April 6, 2006--Guest Blogger From Paris
Alex Trias--Guest Blogger from Paris
Since arriving in Paris this past January, my wife, toddler and I have fallen into a comfortable routine. We wake up early, have a family breakfast, and then at around ten in the morning, we put the baby into his stroller and take a long walk. By the time he wakes up, we’ve usually made the long walk up to Passy, where we go to our favorite restaurant, take our favorite table in the front and order our favorite lunch.
Of course, a rigid routine causes even only subtle changes in the atmosphere to stand out. On March 28th, we got to our favorite restaurant, took our usual table, and ordered our usual lunch. Everything was, as I say, very usual. Until about 12:15 or so, when our erstwhile sleepy little restaurant was beset upon by crowds of Parisian lunch seekers. By crowds, I don’t mean the usual crowds you see at a good restaurant in Paris at lunch time. I’m talking about the sort of crowds you’d expect to see at Grand Central Station during rush hour when it’s raining outside.
What was the cause for this lunchtime disruption in the Parisian atmosphere? The answer is that on March 28th, there was a general strike across much of France. We read about the March 28th strike in the New York Times, which has featured several articles that might give readers an impression of roiling revolutionary spirit here on the streets of Paris.
Our impression of the situation on the ground varies somewhat from some of what we have read. We have not seen any hooded, swift footed youths smashing shop windows. Traffic seems about normal (the Paris drivers were as surly and ungracious to us pedestrians as ever). No cadres of riot police. No burning cars. Nothing. In fact, we might have even failed to notice the strikes at all, but for the fact that our favorite little lunch place (and about every other restaurant we walked past) was mobbed on March 28th. It seems that the French love a good strike because really, it’s a great chance to play hooky from school and work, and to take a break from doing dishes and cooking. A general strike is as fine an excuse as any to enjoy a glass of wine, to smoke cigarettes and take up table space at any of the fine dining establishments throughout Paris. And to do so, perhaps, with a certain sense of solidarity and moral satisfaction.
There seem to be three arguments for the cause behind the recent strikes, and the milieu that surrounds them. One of the most widely reported direct causes for the strikes is a labor law that enables employers to fire, at will and without stated cause, any person younger than 26 from any job during the first two years of employment. This law, it may be argued, discriminates against younger workers, and is therefore unjust.
A less direct, but nonetheless vivid, cause for the recent civil unrest is highlighted in the recent Times article, “Violent Youth Threaten To Hijack Demonstrations in Paris” (see it linked below). There is a strong sense of economic and social isolation confronting young people whose parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents originally immigrated to France. As the article points out, these young men, together with anarchists, skin heads and members of various radical fringe groups on both the left and right, utilize protests and strikes to spread violence. The article quotes Sebastian Roché, a political scientist who specializes in delinquency in the suburbs. “You are seeing a return to the idea of legitimate use of violence for political means" by the extreme left and to a lesser extent by the extreme right, he said. The strikes, it may be argued, harken back to the French Revolution, inasmuch as marginalized, underprivileged and radical groups are gaining strength and will to discredit the current French political and social regimes that these groups perceive as illegitimate or unjust.
There is a third argument, one which I believe is the real cause behind the unrest. It stems from the fact that many people here in France are asking for something that they cannot get, and are seeking answers from the wrong sources to boot. Basically, the French don’t really seem to “get it” when it comes to the global economic marketplace. There are several elements behind this misperception.
Misperception Number One: the French are entitled to job security and a reasonably balanced way of life that includes, among other things, fine lunches at fine restaurants in Paris. The truth is that there is no such thing as job security in a competitive global marketplace. As long as capital may flow between jurisdictions, and as long as firms seek to maximize profits and manage costs, capital will flow out of higher cost jurisdictions into lower cost jurisdictions. This dynamic is relatively plain to see to anyone who observes the economic expansion taking place in parts of the world such as India or China, where there is an abundant and hard working work force prepared to accept low wages, long hours and minimal workplace protections. The dynamic is equally apparent to those who observe the economic contraction taking place here in France, with climbing unemployment and an aging work force that increasingly demands greater entitlements in the form of health care, vacation time and fewer work hours per week.
Misperception Number Two: the French government can provide job security and life comforts to its citizens. The truth is that the French government is powerless to provide job security due to the dynamics of the competitive global marketplace. The reason why is that if the laws of France make it less desirable to set up, or maintain, shop here in France, private firms will redeploy oversees in jurisdictions with more favorable legal, regulatory and tax regimes. In fact, this process has been well underway over recent years, and in part accounts for the relatively high levels of unemployment in France. As a practical and legal matter, it is difficult if not impossible to fire unproductive workers. Firms that are interested in managing costs can, and will, hesitate before hiring in France, and in some cases, will simply move their offices abroad. Firms that are not interested in managing costs will be uncompetitive relative to those that are and will, in time, go bankrupt.
Misperception Number Three: the French can effectively demand their perceived entitlements from their government, resorting even to acts of violence. The truth is that the French government is not the appropriate source to demand entitlements along the lines of job security. During the French Revolution, the nobles owned the means of production and capital wealth of the nation, and thus, were in a position to provide such to the insurgent forces. Currently, the French government does not own the majority capital and means of production of the nation, and thus, cannot provide these things, or concomitant benefits such as job security, to the people. As such, the French government, and the laws that give it shape, is not an appropriate target for a nascent revolutionary movement here. The true target, if there is one, is the global economy as a whole – amorphous, anonymous, enormous, complex, ephemeral and fluid as it is. Not that the throngs of eager and hungry workers in places like India or China could care much about French job security.
As it happens, in the face of an “unfair” labor law, the French are eating out more. There has been some violence, and some marching, and some disruptions in the general ebb and flow of life here. The real revolution is something that people here have not as yet come to grips with. The way of life here will change, but not the way people here want it to change. There will either be less job security, less free time, and fewer entitlements; or this country will face mounting unemployment and a shrinking tax base to pay for the entitlements that the French hold near and dear.
Alex Trias
Paris
April 6, 2006
Since arriving in Paris this past January, my wife, toddler and I have fallen into a comfortable routine. We wake up early, have a family breakfast, and then at around ten in the morning, we put the baby into his stroller and take a long walk. By the time he wakes up, we’ve usually made the long walk up to Passy, where we go to our favorite restaurant, take our favorite table in the front and order our favorite lunch.
Of course, a rigid routine causes even only subtle changes in the atmosphere to stand out. On March 28th, we got to our favorite restaurant, took our usual table, and ordered our usual lunch. Everything was, as I say, very usual. Until about 12:15 or so, when our erstwhile sleepy little restaurant was beset upon by crowds of Parisian lunch seekers. By crowds, I don’t mean the usual crowds you see at a good restaurant in Paris at lunch time. I’m talking about the sort of crowds you’d expect to see at Grand Central Station during rush hour when it’s raining outside.
What was the cause for this lunchtime disruption in the Parisian atmosphere? The answer is that on March 28th, there was a general strike across much of France. We read about the March 28th strike in the New York Times, which has featured several articles that might give readers an impression of roiling revolutionary spirit here on the streets of Paris.
Our impression of the situation on the ground varies somewhat from some of what we have read. We have not seen any hooded, swift footed youths smashing shop windows. Traffic seems about normal (the Paris drivers were as surly and ungracious to us pedestrians as ever). No cadres of riot police. No burning cars. Nothing. In fact, we might have even failed to notice the strikes at all, but for the fact that our favorite little lunch place (and about every other restaurant we walked past) was mobbed on March 28th. It seems that the French love a good strike because really, it’s a great chance to play hooky from school and work, and to take a break from doing dishes and cooking. A general strike is as fine an excuse as any to enjoy a glass of wine, to smoke cigarettes and take up table space at any of the fine dining establishments throughout Paris. And to do so, perhaps, with a certain sense of solidarity and moral satisfaction.
There seem to be three arguments for the cause behind the recent strikes, and the milieu that surrounds them. One of the most widely reported direct causes for the strikes is a labor law that enables employers to fire, at will and without stated cause, any person younger than 26 from any job during the first two years of employment. This law, it may be argued, discriminates against younger workers, and is therefore unjust.
A less direct, but nonetheless vivid, cause for the recent civil unrest is highlighted in the recent Times article, “Violent Youth Threaten To Hijack Demonstrations in Paris” (see it linked below). There is a strong sense of economic and social isolation confronting young people whose parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents originally immigrated to France. As the article points out, these young men, together with anarchists, skin heads and members of various radical fringe groups on both the left and right, utilize protests and strikes to spread violence. The article quotes Sebastian Roché, a political scientist who specializes in delinquency in the suburbs. “You are seeing a return to the idea of legitimate use of violence for political means" by the extreme left and to a lesser extent by the extreme right, he said. The strikes, it may be argued, harken back to the French Revolution, inasmuch as marginalized, underprivileged and radical groups are gaining strength and will to discredit the current French political and social regimes that these groups perceive as illegitimate or unjust.
There is a third argument, one which I believe is the real cause behind the unrest. It stems from the fact that many people here in France are asking for something that they cannot get, and are seeking answers from the wrong sources to boot. Basically, the French don’t really seem to “get it” when it comes to the global economic marketplace. There are several elements behind this misperception.
Misperception Number One: the French are entitled to job security and a reasonably balanced way of life that includes, among other things, fine lunches at fine restaurants in Paris. The truth is that there is no such thing as job security in a competitive global marketplace. As long as capital may flow between jurisdictions, and as long as firms seek to maximize profits and manage costs, capital will flow out of higher cost jurisdictions into lower cost jurisdictions. This dynamic is relatively plain to see to anyone who observes the economic expansion taking place in parts of the world such as India or China, where there is an abundant and hard working work force prepared to accept low wages, long hours and minimal workplace protections. The dynamic is equally apparent to those who observe the economic contraction taking place here in France, with climbing unemployment and an aging work force that increasingly demands greater entitlements in the form of health care, vacation time and fewer work hours per week.
Misperception Number Two: the French government can provide job security and life comforts to its citizens. The truth is that the French government is powerless to provide job security due to the dynamics of the competitive global marketplace. The reason why is that if the laws of France make it less desirable to set up, or maintain, shop here in France, private firms will redeploy oversees in jurisdictions with more favorable legal, regulatory and tax regimes. In fact, this process has been well underway over recent years, and in part accounts for the relatively high levels of unemployment in France. As a practical and legal matter, it is difficult if not impossible to fire unproductive workers. Firms that are interested in managing costs can, and will, hesitate before hiring in France, and in some cases, will simply move their offices abroad. Firms that are not interested in managing costs will be uncompetitive relative to those that are and will, in time, go bankrupt.
Misperception Number Three: the French can effectively demand their perceived entitlements from their government, resorting even to acts of violence. The truth is that the French government is not the appropriate source to demand entitlements along the lines of job security. During the French Revolution, the nobles owned the means of production and capital wealth of the nation, and thus, were in a position to provide such to the insurgent forces. Currently, the French government does not own the majority capital and means of production of the nation, and thus, cannot provide these things, or concomitant benefits such as job security, to the people. As such, the French government, and the laws that give it shape, is not an appropriate target for a nascent revolutionary movement here. The true target, if there is one, is the global economy as a whole – amorphous, anonymous, enormous, complex, ephemeral and fluid as it is. Not that the throngs of eager and hungry workers in places like India or China could care much about French job security.
As it happens, in the face of an “unfair” labor law, the French are eating out more. There has been some violence, and some marching, and some disruptions in the general ebb and flow of life here. The real revolution is something that people here have not as yet come to grips with. The way of life here will change, but not the way people here want it to change. There will either be less job security, less free time, and fewer entitlements; or this country will face mounting unemployment and a shrinking tax base to pay for the entitlements that the French hold near and dear.
Alex Trias
Paris
April 6, 2006
posted by Steven Zwerling at
3:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home