Good On The French!!

An after-thought is these protests are pretty crucial. If the original Franco?German ideal of worker rights, high welfare and decent holiday periods for all employees is abandoned, we'll be witnessing a more widespread global trend of capitalist exploitation - big companies raking in the finances while ordinary working folks enjoy little security or even protection from the poverty trap.
The snag at this stage, however, is France and Germany are struggling to create jobs faced by the huge advance of economic output seen in China (where the Chinese will work 15 hours a day for pitiful wages in many cases). Sure, it's great for the Chinese economy but not so good for the exploited Chinese factory worker.
The 64,000 dollar question is whether we're now turning full circle and back to the kind of circumstances that causes many countries to abandon capitalism totally in the thirties and forties and turn to communism and Marx. Without a doubt, if the trend continues and the masses in Europe come to understand capitalism will not give them desired freedom from sweat-shop labour and greedy, guzzling capitalist enterprises, the ghosts of communism may well surface afresh.
Europeans are becoming ever more skeptical over the vision of utopia capitalism is failing to offer:
"(CNN) -- As Germany celebrates the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, some Germans have started to look back fondly to the days of the former communist-ruled East Germany.
The reunification of Germany, which came 11 months after the events of November 9, 1989, has failed to fulfill the expectations of many thousands of former citizens of the German Democratic Republic. The former East Germany may have been seen from the West as a brutal, Stalinist regime run by dictators, but it offered its citizens guaranteed employment for life; generous social programs; cheap public transit; and low-cost housing."

Carrera said:

An after-thought is these protests are pretty crucial. If the original Franco?German ideal of worker rights, high welfare and decent holiday periods for all employees is abandoned, we'll be witnessing a more widespread global trend of capitalist exploitation - big companies raking in the finances while ordinary working folks enjoy little security or even protection from the poverty trap.
The snag at this stage, however, is France and Germany are struggling to create jobs faced by the huge advance of economic output seen in China (where the Chinese will work 15 hours a day for pitiful wages in many cases). Sure, it's great for the Chinese economy but not so good for the exploited Chinese factory worker.
The 64,000 dollar question is whether we're now turning full circle and back to the kind of circumstances that causes many countries to abandon capitalism totally in the thirties and forties and turn to communism and Marx. Without a doubt, if the trend continues and the masses in Europe come to understand capitalism will not give them desired freedom from sweat-shop labour and greedy, guzzling capitalist enterprises, the ghosts of communism may well surface afresh.
Europeans are becoming ever more skeptical over the vision of utopia capitalism is failing to offer:
"(CNN) -- As Germany celebrates the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, some Germans have started to look back fondly to the days of the former communist-ruled East Germany.
The reunification of Germany, which came 11 months after the events of November 9, 1989, has failed to fulfill the expectations of many thousands of former citizens of the German Democratic Republic. The former East Germany may have been seen from the West as a brutal, Stalinist regime run by dictators, but it offered its citizens guaranteed employment for life; generous social programs; cheap public transit; and low-cost housing."

A business leader hires who is best for his company. If making young French workers responsible leads to a downtrodden society, something is wrong. And if French society would lead to disasterous events such as communism and Marx over the working habits of the youth, then maybe it needs to look at itself closer.
It seems to me that having responsible youth making a business more efficient would be better for all workers. We live in a international market today. French businesses need to be effecient to compete. And if the youth drag the business down , then the other[older] workers will be penalized...
And your model of Germany's economic model is not a good one. I may be wrong, but isn't Germany headed for some major economic stress caused by the model they now have? And hasn't that model been the reason for the immigration into Germany?
Exploitations happen in all forms of economic models that are used in the real world. Using your reasoning of the French situation , the youth would be exploiting the other labor forces.

As usual Carrera, you are grasping at the wrong end of the baguette, and haven't got a clue what it's all about.
je vous donnerai une grand beche pour le trou.

I reckon it's all easy to explain. The fall of the Berlin Wall meant the whole globe would turn to capitalism and I'm gonna stick my neck out (maybe appear foolish) and predict that capitalism will inevitably fail those who put their hopes in it (unless politicians change course). Capitalism I don't think can work as a sole global order.
Here is what happened to Germany: Germany was a model of economic competence and efficiency but no way could Germany compete with the kind of cheap labour mass production witnessed in China. Germany and France's high welfare, worker-protected societies worked perfectly in the years prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, but after was a different case scenario.
The U.S. was in a slightly better position to defend its economy from Asia but, as we can see, now even the U.S. is having a tough time of it.
If you read the newspapers and listen to the media reports, you will discover capitalism is slowly returning to its true colours. Without the threat of a communist alternative, capitalists are assuming they can return to the bad old days of Dickensian politics, handing power to huge corporations and treating human beings as "products" to be fired and hired at a whim.
The French want none of that and let me point out France has always had an educated, well-informed population with socialist leanings. All the French youth ask is to have a decent standard of living and adequate social protection from poverty and unemployment. I agree totally.
What troubles me about England as opposed to France is the way Blair seems to have dumbed down the population through his curbs on education so many people now don't seem to be aware of how fraudulent Blair is and the simple fact he's a con-man. Having said that, there are now sparks of reaction in my area with many people taking part in protests and starting to ask awkward questions.
So, again, my sympathy lies with the French students and let's hope they keep on with the protests. Isn't it people who ought to matter, not the self-appointed elite who claim they represent us?

wolfix said:

A business leader hires who is best for his company. If making young French workers responsible leads to a downtrodden society, something is wrong. And if French society would lead to disasterous events such as communism and Marx over the working habits of the youth, then maybe it needs to look at itself closer.
It seems to me that having responsible youth making a business more efficient would be better for all workers. We live in a international market today. French businesses need to be effecient to compete. And if the youth drag the business down , then the other[older] workers will be penalized...
And your model of Germany's economic model is not a good one. I may be wrong, but isn't Germany headed for some major economic stress caused by the model they now have? And hasn't that model been the reason for the immigration into Germany?
Exploitations happen in all forms of economic models that are used in the real world. Using your reasoning of the French situation , the youth would be exploiting the other labor forces.

Carrera said:

I reckon it's all easy to explain. The fall of the Berlin Wall meant the whole globe would turn to capitalism and I'm gonna stick my neck out (maybe appear foolish) and predict that capitalism will inevitably fail those who put their hopes in it (unless politicians change course). Capitalism I don't think can work as a sole global order.
Here is what happened to Germany: Germany was a model of economic competence and efficiency but no way could Germany compete with the kind of cheap labour mass production witnessed in China. Germany and France's high welfare, worker-protected societies worked perfectly in the years prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, but after was a different case scenario.
The U.S. was in a slightly better position to defend its economy from Asia but, as we can see, now even the U.S. is having a tough time of it.
If you read the newspapers and listen to the media reports, you will discover capitalism is slowly returning to its true colours. Without the threat of a communist alternative, capitalists are assuming they can return to the bad old days of Dickensian politics, handing power to huge corporations and treating human beings as "products" to be fired and hired at a whim.
The French want none of that and let me point out France has always had an educated, well-informed population with socialist leanings. All the French youth ask is to have a decent standard of living and adequate social protection from poverty and unemployment. I agree totally.
What troubles me about England as opposed to France is the way Blair seems to have dumbed down the population through his curbs on education so many people now don't seem to be aware of how fraudulent Blair is and the simple fact he's a con-man. Having said that, there are now sparks of reaction in my area with many people taking part in protests and starting to ask awkward questions.
So, again, my sympathy lies with the French students and let's hope they keep on with the protests. Isn't it people who ought to matter, not the self-appointed elite who claim they represent us?

Va t'en merde, vous comprenez rien de tout.

Yes, but I lived on the French border for 5 years and I think the Spanish and French have a reasonably similar outlook.
Take Spain: Ask yourself how come Spain was twice as poor as the U.K. yet Spaniards have far bigger pensions. Yet economic creation of jobs in Spain was far lower than the U.S.
Or put another way: The U.S. creates more jobs than Europe and China now creates more jobs than the U.S. Yet in terms of living standards, Europe is the best place to live on the globe. I knew Americans in Navarra who told me frankly that living standards in France and northern Spain were higher than the U.S. - more social security, better working rights, more holidays e.t.c.
Which do you prefer - to live well yourself and be protected or see the big companies get fat. Do you really want to work till you're 70 years old or be dismissed at a whim when an employer decides he wants shot of you?

FredC said:

As usual Carrera, you are grasping at the wrong end of the baguette, and haven't got a clue what it's all about.
je vous donnerai une grand beche pour le trou.

Which would run as follows: 🙂
Que te vayas a tomar por el culo pues no te enteras de nada, chico. :p

FredC said:

Va t'en merde, vous comprenez rien de tout.

Carrera said:

Yes, but I lived on the French border for 5 years and I think the Spanish and French have a reasonably similar outlook.
Take Spain: Ask yourself how come Spain was twice as poor as the U.K. yet Spaniards have far bigger pensions. Yet economic creation of jobs in Spain was far lower than the U.S.
Or put another way: The U.S. creates more jobs than Europe and China now creates more jobs than the U.S. Yet in terms of living standards, Europe is the best place to live on the globe. I knew Americans in Navarra who told me frankly that living standards in France and northern Spain were higher than the U.S. - more social security, better working rights, more holidays e.t.c.
Which do you prefer - to live well yourself and be protected or see the big companies get fat. Do you really want to work till you're 70 years old or be dismissed at a whim when an employer decides he wants shot of you?

I would disagree with the living conditions being better in Europe then in the US.....I would say the 2 are very comparable..... The living conditions in Russia are really bad, and are they any good in the old E. Germany? This can be compared to inter city strife here in the states. Both places have pockets of wealth and poverty.
Based on the theory you have the pensions and retirement may be better in socialist countries in Europe, but the wage earning years in capitolistic societies are of a higher standard.
The parents of my Greek and Italian friends came to America and sent home money for their family.....
Capitolism requires personal responsibility. In America, and this may be true for some countries in Europe, wealth can be had by anyone growing up in any social class. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" points this out. More self made millionaires in America come from lower standard families. I have a feeling this may be true in Europe also.
America/Europe could triple the jobs in each place overnight if they cut wages by 80% comparable to China.
That is the great thing about capitolism. But the key word is personal responsibility.

Also , never trust the word of a traveler when he talks great things about a host country..... He is being polite. He amy be sincere, but he also may be insincere. And travelers always look to the good things without seeing the downside.

A British acquaintance of mine informed me that "France's national pastime is rioting" so don't let that keep me away!!!!!

😄 😄

i have often thought if there were general strikes in the us the
"elected representitives" might actually take note of the will of the people.
the us gov't induces fear into the populus at every turn, turnabout is fair play, oui?

[quote="Carrera"]I was watching ABC news the other night and I got the impression France's riots were being described like a kind of tantrum being thrown by a spoiled people who were refusing to accept the lesser working rights that Brits and Americans have accepted for decades.
Myself I beg to differ and I think the French are totally right to take to the streets (if that's what it takes).

I have a French work collegue, she says that the French have a saying..

'no one riots like the French'

its a [censored] saying, i know...probably totally made up..

ptlwp said:

A British acquaintance of mine informed me that "France's national pastime is rioting" so don't let that keep me away!!!!!

😄 😄

Carrera said:

Here is what happened to Germany: Germany was a model of economic competence and efficiency but no way could Germany compete with the kind of cheap labour mass production witnessed in China. Germany and France's high welfare, worker-protected societies worked perfectly in the years prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, but after was a different case scenario.

In the case of Germany, you missed the issue of the reunification : 17m extra people had to be accounted for through the unification of East and West Germany.
This is a massive factor which you seem to have overlooked regarding the Germany economy.
On top of that you have to factor in that East German infrastructure was (is)
non-existent compared to West Germany - so substantial investment was (is)
required.

Carrera said:

The U.S. was in a slightly better position to defend its economy from Asia but, as we can see, now even the U.S. is having a tough time of it.
If you read the newspapers and listen to the media reports, you will discover capitalism is slowly returning to its true colours. Without the threat of a communist alternative, capitalists are assuming they can return to the bad old days of Dickensian politics, handing power to huge corporations and treating human beings as "products" to be fired and hired at a whim.

I thinh you've hit on a good point here. In previous times the USA was impenetrable economically.
The USA could ride out world wide recessions in the 1950's/60's and even the early 1970's.

With the advent of globalisation though, the USA economy has become more interactive with the rest of the world economy and as you correctly point out the lowest common denominator (cost/price) is now starting to erode the US economy.
America cannot compete with Asia : it's a no-brainer.
The ultimate principal of unbridled capitalism is price : the lowest price controls both demand and supply. On that point Asia will beat the USA (and everyone else).
Therefore American companies have two choices - either they relocate jobs to Asia or they strip away all vestiges of protection for their workers and treat them as economic units.
Both choices have taken effect - Walmart is exporting jobs by the millions to China and other companies continuing to stay in the USA are attempting to curtail pension rights to employees, demanding longer working hours with no pay increases.

Carrera said:

The French want none of that and let me point out France has always had an educated, well-informed population with socialist leanings. All the French youth ask is to have a decent standard of living and adequate social protection from poverty and unemployment. I agree totally.
What troubles me about England as opposed to France is the way Blair seems to have dumbed down the population through his curbs on education so many people now don't seem to be aware of how fraudulent Blair is and the simple fact he's a con-man. Having said that, there are now sparks of reaction in my area with many people taking part in protests and starting to ask awkward questions.
So, again, my sympathy lies with the French students and let's hope they keep on with the protests. Isn't it people who ought to matter, not the self-appointed elite who claim they represent us?

The French culture had "job for life" premise. People join a company and they stay there for life. That was the way it was.
France and the EU cannot bury it's head in the sand. Each of us is in competition with the guy who doesn't the same amount of work at the cheapest rate. That guy could be in Calcutta or Peru. But that is the fact of the matter.

If people/country's want to ensure protectionism (and I would be an advocate of limited protectionism), globalisation is their biggest threat.
I believe that Globalisation spells the deathkneel for capitalism to the extent that capitalism will be a solution for the third world but it's impact on the first world will be problematic.

limerickman said:

In the case of Germany, you missed the issue of the reunification : 17m extra people had to be accounted for through the unification of East and West Germany.
This is a massive factor which you seem to have overlooked regarding the Germany economy.
On top of that you have to factor in that East German infrastructure was (is)
non-existent compared to West Germany - so substantial investment was (is)
required.

I thinh you've hit on a good point here. In previous times the USA was impenetrable economically.
The USA could ride out world wide recessions in the 1950's/60's and even the early 1970's.

With the advent of globalisation though, the USA economy has become more interactive with the rest of the world economy and as you correctly point out the lowest common denominator (cost/price) is now starting to erode the US economy.
America cannot compete with Asia : it's a no-brainer.
The ultimate principal of unbridled capitalism is price : the lowest price controls both demand and supply. On that point Asia will beat the USA (and everyone else).
Therefore American companies have two choices - either they relocate jobs to Asia or they strip away all vestiges of protection for their workers and treat them as economic units.
Both choices have taken effect - Walmart is exporting jobs by the millions to China and other companies continuing to stay in the USA are attempting to curtail pension rights to employees, demanding longer working hours with no pay increases.

The French culture had "job for life" premise. People join a company and they stay there for life. That was the way it was.
France and the EU cannot bury it's head in the sand. Each of us is in competition with the guy who doesn't the same amount of work at the cheapest rate. That guy could be in Calcutta or Peru. But that is the fact of the matter.

If people/country's want to ensure protectionism (and I would be an advocate of limited protectionism), globalisation is their biggest threat.
I believe that Globalisation spells the deathkneel for capitalism to the extent that capitalism will be a solution for the third world but it's impact on the first world will be problematic.

I'm not so sure Americans are working more then what they used to ....I think what has happened is the internet has allowed more people to be vocal on the subject. The internet has allowed a sounding board where none has exsisted before.
Capitolism was too effective in America in the past. Americans are convinced that they need everything...... So in order to justify the big purchases, they work longer.
I have done this ...... I have gone thru wal-Mart many times and glanced into other peoples carts. I am going to make a statement and I do not think I am very far off the mark .....I am willing to bet that 90% of the stuff in a cart at Wal-mart is stuff no one really needs. And if a person eliminated the feeling they needed that stuff, and concentrated on high quality goods that they do need, America's economy would be improved.
I have done this in my own life. When I want to buy something, I buy good stuff, but I buy a lot less stuff then I did before. It's amazing what a difference it makes.

wolfix said:

I'm not so sure Americans are working more then what they used to ....I think what has happened is the internet has allowed more people to be vocal on the subject. The internet has allowed a sounding board where none has exsisted before.
Capitolism was too effective in America in the past. Americans are convinced that they need everything...... So in order to justify the big purchases, they work longer.
I have done this ...... I have gone thru wal-Mart many times and glanced into other peoples carts. I am going to make a statement and I do not think I am very far off the mark .....I am willing to bet that 90% of the stuff in a cart at Wal-mart is stuff no one really needs. And if a person eliminated the feeling they needed that stuff, and concentrated on high quality goods that they do need, America's economy would be improved.
I have done this in my own life. When I want to buy something, I buy good stuff, but I buy a lot less stuff then I did before. It's amazing what a difference it makes.

I have done work with a broad range of companies from European multinational companies to US multinational companies etc.
My experience tells me that employees at US companies are required to work
longer hours. (this doesn't mean that they actually work harder, I might add).
I won't name names.
Whether one is working during those extra hours or not is immaterial.
the fact that you're on "their time" and not your own time is the issue from an employee aspect.

I can contrast that with both a french and german multinational that I did some work with.
In both companies, they insisted that all employees finish at 5.00pm.
The place was deserted by 5.02pm.
They worked from 9.00am to 4.59pm : but after that your time was your own.

With regard to peoples spending patterns, I agree quantity seems to motivate people rather than quality when it comes to buying.
Personally I prefer quality to quantity.

But in an envorinment where price (income) is the determinent, people will gravitate toward quantity rather than quality.

Limerickman, the point about the U.S. you picked on in my post is I stated the U.S. was in a better position to defend itself against Asia than Europe.
I am not a fan of American style capitalism because American style capitalism will not endure in the face of the current, global situation. Both the U.K. and the U.S. depended upon poor worker rights in the sixties and seventies and there was never a major problem since a sacked emplyee could easily find another employer. That is, if you were treated unfairly, what the hell, you can just get another job. Meantime, the lack of worker rights allowed companies to be flexible and profit from such circumstances.
This situation no longer exists, however. These days if you are exploited by employers and leave your employment, there is no safety net in the sense of other jobs being available - only welfare and this is coroding in Europe and the U.S. So, what the U.S. needs today (and needs badly) is social protection from poverty. If America persists in ignoring this factor, crime will shoot up ever higher and higher and the cost of controlling the crime will suck up resources, better invested in social protection (that in turn would lower crime).
To simplify my view, the U.S. now has high growth of jobs and creates far more jobs than Europe does. But America pays a huge price in crime as people who are poor resort to looting, robbery and gangsterism.
Europe has less job growth than the U.S. but just look at the crime statistics compared with the U.S. France spends a fraction of its budget on prisons and policing compared to the U.S. and directs this money towards welfare, social protection and education instead.
I am by no means anti-American and I do confess the American system worked fine back in the seventies and sixties (maybe the eighties too). But things being as they are today, I don't believe the French wish to see massive levels of urban crime, poverty in the suburbs, sweatshop factories and this whole concept of an exploited, racially segregated population that is so typical in certain areas of the U.S. Wasn't that laid open for all to see in Louisiana to the shame of all U.S. citizens many of whom told me they felt ashamed by such a sight?
My view is either we live like human beings and enjoy the basic levels of social protection and employment rights or to hell with capitalism and globalisation. These are strong words I suppose but that's the way I feel. I believe young people in France share this sense of outrage too since, let's face it, the elite in France who wish to deprive younger people of employment rights are themselves protected from poverty and are rich.
We do not want an exploited underclass in Europe and Europeans should make that perfectly clear to Blair and company.

limerickman said:

In the case of Germany, you missed the issue of the reunification : 17m extra people had to be accounted for through the unification of East and West Germany.
This is a massive factor which you seem to have overlooked regarding the Germany economy.
On top of that you have to factor in that East German infrastructure was (is)
non-existent compared to West Germany - so substantial investment was (is)
required.

I thinh you've hit on a good point here. In previous times the USA was impenetrable economically.
The USA could ride out world wide recessions in the 1950's/60's and even the early 1970's.

With the advent of globalisation though, the USA economy has become more interactive with the rest of the world economy and as you correctly point out the lowest common denominator (cost/price) is now starting to erode the US economy.
America cannot compete with Asia : it's a no-brainer.
The ultimate principal of unbridled capitalism is price : the lowest price controls both demand and supply. On that point Asia will beat the USA (and everyone else).
Therefore American companies have two choices - either they relocate jobs to Asia or they strip away all vestiges of protection for their workers and treat them as economic units.
Both choices have taken effect - Walmart is exporting jobs by the millions to China and other companies continuing to stay in the USA are attempting to curtail pension rights to employees, demanding longer working hours with no pay increases.

The French culture had "job for life" premise. People join a company and they stay there for life. That was the way it was.
France and the EU cannot bury it's head in the sand. Each of us is in competition with the guy who doesn't the same amount of work at the cheapest rate. That guy could be in Calcutta or Peru. But that is the fact of the matter.

If people/country's want to ensure protectionism (and I would be an advocate of limited protectionism), globalisation is their biggest threat.
I believe that Globalisation spells the deathkneel for capitalism to the extent that capitalism will be a solution for the third world but it's impact on the first world will be problematic.

Your argument seems very reasonable on the surface but there is something you have possibly forgotten: I mean, you're speaking as a businessman - the kind of conversation that will go down so well in Moscow these days where people just seem to be interested in money and finance.
Yes, all economies need businessmen and good ones at that. But what about those of us who are hopeless at business? I mean, myself I have a pretty good education but am simply not cut out for business like friends I have who can make money by simply picking up the phone.
What about the artists, academics, physicists or even scientists in your society? What happens to them during those periods where the economy is on a down-turn?
I mean, here in the U.K. I have heard of doctors of neuro-physics quitting their lecturing jobs and finding employment as a gasman since they know they can make three times as much money! This was almost how things were back in 1992 when I was in Russia and I saw all the violinists playing for money people would drop into a hat in the metro.
So, my point is society isn't just about creating millionaires in a huge survival of the fittest race since such an economy will sacrifice the totally impractical Einsteins of the world who (back in thirties Germany) couldn't find a job or means of supporting themselves.
Surely what is needed is an equal status of security where everybody can contribute and find a way to survive doing what they're good at? That's the practicality of socialism and my view is we need those artists and impractical folk who may be otherwise lost to a life of urban crime, never developing their potential in a dog-eat-dog rat-race society. :o
That's basically where I'm coming from.

wolfix said:

I would disagree with the living conditions being better in Europe then in the US.....I would say the 2 are very comparable..... The living conditions in Russia are really bad, and are they any good in the old E. Germany? This can be compared to inter city strife here in the states. Both places have pockets of wealth and poverty.
Based on the theory you have the pensions and retirement may be better in socialist countries in Europe, but the wage earning years in capitolistic societies are of a higher standard.
The parents of my Greek and Italian friends came to America and sent home money for their family.....
Capitolism requires personal responsibility. In America, and this may be true for some countries in Europe, wealth can be had by anyone growing up in any social class. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" points this out. More self made millionaires in America come from lower standard families. I have a feeling this may be true in Europe also.
America/Europe could triple the jobs in each place overnight if they cut wages by 80% comparable to China.
That is the great thing about capitolism. But the key word is personal responsibility.

Also , never trust the word of a traveler when he talks great things about a host country..... He is being polite. He amy be sincere, but he also may be insincere. And travelers always look to the good things without seeing the downside.

limerickman said:

I have done work with a broad range of companies from European multinational companies to US multinational companies etc.
My experience tells me that employees at US companies are required to work
longer hours. (this doesn't mean that they actually work harder, I might add).
I won't name names.
Whether one is working during those extra hours or not is immaterial.
the fact that you're on "their time" and not your own time is the issue from an employee aspect.

I can contrast that with both a french and german multinational that I did some work with.
In both companies, they insisted that all employees finish at 5.00pm.
The place was deserted by 5.02pm.
They worked from 9.00am to 4.59pm : but after that your time was your own.

With regard to peoples spending patterns, I agree quantity seems to motivate people rather than quality when it comes to buying.
Personally I prefer quality to quantity.

But in an envorinment where price (income) is the determinent, people will gravitate toward quantity rather than quality.

The people you are dealing with probably are working more hours. I'm assuming that you deal with white collar workers and not blue collar workers? [ Do they use the terms white/blue collar in Europe?] But the blue collar hours have dropped in this country. But I think Americans traditionally worked more hours in a week then Euro's did. It's an American sickness.
Lower and middle managent in corporate America is working more.......

In reference to Carrera's point that American industry exploited workers in the 60's and 70's....The 60's and 70's in America were the best years ever for the workers. Labor Unions were strong, jobs were plentiful [Supply and demand,and industry boomed.

* A little history note...... Don't believe what you read in your history books about the Protestant Reformation...... It did not start for the reasons that are generally spoken of , but for the simple reason to inject the "Protestant Work Ethic" into the mindset of the people. Now I can't speak for Europe, but in America there seems to be wayyyyyy tooooo many people that take the Protestant Work Ethic seriously as a personal mantra. Hell, around here the pubs do not even get busy until evening.

The price thing you spoke of is so true. But in order for the American people to keep having a high living standard we must have an entire personal value system change.

[font=Comic Sans MS]I'm not an American posting here that thinks America is the best country in the world. There is no "Best Country in the World." Matter of fact, my daughter who has bounced around Europe this past year has made the observation that there are very few differences.
And the Europe vs America attitude is good, otherwise we would have a very boring forum.
But one thing I do want to make clear about America...... We have crime, but not all places are 'bad neighborhoods." The state I live in is about average size as far as the 50 states go here. My state is slightly larger then Ireland. And I am willing to bet the "bad crime neighborhoods" we have here would fit in an area of about 20 sq kilometers.
Criminals here in America are criminals because they are criminals, not because they are poor. Most of your criminals are not criminals because they are unemployed, it is because they are criminals.
The looting and such that goes on that makes the world-wide news is the act of people who are not desperate, but are simply doing it because they can get away with it.
And the gun thread that seems to be the longest running thread in history also paints a bad picture of America. In America , the majority of gun owners use the guns for sport. The guns represent no more danger in the hands of these sportsmen then bicycles do. I used to have a few guns used for bird hunting. If a European would have came to my house/state/lifestyle they would see that guns themselves are not evil and wonder why we have a anti-gun lobby here in the states.
One problem we do have in America is that we have a tendancy to blame everything else for problems, but the problems themselves.
Example...... We allow our children to listen to the violent music they listen to , watch violence on TV, and our sports in America are turning into 'In your face."Then we blame guns when a child goes and shoots somebody. We blame the gun, and pretend that it would have never happened if it was not for the gun.
America is a country of diminished personal responsibilty. We need to address that and quit blaming others for the problems we have. I heard once that America is "A country where a few Europeans moved west."
I can see where Euro's laugh at Americans. The past several nights I have watched TV and tried to see it from an Euro point of view...... I can tell the Euro's this .... That's not my country those idiots on TV are from .....
[/font]

this time frame you mention in regards to being the best for workers, i can relate to this, though i think there was a decline in the 70's as inflation started to go rampant...
but in the 60's an american worker could make it, there was a true middle class.
today the gap between the middle class and the affluent is ever widening, to the extent where "middle class" is hardly relevent. for example, in the bay area
(near san francisco, ca.) occupations such as a teacher or police officer will not make enough to qualify to buy a home, let alone live the "american dream"
of raising a family and prospering.
the wages that these occupations pay are so low in comparison to the "median" income of the areas (median being skewed as the highest wage earners are a low percentage of the population, and the amount they make if many times greater, true unequal distribution of wealth)
will qualify them for low-income subsidized housing.

now, at present, area i grew up in will take a household income of 100k plus minimum to get in the door. and this will buy a fixer in a less than toney neighborhood. think bars on the windows, cars parked on the lawn.

flash back to the 60's, the occupations of those on my street were true blue collar workers in many instances, true middle and upper middle class households. there was a gardener, a welder, a machinist, a grocer, a truck driver, and so on. sure there was a professional here and there, such as engineer, also career serviceman, postal worker (he drove a caddy) and business owner. corporate downsizing and resultant layoffs were rare, and as you mention, many had union benefit jobs.
the workday was 8 hours, time for kids and fraternal organizations was valued on balance with work.
schools offered occupational couses such as woodshop, autoshop, machineshop and the like that could result in a fruitful true middle class career path.
also, there were many homes were one income was enough, the mother stayed home typically. work is a necessity for most today. most had a pension and could live well in retirement on social security.
schools were integrated without violence.

grass was greener, bikes rolled faster and air was sweeter, oh sorry, i'm losing it.

so yes, these were good times for the american worker, the cost of living was in proportion to wages earned. today the unequal distribution of wealth is the greatest in modern history, and the gap between the "haves and have nots" as the grandparents of today describe it, widens to the point where a very small percentage of the population controls the majority of the wealth of the us.
this minority is the true benefactor of the us gov't, and the gov't exists to serve this minority.

[quote="wolfix"]In reference to Carrera's point that American industry exploited workers in the 60's and 70's....The 60's and 70's in America were the best years ever for the workers. Labor Unions were strong, jobs were plentiful [Supply and demand,and industry boomed.


*