4 ms·

> Nice! That's the future. I've seen the "future" in France, nothing "nice" about it. Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someon

> Nice! That's the future. I've seen the "future" in France, nothing "nice" about it. Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someone on a CDI contract is extremely costly, far easier just to leave someone without work but still pay them until they quit) is so expensive that almost all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. Think about it: 2 in every 3 people who get a job offer in France this week will be unemployed in a month. And that's before we get into the cost of employment. An employee in France making the country's average wage costs the employer (in absolute terms) almost the same than an employee in Switzerland making that country's average income (which in PPP is higher than France's). I did the math a while back, and after accounting for all taxes, social security and fees, the Swiss employee is making 70% to pocket (in PPP) than the French one, despite costing almost the same to the company. If you have to hire an employee, where would you hire, France or Switzerland?

alkonaut 9y ago
> so expensive that almost all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. A sign that the use of temporary contracts should also be a focus, just like wages and work hours. This is harder though. > you have to hire an employee, where would you hire, France or Switzerland? That depends...
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > A sign that the use of temporary contracts should also be a focus, just like wages and work hours. This is harder though. They use temporary contracts because permanent contracts are too expensive. Making temporary contracts (which were actually created to flexibilize hiring) more expensive won't solve that issue. > That depends... I guess we both know the answer to that question. All other factors being the same, where would you hire? Now look at the unemployment rate in those two countries. Why do you think that is?
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    > They use temporary contracts because permanent contracts are too expensive. Making temporary contracts (which were actually created to flexibilize hiring) more expensive won't solve that issue. Sure. But they hire 40h weeks not because hiring 50h wasn't want they wanted but because it's illegal. I'm not saying it's easy to outlaw temporary contracts but it's worth a try.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > But they hire 40h weeks not because hiring 50h wasn't want they wanted but because it's illegal. 40h? France has a 35-hour work week. > I'm not saying it's easy to outlaw temporary contracts but it's worth a try. Temporary contracts were created to reduce unemployment, because permanent contracts are too expensive. The solution isn't removing them, but making regular labor contracts cheaper. You're essentially advocating for measures that reduce employment. It isn't worth a try, it has been tried and failed. Every. Single. Time. That's before we get into the fact that you're trying to deal with the symptoms, not the cause. This is the same as trying to outlaw homelessness. Homelessness isn't the problem, it's the symptom.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        > 40h? France has a 35-hour work week. Yes, in the example of france the norm work week is 35. Otherwise the same > Temporary contracts were created to reduce unemployment, because permanent contracts are too expensive. The solution isn't removing them, but making regular labor contracts cheaper. Well making regular contracts cheaper means lower wages and/or lower fees/taxes on labor. Making full time contracts cheaper means more security and possibly lower unemployment, at the cost of wages (and/or tax income depending on what is lowered). > You're essentially advocating for measures that reduce employment. Countries with high wages AND high taxes on labor (nordic countries for example) tend to have higher unemployment but that's just natural. As always it's a tradeoff between the needs of employees and employers. That balance can be found in different ways. Sweden doesn't have minimum wages om , for example.
cpa 9y ago
The fact that 85% on all new jobs are temporary contracts is nothing surprising, given that somebody with a permanent job (CDI) will usually stay much longer at her job. So for each permanent contract there will always be many more temporary ones. A better metric is the percentage of people working on temporary (CDD) or permanent (CDI) contract. In France, 85% of all jobs are permanent and about 10% are temporary contracts. Source: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2850098 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2850098
wott 9y ago
> Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someone on a CDI contract is extremely costly, far easier just to leave someone without work but still pay them until they quit) is so expensive that almost all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. Think about it: 2 in every 3 people who get a job offer in France this week will be unemployed in a month. You are twisting the statistics. Of course you don't sign permanent contracts as much as temporary contracts: you sign one and you keep it for 3, 5, 10, 20 years. The fact is that 80 to 90% of employees have a permanent contract. It is just that the small pool of employees with temporary contracts generate a huge number of contract because, well, they are temporary. And the very short temporary contracts will generate an even bigger number of contracts that longer temporary contracts. Also, the limit for a temporary contract is not 12 months. In the general case, it is 18 months (there are cases where it is 9 months, and others were it is 36 months). > An employee in France making the country's average wage costs the employer (in absolute terms) almost the same than an employee in Switzerland making that country's average income (which in PPP is higher than France's). No way. Average wage in France is 2300 € net / month, which is 3000 € gross, which costs the employer around 4000 €. Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income, because the figure is already way higher than the French one.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income, because the figure is already way higher than the French one. Oh, no. You forgot about the tax wedge. Everyone forgets about the tax wedge. Swiss tax wedge: ~20% French tax wedge: ~50% In France, you cost your employer about 2X your salary. In Switzerland you cost your employer about 1.25X your salary. Source: OECD. So your Swiss costs €6,875/month and your French costs €6,000/month.
  - estebank 9y ago
    It is also true that cost of living is lower in France than in Switzerland[1]. [1]: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Switzerland&country2=France&city1=Zurich&city2=Paris https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

alkonaut 9y ago

> so expensive that almost all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. A sign that the use of temporary contracts should also be a focus, just like wages and work hours. This is harder though. > you have to hire an employee, where would you hire, France or Switzerland? That depends...

ucaetano 9y ago
> A sign that the use of temporary contracts should also be a focus, just like wages and work hours. This is harder though. They use temporary contracts because permanent contracts are too expensive. Making temporary contracts (which were actually created to flexibilize hiring) more expensive won't solve that issue. > That depends... I guess we both know the answer to that question. All other factors being the same, where would you hire? Now look at the unemployment rate in those two countries. Why do you think that is?
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > They use temporary contracts because permanent contracts are too expensive. Making temporary contracts (which were actually created to flexibilize hiring) more expensive won't solve that issue. Sure. But they hire 40h weeks not because hiring 50h wasn't want they wanted but because it's illegal. I'm not saying it's easy to outlaw temporary contracts but it's worth a try.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > But they hire 40h weeks not because hiring 50h wasn't want they wanted but because it's illegal. 40h? France has a 35-hour work week. > I'm not saying it's easy to outlaw temporary contracts but it's worth a try. Temporary contracts were created to reduce unemployment, because permanent contracts are too expensive. The solution isn't removing them, but making regular labor contracts cheaper. You're essentially advocating for measures that reduce employment. It isn't worth a try, it has been tried and failed. Every. Single. Time. That's before we get into the fact that you're trying to deal with the symptoms, not the cause. This is the same as trying to outlaw homelessness. Homelessness isn't the problem, it's the symptom.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      > 40h? France has a 35-hour work week. Yes, in the example of france the norm work week is 35. Otherwise the same > Temporary contracts were created to reduce unemployment, because permanent contracts are too expensive. The solution isn't removing them, but making regular labor contracts cheaper. Well making regular contracts cheaper means lower wages and/or lower fees/taxes on labor. Making full time contracts cheaper means more security and possibly lower unemployment, at the cost of wages (and/or tax income depending on what is lowered). > You're essentially advocating for measures that reduce employment. Countries with high wages AND high taxes on labor (nordic countries for example) tend to have higher unemployment but that's just natural. As always it's a tradeoff between the needs of employees and employers. That balance can be found in different ways. Sweden doesn't have minimum wages om , for example.

cpa 9y ago

The fact that 85% on all new jobs are temporary contracts is nothing surprising, given that somebody with a permanent job (CDI) will usually stay much longer at her job. So for each permanent contract there will always be many more temporary ones. A better metric is the percentage of people working on temporary (CDD) or permanent (CDI) contract. In France, 85% of all jobs are permanent and about 10% are temporary contracts. Source: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2850098 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2850098

wott 9y ago

> Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someone on a CDI contract is extremely costly, far easier just to leave someone without work but still pay them until they quit) is so expensive that almost all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. Think about it: 2 in every 3 people who get a job offer in France this week will be unemployed in a month. You are twisting the statistics. Of course you don't sign permanent contracts as much as temporary contracts: you sign one and you keep it for 3, 5, 10, 20 years. The fact is that 80 to 90% of employees have a permanent contract. It is just that the small pool of employees with temporary contracts generate a huge number of contract because, well, they are temporary. And the very short temporary contracts will generate an even bigger number of contracts that longer temporary contracts. Also, the limit for a temporary contract is not 12 months. In the general case, it is 18 months (there are cases where it is 9 months, and others were it is 36 months). > An employee in France making the country's average wage costs the employer (in absolute terms) almost the same than an employee in Switzerland making that country's average income (which in PPP is higher than France's). No way. Average wage in France is 2300 € net / month, which is 3000 € gross, which costs the employer around 4000 €. Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income, because the figure is already way higher than the French one.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income, because the figure is already way higher than the French one. Oh, no. You forgot about the tax wedge. Everyone forgets about the tax wedge. Swiss tax wedge: ~20% French tax wedge: ~50% In France, you cost your employer about 2X your salary. In Switzerland you cost your employer about 1.25X your salary. Source: OECD. So your Swiss costs €6,875/month and your French costs €6,000/month.
- estebank 9y ago
  It is also true that cost of living is lower in France than in Switzerland[1]. [1]: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Switzerland&country2=France&city1=Zurich&city2=Paris https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...