Real Time discusses income inequality and the Great Depression

[physics girl phd]

Of course, the economy will do better with 1). But if 2) is what is democratically desired for, then I don't see what is *a priori* wrong with it - on the condition that one understands what it means: higher unemployment, lower wages, smaller growth, less wealth.

Might not choice 2 mean no impact on wealth and growth (in terms of GDP), less unemployment (more people working, but less hours of work and lower pay on average), and a larger population with some sustainable "wealth"... with possible huge benefits on national health (via the fact that vacations are shown to help this... as well as better heath/nutrition for perhaps now employed "lower classes"). Of course national health care would make this more feasible, since benefits (especially those effecting health) are often tied to employment status. Just a thought.

 

[vanesch]

Might not choice 2 mean no impact on wealth and growth (in terms of GDP), less unemployment (more people working, but less hours of work and lower pay on average), and a larger population with some sustainable "wealth"... with possible huge benefits on national health (via the fact that vacations are shown to help this... as well as better heath/nutrition for perhaps now employed "lower classes"). Of course national health care would make this more feasible, since benefits (especially those effecting health) are often tied to employment status. Just a thought.

Yes, that's more or less the "French left's dream". But what didn't work out well, was the "redistribution of employment". It is that famous "35 hour week" which converted in 50 days off per year which was the French left's idea to diminish unemployment (the reasoning being: given that workers will work less, employers will have to hire more, and hence this will reduce unemployment). With the proposition came the decision to freeze wages for 3 or more years, to compensate. However, studies demonstrated that the effects on unemployment were minimal. What had more effects was the lowering of social taxes, rendering employment conditions more flexible and things like that.

Under Sarkozy, we're getting closer to a bit more free market situations. But even though in France he's seen as a right wing guy, I take him as a social-democrat who ignores himself

 

[mheslep]

...(via the fact that vacations are shown to help this... as well as better heath/nutrition for perhaps now employed "lower classes")...

Some vacation time sure, but where does it possibly show that 50 days a year off increases health significantly over, say, 21?

 

[vanesch]

Some vacation time sure, but where does it possibly show that 50 days a year off increases health significantly over, say, 21?

I don't know. Probably it lowers life expectancy, as people go more on trips ?
Again, the initial drive was not to increase holidays, the initial drive was a political project of "redistribution of working time" to tackle unemployment. Initially, work days would simply be shorter (you'd go home at 4 pm instead of at 5 pm or so). But then workers' unions changed this into extra holidays. So that's how we got about 23 extra days off.

I can say that this is very practical if you have young kids. In fact, most of these extra days I don't use them to go on a holiday, but just to do things at home, look after the kids,... most people actually do. So it became "more time for family stuff" ; not so much more swingers time.

However, it has an undeniable negative effect on the job. It becomes difficult to have whole-department meetings, because there are always a few persons on leave (ok, this can be imposed of course). If you need to work with several collegues, you really have to sit down and plan days off, because otherwise the group is almost never complete.

So, family life got better, job life not necessarily so.