4 ms·

I think you're both right: France is doing everything in its power to keep companies from going there and employing people (by improving worker conditions to t

I think you're both right: France is doing everything in its power to keep companies from going there and employing people (by improving worker conditions to the detriment of employers). But the French government budget would surely also benefit from a devaluation here and there as it always did. On the positive side, without the EU the French agricultural sector would have to face the plain market and get along with a few dozens of billions less per year, so there's that. For a little bit more data I cannot recommend enough the Economic Libery Index: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking France is 72nd, quite a few ranks after countries such as Albania, Kosovo, Rwanda, Kazakhstan, ... Unsurprisingly, Government Spending and Labor Freedom are the worst elements of its index value.

caseydurfee 9y ago
Any list of "free" countries that has [the UAE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Labor_law_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Ara...), Chile and Singapore in their top 10 is using "free" in the Orwellian sense. "Labor Freedom" is perhaps the most galling. One might think it would cover the right of laborers to organize and collectively bargain. Or the right to have safe working conditions, sick days, severance pay, access to childcare and healthcare. In fact, it's the exact opposite. A perfectly free workforce in Heritage Foundation's verbiage would be one with no worker protections or individual rights of any kind and a 100% labor participation rate - to them, quite literally, "labor freedom" is slavery. Maybe France does have to many workers' rights to compete with other countries, who knows. Heritage's numbers aren't granular enough for me (or you) to assess that. But re-defining the meanings of basic words so one can accuse people who disagree with you of "hating freedom" is pathetic. Please try to find some other way to make your case that's befitting educated adults discussing a serious issue.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ivm 9y ago
  Eh? Chile has strong worker unions and individual rights. It's not 1973 anymore.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  > Labor Freedom" is perhaps the most galling "Labor freedom" is the freedom to contractually define what the employee does in exchange for money from the employer. If you have laws that define "8 hours max" (or "10$ per hour" minimum), then poor (or uneducated people, respectively) might struggle to make ends meet (or find a job, respectively). Another example is "6 months minimum contract" which results in "never employ people if you just have work for 3 months" to employers. Do you see the common pattern? Freedom in general is defined (at least at this site) as contractual freedom, i.e., the absence of state-defined contract clauses set via law. Your definition of freedom is "employee rights" (which can be considered a kind of freedom, but to the detriment of employer freedom). If you maximize employee freedom, you automatically minimize employer freedom and that will take a heavy toll on employment in general.

caseydurfee 9y ago

Any list of "free" countries that has [the UAE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Labor_law_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Ara...), Chile and Singapore in their top 10 is using "free" in the Orwellian sense. "Labor Freedom" is perhaps the most galling. One might think it would cover the right of laborers to organize and collectively bargain. Or the right to have safe working conditions, sick days, severance pay, access to childcare and healthcare. In fact, it's the exact opposite. A perfectly free workforce in Heritage Foundation's verbiage would be one with no worker protections or individual rights of any kind and a 100% labor participation rate - to them, quite literally, "labor freedom" is slavery. Maybe France does have to many workers' rights to compete with other countries, who knows. Heritage's numbers aren't granular enough for me (or you) to assess that. But re-defining the meanings of basic words so one can accuse people who disagree with you of "hating freedom" is pathetic. Please try to find some other way to make your case that's befitting educated adults discussing a serious issue.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ivm 9y ago
Eh? Chile has strong worker unions and individual rights. It's not 1973 anymore.
dmichulke 9y ago
> Labor Freedom" is perhaps the most galling "Labor freedom" is the freedom to contractually define what the employee does in exchange for money from the employer. If you have laws that define "8 hours max" (or "10$ per hour" minimum), then poor (or uneducated people, respectively) might struggle to make ends meet (or find a job, respectively). Another example is "6 months minimum contract" which results in "never employ people if you just have work for 3 months" to employers. Do you see the common pattern? Freedom in general is defined (at least at this site) as contractual freedom, i.e., the absence of state-defined contract clauses set via law. Your definition of freedom is "employee rights" (which can be considered a kind of freedom, but to the detriment of employer freedom). If you maximize employee freedom, you automatically minimize employer freedom and that will take a heavy toll on employment in general.