Was Fox News caught in yet another lie?

So what? It is the results that count! French are MORE productive than the US workerss but CHOOSE to work fewer hours! And, the fewer hours the French work, the more leisure they get, AND the more people can work! If french people were to work like zombies, as most Americains feel OBLIGE to do to keep their. Job, their unemployment rate would be A LOT highher!

Here are some figures of GDP per hour of work per capita. . . Maybe that will help you figure it out!

And why do you think that a 32 (not 35) hour week and a 4 to 6 weeks vacation, as well as earlier retirement "is not worth it?"

Do you think the quality of life is. Lower in france than here? Think again!
Do you think their infrastructure is worsethan ours? think again!
Do you think their kids suffer from the lower work hours of their parents? Or their schools? think again!

They have MORE. CHOICES. .. And more freedom to lead their life as they see fit!

And I can assure you that ther are no moreoor people, homeless people, crime, or drug addicts than in the US. .. And that they have no problem finfing HEALTHIER food than here!

 

FOX News caught in another lie.......it's more like one continuous lie that just goes on and on.

 

France has a 10% unemployment rate and an over 25% unemployment rate for people under the age of 25: http://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/france

Sorry, but Europe stopped being a positive role model as of several years ago, your sources are all pretty dated. As proof of this, consider that even French President Francois Hollande (of the French socialist party) is making a desperate play to embrace supply-side economics because their model is collapsing before their eyes and none of the socialist policies have been getting results.

If western liberals had more intellectual honesty, they would acknowledge that between supply-side economic policies and multiple wars, France's socialists have become the new neo-conservatives

 

And yet, somehow, you seem to have NO problem whatsoever with management taking ALL of the profits from that labor do you?

In an age where one man with a machine can do the amount of work that used to require 100 men

maybe we just don't need everyone working any more.

We've actually seen this before.

Back before farming machines were invented it made sense that everyone had to work. If they didn't there wouldn't be enough to go around. When the farmers did get the machines there wasn't enough WORK to go around. So the excess labor left the farms and moved to the cities where they cound find employment.

But now industry has reached the point where the farms were before. Monopolization and consolidation (like the banking industry) took many more jobs. And since conservatives won't allow tarrifs to be passed to protect American workers cheap foreign labor has taken even more jobs.

But despite all that American productivity continued to rise. American has ZERO worries that there won't be enough food and products to go around. No, the problem now is that people don't have enough money to take advantage of those products. When wages were stagnant for several decades they maxed out their credit cards and drew out all their home equity. But Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. So they aren't good consumers any more.

Conservatives such as Ron Paul would have Americans compete with China to see who will work cheaper. But the solution is actually very simple. Guarantee every American a minimum standard of living. Maybe around an $18,000 income level. Whether they work or not. And let those who want a better standard work to earn more. That way those who want to work can do so. And those who would prefer to spend their time doing other things can. But since everyone will be getting paid there will be more demand for products. That means increased consumption and increased productivity. And a better quality of life for everyone.

Sadly, given the choice between a utopia and a dystopia conservatives will choose dystopia every time. These are people who, when the excess labor was no longer needed on the farms, would have let food ROT in the silos if they couldn't find a way to exploit those people. Its kind of a shame that we didn't have a prolonged period of that before the industrial age so we could remove that mindset from the equation! Kind of like how they did it in France.

These are the same people who tell us that Social Security can't pay the benefits they paid out 50 years ago because there aren't enough people working. As though productivity had been stagnant those 50 years. But they say that if the 1% doesn't get ALL of the benefits of that increased production they might not lead us anymore. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing parasites! Good riddence!

 

In contrast to many of our European counterparts, we in the UK are closely tied the US neoliberal supply-side economic model. Our French neighbours, on the other hand, have adopted more of a Keynesian approach. French workers are more empowered than they are here mainly because they are more organised and tend to strike on mass against low pay.

Higher labour 'inflexibility' in France has consequently resulted in higher relative rates of unemployment compared to the UK. But this tendency for inflexibility has also brought benefits in terms of higher wages and working conditions for those fortunate to have secure and well-paid employment.

The comparative trade off is a) a highly 'flexible' (euphemism for exploited) largely non-unionised work force prone to increasing job insecurity and poverty rates of pay, but nevertheless concomitant to relatively lower rates of unemployment (the UK model) on the one hand, or b) a relatively well paid and job secure labour force, existing alongside relatively higher rates of unemployment (the French model), on the other.

Since the mid 1970s in the UK, real-term wages have declined and income inequality drastically increased. This trend of declining wages and disorganized labour has happened alongside the decimation of manufacturing and the deindustrialization of large swaths of the former industrial heartlands of the north of the country. This has coexisted with a corresponding explosion in the service sector and the deregulation of the financial markets.

In line with trends in the US, many outlying parts of urban areas in the UK now resemble industrial wastelands as cities become increasingly 'hollowed out' leading to increasing atomisation, social disclocation and community fragmentation.

Increasingly, over the last few decades demand-led economic recovery has been supplanted by an ideological commitment by successive governments' of both the traditional 'left' and 'right' towards the notion of infinite supply-side economic growth model predicated on consumption.

In London, where I live, mainly foreign investors are buying up large chunks of prime real estate, that often comprise of pockets of entire neighbourhoods. These houses are left empty and frequently fall into dis-repair. Meanwhile, we have a growing housing crisis here in London.

Vital workers that are the lifeblood to the functioning of any city like nurses, ambulance staff, firefighters and teachers are being priced out of London because of a cost of living crisis that is buoyed on by rising housing costs in the private rental market which in turn is being fuelled by the kind of property speculation described.

If we add to the mix, the growth in real-term wage stagnation over many years, it's easy to see how society is reaching crisis point. This puts the lie to the notion that capitalism is the most effective and efficient system of allocating resources according to need. The system, as it's currently calibrated, is simply not sustainable.

Increasingly. the kinds of workers I described above are having to resort to food banks and charitable organizations just to be able to feed themselves and their families. These are full-time workers who are having to claim government handouts by way of tax credits, income support and housing benefits just to be able to survive because their wages have not kept up with the cost of living.

In short, the UK can be characterized as a wage slave economy where workers' work for poverty pay. But the trade off is that, unlike France, the opportunity to be exploited in this way is greater. The choice is this: a) refuse to work under these conditions and receive government handouts for the privilege, or b) work for peanuts and receive government handouts. As you can see, it's no choice at all. As the vast majority of people are rational and make pragmatic choices, many are increasingly deciding on the former course of action.

In order for work to pay in London, the average person with basic needs living in a small studio flat living in the suburbs paying average market rent, would have to earn a gross annual salary of at least £30,000. Most of the jobs advertised are for far less than that. With vast swaths of the essential (privatized) workforce on minimum wage, it's hard not to see how society will not break down at any given point in the near future.

Unlike the UK, in France people have a real choice - unemployment/poverty or a living wage. Are higher rates of unemployment in countries like France a price worth paying? I say it is.

 

Well, if these agrarian arguments are really the left's best defense to this impact of Obamacare then they are more screwed in the next election cycle than I first thought them to be.

 

bush drove us to 10% unemployment rate, and he is still your hero!
The difference is that, unemployed in france do not have to worry about losing their unemployment after 6 months, and they still have their health care and even their vacations!

You obviously know NOTHING but propaganda about western Europe, and most of that propaganda is made of half lies or out of context truths!

Evne the "conservatives" in France are LEFT of the center in the US!
Supply side economics has failed all over the world, and we are the prime example of it!

 

Guess you're going to ignore unemp was under 6% when Bobo took office.

Another case of repeating an untruth until somebody believes it.

 

yeah, i read about this.

its not that 2 million people are going to be layed off, its that workers will take off as much time over the next 10 years, that will add up the hours of 2 million full time workers.

yes, there is a difference.

 

yes, it is spin.

this will all be due to the choices of workers, to take part-time jobs so as to buy Exchange insurance, and due to hours being lessened by the workers themselves.

 

Wow, so 2.3 million jobs could just be wiped away by employers?

That's 2.3 million less opportunities.

And Obama was going to "create" jobs ?!!

Thanks for posting this... even if someone else had to post the actual link, that you were afraid to post.

 

ABC said the same thing last night. Care to comment?

 

You're trying to convince a lefty that providing for yourself is necessary ?

Good luck.

These are people that would rather worry about the wording in a headline than the idea that 2.3 million people could affordably just "opt out" of working.

Thanks to their government.

 

Wrong again! Unemployment had already climbed to 7.3% in December 2008!

And only people suffering from delusional schizophrenia would ignore what happened in September 2008. . .and it is OBVIOUSLY all in Bush's lap!

 

Who said anything about EMPLOYERS wiping out jobs. . .and if they did, it is CERTAINLY NOT because of ACA!

It says EMPLOYEES will choose to cut their hours or to become independents because they will be able to access GROUP healthcare WITHOUT depending on a full time job to get it!

People approaching retirement may decide to retire earlier, because they will have the ability to obtain coverage through the exchange, and they can then "bridge" the gap between the time they CHOOSE to retire and the 65 year old medicare age.

Mothers may decide to cut their hours because they will STILL have access to healthcare coverage, and they WON'T NEED to work full time. . .which will leave more room for "JOB SHARING," and more flexible hours. . . which is all good, since it means that MORE mothers will be able to work part-time, thus REDUCING unemployment, rather than increasing it!

But, it takes the ability to filter out BS from the pundit's propaganda and to read for COMPREHENSION in order to detect the silly SPIN!

 

Some people do not seem to have read the CBO report, it does not say 2.3 Million jobs would be lost. Reading comprehesion is everything and when people are too lazy to read a report they use to make their point then they are bing dishonest or lazy, and either way they have no credit.

 

and now Forbes is on the lying bandwagon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ricans-out-of-the-workforce/?partner=yahootix

no folks, 2 million people aren't going to be losing their jobs.

 

With sources like ABC and Forbes lying so much about the Obama administration, maybe libs should turn to FNC for the truth.

 

So? That means that ABC got it wrong too. . .maybe they have a problem with reading comprehension also, or they just listen to FOX for their "news?"

- - - Updated - - -

How about you try to keep up and use some independent thinking and hone your research skills?

That would be a LOT smarter than ANYONE listening to Fox!

By the way, while you're at it (reading the CBO for comprehension, instead of taking the pundits word for it), why don't you note the OTHER thing the CBO points out: the continued DECREASE in deficit:

 

As I alluded to previously, poverty whether that's low wage state reliant in-work poverty, or state-reliant out of work poverty, is still poverty regardless. Effectively, the neoliberal 'Chicago School' socioeconomic model is increasingly becoming the reality of 'choice' for large swaths of the population on both sides of the Atlantic.

Given the fact that there are either no, or little, financial incentives for people to work, and that on the whole people are motivated by rationality and pragmatism in their decision-making, it follows that logically the current paradigm is simply unsustainable and will therefore crash. This will happen sooner rather than later as many people have hitherto envisaged.

What is required is a radical re-think with regards to the prevailing socioeconomic orthodoxy. At the very least we need to be thinking about reverting back to the post-war consensus between capital and labour that was the feature of the Keynesianism approach. But in order to do that we need a cross-party political consensus that recognizes the fact that the Friedmanesque experiment has been a failure for the vast majority of working people.

Sadly though, we are extremely unlikely to obtain that broad party consensus given the fact that this neoclassical school of economic thought was designed specifically to enrich further the already rich at the expense of the poor.

Contrary to what the apologists for neoclassical economic orthodoxy had claimed, wealth has not, over the last four decades, 'trickled downwards' towards the base of the socioeconomic pyramid, but rather it has 'gushed' upwards towards the top. Like I say, this is precisely what it was designed to do by those who implemented it.

 

But your lack of calling them "liars" shows your partisan bias. When two news organizations on opposite sides of the political spectrum report the same information and only one is called a "liar" it renders any opinions from those involved moot as the bias is so thick it could stop a train.

And you speak of reading comprehension....yet in a thread about 2.3 million jobs being lost due to Obamacare you post some hack websites information about the deficit? WTF? You speak of "leaving things out" yet you yourself left something very important out:

Partisan hacks be partisan.

Oh yea, is the CBO accurate? Historically, no.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...timates-really-the-gold-standard-of-accuracy/

Oh, oops, pwned again! Self pwnage is the best pwnage. Better stick to the 2.3 million jobs lost, as that's what this thread is about anyway.

 

Delusional schizophrenia, huh? Sounds pretty serious.

Thing is... the unemp rate is going down because people are dropping outta the job market. The result of this is OBVIOUSLY all in Obama's lap.



http://www.businessinsider.com/our-labor-force-is-shrinking-here-are-five-ways-to-fix-it-2014-2

 

To blame Obama entirely is somewhat disingenuous. Historically, labour force trends encompass both the traditional left and right. It's more productive to avoid party-political partisanship on this issue. The reality, as Noam Chomsky alluded to a few years ago, is that the neoliberal nations of the Western liberal democracies' are effectively single-ideological states' that comprise various competing political factions, all of whom vie for the reigns of power. People are increasingly dropping out of the labour force because it's not cost-effective for them to be ensconced within a system of low paid employment where they are taxed at source.

 

Yes, my bad... nothing is ever Obama's fault. I keep forgetting.

Obamacare is already a job-killer. 2.3 million sounds conservative to me.

 

I'm not talking about Obamacare. I was responding generally to the downward trend with regards to labour force participation which is a phenomena applicable to both Republican's and Democrats. Granted, this is a trend that has accelerated under Obama and is projected to accelerate further still in the coming years. Like I say, there are rational and logical reasons why this is the case and it doesn't come down to party politics, but rather, ideology common to both the traditional left and right.