muddysmind.com

That's what is so great about socialism... you work very little and go so very much.

I say Kudos to the French for finding a way to sit on your butt and let the government take care of you.

After working 42 hours in 3 days last week myself I would not mind to much working 35 and getting everything handed to me for free.

:-P

I'd sure like to go back to college and finish off my degree.. maybe I should move to France for a few years and do that.
hehe..

"maybe I should move to France for a few years and do that. hehe.."

Bye-bye Baby. You're on your own now.:-P

"What whiny bitches."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

That made my day....

1
The thing is french people are very productive.
THeir productivity per hour is one of the highest in the world.
Reducing the length of work week increases productivity per hour (people are better rested, better trained, work is more intense etc)
2
THe government never hands out things for free. You should know that. Taxes are being paid by working french people. (Whereas the US fiscal deficit is being financed by chinese working people)
3
Of course this is the legal limit. In many firms people work more undeclared, just as in any country, and just as in any country those having the highest salaries work the most hours.
4
Why do you care ?
5
Would not you trade a little bit wage for a little bit more vacation ?
6
Americans now work longer than japanese. AIn't it crazy ?
I've read recently the lengthening of the working time in the USA may be one of the reason of the apparent boom in US productivity per worker.

7 Please come in Muddy, we're expected to see many fleeing US citizens in the coming years.

DF: REally simple answer to all of your quetions: it isn't the gov'ts business. If people want to agree to work long hours that is there right and the gov't should not even attempt to stand in the way. It's called a limit to freedom. Americans work longer hours because we are hard working people. The productivity statistic is also a decieving and really kind of meaningless statistic becuse it is non-tangible and doesn't really reflect what all we do when we are at work.

You see, for us, the American dream really is alive in well, and a liberal would say that the problem with it is that is makes us all think we'll be a millionaire one day and that dream of aquiring wealth, or of owning our own home or haavng whatever career path we want, or having a family whatever it is is what drives us, it is what makes us work 16 - 20 hours non-stop (or in some cases, longer.)

But the people of your country, whether it is some times done illegally or not, are bitching because the gov't is thinking about making it LEGAL for people to do whatever they want with their own time and money?

The problem here isn't economic, If anything this will improve your country's economy, not that you can see that because you're a socialist. The issue here is freedom. Your country is limiting it and they are trying to correct that mistake. I say kudos to Chirac and his government for it.

And if you want to know, I've never worked a job where I had paid vacation (except the military), every time I take a vacation I give up wages. That's why I take very few vacations. Would I take less overall money for 2 weeks of paid vacation? Depends. I'd have to look at whether or not it would mean getting paid the same overall or less. Probably not though.

The biggest problem you have DF is you lok at everything throught he eyes of Marx and Engels.

You got it wrong from the start.
1 lots of people have no choice to work less. The employer always want more. That's why we have mandatory vacation. IF there were none, nobody would dare take 5 weeks a year, anyone trying to take 5 weeks when the other take two, would look less motivated.
So in fact the government is giving the workers the freedom they have asked for.
That is why they protest when that freedom is taken away

2 people can always work more than those 35 hours, but in overtime pay.

The people are bitching because the government is making it legal
1 for the employers to force people to work longer if they do not want to (or else be fired, or not promoted)
2 for the employers not to pay overtime for those hours.

About social security I thought you should read this.
http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html

My bet is that by 2009, dow jones will stand at 5000 and nobody will trust putting any cash on a private account. That reform comes to late for the bull market.

Telling companies they have to give employees a certain amount of vacation isn't freedom! That's taking the employer's freedom away. And you're damned right an employee taking 5 weeks vacation a year would look less motivated.

As for social security:
The system is already bankrupt technically speaking. During the Johnson administration, they began pouring social security revenues into the general fund which is why I'm paying my grandmother's social security check instead of her having already paid it!

Also, I recently heard a speech FDR gave about how his intentions were for us to abolish social security inside of 10 years and for everyone to be investing a portion of their income into private accounts.

And if yout hink the dow is going to fall by more than half int he next 4 years, then you have no sense of history: tell me, what was the average rate of return on long term investments in the stock market during the depression? What was the lowest rate of return for a single year during the depression? What is the average rate of return overall?

Personally, I don't want a social security system. That's taking away my freedom to do with my income as I wish and invest it in a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes always collapse. BTW, Chile` privatized their social security system in the 80s and everyone said the things YOU have said and that the Democrats have been saying to their government then. Now people who use the private accounts have an average of 10% return where as the people using the old system have about a 2% return!

Sky ...
If you remembered your history classes, you'd know that back in the 19th century men women and children were working 16 hours a day sometimes 7 days a week.

Law were pass to curtail the employers liberty to force the workers to work that long.

Don't get me wrong with the low wages of the time, people "chose" to work that long, children "chose" to work instead of going to school.
Then law were passed, unions striked ... And this enabled productivity increases, it also forced higher wages. THe result was greater efficiency and productivity.
If you want to know the real return of the stock market between 1966 and 1979 it is below 0, minus sth. I can giver you the exact number easily.
It's the same between 1929 and 1945.

So what do you do if you leave the workforce in 1932 or 1981 ? Of course it's much better to leave in 1965 or 2000.

If you want facts, look the factcheck or go look at the figure.
THe average return is just that an average. but the thing is that the average has a huge volatility.
All the money invested in the stock market by french workers prior to world war 1 was wiped out.
Reason ? War and then inflation.

These things happen and hurt the capital market much more than the labor market.

I say the dow is 5000 in 3 years.
Hope you'll still be alive and you'll see it.

Yes I remember all that, and I still disagree with it. It limits the freedom of everyone involved.

Umm, Sorry but I seem to recall that the stock market had a much higher average rate of return for long term investments. You give me the exact numbers and I'll look them up again for myself. I'm not much for factcheck btw, because I've seen stuff on there that was actually wrong before.

War helped wiped out the stock market? Umm that makes about no sense.

You can have a look at these projections.
http://www.cepr.net/publications/no_economist_left_behind.htm
I'll make the calculation for you and get the figures you ask for.
You're not going to like it ... But ... That's life.

Freedom for someone is always a curtailment of freedom for someone else.
For instance freedom to enjoy property is curtailment of freedom to steal.

And so on.
Freedom to enjoy 5 week vacation and not be considered lazy is a HUGE freedom, that all french enjoy. And it is indeed a curtailment of employers freedom to force people to work all year.
(But since employers are human, they don't mind taking some vacations too, so everybody gains from that)

Sorry but I still think that they are lazy. In the US you have the freedom to take 5 vacations a year if you wish - you employer also has the freedom to fire you for it. That sir is real freedom.

Stealing is not a freedom, it is a violation of freedom by its very definition. Only a moral relativist would believe the someone has a freedom to steal. And in a society that adopts moral relativism, everyone would be free to do whatever you want. Afterall since murder is okay to me, it's okay if I kill people even though you have a problem with it, since there are no absolutes.

That's the logic you're espousing.

No, I believe there are some basic values and human rights: things that are right and wrong and were made that way by a higher power. Thing like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: So long as I do not do things that are wrong like kill, steal or commit fraud, then I have the right to live life, to do with my property and my money as I please and to pursue all things that will lead to whatever I consider success or happiness in life.

Under no circumstances does my liberty take away another persons. That's a moral relativist's logic, and it is a logic that always breaks down, because you know in your heart and mind there are absolutes.

Aside philosophy, I did my homework.
Check
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blscu/CUUR0000AA0

and
http://www.economagic.com/sp.htm

You'll find that from 1970 to 1980 for instance real returns of the standards and poor was
0,3% annual. This figure is obtained by reinvesting all dividends in the SP.

Now with philosophy...
You're kind of dividing the issues in 2 :
There are the basic values (killing stealing has to be forbidden)
And then all the rest should be left to absolute freedom. Free contracting individuals.

You then add "under no circumstance my liberty takes away another persons".

Well for a start your liberty to elect your government, and have laws passed curtails the liberty of free individuals to contract freely.
For instance copy right laws, antitrust laws, labor laws ...
If you look carefully you'll find that the act of stealing is in many cases hard to define. Is taking a picture of a monument stealing ? Is taking a picture of an individual stealing ? Is recording a concert stealing ? Is giving these pictures, recording stealing ? Is selling that picture, audio recording stealing ? And so on ...
It all started with the rights the peasants had to access the fields and the woods and use them for traditional purpose. The land owners in ENgland back in 19th century started to curtail these rights and labeled many old rights as stealing ...
If you look carefully you'll find that your definition of marriage for instance is deeply routed in your religious beliefs which are not shared by many other US citizens. Some islamists may want up to 4 wives. etc.

I never said there is a right to steal. I said the right of individuals to enjoy their property has to be gained by restricting the access of others to their property. It's not that they have a moral right to it, it is that that they may want to do it, they may be able to do it, and they should be forbidden to.

Your argument still breaks down to the basic moral relativist bunk. And you DID say there is a right to steal. You said one person's property rights curtails another's right to steal.

Sorry but you just made the same exact argument as you did before, so there is no need to even respond to it.

"Freedom to enjoy 5 week vacation and not be considered lazy is a HUGE freedom, that all french enjoy"

So is double digit unemployment. Do you enjoy that? Perhaps its BECAUSE of your 5 week vacation per year.

The American worker runs circles around the French workers AND we work smarter.

Just sit back and enjoy your internet, which America invented. Of course, on your computer, which America invented or talk to someone on your phone, which America invented.

And I will go and use my toilet. Fitting how that was an French invention....

The camera was also a French invention... but then again so is unshaven female armpits. (shivers)

"...but then again so is unshaven female armpits."

Muddy! That's disgusting!:-D

Besides, I believe there are other countries in the world where the women go unshaven as well.

***With that thought, mrs. muddy decides to stock up more on razors and add them to her shopping list***

About the stock markets ...
the close in the end of august 1929 was 380 points
in august 1949 it was 190 points
(a loss of 50% in 20 years. Meanwhile the GDP has progressed, so had wages)
november 1954 360 points (cose to 29 level, 26 years later)
in august 1959 it was 665
In 30 years the dow had not doubled. That's a very small increase indeed.

so you see, stocks fare no better than wages and GDP in the long run. It all depends on the period you look at. The one sure thing is that they move faster than wages and GDP, faster up, and faster down.

On the other issue.
I did not say
"one person's property rights curtails another's right to steal."

I said
"Freedom for someone is always a curtailment of freedom for someone else. For instance freedom to enjoy property is curtailment of freedom to steal."
Freedom is a fact. Those freedom we want, we make them a right. Those we don't want, we ban them.
It is a fact that if you don't curtail the liberty of your neighbour, he might be tempted to steal your belongings. That's why laws have been created. That's why Moses came down and said thou shall not steal if you mind.
And basically the fact that you can enjoy the liberty of enjoying your property is based on the fact that all the others do not have the liberty to take it from you.
It has nothing to do with moral relativism it is pure logic.
I own exclusively sth = nobody elses owns it.

Unemployment in France is not related to vacation time, nothern countries have the same vacation time and no unemployment. It has many causes and if it were easy to fix, it would have been fixed by now.
Probably amoong them are excess regulation of economic activity, insufficient taxation on capital, excessive taxes on labor.

There's lots of stuff the US have invented too, like financial deregulation, derivatives ...
Let's enjoy those inventions together, will you ?

Any country running on debt could achieve great macro results. Argentina achieved a lot before it went bust.

But all this is unrelated. I love working 35 hours for a decent wage. That's cool, that's great. And I know most of you would like to spend sometime with your family. So stop being jealous and start your own free time movements.

Personally, I don't give a crap how much time a person spends at their work. If you can get away with only working 35 hours a week take 5 weeks of vacation a year and still be noted as a hard working, valuable employee with your company *still* turning over a good profit.....more power to ya. Besides, just because you work only 35 hours a week at your actual place of employment (and, of course, it always depends on *what* you actually do for a living) doesn't mean that that's the *only* work you do. It just may be the only work you get *paid* to do or the only work your paid a better wage for.

Yes, I realize that was NOT exactly some of your guy's points....but I just felt like throwing that out there. Now, I'll just wait to see where it lands.

Point well taken, Mrs Muddy.

However its a different story when you CANT get away with working a 35 hour week and taking 5 weeks of vacation because its causing double digit unemployment. Instead of accepting a few more hours of work each week, to help the greater good, they spend that time at a protest.

To me that seems kinda selfish. But then again, thats socialism. Socialism takes the purden of helping your fellow man off the individuals and places it right on the shoulders of the Governement. So screw the unemployed, I am not working any more hours.

Of course dont get the idea that I said that a 35 hour work week is causing the double digit unemployment. I didnt say that, Chirac did.

"the mandatory 35-hour week has been attacked by President Jacques Chirac's centre-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) for putting up the cost of labour and helping create the country's stubbornly high unemployment.

The funny thing to me is that if unemployment is at double digit, lets just say 10%. Then out of the 100 thousand people at the protest, how many were unemployed? My math says 10 thousand.

So did 10 thousand people protest against something that is possibly keeping them unemployed?

Only in France....

Just because chirac says so, doesn't mean it is so ...
In fact the 35 hours work week created employment. Because the same stock of hours of work lead to higher employement numbers.
The debate is still open on wether these measures had a positive or negative impact on unemployment.

But frankly that is not the most important thing about it.
As said already, Sweden and Norwegia have short work weeks and low unemployment.

It's more a way of life. How would you like to live. Working all the time ? Or enjoying life ?

And again socialism has nothing to do with that. The government in France collect taxes just has in any place. If anyone is having a free lunch in this world, it is the US government which benefit from the dollar being the reserve and trade currency of the world.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

For those still believing in stock markets as the solution to all problems (and retirement especially) ...

Real GDP Growth S&P Real Earnings Growth
1960-70 4.18% 1.61%
1970-80 3.25% 2.87%
1980-90 3.08% -0.74%
1990-2000 3.34% 5.89%

Average 3.46% 2.41%

Translate : Revenues (and taxes) will do better than capital gains on the stock markets most of the time.

and yet with all your fancy numbers, its still easier to find work here in the good old US....

I wonder how the retirement of all those unemployed frenchmen is doing? I bet worst than your numbers try to make our economy appear...

Hmmm, isnt that funny.

On productivity

quote from general glut blog (look in google)

"Well, well, well, imagine this. It turns out that according to the International Labour Organization, those lazy French cheese-eating freedom-hating surrender monkeys are actually more productive workers than Americans.

"In terms of output per person employed, the U.S. is on top," said Dorothea Schmidt, an economist on the team that produced the 855-page report.

"In terms of output per hour we have three European countries doing better than the U.S. ... and they have done so ever since the mid-80s."

Norwegians lead the world with an output of $38 per hour worked last year. French workers were in second place, averaging $35 an hour, the report said. Belgians were third at $34, followed by Americans at $32.
Americans had the highest output per worker both because Americans are pretty productive combined with the fact that Americans work more hours than anybody in any industrialized country -- 1825 hours per employed worker in 2002. That's even more than the Japanese work.

So enjoy that Labor Day holiday. You've earned it!

The figures I've posted are unrelated to employment.
I think labor costs in France are just above UK and under USA or sth like that. Still US and UK have low unemployment, not France.

I ve posted above the reasons for high unemployment in France according to me.

Now if you want to know, one of the reason of the low level of unemployment in the USA is the high number of people in Jail.
Jailed people in the USA account of 2,5% of the US workforce, whereas they account for,25% of the workforce in France. Add 2% to US unemployment and you're close to french numbers.

The other reason of low unemployment in the USA is probably the low saving rate high debt level.
Your country is living beyond its means.

" one of the reason of the low level of unemployment in the USA is the high number of people in Jail."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now THAT is funny!

However you want to justify it to yourself, DF...

Since when do we quote blog sites as fact, anyhow? Your research has really hit an all time low.

The reason that France has such high unemployment is because you guys are lazy. Socialism breeds lazyness, its a known fact. I dont need a blog site to prove that point.

You mentioned Sweden as being a success because they have low unemployment and a short work week. Thats funny because according to Swedens official website;

"In recent decades, once the country's previous steady, high economic growth had come to an end, the Swedish welfare state has been under heavy pressures. Today the country's economic security systems are financially burdened and are struggling with serious structural problems"

Yea, good example.... Good example of how socialism breeds lazyness.

Thats ok, DF. Please continue to work your 35 hour work week. Go on with your 5 weeks of vacation.

And then watch everyone else run circles around you.

Look there's no point discussing with you anyhow, you don't have any brain cells.
Sweden of course has problems now, yet they still fare better than france.
I'm not looking into the exact productivity numbers because everybody knows them, it just happened that I crossed them on this blog site. If you want to look for them, check the OECD website.
What I'm going to do is sit in France and watch the USA fall when China Japan India and Korea grow tired of lending to the USA 400 billions dollar a year (and growing).
Last time you predicted sth it was "Iraq s full of WMD and people will be so happy to welcome the USA and democracy". It ended up in no WMD and the present mess. Yet you did not learned a thing about your intellectual capacities. There's no hope for you in this world ... Too bad you might have fared well in prehistoric times.

For christ sake !
http://www.ams.se/RDFS.asp?L=224
(official sweden website on the labour market)

At the end of 2004, the proportion of unemployed in the work force was 5,6 percent.

ARE YOU SATISFIED ?

Gee ...

http://www.rense.com/politics6/prisoners.htm

just in case you can read...
(I just look for jailed population USA in google if you want to know)

socialism breeds lazyness, enough said.

Get a brain.

*sniff, sniff* (mrs. muddy wipes a tear from her eye)

The mutual disgust that has developed between the two of you is just simply inspiring.

OH BTW df, that figures your posted for stock market growth, are STILL better than the return you get on Social Security (0-2%)

But there is still no bigger return on your investment than good old fashion denial, isnt that right, DF?

the returns are higher NOW because we just ended a 20 year boom in stock market prices.

Returns from 2000 to 2005 are negative and hence well below real wage increases. (social security return)

Returns have to be looked in the long term, from one top to another top or from one bottom to another bottom. 1929-2000 sounds good to me.
Unfortunately I don't have all these figures (SP500 and social security did not exist)

In the long run it is better to build your retirement on diserfied sources, part of your retirement being related to wage (social security), part being related to profit (your (hopefully) savings in stocks). When you do that you should get a return close to GDP growth all the time.

In the short run, now is the worst time ever to invest in stocks as markets are bound to crash in the coming 2-3 years. The USA are nearing bankrupcy. Dollar is falling. Oil is rare. Protectionism sentiment is rising. Etc.

That's very simple. Sometimes workers fare better, its good to "invest" in rising real wages (social security), sometimes capitalists fare better, it's good to invest in stock markets.
The best solution if you value security is to invest a little in both.

If you want more info on social security
http://www.cepr.net/publications/facts_social_security.htm#9

BTW of course social security has brought higher returns in the long run than 0-2%

FYI I've been tempted to be part of the last demonstration. I think I'll go to the next. It's time to increase wages. Just as in the USA, big companies are full of profit. They do not raise wages, do not lower prices, not not even increase dividends, all they do is buy one another and buy their own stocks ...
Talk about a crazy world.
We'll have to change that.

cwilli: "But there is still no bigger return on your investment than good old fashion denial, isnt that right, DF?"

DF: "the returns are higher NOW because we just ended a 20 year boom in stock market prices."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. I guess the returns on denial are greater now than ever....

Cwilli you can't understand it because this require some math skills. Average, returns. ALl this is way to complicated for you.
20 years ago, the returns of social security were higher than those of stock markets.
5 years ago returns of stock markets were higher than they are now.
5 years from now, returns of the stock market will be lower than they are now.
There are variations, cycles etc.
That is easy to understand for most people. Not for you, I know it must be difficult to live with such a small brain, but, cary on, if you do try to improve your math skills, you'll make it. It's not that hard.

I can not copy paste graphs.
so go on the congress budget office
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0

look at figure 1

As you can see, the CBO forecasts that revenues of social security will be stable or slightly falling as a % of GDP. It says revenue should be at around 4,7% of GDP.

If you have a 4% y/y GDP growth, that means 4% increase.
If you have a 5% GDP recession, that means a 5% fall.

Returns on social security average GDP growth when the wage's share of GDP is stable.
THe figures I posted show that since 1960 except for the 1990-2000 period of time (bubble era) GDP growth has exceeded SP500 returns, which means, social security has done better than stock markets.
(Though, I can't remember if I have taken into account the reinvestment of profit, I can't figure out why I did not post where I got the figures, how I did the computing and why it's been posted 5 times, I suppose I had a pb with the site, as far as I remember it comes from yahoo finance)
One thing is certain, P/E ratio now stand around 20, I think 22. THe long term mean is 14.
if anything is sure in the coming years, the stock market will fall. Returns on the stock market will be much lower than GDP.