Jump to content

Work more, earn more, spend more


Recommended Posts

Sarkozy has been quite clear in his

campaign that he wants to construct a different world in France.  “Together, everything is possible.”  That world is based (partly) on “work more,

earn more, increase your ability to buy more (pouvoir d’achat”).  Whatever else he and his government might

do, they really have to show French people that this new world is possible, and

that “we” can construct it together.  I

would like to propose a discussion of this world.  I am firmly convinced that both young and old, those who are just

starting work and those who are “retired”, have complicated and strong views

about this.  I also am convinced that

although many people on the forum think the world of Sarkozy is the world they

want, or perhaps already have, I am equally certain there are those for whom

those slogans do NOT embody the world they live in or would like to live in.  That is, some of us might have quite serious

doubts about working more, earning more, consuming more.  I would like to see what people think about

that “opposition” between the Sarkozy world and the “other world”.  Obviously this is simplified, but I thought

if we talked about it concretely, with our experiences, and our knowledge of

the Thatcher-Major-Blair years, with our experience in France, we might come up

with some interesting insights. 

Obviously I am on the world of not necessarily working more to earn more

to consume more. 

 Two things.  First, I hope we can disconnect this thread from the one where

people attack PdF.  He talks of exactly

this set of issues, but in the context of himself and his group’s actions.  This all tends to wind things up so the

discussion of the problem gets lost.  I

am keen to broaden it to include our experiences with our lives.  Although I do hope PdF participates. 

 Second thing, although I know it might be a

pipe dream, I would really like it if those who are devotees of the “Sarkozy

world” (just to simplify it since his slogans were so clear) would not be

active participants n this ONE discussion. 

We all pretty much know the Sarkozy line and the world that Sarkozy

represents.  But it would be really good

to be able to discuss the details, the conflicts, the tensions, the

difficulties, the practicalities, even the ridiculous or funny side of “another

world” more or less without people who just plain don’t agree at all and are

unlikely to change their mind. 

Obviously it’s a public forum and anyone can read, as well as post.  But if we get into those totally

oppositional stances, it just won’t be as useful or as much fun.  So please “work more, earn more, spend more

on whatever you want” types, please just read, and don’t tell write to tell us

we are full of rubbish.  There will be

plenty of debate and disagreement among those with doubts.  We (assuming there is a “we”) might even have

huge disagreements, where we slag each other off.  But maybe not. Thank you.

Now I

feel like someone who has organised an event and has no idea if anyone will

come.  Oh dear. [:$]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally, I'm unconvinced by the idea that individuals who already have jobs and who put in a full day's work, really do produce a good deal more when they work longer hours.  Yes, I'm sure it can happen.  I am certain that there are particular businesses or industries (particularly small ones) where this works.  However, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that more hours "on site" if you like, have their downside.  Either people don't actually work more, but spend more time standing around chatting or just being unproductive, or they do work harder but the stress begins to affect their health, with all the costs to their nation and thier business which are asssociated with this.

Yes, I know that the limiting of the working week to 35 hours to create more jobs has not worked, but I'm still not sure why this is so.  It sounds perfectly logical to me.  With high unemployment, surely the best thing is to get those who currenly don't have jobs, into work and contributing to the economy rather than living off it?  My suspicion is that this is more skills and training related than anything else.  You only have to look on here to see that there's quite a percentage of us who are crying out for skilled artisans and that the best of these are so very busy that there's obviously work in these fields for good people. 

Do we need to consume more anyway?  Well, that's a good question.  However, we all have computers (that's a fact) and we're connected to the internet (also a fact).  Ergo, we probably don't represent the people most in need of help here.  Yes, as a priveleged group (which we probably are on the whole - in comparison to the average person in today's world)we can make the decision to buy re-cycled products, food produced organically, avoid using shops which buy goods which exploit less-privileged sections of the world and society - but can we force this view on the less well off?  PdF's argument is that advertising is bad because it encourages the growth of supermarkets which are evil because they encourage consumerism.  Fine.  Maybe we as a group can afford the more expensive goods in our little local shops.  But if you are unemployed or living on a low wage, would you really choose to pay more over what's offered in Asda, Lidls, Walmart, Netto?  And if an expanded economy gets you a job, you get on the employment ladder and suddenly want a big TV, a hard drive DVD recorder, a nice car - who are we, who probably already have these things anyway - to tell you you're not allowed one because you'll destroy the planet in 100 years or so?

Sorry TV, as ever I have no answers only questions.  That's why I'm not a politician, only a consumer, who would like to see a prosperous, peaceful planet that will last beyond the year 3000!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="cooperlola"]Yes, I know that the limiting of the working week to 35 hours to create more jobs has not worked, but I'm still not sure why this is so.  It sounds perfectly logical to me.  With high unemployment, surely the best thing is to get those who currenly don't have jobs, into work and contributing to the economy rather than living off it?  My suspicion is that this is more skills and training related than anything else.  You only have to look on here to see that there's quite a percentage of us who are crying out for skilled artisans and that the best of these are so very busy that there's obviously work in these fields for good people. [/quote]

Personally, I think that the les 35 heures failed because of how difficult it is to hire/fire someone.  It was a good idea in theory (as so many are), but it gave bosses no incentive to hire new employees.  Considering how costly to hire someone (with all the charges to pay and whatnot), many businesses preferred to just stick with the employees they had, and find a way to make them do the same amount of work they did before, only more efficiently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam, I am most certainly in favour of making it easier to hire people and cutting down on the red tape which truly ties this country in knots at times!  But just letting the existing workforce work longer hours doesn't seem to me to solve this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

great big fat companies and investers should be taxed to the hilt on all the cheaply made imports allowed into france and the uk,how can it be right to let these companies have massive profit margines and no workers in france or britain,be more people in work were they live if these companies wernt allowed to take the p,,,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following on Cooperlola's opening point. In the past when I have had to switch from normal 8 hr working days to 12 hour shifts against a particular target, I found that after about 3 days the "production" (work) rate dropped back to that of a normal 8 hour shift, even though my men were at work for 12 hours. This does confirm Coops point. It could be of course that the workforce didn't get any extra money for working 12 hrs rather than 8 thus destroying any incentive to work harder.

Given a "just" reward for extra work there are going to be increases in production, if the net reward is not there then obviously it is unlikely to happen - long term.

There are many many people who would love the chance to work more, earn more and indeed spend more, they are generally those who work at the lower salary levels who have an income that does not really give them any "slack" in their spending abilities.

I suspect (but dont know) that the 35 hr working week limit was/is not a great success because it effectively caps the earning potential of those who want to work longer for more money. Equally I suspect that the additional overhead costs of permanently employing extra people to "fill in" the hours needed is just not cost effective for an employer.

I would certainly agree that there is a drammatic degree of unnecessary consumption in the World, or at least in the wealthier parts of the World. The "must have the latest model" situation which seems to apply to phones, cars, DVD players, etc etc illustrates this. However, such a demand does create work and if the demand was not there niether would the jobs be, hence those presently employed producing those "unnecessary" goods would be out of work, it would be difficult to explain to them that they were being sacrificed in the interests of the planets resources. Which is the same point that Cooperlola made.

I dont have the answers any more than Coop above, I wish I did. I could give chapter and verse about the power situation but that is not the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="hardhat"]great big fat companies and investers should be taxed to the hilt on all the cheaply made imports allowed into france and the uk,how can it be right to let these companies have massive profit margines and no workers in france or britain,be more people in work were they live if these companies wernt allowed to take the p,,,[/quote]Well, it's a thought.  However look back a few years to the situation in Japan.  In my lifetime, we in Europe, had a very mixed relationship with Japanese electronic goods and cars.  We liked them, we thought they were better quality than ours, they were often cheaper, so we bought them.  We maybe felt guilty about taking the business from our own economies (helping to destroy the UK car industry in the process), some of us may have felt a little guilty about the fact that those who produced them were working longer hours than the Brits for lower wages, but we did it all the same. 

Now the Japanese economy has expanded and workers are demanding higher wages so production is moving to China and other developing economies for similar reasons.  So we in the Europe now set an arbitrary cut-off date and say, sorry China, we're not going to move our production to your countries and buy your stuff because we want to protect our own economy.  Our population is on average far better off than yours but hey, tough, we want the work. 

I have a friend who has a niche business making live steam model railway engines.  He and a couple of local guys used to make them in a shed in the back garden.  They produced about 50 engines a year and made a very modest profit and always had far more orders than they could fulfil, with waiting lists of over a year.  Recently, he moved his production to China and now produces and sells ten times the number of units for nearly half the cost (and the retail price reflects this, which is why his sales have gone up) - fulfils his orders on time - and still employs the same people here to produce prototype engines and drawings for the production company in China.  Would he resent it if he had to go back to the old days?  You can be sure that he would.  And his customers would be shocked at the increased price of the engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive got no argument with little guys having anything made as cheaply as possable any were on earth,but if they become big guys with multi moillions of profit becouse of doing this then they should be taxed accordingly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this post Trizevent seems to write about two distinct worlds. Perhaps a better description put simply might be two systems of a main stream social and political philosophy. Those who embrace a work ethic in order to improve their lives within a market economy. On the other side are those who believe in an alternative culture of personal improvement. Working outside a systematic or structured mythology. Or living on the fringe of main stream society and embracing a less materialistic culture. Both values systems can live together because one does not impinge on the other. Tolerance of alternative ideas can thrive when one group in society does not feel threatened by the other. Secularism, democracy, understanding and political pluralism are the tools which engineer that happy state. Problems arise when one section of the belief system ridicules or tries to undermine the other. In reality most people who inhabit the mainstream world realise from an early age that the key to advancement and personal development for themselves and their families lies with financial security. Materialism is often used as a dirty word to sell alternative ideas. Particularly since the environment became such a hot political topic. However I would argue that financial security is not the same as materialism. Put simply financial security means having enough for your own and your families needs both now and for the future. Not enough to waste on the flashy goods of consumption. The rewards of the work ethic are much more than that. We relate to the societies in which we live through our own moral philosophy. In embracing the work ethic within the free market I would argue provides an avenue to such a state. Anything else will likely fall short. Leaving you behind or on the edge. I do not say this is a less than desirable state of being. Simply put the market and in my opinion only the market gives us all that choice to take the direction we want. Freedom of choice is a dangerous luxury to be enjoyed and used to enhance, fulfill potential or destroy our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The capitalist system thrives on keeping people eternally  frustrated. Some people, up to their graves, will be wishing they had more money, more spending power - to buy what? To buy the latest gadget, the new model car that differs from the old one because it has newly designed wing mirrors.....to take their holidays thousands of miles away  whilst ignoring marvels in their own vicinity..(make up your own examples). And, of course, they have to work and seek  promotion and work extra hours to keep up with their chosen lifestyle.
       Now, it's been proven beyond doubt that our western lifestyles are responsible for climatic change etc - a change has to come - and it will come.
       Meanwhile,  what can be done?   Frequenting the local Artisans du Monde shop to purchase the occasional jar of Mexican honey  whilst doing all the rest of  your  shopping in the local supermarket is not very radical.

       
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see the link between a 35 hour week and employing more people. OK in theory it should make a difference but in practice I don't think it does. In theory, for some, in the UK they do work a 35 hour week on a 9 to 5 basis what with having an hours lunch and being paid for it which then technically means you are paid for 40 hours. Rather than make a 35 hour week compulsory I think it should be a right to only work a 35 hour week if you want to and not be forced in to working longer if you don't want.

Another issue I have is that not all of us have been pushed in to working longer hours in the UK but have done it because we have wanted to. I used to work late sometimes because I set myself a personal target of what I wanted to achieve and then worked till I got there so my desk was cleared for my next project. I enjoyed my work, was proud of my personal achievements and got a certain element of pleasure from it.

I had a couple stay once and the chap was a lecturer at a Grand Ecole in Paris specialising in economics. We were talking about the incentives given to small startup companies in the UK. I said that I had heard that around 7 out of every 10 have failed by the end of 2 years. He said he had heard the same and in France that would not be acceptable, they would expect 7 or 8 to survive and because of that it seemed pointless giving incentives.  Sort of glass half empty as opposed to half full attitude. My point was that without a system that encouraged companies to start up you would never have the 3 surviving companies.

It seems to me that France is looking for a quick fix which in reality won't happen. Thatchers use of monetarism was an excellent start working on the basis that it was not for the governments to create or subsidise jobs but to create an environment where companies could thrive and in turn create jobs. Unfortunately it takes several years for the benefits of this policy to work and the UK is still reaping these benefits as Blair continues with the same policies.

One thing this lecturer did say (which I think he pinched from somebody else) was that France wanted the same economic miracle at the UK but that France was like a woman in that it wanted the pleasure of having a child but not the pain of the birth.

Although, I guess, I'm a capitalist I am concerned that from what I understand the new French president seems to picking on migrants to a degree. I seem to remember that in Germany when there was mass unemployment between the wars Hitler pushed the blame on the Jews. It's nice to be able to blame people and make them a scapegoat for your own failings.

It will be an interesting 100 days, well 86 actually as the president has taken a 14 day holiday I believe. I thought his selection of ministers was rather interesting and I wondered what others thought.

Tell you what as a B&B owner I wish I could work only 35 hours a week, OH what luxury that would be, but then I enjoy what I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Medef in France  aren't calling for an abrogation of the  35 hr week  -   they are using the legislation to their advantage (namely in job flexibility). 300 000 jobs are claimed to have been created since the 35 hr week was introduced. Where it has caused havoc is in the health service where long hours were the norm  and which is now  seriously understaffed due to  an unwillingness to recruit.

        All the major political parties wish  for an  'economic miracle'  but it always means more manufactured goods, more road building, more pressure put on natural ressources and inevitably more pollution.

  Any short term gains will inevitaby have to be paid for later by future generations.

 I find the phrase relating to Thatcher's use of monetarism to  'create an environment where companies could thrive and in turn create jobs' frighteningly naive: after all it's the unprecedented amount of manufatured goods being fabricated and consumed that is putting the very existence of the planet in danger.

     The present rate of economic growth is unsustainable..........'développement durable' is still economic growth.

  In France, the major political parties are trapped into promoting 'la croissance' because they know that public opinion is not yet ready to hear anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Didn't Pol Pot have some ideas around this theme'

 Treize vents...............In respect for the spirit of your initial posting I won't reply to this provocation - except to point out that the millions of victims of Pol Pot's 'reeducation policies' will seem to be not so many compared to the number of victims of climatic change due to  unchecked economic growth if we continue on the present collision course with nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hospital staff in the UK work 60 70, 80 (and longer) hour weeks not because they want to but because they have to as nobody else wants to do it. Around one third of the NHS budget has to be kept back for litigation because of mistakes by over tired staff. I don't think the French healh system wants to go down the same route as the UK.

As far as France and pollution is concerned I believe they have one of the lowest carbon footprints in Europe due to nuclear power so there's not much of a problem there. As for the UK well it's mainly a financial and service orientated economy so there's not so much pollution created by that.

Humans are hunter gatherers but we no longer hunt we use money to get what we want. It's part of what we are. The harder you work the more money you earn the more things you can have, simple really. Is there an alternative? Well removing any form of advertising is not the answer. Perhaps we should share all that we have with everyone else. My attitude is fine lets all do that. I'll give all my money, my house and all my worldly possessions away, after you, you go first and I'll follow. I'm afraid history has shown that communism does not work in fact it creates more polution than capitalism, one only has to look at all the ex communist counties and China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"]'Didn't Pol Pot have some ideas around this theme'

 Treize vents...............In respect for the spirit of your initial posting I won't reply to this provocation - except to point out that the millions of victims of Pol Pot's 'reeducation policies' will seem to be not so many compared to the number of victims of climatic change due to  unchecked economic growth if we continue on the present collision course with nature.
[/quote]

Thats seems very much like a reply to me..........................and loaded, as usual with your own somewhat biased views that you still seem intent on shoving down everyones throats.

Lets get back on subject please as TV's initial points are both interesting and valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I really believe we should face the facts now before it's too late.

Climatic change is  the biggest threat mankind has ever faced and the chaos and mayhem has already started.

It's not just a few small islands in the Pacific being evacuated due to repeated flooding: my local Amar (refugee centre) is handling demands right now from people fleeing the misery and hardship created by climatic change in the lake Tchad region. (just a few hundred km's away from our second homes, our giant  hypermarchés and our SUV's etc) A once flourishing ecological system based on the fishing yield  from the now drastically reduced lake surface has broken down due to climatic change and tens of thousands of people are suffering and leaving the area. Some of them have already arrived in Montauban - in a few years time the demands put on the western countries by refugees  is going to be uncontrollable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"]'Didn't Pol Pot have some ideas around this theme'

Treize vents...............In respect for the spirit of your initial posting I won't reply to this provocation -

[/quote]

Good job too P de Biggin Hill, 13 vents didn't actually post that remark you attibuted to him, it was Plod. 

Nothing like a bit of accuracy and reading carefully posts by others to while away a wet Monday.[Www]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'm referring to Treize Vent's initial posting - of course I didn't attribute the wind up remark concerning Pol Pot  to him.

 I've voted ecolo for the past 25 years (in local elections in France) and I don't consider myself left wing any more than Alain Juppé  (the new French super minister of state for ecology and développement durable)) for instance, who shares  the  same preoccupations concerning the influx of climatic refugees who will be flooding into europe in the years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a slightly flippant remark, I have to agree, however, not without point. We cannot go back and people will always aspire to move forward, whether or not you call that "progress". Communist and similar systems seem unlikely to be successful because not everybody is equal, and not everybody contributes equally, even those who are capable of doing so. As for so-called globalisation, as somebody pointed out, even José Bové drives a John Deere tractor. Do you sell coffee in your restaurant? This must travel many thousands of miles before it gets to you. If you are serious about damage to the environment then you have to be prepared to refuse to serve foodstuffs and beverages that have travelled so far. This might, I suppose, seem like reductio ad absurdem, but I don't think you can profess the arguments that you do unless you are ready to adopt a total stance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most capitalist western democracies the arguments of the nineteen thirties have largely been won. The conflict between the ideologies of socialism and capitalism were settled generally through long social experience. No system is perfect but people expect one that works and elect governments to regulate as best it can the negative effects. Capitalism is now generally accepted as the only system that really delivers on our aspirations and ambitions. These expectations are general in the majority population. Financial security, good health care, a high standard of education for our children. There are many others and are self evident. Unfortunately these aspirations have to be paid for through general taxation or private financial initiatives. There really is no such thing as a free lunch for anyone. The market economy in my opinion provides the means to deliver a high standard of service for the community. This also involves working hard and universal effort by the population in mild competition with each other. Benefits of course produce problems and negative effects. Rather like the generation of electricity with nuclear fuel. The waste problem is greater than the benefits. However capitalism has not yet reached that watershed. I believe that the market and ecology working together can and will eventually solve the crisis of global warming and waste disposal. Governments working alone or in co-operation with each other cannot deal with it alone. The problem and the threat it poses is simply too great. If you put two people in a room and present them with a large problem to solve. One will see only difficulties the other an opportunity. Without the market economy I would argue that difficulties would overwhelm our societies and backward we would go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"] I really believe we should face the facts now before it's too late.
Climatic change is  the biggest threat mankind has ever faced and the chaos and mayhem has already started.
It's not just a few small islands in the Pacific being evacuated due to repeated flooding: my local Amar (refugee centre) is handling demands right now from people fleeing the misery and hardship created by climatic change in the lake Tchad region. (just a few hundred km's away from our second homes, our giant  hypermarchés and our SUV's etc) A once flourishing ecological system based on the fishing yield  from the now drastically reduced lake surface has broken down due to climatic change and tens of thousands of people are suffering and leaving the area. Some of them have already arrived in Montauban - in a few years time the demands put on the western countries by refugees  is going to be uncontrollable.
 
[/quote]

Many of your posts refer to global warming and yet you continually fail to acknowledge that there are two views and yours may not be the right one........

http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html

 

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=9145

 

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000761.html

 

http://www.daelnet.co.uk/news/weekend/weekend_16032007.cfm

 

Even Greenpeace say that global warming is caused by cyclical sun activity, not the human production of CO2.

While I agree we have to learn to take care of our planet better, some of us are indeed moving in that direction - the advertising industry PdF so disdains has been quick to latch onto the 'green issue' and promotes that aspect of any product they possibly can......certainly here green issues are 'fashionable' and are gaining ground  

As for TV's original points: Can anyone point to a modern society where a different system actually thrives ? We can not go back, we can move forward embracing different/better ideals and in my view it is better to look at attainable improvements within the system we are in rather than go back to the drawing board.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...