Why do some Liberal Malcontents hate the French?
Because they're jealous that the French have more time on their hands for blogging? Yet another good editorial by Paul Krugman -- this time examining some of the realities behind the glib comparisons Americans make to attack the "failed welfare states" of Europe. Also, he makes a nice tie-in to the "values" issues.
posted by Dumplingeater @ 7/29/2005
5 comments
5 Comments:
I have to say, there is quite a lot to recommend in the French work environment. For the last couple of years, I have worked closely with a group of people based in Paris and spent time at the office there. The atmosphere is different, more relaxed, more positive than in any other place I have seen. And yes, the biggest benefit is time off, but also because most are forced to work a 36 hour week and make family the priority. Also, the idea of groups of friends taking off at the same time and vacationing together is something that definitely figures into their morale. I have talk to people who plan this 11 months in advance with the main objective to go somewhere where they can just RELAX and enjoy each others' company. As for productivity, I have found them very driven, but really in short cycles. Catch them in September and October and they are amazing. Talk to them in July and you can basically forget it.
I am generalizing? Yes, but not by a lot. I have spent more productive time at dinner with them than doing anything else. Yes, they have an attitude toward uncultured Americans, but when you are open to them and willing to learn from them, I have not found more warm and generous people, except in Italy. But they yell too much.
You are all giving Krugman far too much credit for his column which was, in a word, flawed.
Here is what Krugman should have written:
1. The French economy is stagnant and does not generate enough jobs for its citizens. The French unemployment rate is 66% higher than that of the U.S.
2. Being an unemployed Frenchman is not a choice or side affect of French worker’s spending more time with their families.
3. Most importantly, French people are not more happy or satisfied as their American counterparts as Krugman suggests. In fact, its quite the opposite.
We’ve detailed all of these arguments using many of Krugman’s same sources.
Krugman's French Connection or Les Miserables?
The only people in the world who believe the French are having happy family fun seem to live in the ivory towers of downtown New York.
Insider, assuming that you're not simply a troll (is that the correct term?), and you will actually read this comment instead of just trying to promote your, let's call it flawed, propaganda, I'll make a quick response.
1. The French economy is stagnant and does not generate enough jobs for its citizens. The French unemployment rate is 66% higher than that of the U.S.
Krugman did directly discuss the relative employment rates, perhaps you should actually read his article. To simply state that it is 66% higher in France is misleading in that you haven't connected that figure to any other correlated variables. Furthermore, US unemployment statistics are misleading in themselves. I have limited knowledge of the issue, but I do know that US unemployment figures don't count those who have dropped out of the workforce due to lack of job opportunities -- are the stats on French unemployment similarly compiled? And it seems that to fairly make comparisons, the wages of the employed relative to cost of living, as well as lifestyle considerations, must be factored in. I have read many articles that discuss that while Americans are working longer hours and there are far more families which must rely on two incomes to meet their expenses, in aggregate, we are losing ground in the ratio of average family income to cost of living. While Krugman does discuss the discrepancies in disposable income, your arguments (and yes, I did check out your website), make no allowances for the availability of nationalized health insurance in France, nor do they give any weight to the lifestyle benefits of increased time off. In order to have any credibility in your arguments, you need to address those issues in an even-handed manner. Your statistics are interesting, but saying that a poll shows that French are less happy than Americans doesn't control for a whole slew of potential variables. Let me ask you, would you be happier if you had more vacation time and a shorter workweek? Seems like a pretty obvious answer to me.
2. Being an unemployed Frenchman is not a choice or side affect of French worker’s spending more time with their families.
Do you have any basis for making that statement? Do you have any polls that indicated that given the option, in general, the French would chose to work longer hours and sacrifice vacation time for increased disposable income along with increased health insurance costs? Seem dubious to me. I certainly wouldn't make that trade.
3. Most importantly, French people are not more happy or satisfied as their American counterparts as Krugman suggests. In fact, its quite the opposite.
Really? Have you spent any time in France lately, or anywhere else in Western Europe for that matter? Personally, when I travel there, I am continuously discouraged that in this country we seem to be unwittingly duped into trading off higher employment at low-wage jobs, poor infrastructure (such as public transportation), and free health care for the sake of raising GDP, which most clearly benefits corporate execs. The increased productivity in this country has clearly benefited the few at the top much more dramatically than the many at the middle and bottom. Maybe you're content with such a trade off, but if you are, I would venture a guess that you have a pretty good income -- one that means that you can drive an SUV rather than worry about public transport, and don't need to worry about being able to pay your medical bills.
The only people in the world who believe the French are having happy family fun seem to live in the ivory towers of downtown New York.
Your thinly vailed attack on the "liberal-elite" is your most obviously false statement. There aren't any towers in my neighborhood, and I don't live in downtown New York.
I suggest that unless you want to make seriously argued comments on this blog, you save your energy for when you call Rush.
Thank you for your thoughtful though flawed commentary. It is too long to fisk so I'll just make a couple of points.
First off, writting that the unemployment data might be off because different countries might use different data is weak and I'm sure upon re-reading what you wrote you'll agree. The data on both countries is available from the IMF and I'm sure with a little reading you can learn you'll see that the methodologies are consistent. The high unemployment of France is a well-known, well-discussed factoid, especially within France. Even Krugman admits it's a problem.
You also talk about needing to look at the wages relative to cost of living. This gives an even worse result for the "French model". Using “purchasing power parity” instead of a straight local currency-to-dollar conversion … France has slipped from 116% of the UK’s figure to 97% (data 1980 to present). Links to the IMF's World Economic Database are available on the story. In other words, comparing apples to apples, French people can buy increasing less with the money they earn than people in the UK (it would be even more dramatic if compared to the US economy).
As for your comment "for the sake of raising GDP, which most clearly benefits corporate execs." Do you really believe this? I appreciate your desire to make a point but don't tarnish your own position by making such a silly comment.
Finally, we can argue all day what the French are thinking. I cited Pew research and extremely respected non-partisan think tank. You cite your own observations by what you saw being there. I let other readers decide what they consider to be the more statistically relevant.
By the way, the "liberal elite" wasn't directed at you (I don't even know you) unless of course you work for the NYT.
Insider,
I appreciate your comments, and some of them are actually on point. I'll talk about them later. As for what was not on point:
I didn't cite anecdotal observations to back my take on French opinion, although I might have (I have worked very closely with a number of very high-ranking French executives, and discussed many of these issues with them). Your assertion that I did, once again supports my contention that you don't read very closely. I talked about my experiences traveling in Europe to help provide context for MY reactions to what it seems to me we sacrifice for the sake of corporate profits.
I'm not going to take the time to do the research on the data, but I'm a bit surprised that you think that questioning the methodolgies behind the data collection is "weak." I raised it as a question. If you assertion is that the IMF has sound methodologies behind its data collection (something I'm certainly not 100% convinced of, considering the makeup of the IMF), then I have no problem accepting the comparison as valid. Still, while the comparison may be valid, the point I raised still calls into question the blanket assumption that the unemployment rate isn't a somewhat flawed measure, and that in the very least it should used to judge the "health" of an economy only in conjunction with many other factors (SUCH AS HOW MUCH VACATION TIME MOST PEOPLE HAVE AND WHETHER THEY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE-- FACTORS WHICH ONCE AGAIN, YOU NEGLECT TO VALUE IN ANY WAY).
Do you really believe that there is not inequity in who benefits, and how much, from a rising GDP? If so, then I can only imagine that you have very little contact with poor people, and never have any discussions with the myriad of folks who provide you low paid services.
I, for one, do "really believe" that corporate execs benfit most clearly from rise in GDP, and would welcome seeing solid evidence that my belief is false.
As for your point about the comparison of wages and cost of living between France and the UK. You state that the differences would be even more dramatic if the comparison was made to the US. Do you have any factual basis for making that statement -- for example a comparison of the same ratio between the UK and the US, which could be useful by extension?
Finally, don't you find it at least relative to the judegement of what Europeans are "thinking," that in much of Western Europe, even in those countries that have had less economic growth in recent years, voters still seem to appreciate that a balance needs to be struck between unbridled Capitalism and social welfare? If not, why would there be mixed results with respect to the economic policies of those candidates who get the most votes?
Also, it would be nice if you took the time to respond to Arthur's questions and comments above
Post a Comment
<< Home