I want readers to file-away this report/prediction, because my experience is that when the Oligarchs' candidate is TRAILING in any election (with just days to go) "things happen" which tend to snatch victory from the jaws of the defeat for the Fascist candidate.

And there is NO ONE more Fascist than Sarkozy. It was Sarkozy who INCREASED the length of the work week in France, INCREASING unemployment during the worst structural unemployment in history. As I regularly remind readers, REDUCING the work week is the ONLY solution we have EVER had for structural unemployment (throughout the 300 years since the Industrial Revolution).

Then to make a bad situation WORSE, it is Sarkozy who came up with the blatantly Fascist plan for "mandatory job training". Thus instead of only TEN qualified candidates for every job opening, Sarkozy wants to see 20 (or 50) people lining up - since that will drive WAGES even LOWER (as these unemployed workers "compete" for limited openings).

As of TODAY, Bloomberg says Sarkozy is headed toward an obvious defeat in the polls. We'll see what happens between NOW and election day...




Note that even staging a "terrorist incident" in France couldn't rescue this Fascist in the polls...

P.S. Note also the STANDARD line from all of these RIGHT-WING politicians as they pursue the WORST economic policies in the HISTORY of Western democracy:

"...Sarkozy said electing a Socialist government risked economic catastrophe."




"Sarkozy Poll Deficit Deepens as Candidates Hold Biggest Rallies"

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-15/sarkoz...biggest-rallies.html

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Francois Hollande held their biggest campaign rallies a week before the first round of voting as polls showed the challenger widening his lead.

They addressed supporters in Paris today with Hollande extending his advantage in a head-to-head race by two points to 56 percent against 44 percent, according to a TNS Sofres survey published April 13. He took the lead in the 10-person first round set for April 22. A CSA poll on April 12 put the gap at 57 percent to 43 percent, up from eight points two weeks ago.

A bounce for Sarkozy after police killed a self-declared jihadist who murdered seven people last month has ebbed. The campaign focus has returned to the sputtering economy and rising unemployment. Sarkozy and Hollande traded charges last week over who could best steer the economy.

Hollande’s message today was for voters to turn out, as he sought to avoid complacency. “You must vote for France, for the republic,” he said, blaming Sarkozy for mounting debt and slowing growth. Sarkozy said electing a Socialist government risked economic catastrophe.

Both campaigns claimed that more than 100,000 attended their rallies -- Sarkozy’s at place de la Concorde in central Paris and Hollande’s at Vincennes park at the city’s eastern edge.

The TNS Sofres poll questioned 1000 people on April 11-12, while CSA questioned 1,123 on April 10-11. Neither published a margin of error.

Jeff

Am I missing the [sarc] tag?

So reducing the work-week - at the same pay? - is a good thing.??

So if say, state-owned Renfault, cut their already short work-week in half and employed double the workforce, at double the cost and double the pension liability - this would help?

They'd have to double the cost of their cars too - in a fiercely competitive market. With no sales, they'd be out of business in a few months - thereby reducing employment to zero.

'Full employment' through ridiculous levels of over-manning, worked so well in the Soviet Union, didn't it..?

You'll also have heard of British Steel and British Leyland who tried the same daft notion... Oh; no you wouldn't - they went bust, but only after draining billions of taxpayers' money.

Screwloose wrote:
Jeff

Am I missing the [sarc] tag?

So reducing the work-week - at the same pay? - is a good thing.??

So if say, state-owned Renfault, cut their already short work-week in half and employed double the workforce, at double the cost and double the pension liability - this would help?

They'd have to double the cost of their cars too - in a fiercely competitive market. With no sales, they'd be out of business in a few months - thereby reducing employment to zero.

'Full employment' through ridiculous levels of over-manning, worked so well in the Soviet Union, didn't it..?

You'll also have heard of British Steel and British Leyland who tried the same daft notion... Oh; no you wouldn't - they went bust, but only after draining billions of taxpayers' money.

Screwloose, NO ONE ever said anything about "reducing the work week at the SAME pay". You work less, you MAKE LESS...on a gross basis.

BUT, if (in theory) you decrease wages by 20% (the total decrease in hours worked by existing workers) you INCREASE the total number of jobs by 20%.

1) This creates UPWARD pressure on WAGES (for the first time in 40 years).
2) This means 20% more TAXPAYERS and millions of people taken OFF OF various forms of social assistance.
3) This SIMULTANEOUS surge in revenues and plunge in social assistance means that ordinary workers can get a HUGE tax-cut (and ONLY for ordinary workers - since they are making the sacrifice.

So you START with a (temporary) wage-cut, and then you create PERMANENT upward pressure on wages and a PERMANENT tax-cut. In other words, instead of our traitor-governments inflicting "sacrifice" after "sacrifice" on ordinary workers - with things NEVER GETTING ANY BETTER - we would have some one-time PAIN in return for PEREMANENT GAIN.

Over the short-term, if our governments can find $TRILLIONS to hand-out to deadbeat bankers, then obviously they could find some "emergency funding" to LOAN to people who struggle to cope with their (temporary) wage cut.

Note that unlike the PRESENT corporate welfare with "loans" being handed out to deadbeat corporations; with economies which (suddenly) have LOTS of jobs, RISING wages, and FALLING taxes people would actually be able to pay back those loans.

P.S. Screwloose I'm barely old enough to remember a time when if you thought that your employer wasn't paying you a good enough wage you QUIT YOUR JOB, and went to look for another one.

So let me add an EXTRA benefit of the four-day work week: LABOUR MOBILITY for the first time in 40 years. Why is that so important? Because it means that workers will tend to end up performing the jobs which they are BEST AT - rather than people being permanently trapped in the first job they manage to find (forever, or until they LOSE that job...).

There are INFINITE benefits with restructuring the labour market to (once again) have full employment, and no down-side (and no COST).

Nice theory; but try it in practice. Have you ever been an employer, Jeff?

Cutting the nominal take-home pay of workers is dynamite - you just don't go there. They have things called wives - who constantly compare their husband's income with other wives.... and moan incessantly if they're losing status. They also have mortgages to pay - often based on their expected future earnings. The foreclosed and homeless aren't always the best at timekeeping.

The workers who are put on an enforced 4-day week - they aren't going to resent the newbies that 'took their money' then? No chance of some little 'personnel difficulties' affecting production?

Twenty-percent more workers means 20% more dead money to pay out on public holidays, all over X-mess and at Easter. 20% more in holiday pay. 20% more employers' contributions to Social Insurance funds and for healthcare where appropriate. There are many other negative aspects, but you get the idea.

Splitting a fixed number of work hours between more staff actually reduces the net tax-take for the government. Their ideal is that all the hours available are worked by one person - only one tax-free allowance/set of deductions and gross pay reaching up into the higher bands of tax.

There may be many benefits of restructuring the labour markets - but 90% of business start-ups fail in their first five years when liquidity is often knife-edge. Doing anything that would increase that figure is perhaps unwise.