>Personal anecdotes aside, there's no clear proof of a negative impact on employment (though also no positive effect.
I presume you're talking about the shortened work week, rather than the bureaucracy in general. Of course, given that it was supposed to help unemployment, that it doesn't help suggests that it should be repealed and replaced with something else.
Well, just because it hasn't had the specific result that was sought doesn't mean the measure should be repealed. It seems te have raised productivity and the non-economic are very positive.
One person threatening to quit can mean a big deal to a five-person company, especially if they're a heavy hitter. For a company of five thousand, not so much. But negotiating collectives can be large enough to negotiate effectively without being large enough to prevent employee choice entirely.
Aside from making collectives bigger, one could make companies smaller. Technology has made it orders of magnitude easier to run a small company these days. A good portion of the large companies I've seen are fed more by power to bully and cheat, rather than the typical justification, economy of scale. Perhaps a progressive tax based on company size would be more effective at improving employee negotiating power than a one-size-fits-all solution.
And for a fair number of people, I don't think they need government help. As the value of knowledge and skill increases relative to capital, employers have a much bigger incentive to keep people happy. See this article on SAS, for example. For them, the government-mandated work week is purely a hindrance.
That (may) work fine for higly skilled and scarce workers (though I'd say the scarce part is much more important than the skilled). However everything in the history of industrial relations shows that without a strong counterforce (governmental or collective) employers *will* abuse their power position. Even examples of "good" companies only mean that others will get a pass since pundits can point towards to good company to show why regulation is unnecessary.
The whole point of companies is to maximize profit, and employees' salaries are a major source of expense. A small company, with a more personal relationship with the boss and only a handfull of employees may be different but I have worked in enough to know that often the boss's there are more demanding, since it's their business. And while the possibility of several employees leaving may be a good bargaining chip, the normal point of negotiation is hiring where the employer has the upper hand.
More practical would be concentrating on large commercial cold storages, who I'm sure would be willing to let the power companies control their rate of cooling for a reduction in electricity prices.
Also solar energy has constant factor. Even on the most cloudy day it will still produce some 20% of its maximum capacity. Plus while they obviously don't work at night, the power demand is highest during working hours, which in most latitudes is (almost entirely) during daylight.
Well health care is a whole other discussion, but the short version is that everyone wants health care when they need it. Some healthy people might not want to get insurance, but if/when they then break a leg/discover they have cancer I doubt anyone doesn't want health care.
as for amending the constitution: I'd say it's a bit too hard (mostly in the 3/4 of the states rule). You have to be able to change the rules as society changes. What has happened now is that the rules are bend so out of anything resembling a shape they become meaningless. It seems to me it would be better if the power of the federal state is decided by changing the rules not by changing the interpretation of the rules.
I think there's nothing wrong with those things. I think a government requirement for it is generally a bad idea.
For example, I know a Frenchman who lived in the US for a while and started a business there. He now lives in Paris and loves it, but all of his staff are still in the US. When I asked him when he was going to hire people in France, he said never. Why? Too much hassle. Even if he couldn't hire in the US, the extensive regulations would still make him very resistant to hiring European staff. Unemployment in action.
Is that specifically because of the 35 hour week or because of overall bureaucracy? Personal anecdotes aside, there's no clear proof of a negative impact on employment (though also no positive effect.
We're all trading free time for money, and I think it's better to let people decide the right balance individually. And the reason most politicians promote a reduced-work-week scheme is a fallacy, the lump-of-labor fallacy.
That sounds good in theory. However without government interfering the individual employee has far too little bargaining power. The British example vis-a-vis minimum wage and the exemption to maximum working hours demonstrates this nicely. The only alternative is collective bargaining, which once again means no individual choice.
Don't forget: even with a government mandated maximum workweek, you can still work more. It only describes an average, standard workweek. Overtime is possible, as long as it is compensated and no one is stopping you from starting your own business (also: in France business with less than 20 employees are exempt).
>I quite fail to see how a 35 hour workweek or 6 weeks of paid leave (not to mention universal healthcare and good consumer protection) are bad things.
Because it removes choice. And technically, the 10th Amendment of the US Const. forbids the federal gov't from monkeying with them.
How does it reduce choice? It is possible to work more, either through overtime or through send jobs etc. And I quite sure the overwhelming majority of workers would rather have more free time than less. You could argue that the longer work hours in other countries lead to higher prices.
In regards to the 10th:
a) It was a discussion about Europe/Russia, so the US constitution doesn't really factor into it.
b) Minimum hours worked seems to actually have some relation to the Commerce Clause, as opposed to most invocations of it.
c) When has the pesky 10th amendment meant anything? The same Commerce Clause is abused to make pretty much everything a federal issue. As a European generally find most US right wing talking points wrong, idiotic or abhorrent but that's one I agree with. Either amend your constitution to allow the Federal government to do more or leave it be. </pet peeve>
A good counter argument, however the logic that the companies can only compensate for the reduced workforce/increased pay by reducing quality of their products seems rather one-sided.
Most companies in France seem to have compensated for the 35 hour week by increasing productivity(-quotas). Experience shows that companies *don't* optimize their production in good times. Otherwise there would be little point in restructuring (except in scaling down of production). Also the compulsory introduction makes for a good argument towards the workforce/unions (we have to increase efficiency because of the 25 hour workweek) which tens to be more effective than a generalized "we have to do better because the shareholder want more money".
Furthermore, in so far as the 35 week is a problem it is a transitional one. It means 10-13% less hours worked at equal pay, which is quite a steep pay raise. However in the longer run companies will adjust wage increases to reach a level of profitability equal to a situation in which there was no reduction in the work week. And of course the 40 hour workweek isn't a absolute standard, it's just the current most wildly accepted compromise. As long as productivity and pay per hour are in balance you can have any possible workweek.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and from France's example (and more sectoralized 35/36 hour workweeks in other countries) it seems that the effect from an economic point of view is negligible. And from the perspective of the workers it is a big improvement in regards to more free time. All of which counters the OP position about Europe being crushed under the weight of its system.
What? Airbus is doing well? Really? What school of business did you go to? The only reason they will still be making some planes is that Boeing can't fulfill all the orders.
Hardly. Reports of Airbus's decline have been greatly exaggerated (as were the reports about Boeing's decline a few years before that). Airbus shot itself in the foot with the electrical problems on the A380 en is suffering from the low dollar but both problem are being addressed. Considering that some 35 years after being founded it sells a little more that half the worlds large jet aircraft, I'd say calling it a success is valid.
(Though I'm not sure it ever qualified as a state-controlled enterprise)
Europe doesn't scare me. It's the government that will replace the failing governments that scares me. How long will Europe survive, crushed under its own caretaker-state? 15% Unemployment, a 35 hour work week, 6 weeks vacation and a sense of sniveling self righteousness that nothing is wrong spells an inevitable repeat of the circumstances of the Locarno Pact.
*sigh* the neo-liberal propaganda again. Europe is doing fine. Unemployment in the EU down to a reasonable seven percent (including around 3% for states like Denmark and the Netherlands with very large welfare systems). Growth is healthy and comparable with the US.
I quite fail to see how a 35 hour workweek or 6 weeks of paid leave (not to mention universal healthcare and good consumer protection) are bad things.
Concerning the "sense of snivelling self righteousness" I'd offer a) a request for some examples b) the possibility that it might me justified and c) a mirror/look at the US government.
It's the usual competition reason: China has nukes, so India must have them to protect herself, whereupon which Pakistan must have nukes to protect itself against India (and ironacly gets help from China to do so).
Plus it like a large population: if you're country isn't doing too well on other measures, nukes are a nice way of rising above the pack.
All good reasons not to let Turkey join. The EU isn't like NATO, where a new member hasn't got a lot of influence on what other members can do. A country, especially a large country which would have lot of voting power and economic influence (good and bad) can't be so unstable that it could change into a dictatorship.
While the computing work is indeed overwhelmingly done in the US, the EU (especially Germany) is actually better at keeping the (non defense) manufacturing side of things.
Yeah, that part is confusing. Why not simply still use the machine to count the result, and then allow a challenge, where the paper ballot is counted. You get the advantage of speedy results with the security of paper ballots.
Well no, you can influence the number of parties you're likely to get by changing the minmal vote required to enter parlement.
Beyond that what you get is serveral parties having to work together to form a government. Which means compromises have to be made, which generally (though certasinly not always) result in a better result than a strong move to one side or the other.
I still use Eudora (5.1). The reason is simple: it just works. Obviously I'm not using Outlook etc. And I have/am occasionally trying Thunderbird, but so far Eudora works best for me. One of the biggest points in its favour: all settings and stored mail can be easily ported in a single folder. It's really a stand alone program and a highly configurable one at that.
I'd like to switch to Thunderbird or one of the forks but so far they're just not "easy" enough. Yes a lot of that is not wanting the learning curve, but unlike with other software, where a few days working with the better/newer program is enough to convince me, I haven't found a better email client so far.
Of course, I would still like to see the electoral college stay intact as well where the winner would have to win both the electoral and the popular vote. If not, another run off. Without the electoral college, candidates would only campaign in the top 10 cities and blow off the rest. Why campaign in Utah and Idaho when you get more votes for your dollar by campaigning in Chicago and LA?
I never understood this logic (not harping on you personally, I've seen this though in many posts). Why would candidates suddenly ignore the rest of the country? You can't win a majority with just the top 10 cities, or even the top 5 states because in a simple popular vote you'll never get 100% of the votes in the top 10 states. And even if you got enough of the votes in the largest states to get a majority you'd likely have won a majority in most states.
Would abolishing the Electoral College reduce the concern candidates have for voter interest in places like Iowa and Nevada? Sure. But only to the amount the number of their inhabitants warrants. It's bizarre that the under the current system tens of million voters in states like California, Texas and New York have no influence on the outcomes, while a few 100.000 in a small state can decide the presidency.
Even if a candidate was foolish enough to completely ignore, say, farmers. I'm sure his opponent would be more than happy to collect those votes. Yes Kansas will get less corn subsidies/tariff walls, but that's as it should be if you take into account the whole population and not just those who live in swing and/or early primary states.
Well, many European nations have an explicit right to privacy. Which is different from the US (yes there is a constitutional right to privacy but it is implicit, which means it tends to be unenforced in rulings). While the government has more leeway than private companies they are mostly subject to similar rules (i.e. they can't simply share information between, say the IRS and welfare, you need an explicit law to allow it.)
Many posters seem to think this is a US-only problem. This issue is much bigger. For example, the EU has a large trade deficit with China. Since the EU and US economies are about the same order of magnitude, and their trade deficits with China are similarly sized. I would argue that their economies have similar issues. All this discussion about exporting jobs, exporting factories, etc. needs to consider this.
Two problems with this. One: that isn't quite true. THough they indeed have similiar sized economies the EU's deficit with Chine, while quite large at almost 170bn, is much smaller than the US one of more than $ 700 bn.
Second: while the EU has a significant deficit with Chine, overall it has a quite small one of some $10 billion. Thanks to surplussed with other trading partners such as: the US.
In the long run, every import has to be paid for by an export. On a local scale, if an economy stops exporting as much as it imports, it ends up like Flint Michigan. That the US hasn't ended up like that already is testimony to the strong domestic economy.
No, it's a testimony to two things: the fact that the currency exchange with most east Asian currencies isn't free floating (the Yuan isn't allowed to fall) and the fact that most resources are denominated in dollars (which makes it much more likely that for example Saudi Arabia reinvests in the US). If these two things weren't true the dollar would have slid far more against other currencies which would have created inflation (gasoline at 7$/gallon anyone?) and resolved the deficit that way.
The good economy has helped at times (there was a lot of real investment in the US in the 90's) but these days the real investment pale in comparison to the currency manipulations (which is mostly in treasury bonds)
The worst part is that even at 50% of todays value China would still be cheaper for moest production. Especially since most recources are priced in dollars. Inflation would skyrocket in the US.
That's really the problem in its entirety. Governments are absolutely terrible at providing services to people. Private enterprise is always more efficient--
That's the standard refrain that has become accepted as the truth. It is, however, not true. Just like private corporations are very much capable of delivering terrible service, governments can provide first class service. Plenty of privatized systems (UK railroads anyone?) become much worse, and plenty of countries have excellent services for things like health care or public transportation/
It was hardly a "off-and-on military dictatorship". From the Korean war until the the late 80s it was first class hard edged police state. That it was less bad than the North Korean equivalent, or that it ultimate became a democracy doesn't change the fact that the US wasn't fighting for freedom and democracy.
While that is indeed a part of the British system, it has little or nothing to do with the length of the campaign season. Of course the systems are so different that any comparison is difficult (for example: technically the government isn't allowed to do anything but keep things running during this period since it isn't officially in power any more).
Having said that: shortening the election season seems at least partally possible in the US. If the primaries of both parties wouldn't start until, say, July of the election year that would still give them 4 months do the primary and the actual election.
Slashdot Mirror
That (may) work fine for higly skilled and scarce workers (though I'd say the scarce part is much more important than the skilled). However everything in the history of industrial relations shows that without a strong counterforce (governmental or collective) employers *will* abuse their power position. Even examples of "good" companies only mean that others will get a pass since pundits can point towards to good company to show why regulation is unnecessary.
The whole point of companies is to maximize profit, and employees' salaries are a major source of expense. A small company, with a more personal relationship with the boss and only a handfull of employees may be different but I have worked in enough to know that often the boss's there are more demanding, since it's their business. And while the possibility of several employees leaving may be a good bargaining chip, the normal point of negotiation is hiring where the employer has the upper hand.
More practical would be concentrating on large commercial cold storages, who I'm sure would be willing to let the power companies control their rate of cooling for a reduction in electricity prices.
Also solar energy has constant factor. Even on the most cloudy day it will still produce some 20% of its maximum capacity. Plus while they obviously don't work at night, the power demand is highest during working hours, which in most latitudes is (almost entirely) during daylight.
Well health care is a whole other discussion, but the short version is that everyone wants health care when they need it. Some healthy people might not want to get insurance, but if/when they then break a leg/discover they have cancer I doubt anyone doesn't want health care.
as for amending the constitution: I'd say it's a bit too hard (mostly in the 3/4 of the states rule). You have to be able to change the rules as society changes. What has happened now is that the rules are bend so out of anything resembling a shape they become meaningless. It seems to me it would be better if the power of the federal state is decided by changing the rules not by changing the interpretation of the rules.
Is that specifically because of the 35 hour week or because of overall bureaucracy? Personal anecdotes aside, there's no clear proof of a negative impact on employment (though also no positive effect.
That sounds good in theory. However without government interfering the individual employee has far too little bargaining power. The British example vis-a-vis minimum wage and the exemption to maximum working hours demonstrates this nicely. The only alternative is collective bargaining, which once again means no individual choice.
Don't forget: even with a government mandated maximum workweek, you can still work more. It only describes an average, standard workweek. Overtime is possible, as long as it is compensated and no one is stopping you from starting your own business (also: in France business with less than 20 employees are exempt).
How does it reduce choice? It is possible to work more, either through overtime or through send jobs etc. And I quite sure the overwhelming majority of workers would rather have more free time than less. You could argue that the longer work hours in other countries lead to higher prices.
In regards to the 10th:
a) It was a discussion about Europe/Russia, so the US constitution doesn't really factor into it.
b) Minimum hours worked seems to actually have some relation to the Commerce Clause, as opposed to most invocations of it.
c) When has the pesky 10th amendment meant anything? The same Commerce Clause is abused to make pretty much everything a federal issue. As a European generally find most US right wing talking points wrong, idiotic or abhorrent but that's one I agree with. Either amend your constitution to allow the Federal government to do more or leave it be. </pet peeve>
A good counter argument, however the logic that the companies can only compensate for the reduced workforce/increased pay by reducing quality of their products seems rather one-sided. Most companies in France seem to have compensated for the 35 hour week by increasing productivity(-quotas). Experience shows that companies *don't* optimize their production in good times. Otherwise there would be little point in restructuring (except in scaling down of production). Also the compulsory introduction makes for a good argument towards the workforce/unions (we have to increase efficiency because of the 25 hour workweek) which tens to be more effective than a generalized "we have to do better because the shareholder want more money".
Furthermore, in so far as the 35 week is a problem it is a transitional one. It means 10-13% less hours worked at equal pay, which is quite a steep pay raise. However in the longer run companies will adjust wage increases to reach a level of profitability equal to a situation in which there was no reduction in the work week. And of course the 40 hour workweek isn't a absolute standard, it's just the current most wildly accepted compromise. As long as productivity and pay per hour are in balance you can have any possible workweek.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and from France's example (and more sectoralized 35/36 hour workweeks in other countries) it seems that the effect from an economic point of view is negligible. And from the perspective of the workers it is a big improvement in regards to more free time. All of which counters the OP position about Europe being crushed under the weight of its system.
Hardly. Reports of Airbus's decline have been greatly exaggerated (as were the reports about Boeing's decline a few years before that). Airbus shot itself in the foot with the electrical problems on the A380 en is suffering from the low dollar but both problem are being addressed. Considering that some 35 years after being founded it sells a little more that half the worlds large jet aircraft, I'd say calling it a success is valid.
(Though I'm not sure it ever qualified as a state-controlled enterprise)
*sigh* the neo-liberal propaganda again. Europe is doing fine. Unemployment in the EU down to a reasonable seven percent (including around 3% for states like Denmark and the Netherlands with very large welfare systems). Growth is healthy and comparable with the US.
I quite fail to see how a 35 hour workweek or 6 weeks of paid leave (not to mention universal healthcare and good consumer protection) are bad things.
Concerning the "sense of snivelling self righteousness" I'd offer a) a request for some examples b) the possibility that it might me justified and c) a mirror/look at the US government.
It's the usual competition reason: China has nukes, so India must have them to protect herself, whereupon which Pakistan must have nukes to protect itself against India (and ironacly gets help from China to do so).
Plus it like a large population: if you're country isn't doing too well on other measures, nukes are a nice way of rising above the pack.
All good reasons not to let Turkey join. The EU isn't like NATO, where a new member hasn't got a lot of influence on what other members can do. A country, especially a large country which would have lot of voting power and economic influence (good and bad) can't be so unstable that it could change into a dictatorship.
While the computing work is indeed overwhelmingly done in the US, the EU (especially Germany) is actually better at keeping the (non defense) manufacturing side of things.
Yeah, that part is confusing. Why not simply still use the machine to count the result, and then allow a challenge, where the paper ballot is counted. You get the advantage of speedy results with the security of paper ballots.
Well no, you can influence the number of parties you're likely to get by changing the minmal vote required to enter parlement.
Beyond that what you get is serveral parties having to work together to form a government. Which means compromises have to be made, which generally (though certasinly not always) result in a better result than a strong move to one side or the other.
Sure, but besides that being a rather buried folder, you have to edit profiles.ini te get it to work. Not that difficult, but more hassle.
I still use Eudora (5.1). The reason is simple: it just works. Obviously I'm not using Outlook etc. And I have/am occasionally trying Thunderbird, but so far Eudora works best for me. One of the biggest points in its favour: all settings and stored mail can be easily ported in a single folder. It's really a stand alone program and a highly configurable one at that.
I'd like to switch to Thunderbird or one of the forks but so far they're just not "easy" enough. Yes a lot of that is not wanting the learning curve, but unlike with other software, where a few days working with the better/newer program is enough to convince me, I haven't found a better email client so far.
I never understood this logic (not harping on you personally, I've seen this though in many posts). Why would candidates suddenly ignore the rest of the country? You can't win a majority with just the top 10 cities, or even the top 5 states because in a simple popular vote you'll never get 100% of the votes in the top 10 states. And even if you got enough of the votes in the largest states to get a majority you'd likely have won a majority in most states.
Would abolishing the Electoral College reduce the concern candidates have for voter interest in places like Iowa and Nevada? Sure. But only to the amount the number of their inhabitants warrants. It's bizarre that the under the current system tens of million voters in states like California, Texas and New York have no influence on the outcomes, while a few 100.000 in a small state can decide the presidency.
Even if a candidate was foolish enough to completely ignore, say, farmers. I'm sure his opponent would be more than happy to collect those votes. Yes Kansas will get less corn subsidies/tariff walls, but that's as it should be if you take into account the whole population and not just those who live in swing and/or early primary states.
Well, many European nations have an explicit right to privacy. Which is different from the US (yes there is a constitutional right to privacy but it is implicit, which means it tends to be unenforced in rulings). While the government has more leeway than private companies they are mostly subject to similar rules (i.e. they can't simply share information between, say the IRS and welfare, you need an explicit law to allow it.)
Two problems with this. One: that isn't quite true. THough they indeed have similiar sized economies the EU's deficit with Chine, while quite large at almost 170bn, is much smaller than the US one of more than $ 700 bn.
Second: while the EU has a significant deficit with Chine, overall it has a quite small one of some $10 billion. Thanks to surplussed with other trading partners such as: the US.
The worst part is that even at 50% of todays value China would still be cheaper for moest production. Especially since most recources are priced in dollars. Inflation would skyrocket in the US.
It was hardly a "off-and-on military dictatorship". From the Korean war until the the late 80s it was first class hard edged police state. That it was less bad than the North Korean equivalent, or that it ultimate became a democracy doesn't change the fact that the US wasn't fighting for freedom and democracy.
While that is indeed a part of the British system, it has little or nothing to do with the length of the campaign season. Of course the systems are so different that any comparison is difficult (for example: technically the government isn't allowed to do anything but keep things running during this period since it isn't officially in power any more). Having said that: shortening the election season seems at least partally possible in the US. If the primaries of both parties wouldn't start until, say, July of the election year that would still give them 4 months do the primary and the actual election.
Consindering that those South-Koreans where living under a dictatorship at the time (and would for another 30 years) I'm not sure they would.