Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push

[Bomb#20]

Every lazy good-for-nothing who is forced into a job they don't want pushes a diligent person who desperately wants to work into unemployment.

That was not derived from observational evidence; that was deduced from assuming jobs are a zero-sum-game. It is a political slogan.

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

 

[laughing dog]

Every lazy good-for-nothing who is forced into a job they don't want pushes a diligent person who desperately wants to work into unemployment.

That was not derived from observational evidence; that was deduced from assuming jobs are a zero-sum-game.

The fact that the unemployment rate is not zero is observational support for bilby’s claim.

 

[Toni]

I don’t believe for one second that the armed forces or the duly elected Senators and the Congressmen would have allowed the election results to have been overthrown.

The election would not have been certified, and there are constitutional provisions for that event. One State, one vote, Republicans would have won. At what point and in what way do you think the military (still under Trump's Command) would have "gone rogue"? What power do you imagine congresscritters had, and what will to exercise it? (IIRC the new Congress had just been seated, with a Republican majority overall - I'm betting not one of them would have broken ranks, even if doing so would have made any difference.)

I think it would have been a protracted and bloody battle, but ultimately, democracy would have prevailed.

I think it would have been over by the early hours of 1/7. If people objected they would have been shot.
It mystifies me that you are not even taking seriously how close we came to living in Trumpistan.

Oh, I absolutely DO take it seriously. I believe there would have been war.

 

[Toni]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Ignorant Americans, generally those whose own employment is secure and well compensated (however they define well compensated) may say that sort of thing a lot but not anyone who is well informed. A lot of people believe the anti-union propaganda while at the same time enjoying the benefits won by unions and sometimes, simultaneously refusing to believe that unions are responsible for the degree to which there are decent work conditions in the US (and other parts of the world).

 

[Elixir]

I think it would have been a protracted and bloody battle, but ultimately, democracy would have prevailed.

I think it would have been over by the early hours of 1/7. If people objected they would have been shot.
It mystifies me that you are not even taking seriously how close we came to living in Trumpistan.

Oh, I absolutely DO take it seriously. I believe there would have been war.

War? What war? Were Democrats going to take up arms against the US Military? After a constitutionally specified process had "resolved" Congress' inability to certify the election and it was thrown to the States AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION?
Remember Toni, that if the Constitutional process (election of the president by the States) had been completed as planned, Trump would have been re-confirmed as Commander-in-Chief (which he already was).
So you are saying there would have been an insurrection by Biden supporters in the military. That's a reach, a MAJOR reach. It might be comforting to think that would have happened, but no.

 

[Toni]

I think it would have been a protracted and bloody battle, but ultimately, democracy would have prevailed.

I think it would have been over by the early hours of 1/7. If people objected they would have been shot.
It mystifies me that you are not even taking seriously how close we came to living in Trumpistan.

Oh, I absolutely DO take it seriously. I believe there would have been war.

War? What war? Were Democrats going to take up arms against the US Military? After a constitutionally specified process had "resolved" Congress' inability to certify the election and it was thrown to the States AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION?
Remember Toni, that if the Constitutional process (election of the president by the States) had been completed as planned, Trump would have been re-confirmed as Commander-in-Chief (which he already was).
So you are saying there would have been an insurrection by Biden supporters in the military. That's a reach, a MAJOR reach. It might be comforting to think that would have happened, but no.

You are quite mistaken if you believe that the military as a whole supported Trump. Also, please do not forget the open letter signed by multiple former generals denouncing Trump. Given the absolutely unconstitutional process that Trump tried to shame/force Pence into committing, I think that yes, there would have been civil war.

I also think that was the plan. Not Trump's plan: he couldn't plan anything. But his handlers' plan.

 

[Elixir]

You are quite mistaken if you believe that the military as a whole supported Trump

Former generals do not command troops, Toni. And “the military as a whole” doesn’t give orders. You cannot know what was promised to whom, and we probably never will. But you’d be naive to think Trump didn’t have assurances that if this worked, the military would back him up, pending it going through the courts. Trump courts, of course.

 

[Toni]

You are quite mistaken if you believe that the military as a whole supported Trump

Former generals do not command troops, Toni. And “the military as a whole” doesn’t give orders. You cannot know what was promised to whom, and we probably never will. But you’d be naive to think Trump didn’t have assurances that if this worked, the military would back him up, pending it going through the courts. Trump courts, of course.

Former generals DO command a lot of influence. Armies can be raised. I know what I think of Trump’s assurances—given or received. Again: He could not successfully organize a circle jerk.

 

[Elixir]

Former generals DO command a lot of influence.

Like Mike Flynn?
Seriously, this would have happened so fast that all the former generals in the world would be of no help for hours or days. By the time they could muster an army, they would look like insurrectionists while the Trump government was abiding by the Constitutionally mandated remedy (the Trump courts).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

 

[bilby]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

 

[Jayjay]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

Those who have "land" i.e. jobs then have to toil to support not just themselves but a larger number of non-productive members of society. To small degree that's acceptable, but if it gets out of hand it creates resentment and incentivizes freeloading.

 

[bilby]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

Those who have "land" i.e. jobs then have to toil to support not just themselves but a larger number of non-productive members of society. To small degree that's acceptable, but if it gets out of hand it creates resentment and incentivizes freeloading becomes a description of the prosperous middle classes to which most posters here belong.

FTFY.

Who do you know who grows a significant fraction of their own food? Farmers are a tiny fraction of the population of OECD nations. There's no particular problem with this. Equally, as long as total production meets total demand, who cares what proportion of consumers are employed?

Already vast swathes of people are not expected to work - children, the elderly, the sick and disabled - and it's only a problem if the people who do work, are neglectful of their responsibility to support those who are unemployed.

Automation allows a tiny fraction of people to support the rest, just as mechanised farming allows a tiny number of farmers to feed us all. The only problem is the expectation that able bodied adults must have paid employment, even when none is available for them.

 

[Jayjay]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

Those who have "land" i.e. jobs then have to toil to support not just themselves but a larger number of non-productive members of society. To small degree that's acceptable, but if it gets out of hand it creates resentment and incentivizes freeloading becomes a description of the prosperous middle classes to which most posters here belong.

FTFY.

Who do you know who grows a significant fraction of their own food? Farmers are a tiny fraction of the population of OECD nations. There's no particular problem with this. Equally, as long as total production meets total demand, who cares what proportion of consumers are employed?

That only shows that the food analogy is flawed. There are things beyond mere calorie intake that people want.

In reality, one can always do better. If you have to work 8 hours instead of 6 to support the growing masses of the unemployed, that's 2 hours a day away from your family, or enjoying a good movie, or whatever it is that you think is worthwhile. Or alternatively, if you earn just 75% of what you otherwise would and have 25% less to spend on things that enable you to do these things.

(BTW those aren't just random numbers. It's pretty much the difference in net pay an American would have, if USA had same tax wedge as France.)

Already vast swathes of people are not expected to work - children, the elderly, the sick and disabled - and it's only a problem if the people who do work, are neglectful of their responsibility to support those who are unemployed.

That's how we got here. More people who are retired, compared to people still in their working age. And actually the problem isn't the people who get the bare minimum, it's those who get pensions relative to what they made while they were still working, and maybe even index raises on top of that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

 

[bilby]

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living.

Sure. But there's not an option for "everyone is in the labour force", and there never has been.

So we're quibbling over the magnitude of the non-participation rate.

Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Of course. So let's not do that.

Why do you assume that adequate income for non-workers will lead to too few workers?

Most people would work even if they could live comfortably without working. They just wouldn't do all the shit jobs that should have been mechanised years ago, and wouldn't kiss their boss's arse, so bosses would need to care about their employees.

 

[TomC]

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

This isn't 1965 anymore.

Here in the 21st century, automation and robots can do tons of the heavy lifting. From growing corn to building vehicles to answering phones to well, tons of stuff.

Not everything, obviously. But so much needful stuff that workloads can be reduced hugely from what used to be necessary to sustain the economy and basic needs that "income redistribution" can improve lives for the majority.

Instead of just the very wealthy who can afford to buy Senators and other minions.
Tom

 

[robnisch]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

 

[bilby]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

Don't forget children and infants.

 

[laughing dog]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Your claim about the efffect of taxation for income support and the standard of living is false once one realises that “ standard of living” is not necessarily measured by net income.