[SteveA]

Quote by: Nono Because tiny simply isn't making sense. On the one hand she expresses her horror at those who have been protesting the new law, and simultanrously grinds on about this awful law. Sorry, just can't make head or tail of her views (except to note that they sweep hugely complex things into microscopic piles -- one of her specialties).

I admit some of my posts might have been similarly confusing. From the articles I read, the riots are over a modification to existing law. This modification/new law removes the prior law from applying to younger age groups. The prior version limits the abilities of an employer to fire people. So the rioting there is a protest over a "right", that was at someone elses expense and should have never exists in the first place. If you want such an employment agreement, go for it and expect it before working for an employer, but trying to drag everyone else along too is asking for problems (yes, and protests and rioting).

You're right that the French need only hit the streets in huge numbers to put the fear of God in the government, which well remembers May '68. This works for rightwing Catholics just as it works for leftwing unionists.

Yes, unions can hold almost religious beliefs at times.

As for the law itself -- sorry but it's yet another gift from a rightwing government to the business elite. Maybe some employers will use it to hire more young people. Others will use it to rip them off.

No, it doesn't simply apply to elites. If a company earns more from an employee, they can offer more in pay. There was no gift with the prior version that places a stranglehold on employment agreements. I admit this was likely done to help businesses in France but it's silly to believe this only benefits some elites. That's propoganda that you've been taught to believe. What immediate benefit does a society gain by trying to force people to work for a single company for a long time? If anything it allows employers to manipulate people even more as they can't easily get a job elsewhere because getting a new job is difficult when someone else has already laid legal claim to it irregardless of merit.

What I'm saying is that it's another step in the dismantlement of a system that has given France unparalleled prosperity over the past half century. The French are a nation of skeptics, and they don't believe every word of market-fundamentalist propaganda fed to them.

Fine. It appears you have many people that feel as you do in France right now and they're rioting. We can postulate a ton of things but reality will have the final say. I predict economic troubles in France for at least decades to come because of apparent beliefs similar to yours that these policies help things there. To me it simply appears they're spending their savings.

What?!! *I* don't work for the government I'll have you know, and I work plenty hard to earn my bread. So speak for yourself. The only sugar-daddy relevant to this discussion is the one keeping tiny (her ethnic affiliation notwithstanding) in splendid indolence, which affords her the leisure to bitch against hardworking Frenchmen. What bullshit.

I thought the bitching was about people rioting to keep stupid laws in place, and the expectation that a sugar-daddy government would do it for them. We apparently can read the same thing and get entirely different meanings from it.

And by the way, for a coupla years I worked for the (government-owned) post office. Nothing cushy there.

Of course not. Supporters of the Soviet Union probably thought it was going to be a great deal also but whatdayaknow if reality doesn't set in and the fact that lunches are free finally sets in once people get hungry enough.

And I've also worked in private industry (of the relatively 'unfettered' North American variety). I could tell you tales of inefficiency and cushiness that would curl your toenails.

At least they're doing it on their own dime, though personally, much of the overhead paperwork I've had to do at my work hasn't been the desire of the employer but simply pressured by their need to comply with government policies.

So let's abate the ideology-driven bullshit. Markets are imperfect and need regulation for the general good. Regardless of who owns or runs an enterprise, the same laws apply. You can't defy gravity. The question is how the proceeds should be divided up.

Bull. The only thing that needs regulation is overbearing people that can't stay out of others business(es) and there's absolutely no public debate necessary over how to divy someones resources up. You've got a lot of nerve. These riots were caused by socialist policies and propoganda identical to what you spew.