Politics of the Day

[greybeta]

You would think that as an opinion editor for a campus newspaper that I would have a lot of opinions on the politics of a day. I do, but a little thing called "senior project" gets in the way. While I have already presented, there's the matter of the final product where I have to dot all my i's and cross all my t's. I do have some quick thoughts about the politics of the day...

Domestic

• Immigrant situation seems to be yet another application of realistic vs. idealistic thinking. Realism says we have to deal with the over ten million "undocumented workers" living within our borders. Idealistic thinking says we can pass laws to solve the problem. The thing is that each party wants to control who these illegal immigrants will vote for down the road (if they aren't already voting).


• The Bush leaks have caused some consternation among certain members of Congress. The only thing is that this isn't anything new...just more public thanks to advent of the Internet. I wonder if the Bush administration will increase the time for released gov't documents (currently 30 years) in an effort to improve national security.


• Sixty-two percent of students who identified themselves as Republicans said religion was losing its influence on American society, while 54 percent of Democrats said it was increasing its influence. Most agreed, however, that a candidate's religion wouldn't affect how they voted.

Foreign

• Iran wants to play ball with the big boys. The big boys are going to play ball back. Gotta love the "we came here first" mentality. Even if Iran is discouraged from continuing its nuclear program, it will win many favorable concessions as a result of doing so. Why wouldn't Iran stay on its current path? America is too outstretched to invade and nobody else is going to want to invade Iran.


• Prodi wins Italian elections. The boon of coalition politics is that it gives you a lot of choices. The downside is that it's difficult to create a stable and coherent direction. It's a razor thin coalition though, so I don't expect this setup to last more than two years.


• France back downs on youth law. One Fox News commentator said that the French just want cushy jobs where they can't be canned and that doesn't work under capitalism. I don't know just how true that is, but something tells me that's what a lot of Americans think. No, don't give me all that high end theoretical economic theory, I'm talking about your average American here who watches Fox News. You know there are a lot of them because otherwise we wouldn't have elected our current president otherwise.

Comments

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Well, I asked Steven the following on the chat, and this is his response (if you're curious):

Steven, in regards to current French labor laws, I have heard a number of people in France and Europe who claim that they do not have a "job for life." Are we misinterpreting their laws, or are they?

Steven Pearlstein: No, I don't think we are. Although legally a company can dismiss a worker for cause,or economic reasons, it has to be adjudicated in a long and expensive process that usually finds in favor of the employee. And on top of that is a large severance mandated by law.

There is also a social cost. I have spoken with a number of entrepreneurs whose businesses failed and, in their towns, they are still regarded as pariahs because their failure cost some of their neighbors their jobs.
In France, a job is viewed as a property right.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

In France, a job is viewed as a property right.
Whereas we who live in the American Dream can only be confused by such a concept.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

It is a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around... a job as a right...

What happens if your economic policies stagnate growth so much there aren't jobs to be had? Grow government to pick up the slack?

[usmu.livejournal.com]

That's what universal welfare is for.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Paid for by...

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Taxes, and therefor by us loyal citizens.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

But there comes a point where the tax burden becomes too great.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Sure, but that point would need a certain state of the economy that might never be reached. The Dutch have general welfare and though it does costs us a lot of money, it's definitely bearable. And has been at points when things were worse.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Well, we have welfare here, too. I'm not sure how it compares with the Dutch system, though. The scenario I was thinking about, though, is when the number of workers isn't sufficient to support the entitlement system because the number of jobs has dwindled significantly.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

That's the scenario I had in mind. I think that's not one we'd have to be very anxious of, because it's not the economy that's the problem. Currently the Dutch system in general, specially pensions, is facing a major problem know as "the greying of society". In other words: we'll have more old, retired people than can be sustained by the work force. Ratio is suspected to be something like 2:1, which is not feasible. Which probably means that retirement age will go up and the possibilities for early retirement will disappear. But it still doesn't really have me worried. I've still got 30 to 35 years to take care of that.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Sounds like Social Security here! Baby boomers are reaching retirement age, and there won't be enough people paying into the system to support it.

Whenever real reform is discussed, there is a general uproar, so politicians avoid it like the plague. Say what you will about Bush, but I give him credit for proposing reform to the plan before it becomes an even more critical issue.

The scenario we have here is:

Politician A: "Social Security will be bankrupt in 30 years. We need to fix it now."
Citizenry: "Yeah, fix it! It can't go bankrupt. But when you're formulating the reform plan, we have a few requirements."
Politician A: "Okay, what are they?"
Citizenry: "Well, we don't want the retirement age to change, and we don't want the level of benefits to change."
Politician A: "Ummm...okay...but I just got through telling you that it would be bankrupt at the current rate, so..."
Citizenry: "And did we mention that we don't want to pay any more taxes?"
Politician A: "Wha?!"
Politicians B - Z: "This won't be an issue for 30 years! Politician A is just trying to scare you! Change nothing, we'll worry about it later!"

This is why I am not relying on Social Security for my retirement income.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Thanks for asking.

I think Pearlstein is right in so far as he claims that French labor laws are probably too extensive and should be toned down as they are definitely very pro-employee.

I'm not sure whether the Netherlands is following the Scandinavian system, but I think our labor laws are a good way to do things. The general rules, it varies a bit depending on which industry your on, an employer gets to hire on a temporary basis for three years in which your contract can only be extended up to three times. Either clause can lead to a contract for an indeterminate time. Employers can chose not to extend the contract, but have to decided up to several months before a temporary contract runs out.

Employees with a contract for an indeterminate time can be fired after acquiring a license by going through a judicial process. Whether or not an employee gets any compensation largely depends on the grounds for dismissal. Economic reasons usually mean they do, incompetence means they don't.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist of it. In other words: I reasonably secure I still got a job tomorrow, or that I will be compensated when I don't and the employers have a reasonable way to get rid of me if they want to.

I think France would be better off than they're now when they are now, but I still don't feel the current labor laws merit a "job for life" label as such. Maybe employers make it that way, but as such it's a two way street if you get my drift.

When it comes to the protests I think there's a couple of circumstances that spurred on the protest. As mentioned in the article: the law was pretty much being forced down the throats of the French youth. Secondly it only targeted said youth. It might have gone down a whole lot better if things had been handled different. On the other hand it might have not, as we all like to preserve the rights we currently have.

I feel he's off base when it comes to the social costs. If people get fired because their firm is going under, any boss in any system will be blamed. This has nothing to do with what labor laws are in place.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

If people get fired because their firm is going under, any boss in any system will be blamed

That would depend upon why the firm went under. If it was through malfeasance or other criminal activity, sure. Here, though, it is understood that businesses - especially small businesses - have a fairly low rate of success. A friend of mine had a business that went under. He was not made out to be a social pariah.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Let me rephrase that: if the reasons are the same, the system you're in doesn't matter, you're almost certain to get the same reaction.