Not only are the French cowards, they're lazy too!
- Thread starter Shiftkey
- Start date
Mandiblard
Senior Don Juan
So lazy they dominate world motorsport
spider_007
Master Don Juan
I bolive same thing goes on in Italy and Germany as well (most of the europe too). When my friend went back to Italy and told his family that he worked 75 hour weeks, they almost slaped him silly. But then again, houses are passed on through the family in europe and the parents live with the kids.
Sh!t, i work 55 hour weeks on a decen job, getting payed above average....and still can't aford to live comforatably.
Sh!t, i work 55 hour weeks on a decen job, getting payed above average....and still can't aford to live comforatably.
Le Parisien
Master Don Juan
Just to set the record straight, it's known as "France at two different speeds".
On one hand, there are many world renowned, dynamic and highly competitive French companies; on the other, there are also the totally unefficient, lazy, state run "companies" that totally drag the French economy down.
We say in France that it's a "country of assistance and aid". Many many lazy asses believe they DESERVE
a stable, well paying, easy and not time consuming job... There's supposed to be an aid (money) from the government for anything that goes bad in life...
Actually, the worst cases are the "fonctionnaires", "functionaries", a loosely equivalent term would be "civil servant" or "government worker".
But in France, it's like an epidemic, many many people are unnecessarily "fonctionnaires". While it's understandable that the true government workers are "fonctionnaires", it's really ridiculous that for example the older generation of France Telecom employees also benefit "fonctionnaires" advantages.
Basically, almost all the once/currently state owned companies have huge numbers of employees that work very little, go on strikes all the time, and have insanely/unfairly good retirement plans...
France Telecom, SNCF (the French railways), EDF (Electricity of France) and so many others...
Basically, the highly productive and competitive France pays ridiculous amount of taxes to sustain a system that feeds the lazy ass France. This is also why so many successful French companies are trying to go offshore in order to escape this mess.
Just for your info, l'Oreal, Renault, French participation of Airbus, Alcatel, Saint-Gobain etc.. are French companies that are among the best in the world in their respective fields.
On one hand, there are many world renowned, dynamic and highly competitive French companies; on the other, there are also the totally unefficient, lazy, state run "companies" that totally drag the French economy down.
We say in France that it's a "country of assistance and aid". Many many lazy asses believe they DESERVE
a stable, well paying, easy and not time consuming job... There's supposed to be an aid (money) from the government for anything that goes bad in life...Actually, the worst cases are the "fonctionnaires", "functionaries", a loosely equivalent term would be "civil servant" or "government worker".
But in France, it's like an epidemic, many many people are unnecessarily "fonctionnaires". While it's understandable that the true government workers are "fonctionnaires", it's really ridiculous that for example the older generation of France Telecom employees also benefit "fonctionnaires" advantages.
Basically, almost all the once/currently state owned companies have huge numbers of employees that work very little, go on strikes all the time, and have insanely/unfairly good retirement plans...
France Telecom, SNCF (the French railways), EDF (Electricity of France) and so many others...
Basically, the highly productive and competitive France pays ridiculous amount of taxes to sustain a system that feeds the lazy ass France. This is also why so many successful French companies are trying to go offshore in order to escape this mess.
Just for your info, l'Oreal, Renault, French participation of Airbus, Alcatel, Saint-Gobain etc.. are French companies that are among the best in the world in their respective fields.
The SAME DAMN thing you described happens here in Brazil.Le Parisien said:Just to set the record straight, it's known as "France at two different speeds".
On one hand, there are many world renowned, dynamic and highly competitive French companies; on the other, there are also the totally unefficient, lazy, state run "companies" that totally drag the French economy down.
We say in France that it's a "country of assistance and aid". Many many lazy asses believe they DESERVE
Actually, the worst cases are the "fonctionnaires", "functionaries", a loosely equivalent term would be "civil servant" or "government worker".
But in France, it's like an epidemic, many many people are unnecessarily "fonctionnaires". While it's understandable that the true government workers are "fonctionnaires", it's really ridiculous that for example the older generation of France Telecom employees also benefit "fonctionnaires" advantages.
Basically, almost all the once/currently state owned companies have huge numbers of employees that work very little, go on strikes all the time, and have insanely/unfairly good retirement plans...
France Telecom, SNCF (the French railways), EDF (Electricity of France) and so many others...
Basically, the highly productive and competitive France pays ridiculous amount of taxes to sustain a system that feeds the lazy ass France. This is also why so many successful French companies are trying to go offshore in order to escape this mess.
Just for your info, l'Oreal, Renault, French participation of Airbus, Alcatel, Saint-Gobain etc.. are French companies that are among the best in the world in their respective fields.
People think it's nice and all. But the harsh fact is that most people is working hard while a small group pretend to work, and reap all the benefits.
And they call this "social assistance".
Gotta hate the government workers.
Its a complex debate.
Because countries (especially European), such as Switzerland (I beleive), Sweden (well most Northern European countries), and countries such as Australia (though it is changing), gear their policy towards "assistance" towards the "lazy azzes". But with this, comes far fewer slums (especially in countries such as Sweden), leading to lower crime rates, and a better educated society (as education is accessible to most if not all of the population). This results in further, lower rates of crime, better health (this too goes with monetary assistance to those lazy azzes), and better decision making, as far as policy is concerned. This in turn, is why these countries with a slacker attitude (more left wing), are still JUST as successful economies as countries such as the United States and sad to say Australia these days, which think that lowering welfare and taxes at the higher ends of the spectrum, will induce greater efficiency and higher motivation. Like Communism, works well in theory, but not everyone is motivated by such things, and it makes an economy and country, no better off than the rest of the developed world. Rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. But as a whole, GDP per capita is relatively similar.
Which is best? Matter of opinion.
Because countries (especially European), such as Switzerland (I beleive), Sweden (well most Northern European countries), and countries such as Australia (though it is changing), gear their policy towards "assistance" towards the "lazy azzes". But with this, comes far fewer slums (especially in countries such as Sweden), leading to lower crime rates, and a better educated society (as education is accessible to most if not all of the population). This results in further, lower rates of crime, better health (this too goes with monetary assistance to those lazy azzes), and better decision making, as far as policy is concerned. This in turn, is why these countries with a slacker attitude (more left wing), are still JUST as successful economies as countries such as the United States and sad to say Australia these days, which think that lowering welfare and taxes at the higher ends of the spectrum, will induce greater efficiency and higher motivation. Like Communism, works well in theory, but not everyone is motivated by such things, and it makes an economy and country, no better off than the rest of the developed world. Rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. But as a whole, GDP per capita is relatively similar.
Which is best? Matter of opinion.
Channel your excited feelings into positive thoughts and behaviors. You will attract women by being enthusiastic, radiating energy, and becoming someone who is fun to be around.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
Does anyone actually have any data to support the claim that France's (or other socialist countries) per capita is as great as the US?
realsmoothie
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,064
- Reaction score
- 9
Stats like "per capita income" and GDP don't mean squat to quality of life.
Italian and Spanish production levels and efficiency are TERRIBLE in comparison to the United States... but someone please dare to tell me that the average Italian's quality of life is worse than the average American's. Hrm... fresh pasta vs. McDonalds.
Having more money and more stuff does NOT mean a better life. The French have known this forever. We can see it here in Canada... "English" Canada supposedly works harder and makes more money, but God DAMN if the French Canadians are the ones who know how to live. Who parties better, Montreal or Toronto? No comparison.
Italian and Spanish production levels and efficiency are TERRIBLE in comparison to the United States... but someone please dare to tell me that the average Italian's quality of life is worse than the average American's. Hrm... fresh pasta vs. McDonalds.
Having more money and more stuff does NOT mean a better life. The French have known this forever. We can see it here in Canada... "English" Canada supposedly works harder and makes more money, but God DAMN if the French Canadians are the ones who know how to live. Who parties better, Montreal or Toronto? No comparison.
seanchai
Master Don Juan
realsmoothie nailed it. From X-Efficiency's blog (no idea who this guy is, the article's actually from The Globe and Mail):
---
[Economist with the OECD, Paul Swaim] said that the 35-hour week has probably had a slightly positive, but mainly neutral, effect on the economy.
Even the French officials responsible for the change acknowledge that the 35-hour week had little negative effect on productivity, profitability or competitiveness.
"It was always much more a question of image than reality," Clara Gaymard, the French ambassador-at-large responsible for international investment, said in an interview yesterday.
"The idea that a law should decide how many hours you work is absurd. The perception of France is that we have a very productive work force, but that you have no control over labour. You would have some American investors not looking at France because of that image."
But she is quick to say that France is never going to adopt the largely unregulated working conditions of North America.
"We will never go the way of the Americans because we are not American," she said.
"We have the highest productivity because employees have confidence in their future -- the school is free, the medicine is free, the employment is secure and comes with guaranteed benefits. This makes them devoted to their work."
Most economists feel that the differences between the European and North American systems have more to do with lifestyle: Do you want to make as much money as possible, or do you want to have as much free time as possible?
"If you compare France with the U.S., the Americans are working quite a bit more, but the best guess is the output per hour worked is about the same," Mr. Swaim said.
"So you could say the difference between France and the U.S. is that the Americans decide to work more, and as a result on average have higher income, but also have less time to spend with their family. So who knows who has the balance right?"
---
http://x-efficiency.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_x-efficiency_archive.html
I don't have the time to look up the statistics but I'm inclined to believe the OECD. French efficiency is on par with or above America's.
Note that I'm not talking about per capita income, but if you want the highest in the world you're talking about Norway, maybe one of the brightest examples of a socialist state.
---
[Economist with the OECD, Paul Swaim] said that the 35-hour week has probably had a slightly positive, but mainly neutral, effect on the economy.
Even the French officials responsible for the change acknowledge that the 35-hour week had little negative effect on productivity, profitability or competitiveness.
"It was always much more a question of image than reality," Clara Gaymard, the French ambassador-at-large responsible for international investment, said in an interview yesterday.
"The idea that a law should decide how many hours you work is absurd. The perception of France is that we have a very productive work force, but that you have no control over labour. You would have some American investors not looking at France because of that image."
But she is quick to say that France is never going to adopt the largely unregulated working conditions of North America.
"We will never go the way of the Americans because we are not American," she said.
"We have the highest productivity because employees have confidence in their future -- the school is free, the medicine is free, the employment is secure and comes with guaranteed benefits. This makes them devoted to their work."
Most economists feel that the differences between the European and North American systems have more to do with lifestyle: Do you want to make as much money as possible, or do you want to have as much free time as possible?
"If you compare France with the U.S., the Americans are working quite a bit more, but the best guess is the output per hour worked is about the same," Mr. Swaim said.
"So you could say the difference between France and the U.S. is that the Americans decide to work more, and as a result on average have higher income, but also have less time to spend with their family. So who knows who has the balance right?"
---
http://x-efficiency.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_x-efficiency_archive.html
I don't have the time to look up the statistics but I'm inclined to believe the OECD. French efficiency is on par with or above America's.
Note that I'm not talking about per capita income, but if you want the highest in the world you're talking about Norway, maybe one of the brightest examples of a socialist state.
I am an economist, but I dont have the data at hand.
Though, GDP per capita also depends on exchange rates, so quality of life is impossible to measure.
But a large estimation did take place, not sure who by, but was very well detailed and by top economists (sorry to be so vague), but from what I remember, it actually said that Australia and Swtizerland were at the top of the list. It included things such as environment, work/leisure ratio etc. This is prob more accurate, as it doesnt take into account exchange rates. I mean, you can have a high GDP per capita in the UK, but it dont mean they can buy anymore for their money than another country such as Australia. Infact, after living in both, I would say you can buy a lot more in Australia. (then it gets into location etc, but I am talking in general).
My point is though, quality of life in France, be it your buying power or whatever, is no lower than in the US. So why strive for such tiny incremental efficiency gains through right wing reform? I never go the idea, and data doesnt back it up. Only creates greater disparity, and makes people work like dogs, where their workplaces control them after union busting!
Though, GDP per capita also depends on exchange rates, so quality of life is impossible to measure.
But a large estimation did take place, not sure who by, but was very well detailed and by top economists (sorry to be so vague), but from what I remember, it actually said that Australia and Swtizerland were at the top of the list. It included things such as environment, work/leisure ratio etc. This is prob more accurate, as it doesnt take into account exchange rates. I mean, you can have a high GDP per capita in the UK, but it dont mean they can buy anymore for their money than another country such as Australia. Infact, after living in both, I would say you can buy a lot more in Australia. (then it gets into location etc, but I am talking in general).
My point is though, quality of life in France, be it your buying power or whatever, is no lower than in the US. So why strive for such tiny incremental efficiency gains through right wing reform? I never go the idea, and data doesnt back it up. Only creates greater disparity, and makes people work like dogs, where their workplaces control them after union busting!
wootapotky
Senior Don Juan
Exactly. I had a professor from Europe and she was saying how she takes a six-week vacation every year and her colleagues look down at her because of it and insinuate that she's lazy but then she says she forgets all about it when she's sitting on some beach somewhere just chilling.
Americans are workaholics. I've only got one life to live and I sure as hell am not going to waste it by working my entire life. I want my vacation time I want to see the world. America thinks that buying sh!t and having a big house completes their life but it only makes it hollow. We're one of the unhappiest countries in the world whereas poorer third world countries often have higher overall happiness ratings. Call me lazy but as long as I'm happy I don't care if I'm considered lazy.
Americans are workaholics. I've only got one life to live and I sure as hell am not going to waste it by working my entire life. I want my vacation time I want to see the world. America thinks that buying sh!t and having a big house completes their life but it only makes it hollow. We're one of the unhappiest countries in the world whereas poorer third world countries often have higher overall happiness ratings. Call me lazy but as long as I'm happy I don't care if I'm considered lazy.
Tell her a little about yourself, but not too much. Maintain some mystery. Give her something to think about and wonder about when she's at home.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
diplomatic_lies
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Messages
- 4,367
- Reaction score
- 8
Maybe we should just draft the unemployed into labour camps or fight in foreign wars...
I understand the need for welfare, but it doesn't make it fair to those who work hard, and have to give up 30% of their income just so some redneck can get $500/week for sitting around watching NASCAR.
I'm sure if the government grows some balls, they can easily 'encourage' welfare bums to get a job.
I understand the need for welfare, but it doesn't make it fair to those who work hard, and have to give up 30% of their income just so some redneck can get $500/week for sitting around watching NASCAR.
I'm sure if the government grows some balls, they can easily 'encourage' welfare bums to get a job.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
You can say the French have a better lifestyle all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that sleeping while at work is a lazy concept. If the French aren't getting enough rest, they need to go to bed earlier or take a nap when they get home. It's not like they don't have the time to do it with a 35 hour work week. If I were a business owner in France, being forced to pay my workers to sleep on the job would be a nightmare - there's no way I'd keep doing business there. At least with a 35 hour work week I'm not paying employees for 40 hours.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
I'm sure there are happier countries in the world, but to insinuate that third world countries are happier because they're poor is a load of crap. How can you be happy when you're starving to death, don't have a home, or half of your babies die from malnutrition? Or when you have to work 80 hours a week picking strawberries? Why do so many Mexicans illegally immigrate to the US? You need to stop believing the fairy tale and learn the reality of our world - being rich does not make you unhappy and being poor does not make you happy.wootapotky said:
mexican_player2
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 2
totally trueShiftkey said:
Money does make you happy
if you like to travel, you need money
if you like going to the gym... you need money
if you like gettin girls...you need money (at least to aford yourself)
etc etc
if you are poor you cant do nothing but work, if you are sick you cant get no a nice hospital , you cant eat good food, etc
wootapotky
Senior Don Juan
I'm not insinuating that third-world countries are happier because they're poor I'm saying that they're happier because they place emphasis on areas that are more worthwhile than money.Shiftkey said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5169448.stm
If you get addicted to money you're always going to want more more more. Personally all I care about is making enough money that can cover my basic essential needs. If I make more I make more. It's not my goal to be poor but I'm not going to be working 80 hours a week just so that I can buy the next in thing. Or that suburban mcmansion. I've lived in areas where the people are dirt poor in countries outside of America and they were some of the happiest people I know.
Men frequently err by talking too much. They often monopolize conversations, droning on and on about topics that bore women to tears. They think they're impressing the women when, in reality, they're depressing the women.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.