Back in 1998 the newly installed Socialist government in France, faced with 12.4% unemployment (in France that means the real unemployment was probably over 30%), came up with a clever plan to create more jobs. They'd shorten the length of the work week from 39 hours to 35 hours and theoretically thereby create 10% more jobs. 'Brilliant' cried the French. Now, in addition to our two months of paid vacation and national holidays, we get off half an hour earlier on those few days we actually have to go to work.
For Americans who don't quite understand this concept, unlike here where the 40 hour work week is just a sort of working standard and many workers get to work overtime or flextime to earn more money, in the EU there are specific caps set on how long you can work and overtime is basically illegal. So this 35 hour work week in France meant that if you worked more than 35 hours you were actually committing a crime and could be prosecuted. This is an alien concept to those of us who live in a capitalist country, but pretty standard for Europe. It's even written into the treaty that the EU is governed under, though the Europe-wide cap is a 48 hour work week.
At first this creative new policy seemed to work despite all the economists who looked at France with bemused disdain. The job police kept a close eye on employers and managers so they could be jailed or fined if workers stayed overtime or took paperwork home, and soon everyone was happy and working less - except I suppose for the self employed and entrepreneurs who were presumably rapidly driven into poverty. It even appeared to be having an effect at first - it conveniently coincided with the tech boom of 2000 and 2001 - unemployment went down a couple of points and there seemed to be indications that more hiring was going on.
Of course, the glory days didn't last. Once the tech boom busted, the trend immediately reversed itself, and in fact unemployment began to skyrocket and the GDP went south along with it. By 2003 GDP growth was well under 1% and the government deficit was ballooning as a percentage of GDP, well over the EU official cap of 3%. Plus unemployment started to creep back up. Things got worse in most ways in 2004. Although GDP was up slightly, the deficit rose to 4.1% of the GDP, and unemployment almost reached the levels of the late 1990s. In addition, in 2003 and 2004 there were 4 quarters with zero or negative GDP growth. Admittedly this wasn't as bad as Germany's overall negative GDP growth for 2004, but clearly France was in economic trouble. And GDP growth for 2005 is being projected at around 1.5% to 1.7% - not good at all. For comparison the OMB reports that the GDP growth rate for the US in 2004 was 5%, and it's projected to be higher in 2005. (For a look at some of these statistics, see a recent article at EUbusiness)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
"Change will be gradual, but this move may move France towards a more productive economy, joining England as the only truly aggressively growing economies in Europe."
I get your point, and I enjoyed the post, but two things:
- It ain't "England." It's the UK.
- Ireland is kicking everybody's arse in GDP increases...
2 - Dave Nalle
>>- It ain't "England." It's the UK.<<
Actually, I think we're liking Britain these days.
>>- Ireland is kicking everybody's arse in GDP increases...<<
Relatively cheap highly educated labor with a friendly government will do the trick. Dell started the trend but a lot of US companies are starting big operations there.
Dave
3 - Vidar Hokstad
Interestingly enough, it's well documented that French workers were more productive on a 35 hour work week than UK workers were on a 40+ hour work week.
UK workers, who work some of the longest hours in Europe, are far down the list of most productive workers overall (not on a per hour basis - in actual value generated from their employment).
In fact, French employees in a recent survey ranked about par with US employees (who work even more than their UK counterpart) in productivity.
But then, the arguments used against the 35 hour week in France is the same that were used throughout Europe when the 40 hour barrier was broken, and before that again throughout the 1800's until the 12, 10 and then finally 8 hour working days were introduced.
How ironic that today it is the US that is the main holdout against further drops, considering that it was the then rapidly growing US labor movement that started the drive towards shorter working weeks in the first place (and gave us the international workers demonstration day on May 1st in the process).
Sure, there is a limit somewhere, but employer organisations doesn't have a lot of credibility with me when the economy survived, and grew dramatically, through far greater restrictions on working time than the current ones.
However, this piece also conventiently ignores that the 35 hour week is still the norm for civil cervants AND firms have to pay extra for the extra time up to 40 hours.
Given that there is little indication that productivity dropped when the working hours were reduced (and no, GDP can not be translated into the productivity of employees, as you have all kinds of other external factors in there), there is little indication that it would be beneficial for a company to do so other than perhaps in mindless jobs where they could just as well hire more people.
Vidar
4 - Temple Stark
And again, quality of life issues are ignored by this piece; which I realize came from a business perspective. It's so easy to dismiss an entire country's working population isn't it? Kind of like when idiots call the US military murdering machines, right?
There's just too much spin and not enough support in Dave's pieces for me to believe he's trustworthy. He lost credibility - with me let's say - a long time ago as time after time he proved incorrect on both minor and major details; people would point them out and he'd ignore them or keep on arguing.
He's a little better with the admitting he's full of it, but not much. Look up at at the oh so small Britain / UK point. Dave has to bother to mention that "we" prefer "Britain."
He's also received the attention he so so craves, and I guess I 'll stop resisting and join right in and continue to plague his sorry ass. Sort of friendly like.
5 - Dave Nalle
Vidar:"However, this piece also conventiently ignores that the 35 hour week is still the norm for civil cervants AND firms have to pay extra for the extra time up to 40 hours. "
This was clearly stated in paragraph 11. Do you bother to read the articles you respond to?
As to your main point, yes France has good per-hour productivity. That's one of the reasons why making this move back to the 40 hour work week is a good idea, because it will provide real gains in output.
France's real problem was demonstrated when they switched to 35 hours and it didn't produce more jobs, just lowered overall productivity. The real problem is their large class of people who just don't want to work. They have one of the largest percentages of chronically unemployed in Europe - now off the unemployment rolls because they've stopped looking for work.
The real problem with the 35 hour work week was the way it was enforced and the fact that it was applied to all businesses indescriminately. Some types of businesses need to have flexible hours or longer working hours. Setting these sorts of things by state mandate on a nation-wide basis is never a good idea.
Dave
6 - Dave Nalle
Temple, why don't you point out the incorrect details in this piece? Or for that matter in any of my past pieces. Most of the people you say proved my facts wrong were in fact arguing with my conclusions, not the actual facts. There's an enormous difference.
Dave
7 - Temple Stark
To do that would be a full-time job and require a life deficit. Thanks for still craving that attention.
Besides you're actually asking people to do more work in their comments than you do in a post? Backwards.
When I have time, I will (See my posts). When I don't, I don't post.
8 - Dave Nalle
So basically you're copping out on even doing it with this post. So why not stop slinging unsubstantiated insults around and try to do something constructive instead?
Dave
9 - Temple Stark
Nice try on the goad. Read last line on my previous comment.
I'd respond and you'd still respond with your most frequent dismissive: Do you bother to read the articles you respond to?
I'm not going to make the effort just to get that reaction.
Again, if you'd just stop before your 80th comment on "something I don't care about (IE Terri Schiavo) and say "We agree to disagree" your blood pressure would be lower.
Also if you'd work on the quality over quantity ethos it might improve your logic. If you didn't make lame claims about living in Iran to establish your bona fides, without pointing out it was in yur pre-teen years that would help to.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>Again, if you'd just stop before your 80th comment on "something I don't care about (IE Terri Schiavo) and say "We agree to disagree" your blood pressure would be lower.<<
Another example of not reading carefully, Temple. From what I can tell we agree, both on the correct resolution of the Schiavo case and on the stupidity of endlessly discussing it.
>>Also if you'd work on the quality over quantity ethos it might improve your logic.<<
I'm not exactly churning out quantity. I'm only posting at most a couple of articles a week, and not even half of the ones I've posted on my own blog.
>>If you didn't make lame claims about living in Iran to establish your bona fides, without pointing out it was in yur pre-teen years that would help to.<<
The three years I lived in Iran may have been in my pre-teen years, but I did return later in life as well, though it would be wrong to claim that I lived there at that time. So I do have a mature perspective on the region.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
>>And again, quality of life issues are ignored by this piece; which I realize came from a business perspective.<<
But what ARE the quality of life issues? Are you saying that the French have a significantly better quality of life than Americans if they work 5 hours less a week? I would think that their 8 weeks of vacation and national holidays would have a far more significant impact on quality of life, not to mention their government subsidized high-speed internet and cable tv.
If you asked most Americans they wouldn't know what to do with the five hours they would gain from a 35 hour work week. They'd ask if they could use those 5 extra hours to work and get overtime. Most Americans are looking for ways to work longer hours and get paid more for it, or to start a second business on the side, or to find a way to turn their savings into real wealth. This does not seem to be characteristic of most people in Europe. They don't have that same, scrabbling, ambitious Horatio Alger mentality.
Dave
12 - Big Time Patriot
Dave, does your boss know you took time off from work to write this post? Better get back to work. If your job doesn't fill all your time, you could get a second job, eh? Or a third job? Or do you hate hard work?
13 - gonzo marx
oh Dave..i , for one, would WISH that ya would stop attempting to speak for "most Americans"
then ya can be certain they don't know what the fuck they are talking about, and are trying to lend Legitimacy to their own Opinion..
that goes for EVERYONE that wants to put forward that they speak for ANYONE but themselves..
lesson for all, Ladles and Jellyspoons..
if someone says "most...
don't fall for it..
the Persecution rests..
Excelsior!
14 - Temple Stark
At least most allows for "not all."
"Some" would be better.
Dave you misread. I commnet at these Terri Schiavo threads because I think the discussion of Terri Schiavo is one of the few issues we've had here at BC that speaks to so much of family, life, death, religion and almost every aspect of living in America.
It is in important subject.
We do agree with how she should have been treated and how mercy should have already been afforded.
15 - JR
Dave Nalle: Temple, why don't you point out the incorrect details in this piece? Or for that matter in any of my past pieces. Most of the people you say proved my facts wrong were in fact arguing with my conclusions, not the actual facts. There's an enormous difference.
Actually, I would question your ability to think.
16 - I used to french
2 months of vacations in France? When I used to live in France I had almost 4 months of paid vacations.
A more productive economy is okey as long as we don't get screwed up with the social benefits such as the Health plan. European Democrats talk even about a universal health plan for Europeans.
Quality of life in France is not exclusively based on money but also on what the State can do for you: ask what your government can do for you, don't ask what you can do for your government.
The medical spendings in the US keep going higher and higher.
Actually, if you compare datas between the US and France you are out for big surprizes: life expectation is higher in France and so is scholarship and poverty line is higher in the US. With statistics you can then do projections and see the amount of money earned by head between the US and France, that would give you useful economics and social information: more people in the US die at work while french people die on their bed.
One of the side effects of this plan is the research will slow down drastically, and 2005 is going to be the major trends in research spendings.
Honestly I am in favor to protect french social advantages and not let them go like the USA did to the advantage of corporations and useless wars killing innocent people in the middle-east.
17 - Dave Nalle
BTP: "Dave, does your boss know you took time off from work to write this post? Better get back to work. If your job doesn't fill all your time, you could get a second job, eh? Or a third job? Or do you hate hard work?"
I'm self-employed, BTP. So my boss makes me work all hours and on weekends and at least 60 hours a week, because if I don't work I don't make money, and to some degree how much money I make is directly dependent on how much I work.
But in the past, before I was self-employed, I did have as many as three jobs at a time, but only one was a full-time job. But, I got tired of dealing with bosses and decided to take my own main asset and put it to work for itself.
Dave
18 - Dave Nalle
>>oh Dave..i , for one, would WISH that ya would stop attempting to speak for "most Americans"
that goes for EVERYONE that wants to put forward that they speak for ANYONE but themselves..<<
Gonzo, I'm not speaking FOR them I'm speaking OF them. I'm just putting forward my observations of what most of the Americans I come into contact with are like. I may move in weird circles, but I do meet a lot of people, and for the most part they're amazingly industrious and pretty damned happy to be working. For example I had dinner yesterday with a guy who I know who's 83 and has 2 jobs, one where he works for a local company in a management position and one where he works for himself in a small business he runs - oh, he also has a 600 acre farm, so I guess he has 3 jobs. He's got a couple of million dollars salted away, mostly in real estate, but he still works. He works because it's in his nature to be active and productive. It's what keeps him alive. He also just got his annual physical and has lower blood pressure than a man half his age, and lower cholesterol than I do. He's never sick, and if you met him you'd think he was 20 years younger than he is. He actually reminds me a lot of my grandfather, who kept working in one way or another until the day he died at age 95 trying to save people in a fire. For a lot of people - and I think this is a particularly but not uniquely American trait - life is work, and they enjoy working and it keeps them alive.
Dave
19 - gonzo marx
a nice Story, Dave...and i am very happy that this Individual is doing what makes him content..
but yer own statement, added with a dose of Reason, proves my Point..doesn't it..
Dave sez..
*I'm just putting forward my observations of what most of the Americans I come into contact with are like.*
now..there's what...over 270 million Americans about now....mebbe more?..
so, unless ya have wandered around and met in excess of 135 million of them..which..i put to you is mathematically impossible if you have spent an average of one minute with each of them ...
than it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for you to know the actual Opinions of "most Americans"...much less to speak "for" or even "of" them..
i will gladly grant that you have met, and spoken with a lot of folks...but i am willing to bet that proverbial cookie that you have not even scratched a decent statistical sampling...much less a diverse cross section
and thus any Curve of behaviour or opinion is taken from far too small and narrow a statistical sampling to be even remotely meaningful in the Realm of "most Americans"
nice try with the anecdote there Dave...but it's all spin and no substance addressing the Point i raised
i expect better than that of you...
but then again..i live in a constant state of Disappointment...so what else is new..
Excelsior!
20 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, since my omnipresence machine isn't working, I can do two things. I can present statistics - which I've done more than enough. And I can present my personal observations - which are sometimes more interesting.
Do tell me what more any of us can do?
Dave
21 - Anna Lisa
Dave, this one's for you:
http://www.dtaos.com/dissentnow/poster-discordia.htm
22 - Dave Nalle
Lovely, Anna - does that cause some people to have epileptic seizures?
Dave
23 - gonzo marx
Dave sez...
*. I can present statistics - which I've done more than enough. And I can present my personal observations - which are sometimes more interesting.
Do tell me what more any of us can do?*
why Dave..it's patently Obvious..
all i asked was that folks stop claiming to speak for "most Americans" ...or say they speak for "all the people" etc..
can the spin and i'm all good...
my only criticism was the use of "most Americans" when applied to an unproven Opinion....one in which i might tend to Agree on in Principle...but dispute that any can know the actual Fact thereof to utilize it as a Postulate..
nuff said?
Excelsior!
24 - Dave Nalle
It's projection - make it 'most REAL Americans'? Or perhaps 'most Americans I've observed'? But in fact, is it unreasonable to extrapolate certain characteristics as being 'American' when they are observed in society and also represented statistically. It seems reasonable to me.
Dave
25 - gonzo marx
i would gladly accept "most Americans I have observed"
that statement is factually accurate
Dave sez...
*But in fact, is it unreasonable to extrapolate certain characteristics as being 'American' when they are observed in society and also represented statistically.*
yes it is unReasonable to extrapolate such and state it as Fact...one..i dispute that you have a large enough actuarial pool to draw from...what seems apparent in texas may not be true in Harlem or South Central..or Duluth...etc...
Dave sez..
*It seems reasonable to me.*
but yer a very silly man....
Excelsior!