Teemu, Iâm not sure there is a âreputable academic foundationâ for any of this. My foundation is my own experience in the American work force as well as anecdotal accounts from fellow workers. Over here an employee must prove him or herself before he is âkept on.â It is understood that both he and the company must do well for his job to have any longevity. Over here the emphasis is on jobs provided by the entrepreneur rather than on a worker who must have secure employment. It seems to me the French and anyone else with an equivalent system has it backwards. The rioters want a guaranteed permanent job right out school. That process seems to put the emphasis in the wrong place if a nation wants a successful economy. The arguments in your article seem to suggest that the way we do it over here in the U.S. would never work. Weâre even worse than Villepinâs proposal. We never guarantee permanent employment except in a few notorious instances like education and Longshoremen. Elsewhere it is merit and competition â at least it is supposed to be. Employers who use some other criteria usually donât hold up well against opposition that emphasizes merit. The Japanese had a system similar to the one they had in France. They had a term for those who turned out to be incompetent. They couldnât get rid of them because they had job security so they gave them an office with a window and their jobs involved nothing so they came to work every day and stared out a window. I believe the term, not an official term of course, was something like âWindow Watcher.â In recent years, however, they have learned the beauties of being able to lay people off. They learned that they couldnât compete well enough if a portion of their work force wasnât able or willing to do the work. Villepinâs idea seemed good to me: give employers a chance to see if an employee was able and willing to do the work before making his job permanent â not very socialistic of him, I suppose, but maybe he was trying to improve the French economy. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teemu Pyyluoma Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:28 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Are you out there, Didier? Didier is propably busy with something else, so I'll explain Lawrence that it isn't that simple. May I as usual offer Financial Times, one of the very few English language papers that does a good job at covering EU and Continental Europe, that is goes beyond the trendy pseudo-explanations. Wolfgang Munchau writes (pay wall free at http://www.business-standard.com/ft/storypage.php?&autono=220190, comments in bracket mine): "As far as I know there exists no reputable academic foundation for Mr de Villepinâs specific proposal â a work contract that removes employment protection for the young, while leaving it fully in place for the old. There is some consensus in the labour market literature that excessive employment protection can lead to high unemployment among certain groups, including the young. But this consensus does not imply the selective removal of employment protection for a single age group. I would suspect that most labour market economists would be on the side of the students in this conflict. "French youth unemployment is among the highest in the western world. It has oscillated between 20 and 30 per cent since the mid-1980s and is now at the lower end of this band, but with no signs of a futher decline. [Others have pointed out that the number of young people who are counted among job seekers, 20 to 30 per cent of which are unemployed, is a tiny fraction of the age group because most are students and as such the figure is not that informative, overall about 8% of young people are unemployed in France...] "Tito Boeri of Bocconi University in Milan and Pietro Garibaldi at the University of Turin argue* that Mr de Villepinâs CPE accentuates the intergenerational conflict between labour market insiders and outsiders. They conclude that for as long as this conflict persists, there will be no genuine labour market reform. "Olivier Blanchard, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and probably the best-known French macroeconomist, has recently warned in a much-noted paper [for a good discussion and summary of what is the latest, refreshingly humble and propably the best paper on European unemployment see http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/11/blanchard_europ.html] that we know a good deal less about the causes of European unemployment than we think we do. While his comments were not specifically addressed at youth unemployment, they should serve as a warning to politicians such as Mr de Villepin, who believe that they have grasped the full extent of the problem. "Blanchardâs own solution to reduce youth unemployment in France, as he argued on another occasion, is for a universal contract with phased protection according to time spent in a company â the longer you work for a company, the higher your level of protection. This proposal would be less discriminatory than the CPE, and would address the obdurate two-tier problem, under which one set of labour market rules applies to one group of workers, while another set applies to another group. "The two-tier labour market in France is the result of a panoply of employment contracts â a standard contract that offers an absurdly high level of employment protection and various other types that offer little to none. Mr de Villepinâs CPE is the latest addition to the range. It has no time limit, offers no protection at all during the first two years, and full protection thereafter. "The trouble occurs at the crossover point â for example, when people try to move from a fixed-term contract to a permanent one. Employers have no incentives to offer their employees a permanent contractual employment guarantee. This is why many present fixed-term contracts end in unemployment, rather than permanent work. "The same problem also applies to Mr de Villepinâs CPE. Whereas previously employers failed to turn fixed-term contracts into permanent ones, they will in future simply dismiss young employees at the end of the two-year trial period. Instead of inventing yet another type of employment contract, Mr de Villepin should have reformed the employment protection for existing labour agreements. That would have had some effect on employersâ incentives to take on young people after a trial period. Under Mr de Villepinâs CPE, young people start their careers in a US-style hire-and-fire labour environment for two years, after which they will either enjoy protection for life, or become unemployed. This is absurd. "Any serious reformer of the French labour market would also at least have to address other factors that might contribute to high structural unemployment, such as the 35-hour week and the minimum wage, also known in France as SMIC, which is presently set at â8.03 per hour. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 13 per cent of French workers were paid the minimum wage. It represents about 60 per cent of the median production workerâs wage. These data suggest that the SMIC may have been set too high. "As a serious instrument of economic reform, Mr de Villepinâs CPE is too one-sided. Its net economic effect may well be negative, if you take into account the loss of economic output from tomorrowâs strike, and other disruptions caused by the recent mass demonstrations. This is bad economics and bad politics. Mr de Villepin is not a tragic hero who is sacrificing his political career for the greater good. He is simply a politician who bungled one of the biggest reforms in modern French politics." That is a very long way to say that supposedly leftist NY Times for example hasn't got a clue. Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I wonder if Didier Agid is lurking. If so, perhaps > he would come out of > lurkhood long enough to comment upon politics by > street riot. Villepin's > proposal that companies have the right to fire > employees under 26 with less > than two years experience seems a very small step, > but in the right > direction. And then the students take to the street > to protest this > proposed loss of this entitlement. That's rather a > bad thing for them to be > doing, don't you think, Didier? > > > > And does it seem that Villepin is being so > reasonable because Sarkozy is in > the wings ready to be even more reasonable? > > > > > > > > Lawrence > >