# Franceland ?



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

While stipulating that problems in France are none of the business of those of us in the US, particularly with plenty of problems of our own. It is instructive to view the current events in France.

A few months ago, there was a very low key thread on the problems in Paris brought about by the young men that were primarily ethnic minorities that apparently felt excluded from the French culture. They took to the streets with burned automobiles left in their wake.Rich and others that are on the scene were good to help us understand the problems.

With unemployment of young people running at the rate of 23%, PM de Villepin put a jobs law into place,this month, to revoke the unconditional right of employment to any one with a job. Naturally, employers are hesitant to hire young people at all if it is illegal to fire any one for any reason. Hiring young peoople in any country is a roll of the dice at best. With no ability to terminte, they just don't get hired.


Tomorrow will be the 5th day in 8 of street demonstrations. The gas and power workers are joining in the srtike today vowing to shut down 15% of electricity output.

Foreign affairs in the Ivory Coast are a bit of a challenge, and the only counrty with military bases in the Darfur region of South Africa is France with bases in Chad. So far, all is quiet on that front.

France took the EU lead in attempting to negotiate adherence to the non proliferation treaty with Iran. So far, not a lot of good news there.

France is a beautiful country with charming, well educated people. Maybe an approach would be to continue lifetime incomes and benefits to all citizens, and turn the place into Franceland as a Gallic theme park for Chinese tourists. Just a thought.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Intrepid,

Don't give up on France yet. The presidential elections are next year and I think that Sarkozy may win. The question that remains is if anyone can push through the necessary structural reforms that are needed to make France competitive. Germany has done a lot in this regard and I think Merkel will try and push through further reforms. 

2007 will be an interesting year for France and I think the election will show how polarized the country truly is. Lets not forget that Le Pen managed 20% of the vote last time and I would be shocked if he doesn't do as well this time. France will have to decide if it is willing to embrace the age of globalization and endure the necessary pain that that entails or if it will continue to hold on to an untennable social model while it slips into irrelevancy. I think the world will be poorer if the French choose the latter.

Karl


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Agreed. There is no reason why France couldn't be an economic powerhouse of Europe, it could be a new Germany or Ireland. The only thing holding back France IS France. They love to blame the US, the EU or whoever else but in reality it is their absurd socialist policies, unions, laws and the like that is killing their economy. 

I think things might have to get much worse before they get any better. There just isn't enough public support for low taxes, free trade and freedom of contract in France. It will probably take some serious problems for the French public to reconsider their economic worldview and want to change.


----------



## WisBadger77 (Jun 12, 2005)

It would be detrimental for the US to give up on France, much as it would be for the US to give up on the UN, as much as some would like to. France has the problem of a stagnant to falling birth rate among the French citizenry, and a rapidly growing Muslim population. If this matter is not addressed somehow, I'm worried that France will become a theocracy and a much larger problem.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Unfortunately, things like this are happening in France these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> Unfortunately, things like this are happening in France these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi


Horrendous.

Thank goodness there are no brutal murders in North America these days.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Jews are not being murdered in the US bc they are Jewish. France has a terrible problem with anti-Semitism. Only you would make a flip remark over the murder of an innocent man. 

Karl


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> ...


True enough, although gays are killed in the US because of their sexual orientation, and blacks, whites, asians, and hispanics have all been killed because of their races recently in the US. As horrible as the recent outburst of anti-semitism in France has been, the US is *really* not in a position to throw stones very hard.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Re the original post:

Darfur is nowhere near South Africa or anywhere in southern Africa, just to keep the record straight.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> True enough, although gays are killed in the US because of their sexual orientation, and blacks, whites, asians, and hispanics have all been killed because of their races recently in the US. As horrible as the recent outburst of anti-semitism in France has been, the US is *really* not in a position to throw stones very hard.


Huh? So the logic is:

There are brutal murders in North America
-therefore-
People from North America should not comment on brutal murders elsewhere.

The topic is on the problems France faces right now. Anti-semitism is one of them. What does North America have to do with this particular subject?

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How distasteful of you to trivialize the death of an innocent man in this crude manner.

I understand you stand for many things I disagree with gmac but I never imagined you would stoop to such a disgraceful display in order to obfuscate the issue at hand (France) and, yet again, revert to America bashing. Don't you get tired of repeating the same things all the time?

What, pray tell, do murders in North America have to do with poor Ilan Halimi - G_D rest his soul?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I certainly wouldn't claim to speak for gmac, but I interpreted his comment as a reminder to keep these things in context. I don't think that he was being sarcastic when he said 'Horrendous', even though he was obviously being sarcastic with his second statement.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> Unfortunately, things like this are happening in France these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi


A well-balanced account of this affair that shocked France to the core.

I think the popular reaction reflects rather well on the French:

"The case has found an enormous echo in the French media and in the French public. Six French associations called for a mass demonstration against racism and antisemitism in Paris on Sunday, 26 February. Between 33,000 (as estimated by police) and 80,000 to 200,000 (as estimated by the organizers) people participated in Paris, as well as thousands around the country. Also present were public figures such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger and Lionel Jospin. Right-wing politician Philippe de Villiers was booed by other demonstrators and had to leave under police guard."

If only every racist crime elicted such outrage (and such prompt and efficient action by the police).


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> France will have to decide if it is willing to embrace the age of globalization and endure the necessary pain that that entails or if it will continue to hold on to an untenable social model while it slips into irrelevancy. I think the world will be poorer if the French choose the latter.


The American model of a deregulated free-for-all is good for business, but is associated in French minds with a social model that most of the French (though not all of them) find unappealing. The UK has embraced globalization, but there again, the conditions of life in the UK are not appealing to ordinary middle-income French people (high crime rate, costly housing, long working hours, costly higher education, poor public health service, poor state schools, etc.). There is thus a feeling, among many people, that France has a lot to lose from adopting a more deregulated approach to employment - that this is the thin end of a very nasty wedge.

It may be that France is fighting a losing battle here,and that other more serious problems will soon overshadow these concerns. For the moment, part of France is defending (perhaps misguidedly) a social model where solidarity and social cohesion are important.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by WisBadger77_
> 
> It would be detrimental for the US to give up on France, much as it would be for the US to give up on the UN, as much as some would like to. France has the problem of a stagnant to falling birth rate among the French citizenry, and a rapidly growing Muslim population. If this matter is not addressed somehow, I'm worried that France will become a theocracy and a much larger problem.


France show no signs of becoming an islamic theocracy. Most of the Muslims in France are moderate, and extremism, though present, is strongly discouraged by the secular institutional framework (not the case in the UK, where as we have seen Muslim integrism has been allowed to flourish in the name of religious tolerance).

Offhand, I don't know any country that is more deeply secular than France.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Rich, thanks for your comments and insight.

I am looking forward to my three weeks in Provence in June. My parents moved there last year - dreadful cliche I know - but I am certain it will be wonderful.

Despite Karl89's advice I will probably not purchase a burqa for my wife in advance. Will I be able to pick one up locally if the caliphate takes over during our stay?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

You probably have about 50 years before your wife will need a burqa in France - unless of course demographic trends change and I hope they will.

https://www.meforum.org/article/337

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

And just for good measure:



Please not that the first article is from 1997 - long before the current problems.

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> And just for good measure:
> 
> ...


 Sad. Very sad.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> ...


A publication that advertises itself as "Promoting American Interests" (disarmingly honest!) may possibly be a little tendentious - and it seems to me that the article tells us more about a certain American paranoid world view than about the real situation in France.

First, to describe France as an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country is misleading - most French people are simply not particularly religious, although many sacrements are still formally observed, and the church bells still ring, out of habit and tradition. The same is true of most Muslims in France.

There is a powerful unifying force in France: French institutions (government, administration, public health, state schools, military) are all 100% constitutionally secular.

The subservience expected of women in traditional Muslim societies is absolute anathema to mainstream French opinion. The endogamous arranged marriages and vertical family hierarchies with submission to elders typical of Muslim communities are totally rejected by mainstream France. Indeed, many young French Muslims are only too glad to get away from all that. True, there is an identity crisis among some parts of the Muslim communities in France,fuelled by real or perceived anti-Muslim racism and current world events that has caused a resurgence of Muslim fundamentalism in some quarters. But the "clash of civilisations" that underlies the MEF article is a gross oversimplification. The clash is between the haves and the have-nots.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> And just for good measure:
> 
> ...


Very speculative. Plays as usual on fears of being overwhelmed by aliens.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

Of course its speculative - predicting the future always is! But its not fear mongering or panic that leads one to conclude that unless current demographic trends change that Europe will become majority Muslim in a few generations. Is this bad? Not necessarily but if this happens it will fundamentally alter European society. But given the lack of pluralism and freedom in majority Muslim states it does give even the casual observer pause.

Secular Europe (Christian Europe is dead in all but a few places) will either begin to reproduce at a much higher rate or Islam will become the dominant cultural force in Europe. The most likely outcome though is the rise of nationalist, anti-immigration parties in Europe. I think next year will be a nasty, nasty election year (in France) and I imagine that the National Front will do at least as well as the did in 2002.

The real question is why, given that much of Europe still mantains a measure of the welfare state, does secular Europe have so few children? But that is perhaps another thread.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

I want France to remain secular but unless curent demographic trends change, it won't. It is a shame though (and I speak as a practicing Catholic) that France, often described as the oldest daughter of the Church, has lost its Catholic identity but that I think we can trace to the events of 1789.

Karl


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> Re the original post:
> 
> Darfur is nowhere near South Africa or anywhere in southern Africa, just to keep the record straight.


The point is that Chad and Sudan share a border. Genocide in Sudan could be intercepted by the only civilized nation on the globe that posesses a military force in Chad. Where you draw the dividing line in Africa seems to be a bit academic, but thanks for the correction.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Rich,
> 
> ...


Current demographic trends predict a major increase in the Muslim population. But just how Muslim will these Muslims be? Maybe no more than the average French Catholic is Catholic, or, in the UK, no more than the average Brit is Anglican or Protestant, given general trends in religious observance throughout Europe. We know that family size is inversely correlated with wealth, so that as the Muslim population becomes progressively integrated into mainstream European society, so, probably, their birth rate will fall. They will intermarry with the mainstream population (this is already happening).

The reason why the mass of Muslim immigrants are a threat in Europe is not because they are Muslim, but because they are poor and uneducated, and displaced. Once they are wealthy and educated and feel at home then they will not be a threat, but an asset. Unfortunately, this process of integration is slow. Every effort must be made to aid this integration, particularly on the employment front. I hope the new labour provisions in France can improve the situation of young immigrants by creating jobs for them (which is one of its aims).

I share your trepidation at the approach of the next elections in France.

The low birth rate in Europe is linked to the emancipation and massive employment of young women, poor child-minding provision, competition for spending of income - many couples would rather buy a house than have a second child, an idea that quality should prevail over quantity - fewer but happier children, the breakdown of the durable nuclear family as a social model, high enforced mobility, etc. The common thread here is consumerism - the "acquisitive society". One effect of this trend is that parenting skills are no longer transmitted and are being lost.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Rich,
> 
> ...


The secularity of the institutions is fundamental in France, and is protected by the Constitution, so that I can't see Islam affecting the machinery of state and government any time soon. Not a single parlemantarian voted against the recent banning of ostentatious religious symbols in state schools. A lot of moderate Muslims are quite happy with this state of affairs, so long as they can practice their religion in the private sphere - which is a constitutional right that the State guarantees for all religions.

You're quite right that 1789 (or rather the Enlightenment) was the beginning of the end of Catholicism in France. I'd say Kant struck the first blow. Modern consumerism has a lot to answer for too, though. Even so, a sort of remanent catholicism persists in France, in certain attitudes - the Protestant work ethic is not widely accepted!


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

It will be interesting how the French manage to work out their current problems regarding unemployment, immigration, and socialism. Given the close ties between France and the US and how similar certain bits of our history are, it's always interesting to see the different approaches of our two countries. 

The US has been migrating towards socialism on many fronts while France seems to be having problems becuase it has adopted those same principles. I'm sure that the French will work it out eventually. I have the feeling that the first thing that they will do (and the Danish as well) is to severely restrict immigration in an effort to allow for integration of those already there. We'll see, I guess.

CT


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

Just to flesh this out a bit, who do you see as the likely winner of the election next year and what changes do you think the winner will make to current French policy?

Karl


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Rich,
> 
> ...


The situation is so volatile at the moment that it's difficult to predict what will happen. Especially as we don't know yet who will be running. There is no totally convincing candidate. The credibility of the possible main runners, which I see as Sarkozy or Villepin on the right, versus SÃ©golÃ¨ne Royal or Lionel Jospin on the left is totally at the mercy of events and the media.

So far each side has a "modern" candidate (the energetic Sarkozy, the superwoman Royal) and a "trad" candidate (the urbane Villepin, the wise old Jospin). Any of them can fall into disgrace or ridicule between now and the elections. Villepin may not survive the current crisis and is not a professional politician, but a career official, so an outsider. Lionel Jospin is honest, experienced and is well-respected, but tired and somewhat discredited after his last defeat - but the French like grand old men. Sarkozy is immodest, impulsive, and tries too hard. SÃ©golÃ¨ne Royal has talent but is possibly too glamorous. Either of them is in danger of getting tripped up by the media. There are certainly other "surprise candidates" waiting in the wings in case that happens.

At the moment the probable scenario is Sarkozy versus Royal. Most of those who voted for Le Pen last time, plus the free-marketeers and deregulators will be voting for Sarkozy, who has taken some of Le Pen's ground on law and order (Le Pen himself is now too old to contest, and has no credible political heirs). Royal will get a lot of female votes because she's a woman, and because she represents something new on the left.

A lot depends on the late stages of the campaign - in a face-to-face TV debate I think Royal will probably perform well against Sarkozy, who is afraid of women - better than she would against Villepin, who is not.

As regards what policies they will implement, I'm sure that whoever gets in there will have to be some internal labour deregulation and general economic reform towards a freer market. This is more likely to be successful if it comes from the left, as happened in the UK. I think Royal is fairly close to Blair in many ways. Foreign policy will not change much. There will be a bit more European integration. Middle-Eastern policy will not change unless events force it to.

Overall I think France has a better chance of modernising under a left-leaning leadership.

However, all this may change in the coming months.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

Merci beaucoup! I guess you head Ask Andy's Paris news desk. I look forward to updates.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't be utterly ridiculous.

------------------


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I just finished a mildly amusing book called "A Year in the FrenchPoop" by Stephen Clarke. 

It's about a semi-hapless Brit trying to establish a chain of English-style tea shops in France. ALong the way he meets voracious and inexplicable women, conniving French businessmen and pols, and lots of people on strike.

I don't know what it all means but it was a pleasant way to spend two chilly afternoons.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> What, pray tell, do murders in North America have to do with poor Ilan Halimi - G_D rest his soul?


I'm sorry Mr. Halimi was killed, but please don't pretend that his death is of any greater significance than the opportunity it presents for certain persons to smear all Muslims for the acts of few.


----------



## Siggy (Jan 14, 2006)

Rich, I lived in France for several years but haven't been back for awhile. I enjoy reading your posts on the present political climate there.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

Rich, Im enjoying your commentary. A French friend of mine going to school here echoes most of the things you say. I get the feeling that most youngsters in France, like her, really embrace the social and governmental structures in place. It's truely a different mindset than the one Ive developed. Im intrigued to hear anything else you might have to say about the current state of affairs in France.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> 
> Rich, Im enjoying your commentary. A French friend of mine going to school here echoes most of the things you say. I get the feeling that most youngsters in France, like her, really embrace the social and governmental structures in place. It's truely a different mindset than the one Ive developed. Im intrigued to hear anything else you might have to say about the current state of affairs in France.


There will be a lot more to say after next Tuesday's planned strikes and demonstrations. The anti-deregulators seems still to be gaining momentum, Villepin is already starting to back-pedal, and the political opposition (left-wing unions, Socialist Party and extreme left groups) is broadly united on this issue. But there is a possibility that the demonstrations may degenerate into riots, which will discredit the movement and demobilise the more moderate protesters.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Another view:

*March 25, 2006, 10:37 a.m.
Paddle the French Fanny
They sure need it. *_

Why is it that so many French people would rather riot than work?

For nearly a fortnight, French students repeatedly have taken to the streets in protest of a modest labor reform proposed by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. It seems that Villepin had the audacity to suggest that companies hiring workers under the age of 26 have the ability to fire those workers in the first two years of employment. Villepinâ€™s far-from-Draconian reform is a reaction to the countryâ€™s government-planned entitlement state, overregulated labor laws, and sky-high jobless rate.

But French students apparently prefer their little workerâ€™s paradise just the way it is. The overall jobless rate in France hovers around 10 percent, so-called â€œyouth unemploymentâ€ is 23 percent, and in some of the Muslim-heavy suburbs, joblessness is nearly 50 percent. Some paradise.

In France, you see, companies donâ€™t grow because itâ€™s too costly to hire while itâ€™s against the law to fire. Hence, since they rarely add jobs, French businesses under-perform, under-produce, and under-employ. Think of it: Itâ€™s awfully tough to increase output without a growing workforce to produce it.

The Villepin reform, of course, would make it a lot easier for firms to hire since they would no longer have to lock-in high wages and benefit costs without first confirming worker productivity, at least for two years. But in response to this mild capitalist reform, a reported 500,000 students have emerged in angry protest. Thereâ€™s now even a threat of a general strike, with government unions, trade unions, and student unions possibly teaming together to shut down the entire French economy (or whatâ€™s left of it).

Of course, it wasnâ€™t all that long ago that young Muslims rioted and vandalized urban centers across France. Their beef was cultural in nature, but it was also rooted in the fact that France is anti-opportunity, anti-wealth, anti-jobs, anti-markets, anti-work, and anti-capitalism.

Indeed, at the heart of the French problem is a statist-run socialist economy that is massively overtaxed and overregulated. Franceâ€™s public government sector, for instance, accounts for more than 50 percent of GDP. In other words, private business in France is in the minority.

Added to this, Franceâ€™s top personal tax rate is 48 percent, with a VAT tax of nearly 20 percent. So that means French laborers face a combined 68 percent tax rate on consumption and investment. No wonder France has created less than 3 million jobs over the past twenty years, compared to 31 million in the United States. Economic growth in â€œcowboy capitalistâ€ America has exceeded that of Franceâ€™s worker paradise by nearly 50 percent.

In a dramatic speech to the European Parliament last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair hit the mark when he criticized all Western European economies for their inability to compete on an acceptable global level. Asked Blair, â€œWhat type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy â€" skills, R&D, patents, information technology â€" is going down, not up?â€

Financial Times international editor Olaf Gersemann blames French and European unemployment on high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict employment-protection laws. Gersemann, who scathingly criticized Western Europe in his book â€œCowboy Capitalism,â€ says these labor-market regulations have created millions of involuntary unemployed throughout Europe, affecting immigrants in particular. He writes, â€œMost French, German, and Italian voters simply refuse to accept the necessity of a Thatcher-Reagan style economic revolution.â€ He notes that per capita income in the U.S. now exceeds that of France by close to 40 percent, with Germany and Italy lagging even further behind.

All of this is reminiscent of the British disease of the 1960s and â€™70s. Back then, striking labor unions closed down the English economy again and again, and it took until the early 1980s for Margaret Thatcher to put an end to it. At one point, the Iron Lady actually called in tanks and troops to stop the print unions from shutting down Fleet Street. (This is what turned media-magnate Rupert Murdoch into a pro-capitalist Thatcherite.)

Is there a Thatcher that can save Gaul? Perhaps. French Interior Minister Nick Sarkozy is a strong law-and-order man. Heâ€™s the one who ended the Muslim riots. More, he is reputed to be pro-market and pro-American. The question is, can Sarkozy wake up this nation of economic sleepwalkers and bring them into the 21st century? He ought to take a big paddle to the collective French fanny. They sure need it._

Karl


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Another view:
> 
> Karl


All this is true. But the French are not sure that what's good for business is necessarily good for general quality of life. Unemployment is certainly a bad thing, but high job security for those that are employed is seen as a good thing. Ditching job security and generous welfare is seen by many on the left as too high a price to pay for curing unemployment. Unfortunately no-one has yet found an alternative.

Over-regulated and overtaxed though it is, France is a pleasant country to live in for the majority of its people - job security, good welfare, short working week, early retirement, good pensions, good schools and high general level of education, good medical care, relatively low crime rate, good public utilities - and high life expectancy. France has only two (interrelated) problems - unemployment and the integration of its immigrant population.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

France is a GREAT place to live and to be honest I would rather live in Paris than most anywhere else (Rome, Prague and Vienna top my list) but the issue is whether this standard can be maintained and I think all evidence points to the fact that it can't. France doesn't have to adopt the American (Cowboy capitalism!)or British model (Perfidious Albion!) but it does need to make serious structural reforms. I know of several companies in my field (I work in private equity) that have refused to set up offices in Paris because of the oppressive regulations for employers.

But I think France is suffering from another problem, one that concerns national identity and prestige. The role France plays in the world, its influence culturally, politically and economically has declined tremendously in the last thirty years. Increasingly France has defined itself by what it is not rather than articulate a coherent French vision. One only need look at Chirac's recent hissy fit over the fact that a French national spoke in English at an EU conference. I don't think that France has found an adequate role for itself on the international stage. It is no longer a great power but it often fails to adequately excercise its influence and power where it can make a great difference, namely in the Balkans and Africa.

I hope for a French revival, one that I thought (foolishy perhaps but then again I was still at college when Chirac was elected in 1995) would occur under Chirac. But the dirigiste system dominated by the mediocre "elite" from ENA and Sciences Po, the radical labor unions, unrealistic students and an increasingly paranoid public that fears Anglo-American domination desperately needs a a transfusion of new blood and news ideas. The longer France waits to tackle these serious problems the harder they will be to solve, a situation America will soon be acquainted with unless we deal with our budget deficits and Social Security.

Karl


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Karl, this is an orthodox view - identity crisis due to a dwindling influence in the world, archaic structures, backward-looking unions, a "barbarians at the gate" mentality, etc. Rather similar to the picture of Great Britain 30 or so years ago. There's a lot of truth in it, obviously. 

Yet DESPITE its excessive regulation and taxation, its top-heavy administration, the low mobility of its workforce, marxist intellectuals,etc. France has a well-equipped military with an independent nuclear deterrent, world leading expertise in civil nuclear power technology, high speed rail transport, civil and military aviation, healthcare technology and telecommunications, and a thriving automobile industry. Which is not bad considering what the doomsayers have been telling us for the past 20 years. 

The French compare themselves with GB, which has "gone global". What they see over the Channel does not appeal to them. They see a country that has deteriorated in terms of quality of life - obesity, slobbish behaviour, total breakdown of the family, rampant "property crime", guns, binge drinking, trash TV, etc. Together, of course with "political correctness", non-judgmentalism, cultural relativism, half-baked gender studies and other such US imports. All this in a country that used to be our model of sensible enlightened conservatism, restraint, tolerance, law and order, etc. This is not a good advertisement for globalisation. 

So there's a feeling that we shouldn't be too much in a hurry to follow suit. However, I think that the tide of history will force France to change. What has happened in GB is starting to happen here.


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

I have lived France for ten years and I would simply like to say that Rich's analysis is very accurate.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

Interesting points Rich.

I read somewhere that cross-migration between the British and French populations is growing - but the British are older people moving to France for its orderly, civilized life style and cheaper property, and the French are younger people moving to Britain for its multi-culti and supposedly hip, laid back 'yoof' culture.

It's also interesting that the headscarf issue in France was often considered by the UK media to be a sign of France's much talked about 'racist' society, whilst being almost completely silent (or ignorant) on its possible connection with France's strictly secular public policies.

For all your pantomime requirements visit www.pantomimesonline.co.uk
'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

As Rich says we have 'gone global' in Britain. I am sure the social difficulties that the French perceive in the UK are also fairly accurate and a symptom of our decline.

I, however do not believe the two have to be related. The difference in attitude between the French and the British has been well documented. From where I sit the French care about style, good food, a civilized society and high quality of life. We care about fashion (not style), economic growth for its own sake, acquiring things we don't need and take little interest in Quality. I've heard it said that we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing!

So, France can change and remain French without becoming unduly Anglicised or American.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Hugh is correct about the type of British person moving to France. My parents moved to Provence last year from the village I grew up in Scotland. They maintain a pied de terre in Scotland but to all intents and purposes their primary residence is France.

They moved for a number of reasons, primarily weather and lifestyle, and are loving it. I'm taking my family there for three weeks this summer.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

From the Economist (great cover btw):

https://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=6744226

_France faces the future
Mar 30th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The country's politicians need to level with the French people on the need to embrace change

â€œTHE French constitute the most brilliant and the most dangerous nation in Europe and the best qualified in turn to become an object of admiration, hatred, pity or terror but never indifference.â€ Thus did a young Alexis de Tocqueville describe his motherland in the early 19th century. His words still carry a haunting truth. Over the past few years, as other western democracies have shuffled quietly along, France has by turns stunned, exasperated and bemused. This week's massive one-day protest, drawing 1m-3m people on to the streets, was no exception (see article). This particular stand-off, between the centre-right government of Dominique de Villepin and those protesting against his effort to inject a tiny bit of liberalism into France's rigid labour market, may be defused. The Constitutional Council was due to rule on the legality of the new law on March 30th. But the underlying difficulty will remain: the apparent incapacity of the French to adapt to a changing world.

On the face of it, France seems to be going through one of those convulsions that this nation born of revolution periodically requires in order to break with the past and to move forward. Certainly the students who kicked off the latest protests seemed to think they were re-enacting the events of May 1968 their parents sprang on Charles de Gaulle. They have borrowed its slogans (â€œBeneath the cobblestones, the beach!â€) and hijacked its symbols (the Sorbonne university). In this sense, the revolt appears to be the natural sequel to last autumn's suburban riots, which prompted the government to impose a state of emergency. Then it was the jobless, ethnic underclass that rebelled against a system that excluded them.

Yet the striking feature of the latest protest movement is that this time the rebellious forces are on the side of conservatism. Unlike the rioting youths in the banlieues, the objective of the students and public-sector trade unions is to prevent change, and to keep France the way it is. Indeed, according to one astonishing poll, three-quarters of young French people today would like to become civil servants, and mostly because that would mean â€œa job for lifeâ€. Buried inside this chilling lack of ambition are one delusion and one crippling myth.

The delusion is that preserving France as it is, in some sort of formaldehyde solution, means preserving jobs for life. Students, as well as unqualified suburban youngsters, do not today face a choice between the new, less protected work contract and a lifelong perch in the bureaucracy. They, by and large, face a choice between already unprotected short-term work and no work at all. And the reason for this, which is also the reason for France's intractable mass unemployment of nearly 10%, is simple: those permanent life-time jobs are so protected, and hence so difficult to get rid of, that many employers are not creating them any more.

This delusion is accompanied by an equally pernicious myth: that France has more to fear from globalisation, widely held responsible for imposing the sort of insecurity enshrined in the new job contract, than it does to gain. It is true that the forces of global capitalism are not always benign, but nobody has yet found a better way of creating and spreading prosperity. In another startling poll, however, whereas 71% of Americans, 66% of the British and 65% of Germans agreed that the free market was the best system available, the number in France was just 36%. The French seem to be uniquely hostile to the capitalist system that has made them the world's fifth richest country and generated so many first-rate French companies. This hostility appears to go deeper than resistance to painful reform, which is common to Italy and Germany too; or than a desire for a strong welfare state, which Scandinavian countries share; or even than a fondness for protectionism, which America periodically betrays.

The limits to change by stealth
A common feature unites France's underclass rioters and the rebellious students, as well as the election of the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen into the run-off of the 2002 presidential election. This is the failure of the French political class over the past 20 years to tell it straight: to explain to the electorate what is at stake, why France needs to adapt, and why change need not bring only discomfort. This failure has bred a political culture of reform by stealth, in which change is carried out with one hand and blamed on outside forcesâ€"usually globalisation, the European Union or Americaâ€"while soothing words about protecting the French way are issued on the other. After a while, the credibility gap tears such a system apart. The French voted for Mr Le Pen in part because they were fed up with the stale mainstream political class. The banlieues exploded because unemployed minorities were fed up hearing that they did not belong. The students and trade unions are in revolt because they do not trust the government to protect them.

Part of the blame for this lies squarely with President Jacques Chirac. He has presided for nearly 11 years, during which mass unemployment has never budged below 8%, France's wealth per person has been overtaken by both Britain's and Ireland's, and public debt has jumped from 55% of GDP to 66%. The liberal instincts he once betrayed as a reformist prime minister in the mid-1980s have long since evaporated. His support for the prime minister's new jobs contract has been tepid at best. His chief preoccupation seems to be to avoid shaking the conservative French consensus, and even that unambitious objective has been missed. It is a measure of how wasted his presidency has been that one of his own ministers, Nicolas Sarkozy, and a 2007 presidential hopeful, can today make speeches that deplore â€œtwo decades of immobilityâ€ and call for a â€œruptureâ€ with the status quo.

But the president is not to blame alone. Nobody on the French left dares to challenge the prevailing paleo-socialist wisdom, and SÃ©golÃ¨ne Royal, the most popular of the would-be presidential candidates, was roundly derided for confessing faint admiration for Britain's Tony Blair. On the right, Mr de Villepin at least had the courage to try to counter the logic of job protection, but elsewhere has scarcely demonstrated an embrace of open markets. Perhaps the closest France has to a new-generation leader prepared to try to reconcile French public opinion with globalisation is Mr Sarkozy. This week he declared that France could no longer â€œmaintain the illusory barrage of a so-called model that each day shows itself to no longer work, nor protect anything or anybodyâ€. But even Mr Sarkozy has proved a hard-core national protectionist when it comes to special pleading by French industry. All the while, he and Mr de Villepin's obsessive rivalry over the succession continues to sap France's ability to get policy right.

History will judge France harshly if its political class fails to find the courage to help the country equip itself for the 21st century. More than that, France's turmoil has implications beyond its own borders. An uncertain France is an uncertain partner for its allies, both in Europe and beyond. Within the EU, having rejected its draft constitution last year, the French no longer seem to know what they want. They still seek to project their influence through Europe, but will have difficulty doing this while they are so consumed by internal strife at home, and while they still struggle to come to terms with Europe's internal market. Can countries like Ukraine or Belarus be blamed for wondering what Europe can offer them while France, a founder member, is so unsure itself? The worry is that the more that France struggles to define a role for itself in the world, the more it will in turn be tempted to fasten on its social model as its raison d'Ãªtre, and so cling to a discredited creed.

The choice belongs to France. A bold effort at renewal that could unleash the best in the French? Or a stubborn defence of the existing order that will keep France a middling world power in economic decline? The latter would inspire neither admiration, nor terror, nor hatred, nor indifference, just pity. _

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> Ditching job security and generous welfare is seen by many on the left as too high a price to pay for curing unemployment. Unfortunately no-one has yet found an alternative.


I am not, by any means, a specialist in labour economics. I must admit, though, that I am a little baffled by the view prevalent among many commentators in France and also seen here on this thread, that more labour flexibility is a cure (or even the only cure) to unemployment.

As an economist, all I can say is, we don't know anything about that. More flexibility means that it is easier to hire. No doubt about that. It also means, I am surprised nobody here seems to take this into account, that it is easier to fire. The net result is not obvious. Empirical studies are ambivalent on the subject. The interested reader will find a good survey in chapter 2 of the OECD's report on employment for 2004. Anecdotal evidence or international comparisons are also ambivalent. After all, if you take the example of France, we have known only two significant periods of unemployment decline in the last 25 years (1988-1991 and 1997-2001) and neither of them was triggered by more flexibility on the labour market (the much-famed "structural reforms" always advocated in _The Economist_).

To sum it up: in spite of what many French journalists always repeat, in spite of what our current government says, *there is no proof that flexibility is a cure for unemployment.*


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, there is good evidence that labor flexibility improves production in the long run. More production almost always means more jobs.

Secondly, these are not issues that necessarily have immediate effects but rather ones that have long term benefits. You can not judge the worth of these types of policies by the short term effects. There often are none or what there are are on a limited scale. This does not mean that they will not benefit the economy in the future.

And by the way, there is very little proof of anything in economics, there are only theories and evidence to support them.

Finally, I'd ask you to look at the unemployment rates of developed countries with more flexibility in employment and see how they stack up against those with extremely restrictive policies. It's certainly not proof but there is definitely evidence to support flexibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> I'd ask you to look at the unemployment rates of developed countries with more flexibility in employment and see how they stack up against those with extremely restrictive policies. It's certainly not proof but there is definitely evidence to support flexibility.


I don't think international comparisons give any proof of the sort (read the OECD study for more details). I might compare, for example, a rather rigid labour market in Portugal (very low unemployment) with a rather rigid one in France (high unemployment), and I don't see any clear conclusion from that.

It is true that flexibility has other benefits (a quicker adjustment of the labour force to changes in activity) that may be balanced against its social costs. A lower unemployment is not part of those benefits, though, as far as we know.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've read the oecd studies and I think that they may have been too quick to call the results ambiguous on cross national results. A large part of the ambiguity comes from the Scandinavian countries where immigration is very low as is the population growth rate. These factors most certainly have an affect on unemployment (as for Portugal I haven't really looked into their stats). I'm certainly not saying that there is a provable correlation (there seldom is in Economics) but only that if you treat the few countries with little flexibility and low unemployment as outliers (because there are other factors which differ greatly from the others countries studied) you get a remarkably different outcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> It is true that flexibility has other benefits (a quicker adjustment of the labour force to changes in activity) that may be balanced against its social costs. A lower unemployment is not part of those benefits, though, as far as we know.


Surely you can find some correlation between an economy's ability to adapt to fluctuations in demand with longer term unemployment.

When workers in an industrial sector nearing the end of its lifecycle (such as low-skill manufacturing in North America for example) can be laid off and resources redeployed to other growing sectors (e.g. services, high-tech...), this definitely creates some short term pain as many older workers become unemployed and cannot be retrained to work in newer sectors. This structural adjustment allows the economy to grow, creates jobs and benefits employment in the longer term as those newer jobs would not have been created if investments in new industries are stifled by inflexible labour contracts.

This is also enhanced by a labour force's mobility (given that industrial sectors are often tied to geographic regions) and is one of the reasons why the US is such a powerful and dynamic economy despite the EU having more people i.e. an American from Virginia is far more likely to move to Silicon Valley for a job than a Spaniard is to move to Germany.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> Surely you can find some correlation between an economy's ability to adapt to fluctuations in demand with longer term unemployment.


Flexibility on the labour market makes adaptation quicker, but I am not sure it is so significant a factor in the long run.



> quote:
> and is one of the reasons why the US is such a powerful and dynamic economy despite the EU having more people


It is difficult to generalize here. We all know how poor an indicator of economic dynamism (not to mention, of welfare) GDP is. Still, if you take GDP per capita growth, if I recall correctly, the EU fared better than the US for the decade 1990-2000 (although is has been faring worse since). This is somewhat obscured in GDP figures because of the difference in demographic growth, but still, it is difficult to make a general claim.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> if you treat the few countries with little flexibility and low unemployment as outliers (because there are other factors which differ greatly from the others countries studied) you get a remarkably different outcome.


Ahem. If you want to prove a correlation between flexibility and unemployment and then remove from your sample almost all the countries with a high rigidity and low unemployment, your conclusion is indeed made easier, but that seems a little unrigorous, does it not? The OECD study takes the 28 OECD members, if I recall corectly, and you are talking of removing 4 or 5 of them? That's almost a fifth of the panel!


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not an arbitrary removal. There are good reasons why Sweden et al have low unemployment that have nothing to do with flexibility. There is very strong evidence regarding growth rates and immigration and their effects on unemployment and all the Scandinavian countries have similar growth and immigration rates. Since these few countries are the ones that provide contradictory evidence, there can certainly be some conclusions made but the OECD chose to call the study ambiguous instead of pursuing the matter further.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

To provide an analogy for my point:

I decide that I want to find out the average speed for the American male to run the quarter mile. I have groups from each state run and then start to tally the results. I notice that all the runners from Colorado have faster times than all the other states. Upon investigation, I find that all the runners from every other state ran across flat tracks while the Colorado runners ran down the side of a mountain. Given that I know the general effects of running downhill I can throw out the data from the Colorado runners and still have a pretty accurate estimate (given that the sample size in the remaining states is large enough). If I leave the Colorado runners in, I have skewed results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

While you can always deal with outliers or influential data points by chucking them out of your model, that is the easy way (and not always the correct one) of dealing with these issues. A more meaningful and statistically valid way is to control for those other factors like immigration and population growth (or slope perhaps to use your running analogy) that make Scandinavian countries have low unemployment despite rigid labour policies.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you not think that there are finite resources to be allocated to different industrial sectors and that shifting investments from a lagging sector to a growing one benefits long-run employment?

If yes, to the extent that rigid labour policies impede the migration of resources to growing sectors of the economy, then these policies affect employment.

This is not to say that flexibility in the labour market is a cure for all of France's unemployment problems but I think it's very clear that restrictive labour policies are bad for the economy.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> While you can always deal with outliers or influential data points by chucking them out of your model, that is the easy way (and not always the correct one) of dealing with these issues. A more meaningful and statistically valid way is to control for those other factors like immigration and population growth (or slope perhaps to use your running analogy) that make Scandinavian countries have low unemployment despite rigid labour policies.


I totally agree but this was not done in this study. Since I don't have the resources to redo the study with controls, I am forced to use the data that is available. If the OECD had pursued this further, I would not be forced to use the easy way to make my point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

I have worked in global busineesses for ten years. My conclusion from first had experience is flexibility will always win over inflexibility. Examples:

Our plant in France was world class, and at the top of the company as far as quality and innovation. We agressively moved product out of that plant to avoid being in a situation where we might have to expand the facility. We were unwilling to hire people in a country where firing them later, should business conditions change, is all but impossible. Plants in Ireland and New Jersey got most of the growing product lines.

The Germany companies we owned ran 24/4 plus 16 on Saturday. They had one full shift of people, and two shifts of machines. We allowed them to expand because of the relative low cost of headcount increases vs potential increased production. We were still careful about every head added.

Ireland. No worries there. We built new plants, added capacity, and moved production. Smart workers, flexible labor policies, and low taxes. 

I can give more examples, but they all show the same thing. We addeed jobs in flexible countries, and removed, or did not grow, jobs in in-flexible ones.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It is instructive to look at the economy in Ireland, as was pointed out previously.

For whatever reason, socialistic labor laws elsewhere seem to yield 10% unemployment, and flat GDP. May just be coincidence. 



Carpe Diem


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> For whatever reason, socialistic labor laws elsewhere seem to yield 10% unemployment, and flat GDP. May just be coincidence.


I think you might be a little too hasty in attributing the Irish economic growth entirely to "non-socialistic" labour laws (whatever that might mean).

Just a point, for example: few other countries have, as Ireland, received 4% of GDP per year in European net subventions.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

Ireland, for us, represented a pro-business attitude, flexible labor laws, excellent infrastructure, highly skilled and educated workforce, a 10% (via ruling) tax rate, great location to service our EU customers, a 10% tax rate, flexible labor laws, and did I mention the 10% tax rate and flexible labor laws? 

France, last time I noticed, has excellent infrastructure, a highly skilled and educated workforce, is a great location for servicing EU customers, but a gagging tax regime and job-for-life labor laws. At my last company, it was policy to never, under any circumstances, move new product into France or increase the French workforce. 

My current employer maintains a similar attitude. I work for a Big 4 accounting firm. When we have new initiatives (new services, etc) involving Europe, and when the resources of our Paris office are needed for the initiative, we will increase headcount via expats from the US and UK, despite their higher cost than local French talent. We are so unwilling to hire locals in France that we have, on a number of occasions, transferred French born US citizens to Paris to fill key roles, even recruiting replacement French born US citizens when it came time for the person(s) to return to the states. 

The French system, based upon my experience, appears to have failed at maximizing the economic opportunities of the French people.

(edited to remove dogmatic silliness)


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> My current employer maintains a similar attitude.


I won't comment on your employers' business practices without having all the elements, but from what I know about doing business in France, what they really need is a good lawyer. They seem to have awful misconceptions about labour laws.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I work in private equity and deal with French banks often. I will say they are much easier to work with than German or Korean banks. The best are the Austrians and surprisingly the Italians.

Karl


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your answer, in my opinion, betrays the underlying problems with the French labor market. If what you suggest is true, France, and not large companies, should be the one helping clarify fact from fiction given the terrible unemployment. The overall environment does not encourage economic development.

Regardless, as an economist, you simply can't take the observed practices and statistics in France and proclaim the situation too murky to fully comprehend, much less that it isn't exacerbated by labor law. Easy to hire/easy to fire policies will not be net zero, rather they will accelerate the employment market. Sure, some may lose their jobs short term. Overall, however, companies will show a tendency for hiring not currently witnessed, and the market will reabsorb those laid off. Such conditions are present in healthy dynamic labor markets. Basic theory would suggest only those companies more or less forced into hiring would do so given the real or perceived risks they incur.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does Ireland still recieve these subsidies? I remember reading about them circa. 1992 when working on a paper in business school, but I'd be surprised, given Ireland's apparent economic health, if they still get them; do they?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> Does Ireland still recieve these subsidies? I remember reading about them circa. 1992 when working on a paper in business school, but I'd be surprised, given Ireland's apparent economic health, if they still get them; do they?


In 2004 they were still getting about 1% of GDP (or 1,3 % of GNP) and had the highest per-capita net transfer in the EU.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think (as far as my current employer goes) its more than strictly their understanding of the labor laws that is the issue.

Our entire business model is built around a relatively high turnover of staff. We expect that many new hires out of school will use us as a stepping stone to other things, allowing us to, in essence, have both the ability to grow or shrink our headcount fairly easily (the number of campus hires be varied to increase or decrease our headcount by 1/3 in just one year) while having a large number of people to pick from when it comes promotion time (higher churn=larger pool of potential candidates). If the job market is not vibrant, all of those people who would have moved on to other jobs have no place to go (most of our churn is voluntary). Our operating model would have to drastically change without the current level of voluntary turnover.

To anticipate the question, yes, our operating model is different in Western European countries with tough employment laws and less dynamic economies (lower churn, longer tenure to achieve promotions, reduced campus hiring, etc). The US profits per partner are consistently higher (albeit more volatile) than our EU counterparts.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> France, last time I noticed, has excellent infrastructure, a highly skilled and educated workforce, is a great location for servicing EU customers, but a gagging tax regime and job-for-life labor laws. At my last company, it was policy to never, under any circumstances, move new product into France or increase the French workforce.


I think to be fair, the biggest driver of this policy was the tax differential between France and Ireland (30+% points) and that both plants were forging operations which allowed production to move pretty easily between the two. Labor laws were always a second reason, I suspect.


----------

