It's only been a couple of years ago that I couldn't get through a day without someone reminding me how much better the government was to it's citizens in several different European nations, than the U.S. was. They would point to health care, retirement, vacations, and a 32/35 hour work week; add to that four to six weeks of vacation as standard. The work week has steadily been decreasing in parts of Europe and even Australia.

To good to be true, well yes and no.

In the United States, by contrast, the working time has actually been increasing. Many workers put in longer hours than the forty hour standard. Two weeks of paid annual leave is standard.

Sarkozy, says enough of this, who will pay for it all? Massive tax hikes are not in the distant future unless something is done. “Since 2000, France's GDP has grown just 1.7% a year after inflation. That compares with 2.1% for the rest of the EU and 2.4% in the U.S. Today, as France falls further behind, just over 40% of the adult population works. That share will soar to 70% by 2040 if nothing is done. Already youth unemployment is nearing 22%.”
Well today Sarkozyhas won round 1 of the battle with the 9 day strike by the transportation and energy workers union. Round 2 is likely to take place before the end of the year. Never-the-less, they underestimated Sarko's resolve and political Capital. “"I have no intention to stop the reform movement, no intention to slow it down, no intention to forget my promises," he said. "I made commitments. They will be kept."
I think he deserves the Ronald Regan award, while facing similar union-made problems with air traffic controllers.
Anyway, to the point…do you think he will go on to win the game, and will that difference also be felt elsewhere in Europe where similar pension crises loom?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Sarko's Stare-Down

"There you go again."
I was thinking that yesterday when I read the news about the rail strike and Sarkozy's apparent win. This is reminiscent of Reagan's handling of the Air Traffic Controller's union.The rail workers got a better deal than the Air Traffic union. They haven't been fired yet. Government workers should not be allowed to strike in the first place.

The big difference is that there is ongoing negotiations with the rail unions and they could still resume their strike. Reagan left the ATC union with no options. Margaret Thatcher had a similar dramatic victory over striking coal miners.He has his eye on greater reforms and does not want to create a take no prisoners atmosphere .That is why he has left them some wiggle room.


But Sarkosy must work fast .Conservatives are only given a short time to succeed while liberals are given generations to create the mess.It appears that he has a sizable majority of the French behind him. The French are fed up with the status quo resistance to change .

I think in Europe they face the same realities that America faces visa -vie competitiveness in the world market. The strike is no longer the solution. Either union demands are tempered and they start working with management to make their companies compete or they risk what happened to the American auto industry. For Reagan the process of reform began with a public employee union .The ripple effect was felt throughout the American work place.

The next big test for Sarkosy ;and tougher one I think;will be the reforms he has proposed for the education system. Student protests have always been a part of French culture... and they have already begun in earnest with about 1/2 of the universities disrupted by protests yesterday.

Hi, DC.

First of all, one has to question the entire basis of your post... that European countries and France in particular are "better off" than their US counterparts simply because they get shorter work weeks and longer vacations. I would argue that the US quality of life at every income level is better than the quality of life in most European countries, France included. We work longer and harder, but it pays off in terms of higher income levels, more purchasing power, and lower taxation (though still too high for my conservative sensibilities). Even the poor in the USA are better off than the poor of Europe.

As IBD points out, GDP growth is higher in the USA. Although most of Europe has "universal" health care, the quality of care is higher in the USA, and the cost of it (taking taxes into consideration) is considerably lower. Europeans have longer vacations, but we can spend more to enjoy our vacations to a greater degree than they do.

Home ownership rates in the USA are roughly 69% (as of 2005) compared to 55% in France (also as of 2005). Home values in the USA have grown significantly over the past 10 years, in many cases doubleing or more in that time. In most European countries, housing values have remained relatively flat during that period, or growing in value only slightly. Part of that is because the government is involved in housing ownership to a large degree and has the ability to fix housing prices artificially. Not a good outcome for European homeowners... though it can be argued that we are about to feel the impact of the free market in real estate to our detriment over the next couple of years. (I happen to question that "fact", but that is a topic for another string.)

All in all, I think we get the better deal. I therefore, question the premise of your question... that France has it better than we do.

I think that Sarkozy is on the right track. Making France (and by extension the entire EU) more productive is the only way to keep them economically relevant in a world that is increasingly dominated by the likes of Japan, China, India, and even the USA, which seem to have a work-ethic that outproduces and out-earns most of Europe.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

It's only been a couple of years ago that I couldn't get through a day without someone reminding me how much better the government was to it's citizens in several different European nations, than the U.S. was......

In the United States, by contrast, the working time has actually been increasing. Many workers put in longer hours than the forty hour standard. Two weeks of paid annual leave is standard.

---

Hello DC:

Huh?

The government ain't got nothing to do with it. If there's a contrast, it's by choice - NOT by mandate. Fortunately, in the United States the government doesn't control that stuff like the Europeans do. The free market does.

You remind me of a friend who, when looking out the window and seeing our bounty, said to me with a straight face, "look at what our government has done for us." I replied to him, with an equally straight face, "Hmmmph. Look at what WE'VE been able to do in SPITE of government".

I meant it then. I mean it now.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

Huh?

The government ain't got nothing to do with it. If there's a contrast, it's by choice - NOT by mandate. Fortunately, in the United States the government doesn't control that stuff like the Europeans do. The free market does.

You remind me of a friend who, when looking out the window and seeing our bounty, said to me with a straight face, "look at what our government has done for us." I replied to him, with an equally straight face, "Hmmmph. Look at what WE'VE been able to do in SPITE of government".

I meant it then. I mean it now.

excon

---

Hi Excon

You got one thing right, if a person looks out a window there’s no telling what they might see. It’s the same with following the news, if all a person reads is what’s wrong with the government there’s enough wrong with the various kinds of government we have to sour anyone on it. But that the federal government in America provides opportunity, that’s the main purpose outside of protecting private property. And it seems to me America does a much better job of doing that than any other country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

But the fact of the matter is that the federal government in America provides opportunity, that’s the main purpose outside of protecting private property.

---

Hello again, DC:

Yeah. That’s what my friend thought too. It’s typical liberal thinking. However, until you can show me where any of that MALARKY is mentioned in the Constitution, I'll just chalk it up to more of your fantasies.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

Yeah. That’s what my friend thought too. It’s typical liberal thinking. However, until you can show me where any of that MALARKY is mentioned in the Constitution, I'll just chalk it up to more of your fantasies.

excon

---

To provide for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare works for me; and is the preamble to the constitution.:D