OT - What's going on in France

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Davist

Buried the lead there, eh?

Not really, the 2005 riots being treated differently because of the demographic of poor suburbs being primarily algerian/moroccan is a statement of fact.

You are now seeing the traditionally dominant group becoming marginalised.

[Davist]

ah, thanks for clarification, Vertical Doug..

[pbarry]

Pretty good Cliff Notes outline on the crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/w...gtype=Homepage

These 5 Numbers Explain Why the French Are in the Streets

By Liz Alderman
Dec. 4, 2018

215
PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron of France is facing the toughest crisis of his leadership after three weeks of violent protests across the country. “Yellow Vest” demonstrators have demanded that the government give financial relief to large parts of the population that are struggling to make ends meet.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe sought to calm the furor on Tuesday by suspending a planned fuel tax increase for six months, reversing a policy that had set off the revolt.

But it’s not apparent that this single concession can clear the streets.

The Yellow Vest movement — whose followers wear or display high-visibility vests used in emergencies — has morphed into a collective outcry over deeper problems that have plagued France for years: declining living standards and eroding purchasing power. Both of which have worsened in the aftermath of Europe’s long-running financial crisis.


Here are some numbers that explain why France has erupted.

€1,700: Median monthly income in France

France, like other Western countries, has seen a deep gap grow between its richest and poorest citizens. The top 20 percent of the population earns nearly five times as much as the bottom 20 percent.

France’s richest 1 percent represent over 20 percent of the economy’s wealth. Yet the median monthly disposable income is about 1,700 euros, or $1,930, meaning that half of French workers are paid less than that.

Many of the Yellow Vest demonstrators are protesting how difficult it is to pay rent, feed their families and simply scrape by as living costs — most notably fuel prices — keep rising while their household incomes barely budge.

It wasn’t always this way.

Living standards and wages rose in France after World War II during a 30-year growth stretch known as “Les Trente Glorieuses.” Pay gains for low- and middle-income earners continued through the early 1980s, thanks to labor union collective bargaining agreements.

But those dynamics unraveled as successive left-leaning French governments sought to improve competitiveness in part by compressing wage gains, according to the French economist Thomas Piketty. Average incomes for low- and middle-income earners stagnated, growing by around 1 percent a year or less.


The rich got richer, as top earners saw income gains of around 3 percent a year. Increasingly generous executive pay for very high earners has helped tip the scale.

French workers are still better off than those in Italy, where real wage growth has been negative since 2016. Real wages there fell 1.1 percent between the fourth quarters of 2016 and 2017, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

But while real hourly wages are rising in France, that growth has come slowly, even more so since the end of the eurozone debt crisis in 2012.

1.8 percent: Economic growth

France is the third biggest economy in Europe after Britain and Germany, and the world’s sixth largest before adjusting for inflation. Visitors to Paris can come away with the impression that the glitz of the French capital means the rest of the nation is just as well off.

But French economic growth was stagnant for nearly a decade during Europe’s long-running debt crisis and had only recently begun to improve.

The quality of the recovery has been uneven. Large numbers of permanent jobs were wiped out, especially in rural and former industrial areas. And many of the new jobs being created are precarious temporary contracts.

Growth is key to improving working conditions for those who have been protesting. But while a nascent economic recovery before Mr. Macron took office has helped generate jobs, growth has cooled to a 1.8 percent annual pace, in tandem with a slowdown in the rest of the eurozone.

Above 9 percent: Unemployment

The growth slowdown makes it harder to resolve another French problem: the large numbers of people out of work.

Unemployment in France has been stuck between 9 percent and 11 percent since 2009, when the debt crisis hit Europe. Joblessness has drifted back down to 9.1 percent today from 10.1 percent when Mr. Macron was elected. But it is still more than double the level in Germany.

Mr. Macron promised to lower unemployment to 7 percent by the next presidential election in 2022, and has acknowledged that a failure to do so could fan the flames of populism.

But to achieve that, the economy would have to grow by at least 1.7 percent in each of the next four years, which is by no means certain, according to the French Economic Observatory, an independent research group.

Mr. Macron has tried to re-energize the French economy.

This year, he demanded an aggressive overhaul of the nation’s rigid labor code to help employers set the rules on hiring and firing, and bypass longstanding restraints that discourage employers from hiring new workers. The provisions also limit unions’ ability to delay change, by allowing individual agreements to be negotiated at the company or industry level between bosses and workers.

Those reforms have helped draw companies like Facebook and Google to France. But they could take years to show results for average workers. And the reforms have angered workers who see a plot to strip them of hard-won labor rights in favor of big business.


€3.2 billion: Tax cut for the rich

As part of his plan to stimulate the economy, Mr. Macron cut taxes for France’s wealthiest taxpayers during his first year in office, including by creating a flat tax for capital income.

But the centerpiece of the tax package, and the one that has drawn the most ire from protesters, did away with a wealth tax that applied to many assets of France’s richest households, replacing it with one that applied only to their real estate holdings.

That lowered by €3.2 billion, or $3.6 billion, the amount of revenue the state received this year.

There has been little evidence of a stimulus effect. Instead, Mr. Macron has earned a reputation for favoring the rich — one of the biggest sources of anger among the Yellow Vest protesters.

While high earners have enjoyed tax breaks under Mr. Macron’s fiscal plan, purchasing power fell last year for the bottom 5 percent of households. The majority in the middle, about 70 percent, saw no gain or pain either way, according to the French Economic Observatory.

Even before the Yellow Vests took to the streets, Mr. Macron realized that support was withering, and his government tried to pivot toward those left behind in the previous round of tax cuts.

His 2019 budget, unveiled in October, will grant breaks next year worth €6 billion for middle- and low-income earners. It also includes an €18.8 billion reduction in payroll and other business taxes to encourage hiring and investment.

€715 billion: The social safety net

While polls show that the Yellow Vests have the backing of three-quarters of the population, questions have swirled about how much pain the protesters are really experiencing — or how much of the outpouring can be chalked up to a centuries-old culture of demonstrating against change.

[BdaGhisallo]

Another good article on what's going on:

https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/the-betrayal-of-macron/

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Most petroleum based fuel sources are highly subsidized by government... certainly in the US, Canada, Spain and I'm very certain in France as well.

Taxes are basic economic disincentives for things we don't want people to buy so much.

Anthropogenic accelerated climate change is real, scientifically agreed upon and proven.

I don't see what the problem is, but people seem to be protesting against inevitability and reduced carbon impacts.

High gas prices lead to the complete and total transformation of the Netherlands from one of the highest car using countries in the 70's to one of the lowest today.

Again. I don't see what the problem is other than perhaps poor communication and political discourse, but in terms of automobile fuels (gas and diesel) this should be seen as a good example, and we'd be well served that prices were much, much higher.

Single user, vehicular trips need to be massively disincentivized.

On a related Madrid just started "Madrid Central" on Friday, where an 472 hectare central zone of Madrid now has massively restricted traffic use in order to combat some of the highest air pollution levels in Europe.

Well if you saw the numbers overnight about carbon emissions accelerating globally again (increased in 2017 and forecast of a larger increase in 2018- I venture we will exceed UN worst case emissions forecasts.).

I think the problem is much larger than poor communication.

Since it doesn't look like the world wants to share a common sacrifice, you need plan B. How do you get rid of 7 billion people? (I think if you run the numbers for carbon emissions, US, Canada, Japan combined max out the global quota. ) That's the size of the problem you are looking at. The irony here is at some point we will emit more carbon trying to cool ourselves in the summer than warm ourselves in the winter. Talk about a vicious cycle.

Without the US, there is no possibility of a global solution.

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

Well if you saw the numbers overnight about carbon emissions accelerating globally again (increased in 2017 and forecast of a larger increase in 2018- I venture we will exceed UN worst case emissions forecasts.).

I think the problem is much larger than poor communication.

Since it doesn't look like the world wants to share a common sacrifice, you need plan B. How do you get rid of 7 billion people? (I think if you run the numbers for carbon emissions, US, Canada, Japan combined max out the global quota. ) That's the size of the problem you are looking at. The irony here is at some point we will emit more carbon trying to cool ourselves in the summer than warm ourselves in the winter. Talk about a vicious cycle.

Without the US, there is no possibility of a global solution.

So far, the US is one of the few doing its part, with its CO2 emissions on the decline over the last forty years. On a per capita basis, US emissions peaked at 22.51 metric tons/cap back in 1973 and have been trending down to the present level of 16.49 mt/cap in 2014.

It always makes me smile when many of the nations in Western Europe that hector the US over its environmental record and its departure from the Paris Accord, aren't actually doing as well as the US is in getting their emissions under control and actually seeing their emissions on the rise, in the case of Germany.

[rain dogs]

Germany's CO2 emissions per capita are 8.889 and dropping as of 2014, nearly half that of the US 16.491 based on world bank data. And the US is rising again since 2012. Canada is an embarrassment at 15.117 per capita. Spain is 5.03 and dropping. The EU avg. is 6.4 and dropping.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...C?locations=US

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

So far, the US is one of the few doing its part, with its CO2 emissions on the decline over the last forty years. On a per capita basis, US emissions peaked at 22.51 metric tons/cap back in 1973 and have been trending down to the present level of 16.49 mt/cap in 2014.

It always makes me smile when many of the nations in Western Europe that hector the US over its environmental record and its departure from the Paris Accord, aren't actually doing as well as the US is in getting their emissions under control and actually seeing their emissions on the rise, in the case of Germany.

That's like a 300lb guy who lost 10 lbs asking the 150lb guy who lost 5lbs why he wont keep dieting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712

[jemoryl]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

That's like a 300lb guy who lost 10 lbs asking the 150lb guy who lost 5lbs why he wont keep dieting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712

Yup, the waste and consumption in the US is staggering. I can't imagine there are many other countries where people go out into a parking lot to sit in a giant SUV with the engine running (to get A/C) so they can eat their lunch (as seen in my suburban office park). Besides, by outsourcing our manufacturing to places like China, we have essentially offshored the associated energy consumption and pollution.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Germany's CO2 emissions per capita are 8.889 and dropping as of 2014, nearly half that of the US 16.491 based on world bank data. And the US is rising again since 2012. Canada is an embarrassment at 15.117 per capita. Spain is 5.03 and dropping. The EU avg. is 6.4 and dropping.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...C?locations=US

Yeah well Germany shut down their nuclear plants and put up coal ones, so this data wrt Germany is no longer valid.

[bikinchris]

Once again, I say that I am not counting CO2 emissions, I see an economy and lifestyle that is totally unsustainable. This cannot continue if we have ANY thought for future generations. We should have been working toward a more sustainable lifestyle two generations ago.
Yes, it will hurt. Just like the switch to automobile use destroyed parts of the economy around the turn of the century. But the jobs of setting up and sustaining renewable energy will make up for that. Designing our cities for better public transportation will also keep people more healthy. Win, win, win, except for oil companies, who will fight this tooth and nail to the death.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by bikinchris

Once again, I say that I am not counting CO2 emissions, I see an economy and lifestyle that is totally unsustainable. This cannot continue if we have ANY thought for future generations. We should have been working toward a more sustainable lifestyle two generations ago.

Yes, it will hurt. Just like the switch to automobile use destroyed parts of the economy around the turn of the century. But the jobs of setting up and sustaining renewable energy will make up for that. Designing our cities for better public transportation will also keep people more healthy. Win, win, win, except for oil companies, who will fight this tooth and nail to the death.

The problem is the jobs are not where the people live, hence commuting to work. I don't see that changing in a free society.

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by jemoryl

Yup, the waste and consumption in the US is staggering. I can't imagine there are many other countries where people go out into a parking lot to sit in a giant SUV with the engine running (to get A/C) so they can eat their lunch (as seen in my suburban office park). Besides, by outsourcing our manufacturing to places like China, we have essentially offshored the associated energy consumption and pollution.

Not at all on topic, just comment on your comment.
I get so weirded out how many people sit in their cars to eat, with the car running, and a phone in their hands. I have noticed this when i go fishing, there is almost always someone parked in the parking lot eating and using their phone. they could get out of the car, take 20 steps and sit on a park bench overlooking the river. but they dont, they face the buildings, crank the ac or heater, phone, and feed.

we are a bunch of damn weirdos with brains that are sometimes useful and more often underused

[Climb01742]

Politics has always been a screwed up way to govern and grapple with problems. But it may be worse today because in a connected world, the problems have gotten exponentially more complex while politics seems ever more incapable of anything but simplistic, bumper-sticker 'answers'.

I'm curious. Has any non-aligned (if there is such a thing) economist or social theorist or academic of some ilk put forth an idea for how we solve the inequities of capitalism while keeping some of its benefits, adding some elements of a social safety net, while not screwing the planet and its climate, while not sinking into unmanageable debt...

Is there an answer without political cant? It's a serious question. It's such a complex web of issues. Has someone found solutions without grinding axes?

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Yeah well Germany shut down their nuclear plants and put up coal ones, so this data wrt Germany is no longer valid.

Germany did vote to take all German Nukes offline after Fukushima. They took half offline pre-2014 and the rest slated for 2022.

Sharp increase in renewables have offset alot of the increase coal/oil/gas consumption. I think the 'data' is correct, and they have not yet taken any of the remaining nukes off line.

Nice attempt to throw a wrench. German per capita has increased by a little, which is mostly attributed to transportation.

Biggest gross contributors have been China, USA and India. On a per capita however, China and India still small.