Vive la France !

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Spartakus This shows that people in France have an actuall interest about politics and their future.It can only and only be positive when you see young people protesting for their rights. As a young person, I can tell you most people are my age are complete morons who believe stupid idealistic nonsense like this "I'm a human so I deserve a job and 8 months of paid vacation and 100% insurance coverage of all kinds even if I work at McDonald's." I can only hope when they graduate college and start working that life will bite them in the ass and wake them up.

The right to work is a fundamental human right.

 I like to see social protests over issues of importance, I like what Genghis said above too.

...Villepin says will alleviate France's sky-high youth unemployment by getting companies to risk hiring young workers. Quote from A.P. in yahoo.

This makes sense. Letting go of workers is so easy in the US that we do not have the same sympathies that many Europeans do. If younger means cheaper then go for it. At least they would be offered jobs that are now supposedly filled by those with seniority.

However, the issue of layoffs and such is a global problem. Tends to follow how effective one is in the market. The less effective have to resort to dire methods to stay in the game.

Edited by Seko

Originally posted by Seko  This makes sense. Letting go of workers is so easy in the US that we do not have the same sympathies that many Europeans do. If younger means cheaper then go for it. At least they would be offered jobs that are now supposedly filled by those with seniority. However, the issue of layoffs and such is a global problem. Tends to follow how effective one is in the market. The less effective have to resort to dire methods to stay in the game.

Getting rid of workers has become a way of maximizing profits in the short term in North America. This can't go on forever and probably shouldn't be used as a model for a sustainable economy.

I would venture a guess that everybody wants job security. Jobs, however, are created by those who are successfull in business. And the business savy have the option in how much wages to provide and how long to employ a person.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by DukeC Originally posted by Seko  This makes sense. Letting go of workers is so easy in the US that we do not have the same sympathies that many Europeans do. If younger means cheaper then go for it. At least they would be offered jobs that are now supposedly filled by those with seniority. However, the issue of layoffs and such is a global problem. Tends to follow how effective one is in the market. The less effective have to resort to dire methods to stay in the game. Getting rid of workers has become a way of maximizing profits in the short term in North America. This can't go on forever and probably shouldn't be used as a model for a sustainable economy. If a worker doesn't produce profit, he or she should be fired, enslaving industry into providing employment when economically they shouldn't sure as hell isn't sustainable and in the long run will bring down everybody's standard of living.

Downsizing your work force to eliminate payroll and benefits costs to make your quaterly report look better, increase your stock value and put a few million more into the pockets of your top executives makes no sense in the long term. In the end you're left with a shell of a company and if it's done on a wide enough scale the shell of an economy. But that's no problem you can just buy the cheaper product made from your operations you've moved overseas to areas where there's no such thing as workers rights. The only problem is less and less people can afford to buy them because their jobs are gone. Working at McDonalds for five bucks an hour really doesn't replace a $35 per hour job in an automotives plant.

Downsizing usually coincides with loss of market share or advances in technologies. Surely CEO's and administrators have reaped (greedily) the rewards of a perky job way out of proportion to the average worker of the same company. That is an area where penny pinching could help.

On the other hand, job availability and security follow the fluctuations of market economy. Trying to force a government to create a secure job market by protectionist methods doesn't seem to be cost effective.

That part of the above ^ labor equation is troublesome. Not only the financial imbalance but the psychological resentment that workers would have. But in the end of the day, workers do their job, blame the unions then spend their checks over the weekend then wait to do it all over again as long as they still have their jobs.

I think we agree here. The high profit and perks that buisness owners and board of director members, etc. reap generally has no consistant pattern. Unless it is to fill a few pockets. Though it may be their right, it sure creates friction.

Responsibility for owners of publicly owned business do need a certain checks and balances. As long as we play the capitalist game the only answer is to succeed. That means for owners to be more frugal and governments to become flexible to market conditions. Protectionism is a losers way of guaranteeing jobs that may eventually not be there.

Originally posted by DukeC The problem isn't at the bottom rung of the workforce ladder it's at the top. In the mid 70s a shopfloor worker made $1 for every $30 made by those running the company. Now the number is $1 for every $1000 made by those at the top. Is it any wonder there's less and less to go around.

If a CEO wants to do that, you have no right to stop him, it is his business and he can operate it as he sees fit, if workers don't like, they can quit and get a new job at somewhere with less earnings discrepancies, no one is forcing him to work there.