain why people have been able to take off so much time this month (see Lazy May, last week) 

The short week has caused the French to feel poorer. It is blamed for stagnating salaries, especially among the low-paid. Working hours were cut from 39 to 35 hours with no loss of pay. French workers are more productive than most, but this has not made up the difference in national competitiveness. The law raised costs for employers, especially smaller businesses, and played havoc with the staffing of hospitals and other public services. On the other side, employers have used the law to negotiate more flexible work practices.

Psychologically the short working week was out of phase.

Just when everyone elsewhere was working harder, the French were encouraged in the old belief that "progress" meant ever greater time off. François Fillon, Sarkozy's Prime Minister, calls the law France's greatest blunder of modern times. Yesterday leaders of Sarkozy's own Union for a Popular Movement demanded its outright abrogation.  They were immediately slapped down by the boss. Sarkozy wants to make the law more flexible while keeping it in place because it fulfills his election promise to let people "work more to earn more." This is because companies and employees have been exempted from taxes and social security charges on overtime beyond the 35 hours.

This complicated arrangement is known in French as une usine à gaz -- a 'gas factory', or an over-complicated, inefficient contraption.  There are other reasons why Sarkozy is determined to cling to a law that he abhorred. He does not want to be the French leader who reverses 150 years of acquis sociaux, or "social advancement". This was explained by Hervé Mariton, a critical parliamentarian from the President's party. "Sarkozy, at heart, is fascinated by the sense of history. For him, saying no to the 35 hours is saying no to modernity," he said in Libération.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back, despite the global crunch from which France is suffering. The Socialist party has stopped sounding embarrassed about what it once depicted as its trail-blazing law. Bertrand Delanoe, the Paris Mayor and a leading candidate to take over the party later this year, says that the 35 hour week must stay despite its drawbacks. Ségolène Royal, his chief Socialist rival, agrees.

Defenders of the short hours are reaching for other arguments. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize winner who advised Bill Clinton, has been telling France that is on the right track. In contrast, Americans work more now than they did 30 years ago but they live less well, he has been saying in media interviews. Sarkozy has recruited Stiglitz to advise on a way of including quality of life in the measurement of national wealth.

And there is another argument, which has already appeared on previous posts here. According to European Union measurements, the French with full or part-time jobs actually work more than the EU national average  -- more even than the workaholic British. In 2007, the Eurostat score was 38.1 hours for France, 37.9 for the EU, 35.5 for Germany and 36.9 for Britain. This is hard to believe, but the statistic can be explained. France has higher unemployment than average but non-workers are not counted. Britain has lower unemployment but a higher proportion in part-time jobs, who are counted. This brings down the average work week.

There are plenty of other things holding back the French economy compared with other EU states -- notably payroll taxes and inflexible labour laws. The shorter working week is just one of the factors. To sum up a complex subject, France, including its reformist president, seems intent on keeping the 35-hour week putting up with the lower prosperity for the sake of a more pleasant life.

Comments

[David Powell]

What holds France back is not the 35 hour week. I suspect that like most arbitrary laws the French would ignore it anyway if they chose to.

I feel that what holds France back is their entire politico/business structure which acts, with the best of intentions, to make the act of setting up a business an act of commercial courage far beyond that which is required in the U.K.

Basically, in the U.K. if it is legal and you pay your taxes you can do it, if you succeed great, if not, 'tant pis'

I will give you two examples of what happens in France.

When I was rebuilding my house I discovered that certain electrical items cost 8 times in France what they did in the U.K. because of past employment in the U.K I knew an Electrical Wholesaler quite well who agreed to supply me. I did a little research and found I could easily construct a database of all electrical artisans in France.

I thought that a website (which I am capable of building) followed by a mailshot to the artisans would result in a reasonably good flow of product, the householder benefiting from lower prices, the electrician from a higher margin etc.

My best friend in France is a qualified electrician so I put the idea to him. 'Oh no' he said, 'first you must get permission from so and so then from so and so ' To tell you truth his French got faster and faster and I lost touch as it were.

Had the roles been reversed it would have been easy.

The second example came about because we were going to be away for a year or so and decided to let the house. (We live in Languedoc Roussillion) An English couple turned up to see it. He was, he explained, moving his house and business, for health reason to the South of France. His business was internet based and occupied a distinctly niche market.

His business had run profitably for 10 years in the U.K.

It has taken him 2 years to get the the stage he was at where he had to make 2 separate presentations to 2 different bodies in Narbonne.

Again, if the roles had been reversed and he had asked to move from say, France to South Wales, his feet would have left the floor with the speed he would have been set up.

As an aside, my wife helped our friends daughter with her English. She passed and now this beautiful, intelligent, witty young women, with bags of 'charisma' is, we are proudly informed, well on the way to be a qualified 'fonctionnaire'

There is a culture in France which I cannot explain. A nation of intelligent, sometimes brilliant people have tied themselves and their nation up in knots.

Whether Sarkozy can cut these know and liberate them I don't know, but I have sneaking doubts that they don't want him to,

[Ros]

They have not" tied themselves and their nation up in knots.' - they have been passively tied up in knots for decades - that is the whole problem.

[qwerty]

Thanks for the stats on the workweek comparison, Charles, I will immediately advise Léon Mercadet of Canal Plus.

[Léo]

to David P.

David, I don't understand your arguments. Although a visceral opponent of the 35 hours work week, I believe that the "difficult to set up a business in France" story just to be a folk tale. My wife and I set up an internet based business in Paris 5 years ago. It took me half a day for all the red tape to be completed. We were immediately in business and I am glad to report no bureaucracy whatsoever prevented us from nicely growing our business which is now providing France and us :) with a much needed albeit still small flow of foreign currency.
I would gladly agree that a lot needs to be changed in the labour relations area and that I would be pleased to pay less taxes, but doing business here is not difficult.
I think a lot of the sad stories we hear about have to do with the lack of a can do attitude amongst my compatriots.

[Daniel Strohl]

Charles has made as usual an excellent and unbiased summary and explanation of the situation in our country.

"whether the scheme, which has not been matched anywhere else" (Charles)

Of course, we are always the best; the best can not be matched :))

What can not be matched too is the narrow mindedness of some of our unions - I am thinking right now of the docker CGT union. Their intransigence leads to more and more loss of traffic in favour of competing harbours like Genova, Valencia, Antwerp and so on.

DAVID POWELL,

There is a simple explanation of the reasons why everything is so complicated in France : we have many fonctionnaires - one (i.e they) has to keep them busy making rules and trying to enforce them. And if one tries to simplify rules, new additional rules appear at once. And if there are too many fonctionnaires in a given sector, they can not be transfered, because of "les statuts", in another sector lacking of fonctionnaires. Crazy!

[qwerty]

Léo is right, things have loosened up in France. It is now possible to constitute a company without funding a share capital; the formalities take a couple of hours; registration is effective within 1-2 weeks but the company is operative as soon as the articles have been signed; and the Companies register takes care of all the red tape for you by doing the dispatching to all the relevant social organisms (tax, Urssaf...).

[rocket]

David

In France you start the business and start banking the money. Once this has happened the proper administrations will get wind and believe me, your business will be set up in record time and you'll be paying social charges.

Letter head with appropriate tax numbers etc...."en cours"

If you wait for each fonctionnaire to give you the go ahead. You'll never get off the ground.

In other words...When in France....

[richard jones]

Mr. Powell - bora da! Ros is absolutely right. This has been going on since Napoleon I. His concept of a successful elitist France has paid off even the Rousseauesque caveat that the élite must act in the interests has been kinda followed. The result is a self-perpetuating elite that gives the people what they want - more or less - even if it is bad for France - to prevent being unseated.
In turn an élite that has generally served the people quite well has imbued the non-élite with the idea that the élite is 'almost' always right and France would be far worse off 'disélited'.
Things have changed in the world today.
This system today results in a state managed economy and social structure, an introverted attitude to the rest of the world, an inbred resistance to any change, a belief that only strong central political power will work.
To Léo - no idea what your nationality is - but have discovered in my 37 years in France (Athens now) on the Swiss border that the ease with which people I knew became 'indépendent' was a function of their nationality and their abilities in French. Many of these people gave up and took their talents to a much more liberal (since les bilats.) Switzerland and generally did well there.
To get back to the blogtopic. Sarko, unless he can turn back the people to his ideas and regain the popularity he had at his inauguration will fail in all his reforms - 35 hour week included. And the longer the current socio-politico-economic situation continues in France the more impossible reform will become to the point where eventually there will be revolution and of an intensity beyond 1968 but let's hope a dilution of 1789.
France does not deserve any of the preceding sentence.

[Dominique]

The entire french working philosophy lies in one idea : "bring the money first, then i'll work" while the rest of the world is working the other way aroud : "work first, then you'll get the money".

[rocket]

Speaking of short work weeks. Could someone explain why only French Fishermen are blockading the ports and not the fishermen from other European countries. Isn't everyone paying the same price for fuel?

[Robert Marchenoir]

"To sum up a complex subject, France, including its reformist president, seems intent on keeping the 35-hour week putting up with the lower prosperity for the sake of a more pleasant life." (Charles Bremner)

There is an important caveat to be made here. This trade-off could be legitimate if it meant:

1) People give up a little of material wealth prospects, but are still able to afford the necessities of life and somewhat beyond;

2) Everybody has access to such wealth and relaxed lifestyle, not only members of certain classes;

3) The trade-off has been explicitely proposed in so many words by the powers that be, and it has been explicitely accepted by the majority in a democratic vote.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, what is happening is this:

1) Only the privileged middle-class is in a position to benefit from the deal.

In order to be part of this group, you must either a) work in the private sector with a CDI (indefinite work contract, which is one of the most sought-after pieces of paper these days, and does not come easily), work in one of the few dynamic parts of the economy (being a factory operator in manufacturing won't do), and preferably be hired by a big, multinational company.

2) Upper-middle management in large companies gets the sweetest deal of all: they have the big salary, the good career opportunities, the nice ego-boosting job, and they still benefit from the 35-hour week. Theirs is really a case of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

3) Civil servants are in a similar position, even if their jobs are not as rewarding. They are protected from unemployment, and in many cases the 35-hour week meant an actual increase of their workload -- at least in theory. God knows what crooked and hidden arrangements were devised in order not to make them work more, à la "2 minutes and 30 seconds more per day", SNCF-style.

This had two effects: disorganise thoroughly certain public services where people actually worked hard before (hospitals come to mind), and give an added, totally undue privilege to employees in departments where they were not overwhelmed by work, to use a wild understatement.

The net effect is totally negative. You cannot even count on the civil servants' gratitude. Don't expect a "thank you" to the nation. Instead, you get the "Sandrine attitude": the more you give them, the more they grunt, whine and display this sense of agressive entitlement that is so reminiscent of spoilt, misbehaved children.

4) All the other classes of the nation lose on the deal.

It's a hindrance to big companies, but they can manage it. Thanks to their size, they can summon similar talent to fill the gaps when their workers leave on RTT. Thanks to their large management ranks, they can devise the devilishly complex organisations needed to cope. Thanks to their R&D departments, they can develop new technologies in order to boost productivity.

And finally, they can also chose to delocalise part of their activities -- and they certainly do. Shall I mention that it was also a financial windfall to them when the scheme came up -- you got very attractive tax exemptions if you went that route (no nitpicking, please: by taxes, I mean taxes and/or social security contributions -- it's all money going to the state, anyway).

So the problem here is these corporations have had an incentive to develop employment abroad and to slash it locally. I don't know if someone actually researched that issue and came up with figures, but it would definitely be worth looking into.

For small and middle-sized companies, the 35-hour week was a disaster. They got the full brunt of the new rule. They did not have the size to dampen the blow, nor the possibility to switch tasks abroad. This has certainly resulted in jobs lost, or not created.

Another, very negative effect, which is rarely mentioned because it is very difficult to measure, is that it has become impossible to get work done.

Try and get someone on the phone, in a company you make business with, and suddenly, one time out of two, he is on RTT. Can I speak to someone else? Is there anyone in charge? No Sir, you'll have to wait till he comes back.

Similarly, no business can be done starting from Friday afternoon -- when it's not Thursday evening. The people you need to speak to are off, or preparing to bolt through the door -- same effect.

A similar thing occurs within a company. You cannot hold a proper meeting anymore. There is always someone missing, happily RTT'ing it away in a nicer place.

Will someone please spare a thought for independant professionals and owners of small businesses, whose operations got less profitable and more difficult, while themselves work 50, 60-hours weeks or more -- it's sink or swim for them, and no finely-tuned work-leisure balance to be seen.

And of course, there is the big mass that nobody talks about when discussing this marvelous work-leisure balance allowed by the 35-hour week: all the unemployed, all the youngsters losing their time and the nation's money in dead-end university studies such as "Clown Arts" (I kid you not), in order to delay the time unemployment will hit them in the face, all these drop-outs living on benefits, all the immigrants propping up walls all day long (when not engaging in more nefarious activities).

That's the dark side of Mr. Stiglitz "right track". When you make business so much more difficult and costly, when you add such a cost to a civil service which is already a huge burden to the country and confiscates a enormous part of the national wealth to no avail, you create a class of insiders who benefit from the system, but you also get an underclass, which is rejected beyond the gates of the former's golden, cosy community, with less and less hope to get on the other side.

The 35-hour week has brought more riches to the rich and more leisure to the privileged, at the expense of the poor, the young, the uneducated, the unconnected, the immigrants.

And never forget: it's the socialists who did it.

I wonder whether Mr. Stiglitz, Nobel prize and all, has managed to persuade one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States to campaign for a 35-hour week. If he has, it has totally escaped me.

[Sam Young]

Here is an interactive table of worldwide economic rankings, where countries are rated on a number of factors ("Ease of Doing Business" ; "Starting a Business", "Employing Workers", etc).

The best score for France is under "Starting A Business" (position 12) and the worst is "Registering Property" (position 159, i assume this is referring to patents and the like). It also does very badly in the category "Employing Workers" (position 144).

Link:
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/

Having worked as a self-employed person in 4 different countries, this table does indeed reflect what i have found: setting up a Business was made easy under the Jean-Pierre Raffarin Government, but the taxes are too high, and hiring people is both high risk and costly.

Regarding the 35-hour work week, i have found that it is ignored to a large extent in the private sector, but not in the public sector, thus increasing antagonism.

[Mary Fernandez]

Well, if they want to work 35 hours a week than that's up to them; just don't cry when it hits the pocket book.

Something about cake and eating too should go here but I always thought if you have cake, why shouldn't you eat it? So, let them eat cake!

[Edmund Lazar]

To comment on Léon's optimistic view on the speed of French bureaucracy, it took them 4 months to replace my lost Carte de Sejour, (French ID Card). Once they lost my application, and when they notified me that it is ready to be picked up, they failed to tell me to bring certain papers, so I had to go twice.

[Ros]

Dominique: "The entire french working philosophy lies in one idea : "bring the money first, then i'll work" while the rest of the world is working the other way aroud : "work first, then you'll get the money" - Maybe but remember that a very large proportion of people in UK live on CREDIT cards which is the same as having a permanent overdraft in France ...

[Léo]

to Edmund,

I was on the issue of starting a business, an area about which I know something. Not on replacing a carte de séjour, a chore from which, as a French citizen, I am being exempted. Although I know that the way immigrants are treated by our fonctionnaires is unconscionable.

to Robert:

Thanks for a thourough and perfectly exact rendition of the 35 hours work week situation. I encourage those who might have skipped it to carefully read it. All is there

[christopher muir]

In countries like America and Australia where long working hours are encouraged, one sees frazzled employees caught in endless traffic jams. Mostly, after five p.m., they are heading (many in SUVs) from the city centre to very distant outer suburban homes. These areas are generally bereft of public transport. Workers are finding themselves increasingly trapped between long working hours, heavy vehicle use and rising oil prices. It's a nasty mixture which could lead to all sorts of social problems. Family break-ups are apparently not decreasing. Give me the French outlook any time - that is, to ponder about the quality of life.

[FC]

Léo, Qwerty and others, if setting up a business in France has become easier then I'd hate to have had to set up under the old system. It's still a colmplete nightmare.

[Robert Marchenoir]

I forgot to mention this very important consequence of the 35-hour week. Charles Bremner correctly wrote it was a trade-off between money and leisure.

Unfortunately, the people at the bottom of the ladder in the private sector usually need more extra money than extra leisure.

But the downfall of the 35-hour week was that suddenly, salaries got stuck, with no hope of a raise. Since the law made it compulsory for businesses to diminish the work schedule without lowering the pay accordingly, obviously the bosses were not about to raise it, either!

But this very simple bit of economics was too difficult for the socialists to comprehend.

Socialists do not believe in simple things. Reality is to be made complex: then you need a socialist to try and sort it out -- and usually make a mess out of it.

Also, socialists do not believe in economics. Economics is a Right-Wing Thing. It Should Not Exist, therefore it Does Not Exist.

As a result, people on low wages found themselves with more time off, but no money to make the better of it. These are the very same people the socialists pretend to fight for.

At the same time, better paid workers had the opportunity to multiply three or four-day vacations to exotic destinations, not to mention taking the kids out to the movies, visiting museums, taking up aïkido lessons, etc. All that with no pay loss.

You bet this part of the population is clinging to the 35-hour week!...

As for civil servants, they usually do not have the option to put up extra hours in order to be paid more; overzealous work ethics are generally discouraged; and their wage raises are decided nationally, with a little help from your friendly next-door Marxist union. So they might as well take advantage of the nice four-day weekends.

That law was a bourgeois measure crafted by the bourgeois Left in order to further their own interests and lifestyle. The working-class claptrap is a travesty.

[vpca]

Concerning the average working time, there is so much difference between the working hour of a technician/employee/engineer in small size company and a civil servant in a typical French town hall that the statistical average just means that some works much harder than other, let alone the consideration on the usefulness of many French civil servant tasks !

Excellent summary by Robert Marchenoir on the knuts and bolts of the 35 hours working week. It was a economical nonsense in 1999 for the workers. It has cost a lot of money to the taxpayers to maintain the salary. It has not created sustainable and real jobs in the long run. It did not stop the French industry to destroy jobs either by delocalization or by simply closing down sites. But was it reallly so bad for large/global companies ? I really believed that in the long run the short week has been a bonanza for them. Who ever said that the short week was for the workers benefit ? was it really the goal or was it just a very smart way of renegotiating the whole web of complex French labour laws ? I still wonder it was not a superb "coup" of the MEDEF (at that time run by ex CEO of very large french companies). If so well done !
Anyhow, Do we really want to move backward with all the costs that will be associated with such a move ?
Let's widen the discussion ! is the average working time a critical parameter in the globalized business competition ? I believe it is not, it is just a parameter amongst many others. The only problem in France is that the other parameters are as ill-optimized !
To finish with this point, I believe that the 35 hours working week will remain but probably very much of the social welfare protecting the workers is going to be scrapped bit by bit.

[David Powell]

Leo says 'to David P.

David, I don't understand your arguments. Although a visceral opponent of the 35 hours work week, I believe that the "difficult to set up a business in France" story just to be a folk tale. My wife and I set up an internet based business in Paris 5 years ago. It took me half a day for all the red tape to be completed. We were immediately in business and I am glad to report no bureaucracy whatsoever prevented us from nicely growing our business which is now providing France and us :) with a much needed albeit still small flow of foreign currency.'

I accept that I have not started up a business in France, but believe me, the 2 stories I gave you are true.

My friend, (who trained as an electrician) and who spoke about all the difficulties in setting up the business has a few hectares of vines, 2 apartments and his wife runs the local epicerie. He complains bitterly about the rules and regulations, for example to employ someone to help his wife in the shop would cost more then the wages of the person employed, so when they holiday, 2 separate weeks per year, the shop is closed. They live a long way from 35 hours weeks and long holidays. But that was his reaction.

The man from Britain has a niche business so unusual that to describe it would identify him so I am reluctant to do so. Unless he was a complete liar about the length of time and the 2 meetings where he had to prove his financial stability and that he would not deleteriously affect French jobs, (providing his own interpreter),there is something seriously wrong.

It is quite possible that you are right, but if so then there seems to be a complete lack of awareness of the situation, in this part of France at least.

However, the culture remains, and it seems to me, that this is what is dragging France down. A culture where individual enterprise and hard work is penalised and where the crafty student, ('bison fute?') views a life as a senior functionnaire as the best option.

[azloon]

Robert M

Bingo

[Daniel Strohl]

Does anyboldy recall that in May 1981 when Mitterrand's reign started, we Frenchmen had already the luck to get at once a "Ministère du Temps Libre" (Free Time Ministry!)?

If anybody is interested to know details regarding the planned "philosophy" of this ministère, hereafter a link to an interview of André Henry, the first minister and a former boss of the FEN (Fédération de l'Education Nationale). However, as far as I remember, the ministry was discarded one or to years later...
http://ourouk.aamset.com/result_frame.php?catalogueID=5723

DOMINIQUE,

"The entire french working philosophy lies in one idea : "bring the money first, then i'll work" while the rest of the world is working the other way aroud : "work first, then you'll get the money".

Dominique, you deserve the favourite sentence of my math teacher "You are on a soapy and slippery slope" (Strohl, vous êtes sur la pente glissante et savonneuse!) - this means that if you continue like that, you will have turned within two years into a staunch supporter of Sarkozy:))

[azloon]

"You are on a soapy and slippery slope" - Daniel's math(s)* teacher

Daniel, this is somewhat of a redundancy in english, tho brits may use this expression. americans say simply 'on a slippery slope.' but i like 'soapy' better, and plan to start saying 'he/she is on a soapy slope.' "soapy' makes it sounds as though your path to trouble might be a little more fun.

*why do brits say 'maths' rather than 'math.' and are the french taught that the shortened english form of 'mathematics' is 'maths.'

going by this pattern of abbreviation, 'economics' should be abbreviated 'econs' rather than as 'econ' (as it is applied to the course of study in the u.s.).

[rocket]

Robert

This may help a little. But in fact the jury is out. Info only to 2001.

http://www.cairn.info/resume_p.php?ID_ARTICLE=REOF_094_0131

"From 1980 to 2002, French industry lost 1,450,000 jobs. The growth of imports from emerging countries suggests that trade with them might be the culprit. First, however, one must correct the raw employment loss number from the effect of the rise of temporary work and domestic outsourcing: thus corrected, the industrial job loss is reduced to 1,095,000. Offshore relocations to emerging countries are not well measured. They have entailed only 45,000 job losses between 1995 and 2001. Second, the paper reviews the evaluations of job losses linked to trade with emerging countries in general. Three methods have been used: the job content of trade, econometric studies and macro-economic models. None is fully satisfying. They indicate that there would be between 150,000 and 300,000 additional industrial jobs in France but for the rise of trade with emerging countries."

Robert

following ISF delocalisations

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/ISF%202008%20corrig%E9.pdf

[rocket]

Christoper

you are speaking about America here

"These areas are generally bereft of public transport. Workers are finding themselves increasingly trapped between long working hours, heavy vehicle use and rising oil prices"

Have you ever taken the "periph" or tried coming into Paris by car at rush hour. I think you would find the the problems encountered in Ile de France are the same in any big city in the US. Ex. 90 minutes average from Marne la Vallé to La Porte Maillot. Or 90 minutes from Chilly Mazarin to Pont de Sevres. The distances may be shorter in Greater Paris but the travelling time is the same. As far as the suburban train commute. The average time is about one hour. The same as in Tokyo. I won't even get into rainy days in Paris when people forget how to drive.

If you live in the French countryside than traveling time is about the same as when I lived in Charlottesville Virginia.

Another point that I would like to bring up but to the attention of those who claim that France has such a wonderful quality of life ( I'm an independant so I make my own quality of life) If the quality of life is so good why is France the number one consumer in the world of anti depressant drugs.

What I enjoy (from my own personal point of view) is the richness of cultural and geographical diversity in France in a small area which is accessible by train in often under three hours. Even the Northern suburbs of Paris are architecturally different than the southern suburbs. (45 mins by highway to Compiegne and you are in a different world than Paris) The fact that I can be in Spain in 90 mins is a real pleasure. So the geographical and cultural diversity in a small area is certainly different than for example in the US where you can drive for 6 hours Miami to Jacksonville Florida and not see one hill only Exxon, Texaco gas stations and McDonalds and Burger Kings in repetitive fashion every 5 miles.

I used to worked in Chalons en Chapagne one day a week and would drive to Belgium ( Bouillon) just to have a "moule frite" and a beer or two or three or four.

It seems to me that France is the most culturally and geographically diverse of all European countries which gives her immense charm and attractive powers.

So for me as an American because of this diversity it often seems as if every day is a holiday even after 31 years here. I know that for Europeans it is perceived as normal. I know many French that have never even been to Belgium or Holland or Switzerland or were just passing through. Amazing!

[BRuno]

David Powell,

Does the fact that your friend's niche in Brittany is unusual may explain some of the difficulties he met setting up is business?

[Léo]

FC

Can you explain the nightmare you recently went through when starting a business? My experience dated December 13, 2003 from 2:00 to 6:00 p.m. is very different. 4 hours. Period.

David P.
Concerning your electrician friend I understand your point. The problem does not lie in the difficulties to start a business but in the sometimes silly labour laws. Especially for people with multiple low margin activities who are prevented from hiring help.
Personal disclosure: when we created our business we decided we would have no salaried personnel. All our help would be provided by contracted workers, independent like us. We achieved the double benefit of peace of mind and a shared outlook on life with the people we employ. Of course you can't do that in a grocery store but I am sure there are lots of activities where it is possible. And there is a ray of hope: the birth of new businesses is burgeoning like hell. Others seem to have gotten the message.

Concerning your British friend, I obviously cannot understand the problem for lack of details. But as Bruno said, maybe the "unusual" nature of his business would have warranted unusual bureaucratic screening. Very mysterious:)

I believe you have a point when you link the overall problem to cultural attitudes. Not disdain for hard work. So many people work hard here and are respected for it. Think of your electrician friend. But an entrenched belief that salaried work is exploitation. The employer / employee relationship is viewed as essentially unbalanced. As a vivid example the Cour de Cassation (court of last resort) Labour case Law is obviously predicated on the belief that the employee is weak and a toy in the hands of the employers. The 35 hours work week was but the icing on the cake: let's prevent employers from overexploiting the salaried People. As for the independents, they are their own masters and are free to work as long as they wish. Add to that an effective but costly safety net in the form of a myriad of benefits which is financed by levies on wages and you have a recipe for not changing.

To Rocket

Indeed French exceptional quality of life is a fairytale. I guess it must have been invented by British retirees who compare their 3 hours commute on the M25 with their life in Castelsarazin and the price of a pint of stout with a litre of plonk at the local cooperative. LIfe style is a different story. But I start treading on slippery (soapy?) ground...

[thinknoworpaylater]

ROBERT Marchenoir - *Socialists do not believe in Economics. Economics is a Right Wing Thing etc.* For Gods sake the major analysts of Economics have been left - wing or Socialists . Stop referring to Adam Smith or Ayn Rand. Smith started the argument and Rand developed it. But Economics is not Physics its not science in that sense its not an absolute account, its a human science and as such open to discussion and argument. (And Im not saying that Physics isnt discussed its just that the terms of the discussion are not testable in the same way). As we see now Capitalism and Economic Theory are in some difficulty - instability is the current feature not self correction. We are looking at a major economic problem (inflation etc. ) This is not caused by the unions so forget that for the moment: this is hitting people pretty hard. The demodraphic distribution of the population in France (long journeys to work or school) is going to cause major problems. I have afriend who takes his child to Avignon every day - a round journey of about 135 kms . ROCKET may say its like being in Charlottesville - the same time of travel but petrol is much more expensive in France than it is in Amrrica - how can you ignore that? AND Bingo sums it up - wonderful you idiot! There are serious times coming up and all you can say is Charlottesville and Bingo!

[Dominique]

Rocket,

"If the quality of life is so good why is France the number one consumer in the world of anti depressant drugs."

Easy : it is because we are the lowest consumer in the world of anti depressant religions. This is clearly a sign of good quality of life to me!

If i can choose between drugs and religion, i take drugs!

[rocket]

thinknoworpaylater

"ROCKET may say its like being in Charlottesville - the same time of travel but petrol is much more expensive in France than it is in Amrrica"

Not any more my friend!

$4.20 per gallon in US

Dominique

I am really beginning to like your sense of humor. SERIOUS!

Thus there is hope for me NON?

[azloon]

[If i can choose between drugs and religion, i take drugs!] Dominique

has it occurred to you that you don't have to choose?

[V]

Dominique:
"Easy : it is because we are the lowest consumer in the world of anti depressant religions."

Depressing must come from having to deal with foreigners with SUCH bad taste in music - besides the high tone voice, that is :)

[qwerty]

Dominique:
Unlike God, chemical anti-depressants have at least been researched and found to have some scientific foundation. Religion has purely a placebo effect.

N.B. #1 sales on Amazon in the US is "The Shack", a novel about "finding God in a shack" (sic). It must be in Americans' genes, after all they are the survivors of the pre-Mayflower persecutions of the rigidly religious.

[Lily]

"If i can choose between drugs and religion, i take drugs!"

Salvation French style: available on prescription only! :(

[richard jones]

To Thinknowpaylater,

I would suggest that if you were to ask any so called economist of earlier than WWI they would have said they were philosophers studying the real daily lives and struggles of the human condition.
Economists don't seem to start until John Maynard Keynes.
My Economics professor in the late 40's used to say ' If all the economists in the world were laid end to end round the Equator....' long gap, '...it would be a very good thing.'

[thinknoworpaylater]

ROCKET - Itmay be that petrol in the U.S. costs $4.20 a U.S. gallon. But converting galls to litres (3.785 litres) gives a price of 5.45 Euros which converted back into dollars (exchange rate 1 euro - 1.57 dollars) gives a figure of around 8.59 dollars for the equivalent of a U.S. gallon bought in France. This is roughly twice the price being paid in the States. So it IS more expensive for many french people who have to travel forwork. RICHARD JONES - fair point though most economists today would probably claim a direct line of succession from their antecedents.

[Phil Linehan]

Is the Honeymoon Already Over?

The French thought their future would surely be rosy
when they elected as president Nicolas Sarkozy.
When he was saying he would make France great again,
I thought I was listening to Monsieur Le Pen.

He would admit no immigrant not specially selected
and who to a qualifying test had not been subjected.
He promised he would take only the best and well trained
leaving the countries that educated them completely brain drained.

So he swept onto the stage with terrific élan
and confidently set out his reformist plan.
But while he was claiming his country would return to its earlier gloire
his wife Cecélia was walking straight out the door.

She was not at all thrilled being a president’s spouse
if it meant visiting George and Laura at their country house.
Though her husband considered such a pilgrimage cool
to her it was punishment both unusual and cruel.

Some people were astonished she had turned up her nose
at the chance to stand beside Bush and for a photo-op pose.
But others were not at all surprised that she would dump
a guy who leads a party known as the UMP*.

When she made her departure and went on her way
her abandoned husband could only kneel down and pray.
But he soon bounced back from being lovelorn
with the help of pal George who had been reborn.

So Nicolas began to talk about a Power that is Higher,
words hitherto unheard of from a French very high flyer.
May we assume, then, that it was the Father Above
who urged him to go out and start looking for yet another new love?

So, once more he became a most ardent pursuer
and began to look around for another model, but newer.
He sought the advice of those in the swing
about how to embark on his very next fling.

Who better than Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger and The Donald himself
to ask whether they could help him get down off the shelf.
They were glad to assist the guy they consider a chum
recognising in him the flash pop star he now had become.

One name they all repeated over and over
and told him if he met her he’d be rolling in clover.
A meeting was arranged and to his astonished delight
Nico found himself, once more, in love at first sight.

This time with Carla Bruni, a supermodel of the very best rank
and, even better, with loads of cash stashed in a bank.
So Sarkosy who, unlike the others, never in fact knew her,
was quick off the mark as he set out to woo her.

She yielded at once and, as she fell into his arms,
all wondered exactly what were his charms.
A marriage soon followed and vows were exchanged
as voters asked whether their new president was becoming deranged.

They soon discovered that he left Carla swooning
as he serenaded her with his karaoke crooning.
And the spectators were not impressed one little bit
when at a farm show he swore at a man who would not shake his mitt.

Alas, the honeymoon did not last very long
and Sarko began to ask himself where he had gone wrong.
No, not the one he shared with the new Mrs. S.
But the one he had been enjoying with the hacks of the press.

When they discovered his blustering talk was not followed by action
they pondered on what the devil had been his attraction.
As the polls showed his voters were feeling let down
he was spotted night after night as he was out on the town.

At the Palace Carla was removing her Versace thong
and Nico was warbling a Johnny Halliday song.
As outside the people were clamouring for something to be done
their president told them they should eat a nice brioche bun.

So this is the story of how things went so awry
for the smart politician who was riding so high.
While he was telling his voters his head is screwed on the right way,
he was showing them that his feet are made out of clay.

*Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP)

[dot king]

RICHARD J: I have this very afternoon helped a pupil to answer a history question on the views of one Leroy-Beaulieu. We had to go and consult a computer, which told us he was an economist born (if I remember correctly) in 1843 - However this could well be a modern-day interpretation (Wikipedia) of his rôle and influence - all about supply and demand and creating competition.
Only a matter of luck that I stayed awake . . . :)

[Daniel Strohl]

Rocket,

"I am really beginning to like your sense of humor. SERIOUS!"

I had also a good laugh!

[rocket]

thinknoworpaylater

I am shocked at you elementary economic thinking. You cannot measure quality of life by floating forex exchange rates. Tomorrow if one euro equals 4 dollars I'll be a millionaire in US dollars but still "un pauvre con" in Europe.

[rocket]

thinknoworpaylater

I must admit I am somewhat perplexed as per your logic but not at all surprised.

On the one hand you say

"I guess it must have been invented by British retirees who compare their 3 hours commute on the M25 with their life in Castelsarazin"

What allows you to say that the British commute for 3 hours other than emotionalism for the sake of proving you are either right or that you are from Marseilles. Castelsarazin is not London and the Midlands are not Paris so I guess commuting time in the midlands is less than Paris. Chheech!

and on the next you bitch

"I have afriend who takes his child to Avignon every day - a round journey of about 135 kms . ROCKET may say its like being in Charlottesville - the same time of travel but petrol is much more expensive in France than it is in Amrrica - how can you ignore that?"

I can ignore it and and I will!

First of all I would be willing to bet you that your friend pays less ( in constant euros 1.18/dollar) to travel the same distance in France - minus tolls which are very expensive in France than someone in the US would pay to travel the same distance in the United States. (Please don't say that the distances are in miles in the US or I will really die laughing)

European cars are more fuel efficient than American cars and much lighter.

If you had recently rented a car in the US you would realize that the average gas tank holds about 20 + gallons X $4/gallon = $80 or about 68 € in constant euros at inception forex rate. An American car can travel about approximately 400 km on a full tank. An average car in France for example may hold 50 litres or about 12.5 gallons if you are lucky and gets about 25% better gas mileage than the same American car. Thus the slight difference in a euro equivalent gas price at euro inception price/dollar is nullified because of superior European gas mileage The same type of French car on 80$ equivalent at inception in euros can go about 500km. I'm talking about French midsized cars. If you want to discuss compacts than they get even better mileage.

If your friend has a problem let him get a motorcycle in that case.

So if the quality of life is so much better in France why is this gentleman driving his son 135km per day? To go to school?

PS

But converting galls to litres (3.785 litres) gives a price of 5.45 Euros which converted back into dollars (exchange rate 1 euro - 1.57 dollars) gives a figure of around 8.59 dollars for the equivalent of a U.S. gallon bought in France.

This is irrelevant $5.45 means you can purchase goods and services in the US for an equivalent of $8.59 as you say, but a gallon of gasoline is only half that price in USD. So were you like a math whizz in school?

Sorry but if this is how your figure out equivalences, you need to go back to school. illico

If the dollar drops to 1.8 against the euro which is a possiblity than you are saying that the equivalent of one gallon of gas in France will suddenly be approximately $10.8/gallon or if the dollars drops to 2 against the euro the price equivalent will be $12/gallon

Why didn't you catch that gasoline at $4.2 per gallon = 4.2 X 0.633630 euro cts = 2.661246 euros/gallon at today's rate OR IN OTHER WORDS APPROX 0.66 euro/litre . This however does not reflect true purchasing power as the forex rate fluctuates daily. You seem to believe that domestic purchasing power is subservient to straight line forex rate calculation.

Your argumentation is easily deconstructed for the simple reason that Americans are not paid in Euros and the French are not paid in dollars in case you didn't already know.

Is this what you call creative accounting in France?

[thinknoworpaylater]

ROCKET - Firstly I didnt say anything about the M25 or Castelrazin or where-ever. You are confounding me with someone else on this. Still no matter. On the other point my neighbour drives to Avignon because there is a better more specialised lycee there and anyway France is increasingly centralising its schools and hospitals in what (as I said is a dispersed population). There is no toll (Motorway) from here to Avignon. You haven't really dealt with the fact that petrol costs more in France and Europe generally than in the U.S. largely because of higher taxes here on fuel. The points about tank sizes and car sizes is irrelevant - we are talking here about peoples' normal uses of an increasingly expensive commodity. My point was and remains - petrol costs more here than in the U.S. You think it would be clever to drive a kid to school on a motorbike in the winter? And you are the maths whizz (or Business studies Master) not me. But if everything else is held constant (which it isnt) it would still be true that it's costing French people more to travel than in the U.S. in terms of petrol and they do have long distances to travel. In any case you seem to be saying that life is cheaper generally in France. Yes but wages here are lower than they are in the U.S. Forex rates fluctuate - big deal! But they dont fluctuate as much as the price of petrol has in the last few months. Of course the French are not paid in dollars- whoever said they were. You said petrol costs $4.20 a gall. in the U.S. I say petrol costs over the equivalent of $8 dollars here in real terms. Answer that. And P.S. by the way deconstruction is a term first used by Jacques Derrida some thirty odd years ago : *Deconstruction cannot by definition be defined, since it presupposes the indefinability or, more properly, undecidability of all conceptual or generalizing terms. Deconstruction, like any other method of interpretation, can only be exemplified, and the examples will of course all differ.* (J.H.Miller) Of course we can all say that a word means what I say it means but I dont think you quite mean deconstruction.

[dot king]

Erm, hi there, I know I'm just some dumb broad, but what's Forex?

When I was a schoolgirl, I had a Saturday and holiday job in a chemist's shop, and each Saturday morning the same customer (a man) would come in and ask for three products, each of which, to my 15-year-old mind seemed to cancel out the other two: Farex, Tampax, Durex.

Well, like I said, just some dumb broad :)

[rocket]

Think Now

"Forex rates fluctuate - big deal!"

With this type of response - ENOUGH SAID! (see below)

"*Deconstruction cannot by definition be defined, since it presupposes the indefinability or, more properly, undecidability of all conceptual or generalizing terms. Deconstruction, like any other method of interpretation, can only be exemplified, and the examples will of course all differ.* (J.H.Miller) Of course we can all say that a word means what I say it means but I dont think you quite mean deconstruction."

Please check

http://tinyurl.com/636jg6

From American Heritage Dictionary

"A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" (Rebecca Goldstein)."

In fact I wanted to say "destroy your argument" but I was trying to be polite. (smile)

"And you are the maths whizz (or Business studies Master) not me."

I am no math whizz but I do know enough about forex to understand it's effect on the marketplace and in your life and mine.

And I do understand with a global forex market at over 3 trillion dollars daily (That's daily)that the market is an important determiner in currency speculation and devaluation.

"You said petrol costs $4.20 a gall. in the U.S. I say petrol costs over the equivalent of $8 dollars here in real terms. Answer that."

On which calculation basis? What are your constants and what are your floating costs.

I can't answer that because you have denied the importance of forex so I have no basis of argumentation with you.

[thinknoworpaylater]

ROCKET - thanks for the reference to tinyurl- I'll look at it later, its lunchtime! My point was that Forex rates fluctuate up and down BUT that petrol is only going one way - up. Some experts think to $200 a barrel. ON DECONSTRUCTION my objection wasn't to your point about *destroying* my argument (even with all the riders/complications you offer) - obviously that was your point. It was really about the casual use of terms that have another genealogy. But I havent denied the importance of Forex - just that things are going to get heavy here in France. Blockades at refinery ports by fisherman (though I note that C.B. hasnt done a post on it - is this because they are not fonctionnaires?) probably followed by blockades on roads by truckers which can cause shortages. And in addition rising prices for basic foodstuffs. You can play with the maths all you like but that seems to be the way its going.And really, I guess, I dont see how Sarkozy can handle it which is why I started blogging here. But then no other European Govt. can either in the current mixed economy climate. As I said before taxes on fuel in the U.S. are lower than they are here - this is the key cause of the difference in price since as you rightly say this is a global market. It's the instability of Capitalism that I'm trying to draw attention to and the harm that causes because it's not self-correcting except in the long run and as we know we'll all be dead in the long run. But I admire your consistency and your conviction (I mean that), even if I beg to differ about the consequences. If I've touched a nerve excuse my accuracy (smile). Its not easy being a Cassandra! O.K. - stay cheerful - and anyway I like the badinage.

[rocket]

thinknoworpaylater

No problem for me. I also enjoy discussing with you.