French companies “employ” countless young people with free internships. How do I know this? I was the supervisor for several of these non-paid interns. Why do they allow themselves to be used like this? To enhance their resumes and portfolios, as good-paying jobs are so scarce. These young interns, as well as my wife’s niece (a brilliant, hard-working engineering graduate who spent nearly 18 months trying to find a good paid position), explained to me that nearly all French college graduates do this. It’s a huge part of the French economy. To get a decent paid position in many firms requires lengthy contracts that are extremely adversarial in nature (cannot work for any competitor if you leave, etc), that pits employer against employee as if they are somehow enemies.

In the United States, most of us don’t view employers or employees in adversarial roles. Good companies treat their employees as partners and valuable assets. Good employees view their employers as partners, as well and do their best to contribute.

This is a great country. There is always room for improvement, better safety & working conditions, etc. But the best thing the government can do to keep the unemployment figures low is to keep taxes low and stay out of the way. Most new jobs in the United States are created by small businesses. Most small businesses are being created by successful individuals who risk their own money. The more you tax and regulate, the more people have little incentive to risk their own capital to start new businesses.

People in the United States are certainly free to emigrate elsewhere. Very few do, however, as they love the freedoms and possibilities that America offers. That’s why people risk their lives to come here.

I only mentioned France because (a)I worked for a French company for nearly 9 years (b) my wife is from Bordeaux, France. I’ve spent a great deal of time in France and with French people. America is quite transparent with its employment figures compared with France. French companies “employ” countless young people on free internships? How do I know this? I was the supervisor for several of these non-paid interns. Why do they allow themselves to be used like this? To enhance their resumes and portfolios, as good-paying jobs are so scarce. These young interns, as well as my wife’s niece (a brilliant, hard-working engineering graduate who spent nearly 18 months trying to find a good paid position), explained to me that nearly all French college graduates do this. It’s a huge part of the French economy. To get a decent paid position in many firms requires lengthy contracts that are extremely adversarial in nature (cannot work for any competitor if you leave, etc), that pits employee against employee as if they are somehow enemies.

In the United States, most of us don’t view employers or employees in adversarial roles. Good companies treat their employees as partners and valuable assets. Good employees view their employers as partners, as well and do their best to contribute.

This is a great country. There is always room for improvement, better safety & working conditions, etc. But the best thing the government can do to keep the employment figures low is to keep taxes low and stay out of the way. Most new jobs in the United States are created by small businesses. Most small businesses are being created by successful individuals who risk their own money. The more you tax and regulate, the more people have little incentive to risk their own capital to start new businesses.

I had lunch with my wife in a lovely, quaint crepe restaurant in Bordeaux once and had a nice conversation with the owner. I complimented her on her delicious crepes and asked her how things we going. She said, “I’m being taxed to death. The government interferes with everything I do. I don’t know how I can survive. Things are easier for small businesses in America, no?” Well, right now they are. Let’s keep it that way.

Peace.

August 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

Hello? Sorry to burst your bubble, but Europe (including France) receives also a great number of immigrants seeking for a good job (and universal healthcare, FYI). This only explains that countries in the third world have lots of poor people willing to travel to countries in the first world to eat and clothe, no matter the sitting President. And, comparing unemployed people in France is somewhat misleading because France doesn’t use all the tricks used by the GOP to hide unemployed people. You’re comparing apples and oranges, and not very well.

A nearby Wisconsin paper mill just closed putting 700 blue and white colar workers out of a job. Another WI. paper mill anounced its closing yesterday. (Due mostly to China’s dumping of cheap paper into the market.) These are/were good jobs. A few engineers I know have had no luck finding a job and when they did get offers the pay was less than half of what they were making at the mill. I expect a few more houses up for sale soon…nice ones too.

Where are you at with corporate welfare? Bear Sterns bailout et al? Just curious.

You’re on an entirely different road, and going backwards, by the look of it.

It appears that you’re saying that, because (in your estimation) everyone who has lost their house because of foreclosure is guilty, then there will be no wider repercussions in the neighborhoods where those houses sit vacant, in the communities where banks are failing, and in the stores where people are spending less money because their houses are worth less and they’re worried about getting laid off.

Nice moralistic fairy tale you tell yourself.

Consider this: in 2005 and 2006, the nation’s personal savings rate was negative two years in a row for the first time since the Depression. What was fueling consumer spending in those years of supposedly “robust” growth? Credit cards and homeowners “taking equity” out of their homes — i. e. borrowing on the value of their homes.

Why? Because their president told them to. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush didn’t ask anyone to sacrifice, except for the men and women of the military. The rest of us he told to “go shopping”.

Consumer debt was the only thing keeping the illusory Bush “recovery” afloat. It wasn’t wage growth, and it wasn’t productivity. Lax lending regulations (and enforcement) allowed the housing bubble to form and people thought they were a lot richer than they actually were.

The nation benefitted, short-term, from the conditions that led to the housing crisis.

But more to the point, foreclosured houses affect far more than just the people who are now renters, or out on the street. You can self-righteously condemn them as “greedy” if it makes you feel better (and apparently, it does) but that doesn’t change the fact that the ripple effects of a housing collapse have an impact on the whole economy.

But as long as you’re not suffering (yet) and as long as you have a scapegoat, it seems you’ll be fine.

So party on!

dbadass Says:

I have to get to work so I can happily contribute some taxes to the common good. I really do feel great inside knowing my labors assist those less fortunate than I.

But — but — db, don’t you realize that your taxes only go to support lazy folks who smoke reefer 24/7???

You should be ashamed.

cheers-

TripleKick X Says:
Ralph,
Its inherently liberal to forcefully take responsible people’s money to pay for the financial irresponsibility of people who bought houses that they couldn’t afford. Screw-em, they deserve their foreclosure because many lied on their no-documentation loan applications. You should never buy what you can’t afford.

It’s true what they say — you really ARE dense, aren’t you?

When did I say anything about “forcefully take responsible people’s money to pay for the financial irresponsibility of people who bought houses that they couldn’t afford”?

What the hell does that have to do with the ailing economy? Are you saying that because there are no innocents facing foreclosure, that the economy is not ailing?

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m just trying to figure out how you got from my comment to your response. It just seems a little disconnected, is all.

P.S. They both have fixed rate mortgages at < 6.0%…

Why else would he continue to post personal attacks and defenses for the gop here, speaking of silly ideologies.

I haven’t used the word rebukes, etc. once in this thread and you have not answered one of my questions. You are a phony.

TripleKick X Says:
Ralph, Give me a break. Fyi, just so you know, its Replicans, not “repukes”, “reich-wingers”, nazis, neocons, etc. Don’t presume to correct me on some silly technicality regarding the democratic party when TP oozes hyperbolic pejoratives regarding the republican party.

I’ll give you a break, TK when you show you deserve one.

I don’t use any of the terms you cited for the Republican Party.

And i only sought to correct you because the construction you use is wrong and makes you look foolish. It’s either a really childish little dig, or it’s ignorant. I figured if you were going to dig you’d use something at least a little more clever, or with a little more bite.

As it stands, you either look really, really petty, or ignorant. And if you’re ignorant, it’s stupid to have someone point out where you’re making a mistake, and snap at them for it, without correcting the mistake. Then it’s willful stupidity.

however, your answer that the economy is “relative” demonstrates that you’ve found a home with the Republican Party. As long as you’ve got yours, who cares how many home are foreclosed on, or how many people lose their jobs? As long as you don’t feel it, it ain’t happening.