Wow yeah, perhaps... 
dudeist skydiver # 3105
dudeist skydiver # 3105
TheAnvil 0
I think it will be more than 3 million. The US economy is another animal altogether with different problems.
The young people in France have an unemployment rate of about 22% and were protesting against a bill that would have generated jobs for them. French-tards sounds like a good Anvil-ism to describe the protestors. Much more polite than 'fucking idiots' which would be equally apropos.
Between their immigration policies, 35 hour work weeks, and job protections the French economy is looking a bit bleak. That being said, the do produce some fine companies, scientists, products, and people. And some damned good wine too. Tequila is made in Jalasco, Mexico, however, and they have nothing close to it.
The US economy is booming right now - not that the media would ever report on that with Bush in office - but we've got some major trouble on the horizon. Given the age demographics of the current populace and the structure of our entitlement programs, our deficit is going to explode over the next twenty to thirty years. The debt ceiling raise we just saw is going to be nothing compared to what will be required in the not so distant future. It bothers me that neither political party in the U.S. is showing any serious concern over this impending disaster.
The young people in France have an unemployment rate of about 22% and were protesting against a bill that would have generated jobs for them. French-tards sounds like a good Anvil-ism to describe the protestors. Much more polite than 'fucking idiots' which would be equally apropos.
Between their immigration policies, 35 hour work weeks, and job protections the French economy is looking a bit bleak. That being said, the do produce some fine companies, scientists, products, and people. And some damned good wine too. Tequila is made in Jalasco, Mexico, however, and they have nothing close to it.
The US economy is booming right now - not that the media would ever report on that with Bush in office - but we've got some major trouble on the horizon. Given the age demographics of the current populace and the structure of our entitlement programs, our deficit is going to explode over the next twenty to thirty years. The debt ceiling raise we just saw is going to be nothing compared to what will be required in the not so distant future. It bothers me that neither political party in the U.S. is showing any serious concern over this impending disaster.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
"The US economy is booming right now" _________________________________________________-_My fuckin ass. Where's my job? Been on enenjoyment for 5 mths. But I have one month left. Glad I saved a few duckets last yr. Must be all them TEXACANS taking the work>or hiring the illegals whom are taking mine and others jobs
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Texicans? Weren't they the Mexican immigrants who fought alongside Houston & Bowie & Crockett against Santa Anna at the Alamo?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, it will be more than 3million; closer to 11? With all the euphoria, people won't believe that what goes up will come down. Gonna be tons of young people out of work and angry because they will feel betrayed by the gringos.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
QuoteWhen the US economy goes down like a limp penis that aint coming back, the French are going to laugh at our 3 million Mexican rioters who want social services, unemployment benefits, and everything they couldn't get south of the border. Then we can all laugh together.
Unfortunately for the French, the government policies are effectively precluding any market corrections. Hiring and firing is part of the process of achieving economic efficiency.
When I needed to move, I needed the help of a a moving van, so I hired on. Now, what if there was a law that prevented me from firing the moving van when I no longer needed it? I would not hire the moving van and would simply find another way to move. While horrifically inefficient, it is more efficient than keeping a moving van I don't need.
Such is the problem with France. Companies are choosing not to hire an employee that they cannot get rid of. Employees need to be test-driven before the are hired on permanently. Sometimes the don't work out. If they DO work out, you keep them (it's expensive to get an employee trained).
So, these companies in France are ONLY looking for those who are established. The young, the immigrants, etc., cannot get jobs because employers do not want to want to spin the roulette wheel.
The most indicative stat is "Young uneployment is at 22.2, overall is 9.6." Assuming that the "young" population is 20 percent of the population, it would mean that out of every two hundred people, 40 are young and 160 are not. Out of the 40 young, 9 are unemployed. Out of the remaining 80 percent, about 10 are unemployed - an unemployment rate of about 5.5%, which is actually pretty good.
What does this say about the nature of the problem for the employability of the young French - when about 1 out of 2 unemployed are probably under the age of 25? Out of that percentage of those older ones who are unemployed, how many are new immigrants without a job history?
It is a system that operates to keep in power those who are established. And, the easiest way to ensure class separation is to make those of lower castes believe that the system that holds them down is working for them, and that any system designed to help them is working to hold them down.
Obviously, they've learned from Americans...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteWhere's my job?
Sometimes you have to get off your ass to get what you want...I know, hard to understand.
QuoteSuch is the problem with France. Companies are choosing not to hire an employee that they cannot get rid of. Employees need to be test-driven before the are hired on permanently. Sometimes the don't work out. If they DO work out, you keep them (it's expensive to get an employee trained).
You are way off the mark here... Rigth now, the employer can hire an employee for up to six month to see if he is the right person for the job. I think it is more than enough time. This new law pretends to increase those six months to two full years. During those two full years the enployee can be fired with no justification whatsoever, until he is 26.
QuoteSo, these companies in France are ONLY looking for those who are established. The young, the immigrants, etc., cannot get jobs because employers do not want to want to spin the roulette wheel.
No, there must be other reasons. 6 months is more than enough time to test an employee. Even if it takes you a full year to find out that the person is not the right one, you can still fire him, although you will have to pay compensation. However that compensation is proportional to the time worked in the company, so to fire someone who has been working for a year is not that expensive at all.
QuoteIt is a system that operates to keep in power those who are established. And, the easiest way to ensure class separation is to make those of lower castes believe that the system that holds them down is working for them, and that any system designed to help them is working to hold them down.
Again you are way off the mark. That law pretends to keep in power those who are stablished (The companies).
When you propose a new law, you have to take into consideration how that law can be abuse. (And if there is a way, there is a will and viceversa)
Example: Mr Pierre is 18 years old and is looking for a job in France. He finds a job in a field that initial training is either not necesary, not expensive or too general, (Waiter, Driver, tc). He performs very good at his work for 1 year and 11 months, but his boss doesn´t want the burden to permantly hire him and prefers to have a more flexible workforce. So instead of giving him his earned vacations, he fires him and hires him back one month later. Mr Pierre has another 2 years on which he can be fired with no justification. 1 year and 11 months later he is fired and hired back one month later... and on and on and on until he is 26 years old.
It has happened before and will happen again. What this law would do is shift the unemplopyment from the youth to the elders, and create a great deal of insecurity among the young people. It will not create more jobs, The vacancies left from retired people will be filled with young people at a great gain for the companies and a lost for the citizens...
I see your points, and they are well-taken.
I have some follow-up questions, though, if you don't mind:
1) Why is the limit set at 26? Is it just arbitrary, or what is going on with that age? Are there certain benefits that must be paid out to people at that age?;
2) What if an employer must cut back the workforce, i.e., budget cuts, etc.?;
3) What are good causes to fire an employee?; and
4) You stated that, "The vacancies left from retired people will be filled with young people at a great gain for the companies and a lost for the citizens... " It seems that there is a problem with companies hiring people at all.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I have some follow-up questions, though, if you don't mind:
1) Why is the limit set at 26? Is it just arbitrary, or what is going on with that age? Are there certain benefits that must be paid out to people at that age?;
2) What if an employer must cut back the workforce, i.e., budget cuts, etc.?;
3) What are good causes to fire an employee?; and
4) You stated that, "The vacancies left from retired people will be filled with young people at a great gain for the companies and a lost for the citizens... " It seems that there is a problem with companies hiring people at all.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The problem goes deeper than that. Employers' payroll taxes in France I believe are around 53%. That combined to the fact that it is extremely hard to get rid of an employee who is not wanted/needed makes for an atmosphere not really enciting to hiring new people. The new law allowed employers to "test" employees for a defined period of time. What would most certainly have happened is that the vast majority of people hired under the agreement would have been laid off at the end of the try out period and replaced by another person under the same contract. There would have been many exceptions, I am sure. The root of the problem in France stems, IMO, in two categories:
- the fact that it is extremely hard to take back something that people have grown to take for granted (job security being a major social issue in France).
- the fact that for decades, diplomas have been advertised as the sure ticket to a good job. That was true in the 50's and 60's, not so much since then.
So today's youth does what it considers "its part", meaning graduating from high school, then off to college for several years to obtain the precious diplomas. However, once the courses completed, they find out that there is very little work available, as the turn around in jobs in France is extremely low, and they find themselves in some internship program that can last for years. And that's what makes them go down in the streets and protest. I don't think it was directed at the actual law as much as it was an expression of its frustration. There is a major social and society problem in France today, and I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
- the fact that it is extremely hard to take back something that people have grown to take for granted (job security being a major social issue in France).
- the fact that for decades, diplomas have been advertised as the sure ticket to a good job. That was true in the 50's and 60's, not so much since then.
So today's youth does what it considers "its part", meaning graduating from high school, then off to college for several years to obtain the precious diplomas. However, once the courses completed, they find out that there is very little work available, as the turn around in jobs in France is extremely low, and they find themselves in some internship program that can last for years. And that's what makes them go down in the streets and protest. I don't think it was directed at the actual law as much as it was an expression of its frustration. There is a major social and society problem in France today, and I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
QuoteI see your points, and they are well-taken.
I have some follow-up questions, though, if you don't mind:
1) Why is the limit set at 26? Is it just arbitrary, or what is going on with that age? Are there certain benefits that must be paid out to people at that age?;
Not that i am aware of. My guess is that there is a limit at all because if there was not, the insecurity would lead people to save money (just in case they get laid off) rather than spending it, thus slowing the economy.
Quote2) What if an employer must cut back the workforce, i.e., budget cuts, etc.?;
I am not 100% sure in France, but in Spain, it would be considered as an unjustified laid off, being the employee entitled to compensation. However whereas the employeer have to pay 44 days of salary per year worked by the employee if the employee has been fired unjustifiedly, if the employee has been fired because of economical struggle of the company those 44 days get reduced to 22.
Quote3) What are good causes to fire an employee?;
Actually pretty much any that is documented. You can not fire an employee for being late to work once or twice, but you can fire him if he has been warned before and he keeps doing it. You can even fire him for performance issues as long as those issues are proven.
When you sign the contract, it specifies what generic code of conduct (set of rules) you adhere too, and any specific rules that may aply to that particular company.
And on top of that there is the constitution and the common sense.
If the employee break any of the rules he has signed to follow he can be legally fired. He cannot be legally fire however to increase shareholders revenues.
Quote4) You stated that, "The vacancies left from retired people will be filled with young people at a great gain for the companies and a lost for the citizens... " It seems that there is a problem with companies hiring people at all.
Yes, it is undeniable that they are having some issues with hiring people and therefore unemployment. The long term solution is to create more jobs, sustainable inmigration policies, etc. However there is other short term solution that may work as well as the proposed new law without the burden on the citizens, like tax breaks to those companies hiring and signing permanent contracts, early retirement plans to create more vacancies, etc.
Perhaps a hoax?