[PEN-L:1883] Re: French movement situation

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rod asks:
>
>So let me get this straight Bill, either "THE REVOLUTION" or nothing?
>
probably.

Tom also challenged me on france:

>My impressions of the current demands of the French strikers would tend to
>confirm bill's "conservative" label. BUT there are two reasons I wouldn't
>jump to the same conclusions about what the lesson is.
>
>First, I haven't heard that the French government was proposing to replace a
>particular set of narrow privileges with a more equitable system -- just
>that they wanted to cut benefits in an effort to reach budget targets. I
>would assume that the "status quo" is at least perceived by a good part of
>the public -- and specifically the workers -- as better than what Juppe has
>to offer. Given the choice between a bad status quo and a worse "reform",
>it's no sin to defend the status quo.
>
yes it is all about reaching the maastricht fiscal targets to be sure.  (for
those who do not know these targets - budget deficit to gdp of 3 per cent max
and debt/gdp of 60 per cent max).

i seem to get myself in the position where i am perceived as attacking the
working class. i never said i supported or opposed the strikes. it reminds me a
bit of a time in the mid 1980s when the left (read the middle class academics
who called themselves the left - the bistro crowd) called me a technocrat and a
revisionist b/c i had the audacity to say that real wage increases as a result
of successful class struggle could easily be the cause of rising unemployment
(via rate of profit constraints rather than Marginal PT sources). i am
astounded that the left seem to bury their heads and deny that the working
class cannot afford to be to successful in their bargaining - ***in a
capitalist society***.

there are some points to be made about the strikes.

(a) the unionists did not show any interest in the french bomb attacks on the
free will of the people in the south pacific. they are hardly defenders of the
freedom of peoples fighting a glorious struggle.

(b) the french health system - yes, a main plank of the welfare system in that
country - is  a wasteful gorging system. i thought one of the things that the
left and working class movement should be struggling for is a low resource
using society. in environmental terms the system there is a disaster.

health is overserviced by an incredible margin. it provides no incentives for
natural preventative approaches to health.

(c) the working class movement in france tends to be negative towards the
"migrants" who have taken many of the menial, low pay and unprotected jobs in
france. they are poor and face a level of security that is far below the
"protected" train and bus drivers.

(d) on economic targets - the current budget deficit is 6 per cent and the
debt/gdp is 51 %. the ur is 11.5%

the dispersion of earnings is as follows.

				France 	USA	OZ
		1980		100	100	100
		1989		102	115	110
		1991		105	118	109

(this is the ratio top decile/bottom decile)

the french economy is quite apart from the rest of the maastricht countries in
terms of retirement ages, pensions and debt projections.

the popn is definately aging over the next 50 years the young will decline from
19 to 17 per cent, working age from 36 to 31 percent and the elderly will rise
from 5 to over 10 per cent.


over the same period contributions to pensions as a % of GDP will remain
almost flat (slight decline) while pension payments will rise from 10 per cent
of GDP to over 16 per cent. over the next 30 years with nothing changing,
Debt/GDP will rise to over 105 per cent.

sounds like an economy that needs some adjustments.


Peter offered:
>
>2) Demographic changes somewhat exacerbate this problem.  But
>*per capita* GDP in France is at historically high levels.  So
>the problem is not one of absolute affordability, but of income
>distribution.  Productivity growth should have compensated somewhat
>for the demographic pressures, but this can only result in less
>pressure on the welfare budget if the increased income resulting
>from such growth is redistributed by the state.

this is essentially true although the per capita GDP gains have been modest
over the last 15 years. significantly the elderly dependency ratios for france
will deteriorate rapidly over the next 10 years faster than any productivity
gains that are forecast.
>

the government changes might be aimed at achieving the maastricht targets. but
they can also be seen as eliminating some of the pension inequities among
workers. that is undeniable. it might not be the reason the govt. is doing it
but it is a fact. it is significant that the private unions have not gone out
in support of the public sector unions, nor has the main catholic union. this
in part is why juppe is not giving in.

i am not for the french govt, but i also see no gains in the working class
acting as a divided group attempting largely to maintain the special deals that
one group has over the other.

there is a bigger picture that the french unions ignore (as noted above -
bombs, environment, migrants etc)

kind regards
bill
--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Head of Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html