Ezra Klein: Pepe Le Awesome

« Assassinations | Main | A Rising Tide For Prospect Boats »

May 03, 2007

Pepe Le Awesome

Was listening to a report on the French presidential debate this morning and was struck by how hilariously opposite their politics are. The framing of election pits the Reaganite, free market reformer Nikolas Sarkozy against the staid, socialist, Segolene Royal. But among the policy positions clarified in the debate was Sarkozy's promise not to change the 35-hour workweek. That's how you unlock the magic of the free market! This is par for the course, though: In America, when progressives talk about the need for government protections, they're really talking about sanding the roughest, farthest edges of unchecked capitalism. In France, when conservatives talk about unleashing free market principles on the country, they're really talking about some tweaks on the margins of the welfare state.

The apparent popularity of the 35-hour workweek, though, deserves some attention -- as does the French mandate of 5 weeks of vacation. The French like not working incessantly. They are consciously sacrificing a bit of economic growth in order to devote more time to leisure. It's a perfectly legitimate choice for a society to make. But it's never represented that way in domestic punditry, as we exclusively evaluate policy decisions based on their effects on measurable economic indicators.
It's that society/economy distinction I'm always going on about; in contemporary American discourse, it's almost impossible to justify any policy that won't plausibly increase economic growth. Yet the French seem rather enamored with just the opposite:

On top of the five weeks [vacation], there are another dozen public holidays, and a maximum 35-hour work week, with no paid overtime allowed. Managers like Marchand, who work more than 35 hours a week, get more time off.

"The so-called 35-hour work week gives us 22 more days a year," says Marchand.[...]

Normally busy streets in Paris empty out in July and August, when most locals take their annual holiday. Shops and businesses are often deserted for a month, sometimes longer. Whole apartment buildings are shuttered when Parisians flee the city.

The French are so passionate about their vacations, they put pleasure before profit. As tourists throng the streets and summer temperatures hit their peak, Paris’ most popular ice-cream parlor is closed for a whole six weeks. It’s the kind of business bonanza that would be seized upon by Americans, but the French don’t seem to care.

I'd give up a lot for a guaranteed five weeks of vacation. That's time enough to vacation with friends, and regularly see my family, and take the occasional long weekend. Indeed, I'd love to see an economist model what that would cost us. It would have to be an almost unimaginably high number to dissuade me from taking the deal. And, in any case, I'd love to see some better reporting on the French elections, wherein it's actually explained that the French keep choosing these policies, and that their effect isn't simply to drive down economic indicators, but to order society in a way that emphasizes leisure.

May 3, 2007 in Economics, Europe | Permalink

Comments

The only reason why the issue of a longer work week is being discussed is because they believe it is costing them. If it weren't, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? Who could argue against more "ME" time, unless there was a cost associated with it?

I would be interesed in the other side of this issue, the arguments of those who wish more flexibility in the work week. You don't see a lot of that reported.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 3, 2007 10:56:20 AM

Come work in book publishing: crap wages, but four weeks vacation, four personal days, and the time between Christmas and New Years Day off.

Sadly, however, we're expected to cram 52 weeks of ten-hour days into that 47-work-week year.

Posted by: jimmmm | May 3, 2007 11:00:42 AM

They are consciously sacrificing a bit of economic growth in order to devote more time to leisure.

They are also (consciously?) sacrificing the 8.7% of their workforce that is unemployed. This may be an easy sacrifice to make if you are employed and getting that 35-hour week and 5 weeks of vacation, but what about those, especially the immigrants in the banlieus, who aren't getting anything out of it?

Posted by: DaveL | May 3, 2007 11:03:11 AM

Yes, this moral judgment is perfectly legitimate despite the costs it imposes on others. For it is in line in some no-need-to be coherent sense with "liberalism."

But try to do a favor for an unborn child, and my goodness what paternalism!

Posted by: Bill | May 3, 2007 11:05:21 AM

Ezra, you need to go work at Brookings. They get 5 weeks standard vacation.

Posted by: Drew | May 3, 2007 11:11:50 AM

Ezra, I don't understand. If you want five weeks of vacation, negotiate it with your employer. Your skills are presumably valuable enough that they'd be willing to work out an arrangement. Take a pay cut and get the extra time off. What's stopping you?

Posted by: K. Williams | May 3, 2007 11:13:30 AM

K. Williams, employers of monopsony power in the market for labor. Employees can leverage power over employers in the voting booth or through unions which, in the case of France, they do.

Posted by: Tyro | May 3, 2007 11:18:37 AM

K. Williams, employers have monopsony power in the market for labor. Employees can leverage power over employers in the voting booth or through unions which, in the case of France, they do.

Posted by: Tyro | May 3, 2007 11:19:39 AM

This is incoherent as a criticism of the shorter work week. How would a longer work week create more jobs exactly? One would think it tends toward the opposite. Now if you want to criticize French labor law, which makes it hard to fire once hired, that might be more appropriate, but of course, then you get into all sorts of conversations about the relative power of corporations vs. unions, and collective action problems, and so on.

Posted by: paperwight | May 3, 2007 11:27:19 AM

> They are also (consciously?) sacrificing
> the 8.7% of their workforce that is unemployed.

Oil-based Western societies currently have a substantial surplus of food, production capacity, and all-around stuff over requirements. We simply don't need our entire population to work like slaves as was the case even in the 1880-1920 time period.

European societies have chosen to deal with this with substantial educational benefits (= 7-year college scholarships), "unemployment" benefits (really 'don't work' payments), stay-at-home parent benefits, fixed workweeks, etc.

In the US there is a strong moralistic urge that says everyone must have a nose to the grindstone to be considered worthy, so we deal with our surplus by trying to force the lower tiers of society into long-hour, low-wage, no-benefit mcjobs. With some level of success - and some unintended consequences (e.g. the relative attractiveness of illegal drug dealing).

Same problem, different solutions. But since the US take the moralistic tone in developing its solution it also takes the moralistic tone in looking at others' solutions.

This will all become moot when the oil starts to go away in any case.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 3, 2007 11:39:57 AM

I suddenly understand why my husband wants to retire to France.

Of course, given that we're both workaholics, if we simply moved to work in France, working full-time would be like retirement. That sounds fabulous.

Posted by: anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:04:19 PM

WOW. Klein basically just said he'd be happy to see significant numbers of people have their livelyhoods destroyed if it meant him getting more leisure time.

Posted by: henry hazlitt | May 3, 2007 12:08:22 PM

A better choice would be to move to Mexico where you have a tremendous economic advantage. Hell, you might not have to work much at all!!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 3, 2007 12:10:18 PM

"This is incoherent as a criticism of the shorter work week. How would a longer work week create more jobs exactly?"

It is called economic growth, the process that generates new jobs. It is why in boom times unemployment goes down, and in recessions unemployment goes up. With more companies out there chasing after labor, wages rise and unemployment falls.

When the government strictly regulates commercial activity, sure, some get leisure time. But it also forces the country into lower economic growth and higher unemployment. Of course, it isn't the native french that pay the cost, but the immigrants living in the banlieus.

In order to keep things calm, the French government has to subsidize workers to stay away from the labor market. But I bet those immigrants wouldn't mind working 8 hours a day 365 days a year if it meant a chance at a better life. Alas, they are stuck on welfare with no escape.

What you have is a "social" policy that produces a very "unsocial" byproduct. This is the core of the fiscal conservative's (should be fiscal liberal, as in classical liberal) criticism of liberal welfare policies.

Posted by: Jason | May 3, 2007 12:11:45 PM

In my job, due to seniority, etc, I do have 5 weeks of vacation/yr. I rarely manage to take 3 - One at Xmas, one week long summer trip, and scattered days. One problem is pressure - you have to finish the work anyway, can't leave until you ship, got a deadline that week (and that and that).

But more than that, none of my friends, or even my wife, has that much vacation. So I would be vacationing alone. That is why we want this to be a national, cultural thing.

Posted by: M. Peachbush | May 3, 2007 12:17:00 PM

> WOW. Klein basically just said

No, he didn't, and putting straw men into the mouths of others is not a very impressive tactic.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 3, 2007 12:17:02 PM

"No, he didn't, and putting straw men into the mouths of others is not a very impressive tactic."

Of course he did. Perhaps he imagines the high costs he would be willing to accept would be all paid out of the bank accounts of overpaid CEO's. Never the less, neither his intentions nor his naivety alter the practical consequences of what it is he said.

Posted by: henry hazlitt | May 3, 2007 12:23:17 PM

It's funny to read the critiques of the French system in this comment thread. I'm much more used to hearing people complain that the French government keeps everyone down to 35-hour workweeks in order to artificially boost the number of jobs available, and that the problem with that is how it keeps salaries down.

The 35-hour workweek is like bizarro tax cuts: it's the source of all problems in France, even when it's used to justify completely opposite critiques.

Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2007 12:23:56 PM

"Oil-based Western societies currently have a substantial surplus of food, production capacity, and all-around stuff over requirements. We simply don't need our entire population to work like slaves as was the case even in the 1880-1920 time period."

It is natural to look around and think, "Wow, look how rich our society is. Isn't that enough." John Kenneth Galbraith made the same argument in his "The Affluent Society."

What we forget is there is a tension between opportunity and outcome. If we try and make everyone economic equals, through redistribution for instance, it will be at the cost of economic opportunity. If we try to ensure economic opportunity, we are going to have some income inequality.

What people forget is the constant push for growth and efficiency, for all its ugliness, is the system that allows people to progress and improve on their circumstances. What is better: Taking money from the rich and writing a check to the poor, or giving the poor the opportunity to go out and stake their own claim? It truly is one or the other.

Yes, sometimes it feels like a rat race. But that is the cost of giving everyone the chance to improve their lives. The opposite, ironically, creates a stasist, class-based society.

Posted by: Jason | May 3, 2007 12:28:43 PM

GDP per hour worked is actually slightly higher in France than in the USA - see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/17/36396820.xls

Now the $64,000 question is what factors explain the differences in hours worked. In France the average annual hours worked are around 1550 and in the US a bit over 1700.

My non-expert interpretation is that a mix of factors explain differences in hours - some are the product of choice and are presumably welfare enhancing, and some are not and therefore reduce welfare.

I would have thought that longer holidays are welfare enhancing and shorter working hours - when freely chosen - also are. Higher unemployment reduces hours worked in the working age population and obviously reduce individual welfare. Earlier retirement which is more common in France seems to me to be ambiguous, since some of it may be involuntary (but I suspect a lot of it is voluntary.

On the 35 hour week, there is a tendency to exaggerate its negative aspects for employers. When it was introduced, it was actually accompanied by an increase in hours flexibility through various forms of averaging, and there is evidence that it increased the efficiency of planning by management.

Posted by: Disinterested Observer | May 3, 2007 12:28:54 PM

> alter the practical consequences of
> what it is he said.

That is /your interpretation/ of how the policy Ezra is discussing as a hypothetical would play out. That interpretation is not Ezra's (AFAIK) and is clearly not shared by several hundred million people in Europe (just for starters).

So - you took your personal interpretation, inverted it into an attack meme, and stuffed it into someone else's mouth. You also assumed that no one commenting here would figure this out.

As I said, not very impressive tactics. Which leads to think the foundation of your economic argument is equally weak.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 3, 2007 12:31:15 PM

On the vacations issue, US commentators usually focus on France, but my impression is that Germany, Switzerland and the nordics have similar long vacation allowances. When I lived in San Francisco, we had loads of German visitors and not just in the summer. A quick flight from Frankfurt and there they were, looking to play. Anybody have any data on this?

It appears to me that europeans have a different mental outlook toward work: work hard when working, but play equally hard since life should be much more than work.

Nobody here has remarked on the so-called 'Protestant Work Ethic' as a major basis for US employment being tied to long hours, little vacation, and relative intolerance of absence for family illness. The arguments for long working hours/days seems more connected to some moral code than economics - or better, that the corporatists have hitched their productivity wagon to the draft animals that must work without complaint since god intended that life be nasty, brutish and short (somewhere).

When the 40 hour, 5 day week was introduced the employers said we were doomed, but guess what....

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 3, 2007 12:50:15 PM

What is better: Taking money from the rich and writing a check to the poor, or giving the poor the opportunity to go out and stake their own claim? It truly is one or the other.

Truly? Really? Can you prove that?

As a practical matter, if we're running large surpluses of food, taking money from the rich and writing a check to the poor is better at ensuring everyone is well fed than simply giving the poor and "opportunity" to get food and hoping it works out for them. It depends on how much you are willing to tolerate poor outcomes when it comes to opportunities that don't work themselves out.

Am I willing to tolerate someone who wasn't able to get a vaccine because even though he had "opportunity" to try to get a vaccine, he didn't, thus eliminating the advantage of "herd immunity"? Or are we willing to tax people to create a guarantee that everyone gets what is needed? Am I willing to tolerate other such public health and public safety problems because I simply refused to tax the people with the resources to pay for the solutions and instead gave people the "opportunity" to avoid consequences if the right set of events came together for them?

The opposite ironically, creates a stasist, class-based society.
And yet... the USA is very class static in comparison with other industrialized western countries!

Posted by: Tyro | May 3, 2007 12:55:28 PM

JimPortlandOR:

The German embassy ( http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/facts/facts/questions_en/economicsystem/working.html ) says that most employed Germans work five days a week, with an average of a 37.5 hour workweek. It says that the legal minimum vacation is 18 days per year, but that 70% of employees have six weeks of paid vacation a year.

My company gives its UK employees six weeks of paid vacation a year, which I'm guessing is within the range of "typical" there, as it's not grossly generous in the US or anything.

My understanding is that this pretty typical throughout Europe.

Posted by: Michael B Sullivan | May 3, 2007 1:17:44 PM

What is better: Taking money from the rich and writing a check to the poor, or giving the poor the opportunity to go out and stake their own claim?

And there you have the two different approaches of the conservatives and liberals. Morons like Tyro use extremes, ignoring the social system in place, to make points (food) No one starves in this country unless by choice. Also, the public health argument is for shit. We already require and provide immunizations.

I think he is either missing the point or is being deliberatly obtuse. The only reason Tyro goes for stealing from one group for the benefit of other groups is that he believes he will not be the group whose money is being stolen

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 3, 2007 1:18:31 PM

We already require and provide immunizations

Praytell where does the money come from to enforce these requirements and provide these things?

Yes, vacations all over europe are typically the 4-6 week variety, but I think Ezra prefers to use France as an example because it gets the right-wingers all riled up.

Posted by: Tyro | May 3, 2007 1:24:05 PM

So here's my problem with Ezra's post:

"I'd give up a lot for a guaranteed five weeks of vacation. ... Indeed, I'd love to see an economist model what that would cost us. It would have to be an almost unimaginably high number to dissuade me from taking the deal."

Notice the pronoun switch, there: Ezra would give up a lot. He'd love to see what it would cost us... then he'd take the deal.

I've got no problem with Ezra giving up a lot to get five weeks of vacation a year. And I'd be happy to suggest ways in which he could do that (here are some off the top of my head: go to contract work, move to France, negotiate with his employer). But the way that he effortlessly switches from his personal preference to dipping his fingers into "our" pocketbook is a little forward.

Because I'm not willing to give up a lot for five weeks of vacation a year, right now. I like the Bay Area, and the cost of living is high, here. I'd like to get a house. I'd like to be able to live here AND still have enough money to go on vacation to Japan this year or next. And some of that's going to have to go by the wayside if I lose 8% of my paycheck.

Now, maybe in a few years, that personal equation will change for me, and I'll start thinking of ways that I could shift my work-life balance more towards "life." But I like to think that, if those few years later Ezra's got a kid and a mortgage and needs to hold onto every penny that's coming his way, I won't be blithely willing to sacrifice HIS paycheck as well as my own.

Posted by: Michael B Sullivan | May 3, 2007 1:30:52 PM

No one starves in this country unless by choice. Also, the public health argument is for shit. We already require and provide immunizations.

I understand that you need to keep repeating bullshit mantras like this in order to maintain your worldview's proper levels of insulation and delusion. But you could spare us and just say it to yourself.

Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2007 1:31:26 PM

Ezra and commenters, you may be interested in this:

Work and Leisure in the U.S. and Europe: Why So Different?

Alberto Alesina, Edward L. Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote

NBER Working Paper No. 11278
Issued in April 2005

http://www.nber.org/papers/W11278

Here is the abstract:

"Americans average 25.1 working hours per person in working age per week, but the Germans average 18.6 hours. The average American works 46.2 weeks per year, while the French average 40 weeks per year. Why do western Europeans work so much less than Americans? Recent work argues that these differences result from higher European tax rates, but the vast empirical labor supply literature suggests that tax rates can explain only a small amount of the differences in hours between the U.S. and Europe. Another popular view is that these differences are explained by long-standing European "culture," but Europeans worked more than Americans as late as the 1960s. In this paper, we argue that European labor market regulations, advocated by unions in declining European industries who argued "work less, work all" explain the bulk of the difference between the U.S. and Europe. These policies do not seem to have increased employment, but they may have had a more society-wide influence on leisure patterns because of a social multiplier where the returns to leisure increase as more people are taking longer vacations."

You need a subscription to access; if you need it, I can email it.

Also, for those of you who want to read the Economist's take on the study it is here:

www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_PJRSNNR

Posted by: Castorp | May 3, 2007 1:37:35 PM

France, and by extension Europe, is a very old culture. The people over the years have decided what's truly important to them... it's not the stock market, its not productivity gains, its not the second car or vacation home, it's not career advancement... All that is really important in life is your health and family and friends. That's why an ice cream vendor will take off the hottest months of the summer to go on vacation, and why their politicians treat things like the 35 hour work week as sacred and why the bulk of Europe has universal health care. Eventually, the US will come around to their way of thinking. We forget what a new, young, and immature culture we are. America is in its early twenties while Europe is in its sixties... Perspectives change with age and experience. Think about what was important to you at 20. Seems really stupid now, doesn't it?

Posted by: Doubting Thomas | May 3, 2007 1:43:02 PM

Huh. This mysterious "Michael B. Sullivan" who wants desperately to enlighten Ezra's readers to the nefarious "pronoun switch" hits on exactly the opposite of what I was going to say.

Namely - I wouldn't even worry about the "unimaginably large number" that increased vacation time and fewer work hours would cost "us." The fact is that there are an "unimaginably large number" of "us" and I think, spread out over all of us, you'd quickly find it wouldn't cost "you" or "me" (or even "Michael B. Sullivan") very much at all.

Posted by: Adam | May 3, 2007 1:52:38 PM

Because I'm not willing to give up a lot for five weeks of vacation a year, right now. I like the Bay Area, and the cost of living is high, here. I'd like to get a house. I'd like to be able to live here AND still have enough money to go on vacation to Japan this year or next. And some of that's going to have to go by the wayside if I lose 8% of my paycheck.

Michael, Michael, calm down. Do you think Parisians are starving and homeless because of all the vacation they take? Do you think they can't afford the vacations they take? Have you seen the cost of living in Paris?

These things adjust to themselves. Have you no faith in market economics?

Posted by: Adam | May 3, 2007 1:55:13 PM

Doubting Thomas: That's complete nonsense.

It's nonsense on a variety of levels:

First, the idea that France's culture is functionally older than the US's: when do we judge the birth date of a culture? The US's culture fairly straightforwardly descends from Europe's culture -- in what way are we "young"? Our present system of government considerably precedes France's, so to the extent that political culture flows from government, we're the elder. If we argue that it does not flow from government, then when do we put the start date?

Second, the idea that even if the French culture is in some sense older than the US culture, that it has some explanatory power: can you point to any shred of evidence that some commonality of the French people to their pre-1500 ancestors has explanatory power over their take on the 35 hour workweek? Japan and China have cultures rather considerably older than France's, by any hazy measure you like. Are they down to a 20 hour workweek?

Third, your spin on the virtues of age, the idea that not only does age of culture equal some kind of deterministic force on social values, but that those values are objectively wiser. I suppose, then, that you defer in your politics to the over-60 crowd, because they're so much wiser than you, according to your own analogy?

Of course you don't. You wouldn't be on this site if you believed in the wisdom of age.

There are good things to be said about the European model, and smart arguments in its favor. But "they're old, so they know better" is frankly inane.

Posted by: Michael B Sullivan | May 3, 2007 1:58:15 PM

Doubting Thomas:

You have made a point that is a pet peeve of mine, so this may sound harsher than it is intended. But: Europe has NEWER institutions than the United States. The Democratic Party is one of the oldest parties in the world. Proportional representation as well as defeats in war will do a lot to change things and make politics more responsive to its people. Let's not pretend that France or Europe is a real person, and while it's people may be slightly older on average (because of the demographic crunch), looking at differences in institutions will get you farther than pretending a country, like a person, learns from its long past. Politicians and intellectuals etc. might learn from a country’s immediate past and decide to create new institutions, but a country isn't like a person who gets older and wiser. Thus, we need to look at transforming events such as wars, institutions and then cultural variables. (You might see the cultural variables part as a place to quibble and say that is what you meant, but remember that most European national cultures were invented in the 19th century and have changed since--and not necessarily slowly, gaining in wisdom or any such nonsense—fascism, for example, was a decidedly modern invention.) See my previous post for more on how institutions etc. matter for this particular example.

Posted by: Castorp | May 3, 2007 2:01:28 PM

Sorry Michael, I started my post before seeing yours. I guess we largely agree.

Posted by: Castorp | May 3, 2007 2:03:07 PM

Praytell where does the money come from to enforce these requirements and provide these things?

Taxes and my state health department that requires all children enterning school have certain immunizations. If their parents cannot afford them, they can go to the county health department and get them for free.

I understand that you need to keep repeating bullshit mantras like this...

Perhaps Stephen could point us toward the piles of bodies of those who have starved in the US overnight who couldn't make it to a food bank, shelter, church or any of the other thousands of charitible organizations that regularly give away food.

I would like Stephen to show one instance of involuntary death from starvation in the US in 2006.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 3, 2007 2:03:24 PM

I just wish there was some way for us to know what the people in Europe really wanted. You know, some system in France, Germany, et. al, that would allow people to have a voice in the things their governments do.

It's just too bad that France and Germany are absolute monarchies. I'm sure that if the citizens in those nations had democratic elections the way we do here in the USA, they'd make all the changes that the conservatarians in this thread think they should.

Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2007 2:07:39 PM

Adam writes: Michael, Michael, calm down. Do you think Parisians are starving and homeless because of all the vacation they take? Do you think they can't afford the vacations they take? Have you seen the cost of living in Paris?

These things adjust to themselves. Have you no faith in market economics?

Adam, Adam, go back and read what I wrote. I'm hardly afraid of starving and becoming homeless. (Key insight here: the alternative to "being able to buy a house" is not "becomg homeless.")

Naturally, if the US economy as a whole cooled down indefinitely, housing prices and other cost of living issues in California would eventually adjust themselves, though I'm personally not very excited about waiting through the probably multi-decade period of adjustment.

I'm curious as to why you think that international travel would become cheaper if the US economy slowed down. I think it's likely that the dollar would fall, and that travel would be more expensive not just relative to our hypothetically lower wages, but absolutely in US dollars as well. I mean, I suppose that a US economy slowdown could possibly cause a worldwide recession, and so everything would keep pace, but I'm not sure that's an argument that you want to be making in favor of Ezra's point.

And while I'm sure that French people can afford the vacations that they take, I'm equally sure that proportionately fewer French people can afford the vacations that I take. This isn't rocket science, right? If you find my place on the income curve of the US, since I'm on the upper half of that curve, I'm wealthier than a French person at the same point on the French income curve. So I can afford a better vacation. Again, I'm curious as to how you think this isn't so.

(Well, the Euro is stronger than the Dollar, so maybe they make up for it that way. If you have a program of strengthening the Dollar in mind, my international travels will thank you!)

Posted by: Michael B Sullivan | May 3, 2007 2:11:24 PM

Yes, Fred, that's right.. the state stole from the rich in order to write a check to the poor in a Communistic scheme to redistribute vaccines to people as well as fattening the wallets of a bunch of lazy government workers who are getting rich enforcing these vaccine regulations.

Why, it would be better if the poor were simply given the "freedom" to choose to be healthy and the free market should simply give people the choice of attending schools where the kids are vaccinated or not.

Unless you're willing to admit that, in fact, taxing the rich togive such handouts to the poor is a logical means of approaching this policy issue for the good of the nation.

Posted by: Tyro | May 3, 2007 2:21:06 PM

> They are also (consciously?) sacrificing the 8.7% of their workforce that is unemployed.

Well, first they could adopt American prison population rates. That in one stroke could reduce French unemployment rates to around 7% if my crude calculation is right. And after that they should introduce more 1 hour per week jobs without health care benefits to eradicate unemployment completely. /snark

Now, obviously I´m exaggerating here. :)
I just want to point out that unemployment rates are difficult to compare. Even if they are standardized.
Because the most widely used unemployment rates are the percentage of unemployed compared to the sum of employed and unemployed (job-seeking) persons (according to the OECD). Anyone not included in that "sum" isn´t included in that statistic. Like students or disability claimants for example (because they´re not looking for a job).

Likewise the more generous and long-term European unemployment benefits demand that you register as unemployed to get those benefits. Unlike the USA where you might count as a "discouraged worker" once your unemployment benefits end. This too might it make difficult to compare statistics.

It might be more interesting to look at employment rates for a certain age group. Like for example:
"Employment rate for age group 24-54"
"Persons in employment as a percentage of population in that age group"
(OECD statistics 2005) [- latest numbers available online]
France: 79.6%
USA: 79.3%

That seems to indicate that the differences between US and French unemployment rates come entirely from the younger (15-24) and the older (55-64) age group. How much of that is unemployment or education for the younger age group / early retirement for the older age group is a question. It doesn´t seem to indicate that unemployment in the most productive age group is significantly higher in the USA however.

Posted by: Detlef | May 3, 2007 2:31:56 PM

We owe the standard 8 hour day and 40 hour work week to that noted Frenchman (that's a joke...), Henry Ford. So it has been a while since the last adjustment. And he doubled the standard daily wage for his employees.

Ford thought that if everybody was working six days a week it was tough to be a good consumer.

Of course there is an economic consequence to a society that emphasizes leisure. But it is not so simple. Europeans are spending their money somewhere in July and August. And they are probably saving their money for their vacation instead of buying disposable crap at Walmart.

By some of the logic above, a strategy to increase employment in the US would be to standardize on a 50 hour work week. I have my doubts.

BTW labor vs. leisure is a favorite topic of the Sandwichman at Sawicky's place. Highly recommended.

Posted by: Nat | May 3, 2007 2:41:15 PM

The French like not working incessantly.

It's always strruck me that the French like not working with the kind of passion Americans bring to working.

I do get tired of the harangues of people here who say they want more leisure time, but, dammit, the man just won't ket the. For God's sake, bloody go on vacation or move or do something. I'm simply not going to listen to you whine that capitalism or the man is keeping you down from going to the beach. I think our work ethic and our productivity here in America is simply impressive, if it is also not healthy. But I think there's far more opportunity for leisure and vacation time than most people like to admit. We just don't take it. I like working, and I like a reasonable amount of time off. I am a firm believer - and as a former HR person, I was very clear with others - that people should take the time off that's available to them. But I do that because I think it makes for better workers, not because I think we should all be leisurely. That to me is the American work ethic.

Which is to say, I'm sure it's nice for French people to pack up and all go on holiday. I find it ludicrous, but hey, they seem to like it and no one seems especially keen on changing it. It's certainly a valid alternative, but it comes with trade-offs, and I suspect many Americans have absolutely no interest in those trade-offs, and many people here would be frustrated by such a shift in emphasis to free time and leaisure over work. It's who we are.

And again, Ezra, if you want more vacation time, there are certainly a lot of companies that offer it.

Posted by: weboy | May 3, 2007 3:17:56 PM

JimPortlandOR:

Being a German, 25-30 vacation days (translating into 5-6 vacation weeks with a Monday to Friday job) is considered normal for any full-time job in Germany. 30 days is the norm, less than 25 days for a full time job is frowned upon.

30 days normally means three vacation weeks in summer (family vacation), a week during the spring break, a week around Christmas and five days left over to emergencies or long weekends. Individual plans of course may vary. :)
Including public holidays might help you stretch your free-time of course.

I was "shocked and awed" meeting some Americans in Germany and learning that they saved two years of vacation days to make a four week trip to Europe some years ago. :)

Simply put, I wouldn´t have worked for any company in Germany if they have offered me only two weeks of vacation. Well, maybe for one or two years during my young, foolish and single years. :)
And assuming that they compensated me for that sacrifice with money. :)

----

For all you Protestant people. :)
The Protestant faith was "invented" in Germany by a guy named Martin Luther. As far as I know he didn´t say that material wealth proved that you were blessed by God. He simply did disagree with the Catholic Church.

So you might want to take into account the last four years for example. Small secular Germany exported more than "Christian-faithful" USA. Think about that.

Posted by: Detlef | May 3, 2007 3:24:22 PM

> The Protestant faith was "invented" in Germany
> by a guy named Martin Luther. As far as I know
> he didn´t say that material wealth proved that
> you were blessed by God. He simply did disagree
? with the Catholic Church.

Ah, but then the Scots got involved... ;-)

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 3, 2007 3:26:51 PM

I don't get the argument going through this thread that if Ezra wants time off he should just go and take a job that gives him this. I don't think it is that easy to find a job in America that would give you 5 weeks of vacation and allows you to only work 35 hours a week.

The point I think Ezra is making is that in Europe time off is much more mandated than here. If you take off a lot of time in America you get a certain label as being lazy. While in Europe it isn't frowned upon to take a long vacation.

Posted by: Cols714 | May 3, 2007 3:27:07 PM

For God's sake, bloody go on vacation or move or do something.....And again, Ezra, if you want more vacation time, there are certainly a lot of companies that offer it.

Really? What you're saying is that there's a whole bunch of companies that offer more than 2 weeks of vacation to people that have worked there for less than 5 years? I guess that being a former HR person you also would know about companies that don't even provide 2 weeks of vacation until after an employee has been there for a year. Or are you going to deny their existence?

Of course people should take the vacation allotted to them. But part of the problem with taking even the small bits we get from our benevolent, generous corporate masters is that our businesses are not set up to handle an employee's absence. That's really the reason that Americans can't understand how the French take such long vacations. We're all taught (wrongly) to believe that we're indispensible to the company's success and (rightly) that our positions are in jeopardy if we are gone for more than a few days, a week at the most.

I'm having a hard time deciding whether your comments are more ignorant or assholish.

Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2007 3:55:25 PM

I suspect many Americans have absolutely no interest in those trade-offs, and many people here would be frustrated by such a shift in emphasis to free time and leaisure over work. It's who we are.

Just one datapoint:

Like Ezra, I would love that trade-off and would tremendously enjoy that shift in emphasis to free time and leisure over work.

Posted by: Megan | May 3, 2007 3:58:22 PM

Just thinking out loud, would Ezra be the young blogging superstar that he is under French rules? Would he be able to work extra hours moonlighting on his blog? Or would the extra time off allow him to blog even more? If that's the case does that defeat the purpose of those rules? Or would the cultural shift lead Ezra not to blog in his free time, because he'd be busy planning his vacations and relaxing because that's a more acceptable way of living, instead of furthering his career by blogging independently of his 35 hour a week TAP job. Could this blog be the product of the hard-driving American culture? I'll bet that Ezra's groovy next job (with higher pay and more benefits, natch) will be a result of his work as a blogger as much as his work at TAP. You can't fool us, Ezra, you're no lazy Frenchman. We see you here working all the time, man.

Posted by: umbrelladoc | May 3, 2007 4:04:16 PM

Is Tyro a retard?

What I said was, we already provide this. We already have, as a society, to have a safety net. To say that I want to jerk that out from under anyone is a strawman.

Sheese!

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 3, 2007 5:25:47 PM

Well, it bears pointing out that since growth compounds the same way as interest, a "negligible" sacrifice of a fraction-percent in yearly growth can put you pretty far behind over the course of a generation or two.

Posted by: Senescent | May 3, 2007 5:31:51 PM

Well, yes.
As another commenter mentioned, the minimum vacation days in Germany per year according to law are 18 days. The average vacation days per year though are 30 days.
And according to European studies you need at least one two-to-three-week uninterrupted vacation per year to relax and accumulate the "power" for the rest of the year.

Maybe that´s the reason why French productivity per hour is higher than US productivity. Or why German trade exports were higher than US exports for the last four years.

Simply put in Europe you´re not considered lazy if you take your legally and union-mandated vacation days. That is simply your right. And we think that even our employers will gain if the employees will have time to relax. And if there is really no substitute for you this year, your European employer is required to compensate you with money for each vacation day you "lost".

Not to mention that - in our opinion - any established company that relies on just one person to function is a very fragile company. What is the difference between that person taking a vacation or that person being seriously sick? Any sane company will have a substitute for that function if necessary. And if so, what´s the problem with a vacation?

Posted by: Detlef | May 3, 2007 6:14:00 PM

I can tell you that in high tech and high demand fields, you can certainly find generous vacation packages along with other benefits. My old company essentially makes 4 weeks worth of time off (personal days/holidays and summer Fridays all in) available to new employees. And we had high demand employees who could bargain their way upwards of that. The trade off is that these are people who work very hard and many aren't that interested in time off. Is that available to everyone? Of course not. But it also the case that a lot of this - especially for the middle class and higher - is about choices, and a lot of people in America choose work. It's one of the reasons why we make such a fetish about time off - Las Vegas, Disney, the tour industry, all point to the fact that we are as regimented, and as workmanlike about our leisure as our actual work. My only point is that if vast numbers of people didn't want or expect this, it would change.

I'd also point out that some of the people hardest hit, and least able to self determine time off, are not just the poor, but those in more creative endeavors, including writing, as well as people, like Ezra - I've said it before - who by choice put themselves in the more voluntary sectors of the workforce, where the economics, never mind the expectations, make it hard to demand a lot of time off. I think it's natural that a lot of these people - all of us, really - extrapolate from their own experiences, and find a proletarian sympathy with other hourly workers without choices. But the cases are different, and both belie the fact that a lot of people are in jobs that offer good benefits with additional vacation time (either by seniority or luxury, or both), and a lot of that time just isn't taken. Lowering our workweeks or madating/forcing vacations in this country is just an absolute nonstarter. Again, it would be a fundamental shift in how Americans view work and our working lives. I'm not saying our notions of work are healthy or desirable, but I think people should see them for what they are.

Posted by: weboy | May 3, 2007 6:32:29 PM

What I said was, we already provide this. We already have, as a society, to have a safety net. To say that I want to jerk that out from under anyone is a strawman.

You also think that it's stealing and that it's wrong, whereas I think it's a good way to manage policy under many circumstances.

Posted by: Constantine | May 3, 2007 6:34:44 PM

Sure I get the argument that Americans like to work hard because that is our culture. But isn't it only our culture because that is what we are taught? I'm taught that taking days off and going on vacation are wrong because Joe in the next cubicle over is working 80 hours a week and why can't I be more like Joe. I think having a more strictly regulated work week would free up Americans to have more leisure time and the "I can't take vacation because I want to / have to work" mentality would go away.

Posted by: Cols714 | May 3, 2007 6:47:09 PM

I'm having a hard time deciding whether your comments are more ignorant or assholish.

I'm mostly being provocative; I have a hard time with joining the collective groupthink. :)

I agree with your points, Stephen, but I think it's too easy to just blame The Man (or "our benevolent corporate masters" if you prefer; I have no master) - that notion of indispensability as you say is false; so is that notion that your job's on the line when you try to use your benefits. In the end those constructs, and that mindset, are part of a larger picture about how we view work in our culture, which is to say, very capitalistically. Work is important, and what we do is who we are. You say this is about people who feel under threat; I'd tell you the hardest cases are the people who, under no threat at all, kill themselves working round the clock, and torture their subordinates with similar expectations. And my point is that you can't solve this by mandate... or certainly not by mandate alone. It means taking apart how Americans think about work, and about leisure. You can point to isolated examples of ways in which our society has tried to move away from this overindexing on work; but you can point to far more - especially in the new high tech work environments - where work has bled into even the small spaces carved out as personal and sacrosanct (weekends, evenings, working from home, on the road, "I'll just call in to the office"). Until we get a lot more consensus around the need to slow down, no government mandate can make it happen. Americans are just not like that.

Posted by: weboy | May 3, 2007 6:49:12 PM

Maybe, or maybe not.
Keep in mind that GDP growth counts almost anything.
Like I give you advice and present you with a bill. That counts as GDP growth. Now imagine that you a while later give me some advice ands a bill too. Both our advices and bills might cancel itself out for ourselves. None of us did actually pay anything. You paid me $100 and I paid you $100 back.

A Central Bank might count it as a $200 growth in (services) GDP. Simply put, how do you compare yearly growth then?

And not to mention it, what are your economic models saying for a huge federal deficit, a huge trade deficit and a huge current account deficit? God, the entire US economy right now just relies on the Bank of Japan and the People´s Republic of China Bank. Plus some Arabian Gulf countries. Right now, the USA needs some $1-2 billion per day to offset their deficits.

And you are speaking of "growth compounds"?
Speak of "growth compounds" once you have to pay back the loans!

Posted by: Detlef | May 3, 2007 7:04:02 PM

Perhaps more to the point is that Ezra is merely pointing out the obvious, that politicians have to deal with realities of where the electorate is. Sarkozy may want to dispose of the 35 hour work week, but he certainly feels he can't say that and get elected. Just like Obama, Clinton and Edwards don't directly advocate for single-payer health care when that may be indeed what they believe is best.

Posted by: umbrelladoc | May 3, 2007 8:17:25 PM

weboy,

Good points, all. I think you're focusing on the cultural problems we face while I'm focusing on the ways that corporations really do have inordinate amounts of influence over our lives outside of work.

Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2007 8:30:33 PM

John Calvin has been dead hundreds of years, but he is still the bain of fun in America.

Posted by: PSP | May 4, 2007 3:10:58 PM

Americans want more stuff, including children, than do Europeans. Stuff costs money. You make money by working. Americans work more than Europeans.

Most of the commentators here have it within their power to trade stuff for free time. Become a freakin school teacher. You will have less money and fame etc., but your vacation time will go up.

Why does everyone have to get on board for you to enjoy vacation? They don't.

I'm quite sure Mr. Klein could secure the essentials for living in less than 35 hours per 40 weeks a year. Just ratchet down on your own material expectations and make it happen.

Posted by: Neil Paul | May 4, 2007 4:19:58 PM

Hello,
my two cents about this interesting debate here :
first, I'm French and proudly so
I love my country, its health care system, its perks and culture
However, it's funny how American people always concentrate on the French when they want to evaluate the European way of life
Some facts : French people work more on average than Germans and Scandinavians.
As a German gentleman said earlier in this thread, but misunderstanding (or was it Elsa the other way round?)the 5-days workweek for the 6-days one, in Germany 6 weeks paid leave(30 days, so 6 X 5-days workweeks)is considered the norm, even if not mandatory ; in France it's 5 weeks only (in Elsa's figure it would be considered 5 X 6 days workweeks but the result is the same : in France paid leave is considered in weeks, even though it can be taken day by day, hence it's 30 days if employees work 6 days a week, or 25 days if employees work 5 days a week )
More could be said to prove that the Germanic countries are a much better case to study for the advantages and defects of social-democracy ; but of course, since they've got magnificient economies, "this could hurt a little bit" American egoes ; France is such a convenient scapegoat!
Now on the French psyche about vacation time :
-First, the French are used to paid leave since 1936 (two weeks), by a voted law ; for the then hard working lower class, this has been a seismic change, the end also of a long battle against the haves and the corporations, who predicted that France would be ruined by such a move ; people were at last able to see the sea, to camp, to enjoy sun-tanning, and that social tidal wave is still a very strong and cherished memory in this country.
From then on (except for the 1940-1948 period)the French have been used to go on vacation each summer, preferably by the sea and preferably heading south ; everybody has memories ranging the span of his life of lying on the beaches of Brittany, of wrestling the currents in Vendée, or of trying to find a place on the overcrowded beaches of Côte d'Azur ; a considerable number of films, books, songs, studies, documentaries, deal with this yearly summer rendez-vous between the French and their country ; it is now totally ingrained in our very way of lives ; for instance, women's magazines start their offensive on "diets for vacations " in may/june and on, teenagers are talking of their "amours d'été (summer romances)", etc...
- And here we arrive at this very interesting constatation : now vacation time is considered one of those famous "position goods" you were talking about in another thread, Elsa ; it's impossible to an image-conscious Frenchman to escape going "somewhere" on vacation for it has a SOCIAL meaning ;
someone who doesn't go back to work sun-tanned at the end of july or august is in social trouble - why wasn't he or she able to "go"? Is his business going bad? did he mess something up with his finances? etc...
Now the pressure is to TAKE vacation as the socially acceptable behavior (I certainly won't complain!)
All this to say that the social role of vacation and its perception is a delicate balance and it can change quite quickly.
One last word : so powerful is that social pressure to take vacations that the French not only go on summer vacations, but also flock in mind-blogging numbers by late winter and easter to ski! taking a ski vacation at least a few days a year is a must-do for an average family, and not being able to ski well as an adult (like me) is considered quite retard in the middle class...And I didn't say the UPPER middle class, no no!

Last but not least : I don't think this behavior wheighs too much on our economy ; it's just my opinion, but the only problem of France compared to its western European neighbors is in its high unemployment rate, esp. youth unemployment rate ; my opinion (debatable, but I'm personnaly convinced) is that three factors make up for it :
- The lack of quality and professionalisation its education for the middle-range jobs ; France focuses on very high-class education and artisanal education, but not in the middle, which makes for the bulk of corporate employees
- The lack of flexibility of the employment laws and regulations making it too difficult to hire as to fire the work force
- The very nature of French entrepreneurs : competition and RISK averse to an unthinkable point

Posted by: Ericmarseille | Jul 29, 2007 8:09:58 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour