Michael Moore

[Greased_Lightning]

REST OF WORLD BAD! AMERICA GOOD!

 

j/k

 

just out of curiosity (i really dont know), in individual european countries how much cultural diversity is there? when I think of Europe, African Americans dont really come to mind, nor Jews, nor Middle Easterners. Seems that a lot of the dispute in the US comes along cultural lines which is understandable since the US is basicly a mongrel nation (not in a bad way, i just hate the term 'melting pot').

Some of the Europeans (or ppl who have traveled extensively) please comment on this as I am curious what you think.

[MonteZuma]

I've seen a bit of Europe and found that Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK were very diverse, but I didn't see many oriental asians anywhere and I didn't see many southern asians (India) on the continent.

 

There are many "African" Europeans in the UK and France. I think many of these came via central America and the French and English colonies. Lots of Pakistanis and Indians in the UK. There are lots of muslims in most large western cities in western Europe. I guess many of these are Turks, but some are probably otherwise middle eastern. Just about the easiest fast food to buy in industrialised Europe are doner kebabs and felafals. There are a sprinkling of people that I'm not really familiar with. Maybe they are north africans? Not many of those in Australasia atm, but that is changing.

 

Most of Europe isn't as diverse as North America or Australasia, but they are catching up. Except maybe in Scandanavia, but I've never been there.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Not many of those in Australasia atm, but that is changing.

 

I'm going to echo this sentiment, I don't know about the West Island but here in NZ cultural diversity is being sped along a lot through our tertiary education system (roughly 35-40% of our universities are international students, being our third biggest industry)

[Dav]

cant be botherd to read but here is my opinion.

 

I think his heart is in the right place and he is varey good in that his outspoken and brings alot of people into polotics agains bush.

 

As for his writing as opinions.

 

I dont doubt alot of his information (granted SOME may be overhyped) however, the conclutions he draws are somewhat extreeme and over the top. I also think he deleberatly ignores any data that doesnt suit him.

[Aileron]

Well, I didn't really mean to say that Europe's secondary education is lacking as much to say that the US's secondary education is better. Really, those points are minutia and I probably should have picked better ones...its just that there are few solid problems that don't depend on point of view.

 

Cultural bias was the exact reason for the long post instead of simply stating the conclusion. Europe says the US is too far right and the US says Europe is too far left. However, somewhere on the political spectrum there must exist a center, to state that its all purely relative produces tons of logical flaws which I'd prefer not to mention here.

 

Since it is a function of government to in general solve problems and create opportunities, the point "center" is the political climate that solves the most problems and creates the most opportunities. To eliminate bias, I am only considering problems and opportunities that everyone would agree on, technically impossible, but there are a few issues that have overwhelming 99%+ majorities. (Example: Health Care...there's a few sadists in the world that would prefer to see patients die of disease than be healed. Nevertheless I'd consider "sick people should be healed" a universal opinion.)

 

The tricky part is summing up all the issues. I didn't mention economic problems because both the US and Europe seems to be facing the same ones, (namely outsourcing of labor to 3rd world countries.) Crime rates seem to be higher in Europe. (Though crime rates involving firearms are higher in the US.) Rioting isn't exclusive to France, but in general I was compairing a nation vs. a continent, because in many ways the culture of Europe is coming to resemble that of a single country.

 

I mean, there really isn't much to go on here, because both the US and Europe are both really close to center, and our differences aren't as great as one would think. Its just that France for one European nation does seem to have a current streak of lawlessness, most likely from being left of center.

[SeVeR]

I don't know if anyones mentioned what they're rioting about. The government has made a law to allow employers to fire anyone under the age of 26 for no reason at anytime during a "2 year trial period". Now the purpose of doing this is to encourage employers to employ young people because they would now have fewer rights than other workers and are a more attractive prospect for them. What its really going to do is remove the rights of those people who actually want to get jobs and work hard. The problem isn't the employers, its the people who don't want to work and would rather sit at home living of their parents. To some extent now the employers may favour employing young people but they actually have to want to work first.

 

Fundamentally though its wrong because it removes the rights of workers to have notice of being made redundant and it removes their rights to a fair dismissal. I don't think there is a leftist attachment to these protests, it is something that people from all over the political range would be against. If workers/students = left in your book then what is the right?

[MonteZuma]

France is not lawless. There is obviously some social upheaval in France at the moment, but this kind of upheaval happens in almost all democratic nations from time to time.

[Aileron]

Students do have a tendancy to be left winged. That law is a mistake, but there are appropriate channels to challenge the bill and one does not need to resort to violence in this case.

 

Low voter turnout in youth is indeed a severe problem in democracies, because it leads to the rights of youth being ignored as in this case.

 

Just because the bill is clearly and severly wrong doesn't make the rioting right.

 

 

And, social upheaval is not necessary in democracies, such as in England, which managed to make political progress on its own peacefully for centuries with only one civil war.

[MonteZuma]

Low voter turnout in youth is indeed a severe problem in democracies, because it leads to the rights of youth being ignored as in this case.

I don't think that is the problem in this case. Eligible voters under 26 are probably a small proportion of the total eligible voter population. The problem in France is high unemployment. Especially high youth unemployment.

 

Just because the bill is clearly and severly wrong doesn't make the rioting right.

Of course not. But there is nothing wrong with protesting. Often I think people unfairly lump protestors and rioters in the same boat.

 

And, social upheaval is not necessary in democracies, such as in England, which managed to make political progress on its own peacefully for centuries with only one civil war.

France is hardly involved in a civil war. Social upheaval will ALWAYS happen. It happens in the US. It happens in the UK. It happens in Australia. It happens virtually everywhere.

[SeVeR]

Without upheaval the bill would just get passed in the background. The protests served a purpose.

[Aileron]

I didn't call it a civil war, I just pointed out that some democracies seem to get by without ever needing violence.

 

And I didn't claim protesting was wrong or that there isn't a difference between rioting and protesting...all I said was that rioting was wrong. This bill was definitely worth a protest.

 

 

The true problem though is literally right in front of me. I'm cheap, so I buy those generic BIC brand mechanical pencils that cost about a dollar for 15. I've been using them for years, so I remember that there's always used to be the "FRANCE" inscribed on the colored clip thing that always falls off. I look at the pack that I just bought, and it says "MEXICO" on the side.

 

Globalization is causing the outsourcing of unskilled labor. Skilled labor stays in developed countries, and its the unskilled labor that gets outsourced. France has as much of the same problem with outsourcing as anyone. This is affecting youths more because youths are unskilled labor.

 

The first solution to this problem is to get old people out of the workplace. In particular, those people who have skills, but retired and now work at the supermarket. Young people simply cannot compete on paper with someone who has 40 years of working experience. Retired people should be retired. When I'm old and grey, I sure as !@#$%^&* won't work at a supermarket just out of boredom. I will go fishing every day, and if my joints get out of whack I'll play shuffleboard or chess or something. Governments should make steps to make sure that retired persons stay retired and don't take the jobs of young persons.

 

The long term solution involves college tuition though. While developed countries cannot compete with undeveloped countries in unskilled labor, they dominate in skilled labor. Generally, if you live in a first world country and don't want your job outsourced or replaced by a robot, you need a college degree. The problem is that college is so !@#$%^&* expensive now that its difficult to pay for. Another problem is colleges are convinced they need to eliminate certain percentages of students in order to !@#$%^&*ure that the remainder are intelligent. College Degrees don't indicate intelligence, they indicate knowledge. If the student knows the relevent information, he should get the degree. Let employers worry about having the absolute brightest bulb in the bunch if they want that.

[MonteZuma]

This is affecting youths more because youths are unskilled labor.

Not really. There are more people going to college now than there were 25 years ago, so today's youth are probably more skilled, but less experienced. For unskilled labour, experience is not very important, so I don't think your logic works.

 

The first solution to this problem is to get old people out of the workplace.

No. Because there is an aging population, putting more older people on welfare increases the burden on the welfare system, which is already over-burdened in France.

 

In particular, those people who have skills, but retired and now work at the supermarket. Young people simply cannot compete on paper with someone who has 40 years of working experience.

Young people out-compete older people in the supermarket because they work faster and are paid lower. I don't think skilled people working in supermarkets are the problem.

 

Retired people should be retired. When I'm old and grey, I sure as !@#$%^&* won't work at a supermarket just out of boredom. I will go fishing every day, and if my joints get out of whack I'll play shuffleboard or chess or something.

Skilled people that work in unrewarding low-paid jobs don't do so out of boredom. They do it out of necessity.

 

Governments should make steps to make sure that retired persons stay retired and don't take the jobs of young persons.

No. old people should be able to work if they choose to. But they should compete in the labour market on the same terms as everyone else.

 

The long term solution involves college tuition though. While developed countries cannot compete with undeveloped countries in unskilled labor, they dominate in skilled labor. Generally, if you live in a first world country and don't want your job outsourced or replaced by a robot, you need a college degree. The problem is that college is so !@#$%^&* expensive now that its difficult to pay for.

I'm not sure about France, but in most of Europe, college education is free or very cheap.

[LearJett+]

You guys have the wrong idea about the bill. Before the bill, people in France had a 'right' to a job -- aka not getting fired. It is ridiculous to think you have a right to a job in the first place. Anyways... employers would not hire people under the age of 26 because they didn't want to hire some irresponsible kid that they couldn't fire -- thus creating a non-existent job market for young people. Now that employers aren't afraid to hire young people, this bill will actually increase the dismal employment rate of young people in France, which is the whole idea of the bill in the first place.

 

People see that it gives employers the right to fire people and automatically think that it's something bad and something to riot about. I'm surprised none of you brought this point up...

[MonteZuma]

You guys have the wrong idea about the bill. Before the bill, people in France had a 'right' to a job -- aka not getting fired. It is ridiculous to think you have a right to a job in the first place.

Maybe. But one of the saddest parts of modern life is the move towards contract work and out-sourcing. Without stable employment it is difficult to plan for the future (eg basic stuff like getting a mortgage and settling down in a given suburb or city). What is wrong with a standard 3, 6, or even 12 month probation period?

 

Anyways... employers would not hire people under the age of 26 because they didn't want to hire some irresponsible kid that they couldn't fire -- thus creating a non-existent job market for young people. Now that employers aren't afraid to hire young people, this bill will actually increase the dismal employment rate of young people in France, which is the whole idea of the bill in the first place.

!@#$%^&*uming that people under 26 make worse workers than people over 26 is a mistake. I assume that even in France, irresponsible people can be fired - if the irresponsibility can be proved.

[Aileron]

Well, you usually need a job before you can go to college, so most of those who are under 25 don't have a college degreee ~yet~. Besides, the !@#$%^&*umption is that they are already working...students don't count towards the statistic.

 

As for older people retiring, I'm not saying its that easy. All I'm saying is that if there is one job and two applicants, one old, one young, the job should go to the young person. Forgive my harshness here, but the destiny of the old is to only grow older and die. The young however need jobs to gain experience so that they can develop into better workers.

 

And I know quite a few retired persons who only work out of boredom.

 

 

Well, France is a socialist country. While I don't agree with socialism, I will say that as long as socialism is the economic system, they should make having a job a right, because that is a facet of socialism. I think employers should always have a right to fire employees who are not doing their job, but if the economic system is socialism, then the employers are gaining certain benefits, and the caveat of those benefits is that they have limitations in what they are allowed to do.

[LearJett+]

Montezuma - Whether it be true or merely a social stereotype, people under 26 are looked at as much less responsible as those over the age of 26. As the law is currently there, it is less trouble to just not hire a young person than hire them and later fire them. Why go through this trouble as a business owner if there is an older pool of applicants, anyway?

 

 

 

Aileron - college is free in France. There is a major difference between someone who is going to die soon and a 30 year old...

[MonteZuma]

France is not a socialist country.

 

Fast food joints, supermarkets, offices, call centres, etc, etc, etc prefer to hire young people for many positions because they are cheaper. They do this even in countries where young workers are protected. Some industries also have graduate traineeships that target <26yos. Other jobs prefer young people because of their fitness and lack of family ties. Young people have !@#$%^&*ets that some industries want. There are ways to make industry and youth and unions happy without taking away young people's right to job security (yes I think job security is a right).

 

Job security doesn't mean a job for life...but it does mean that the welfare of the employee is at least partly the responsibility of the employer. If you hire and then fire somebody there should be a good reason, or the employee should be compensated through redundancy payments or whatnot.

 

People shouldn't be treated as consumables.

[LearJett+]

They have oodles of socialist programs, same thing.

 

 

Businesses don't like hiring young people because we're seen as irresponsible. Same principle as to why car insurance is cut in half when you turn 25.

 

 

Just because it's not right doesn't mean it's not true.

[AstroProdigy]

Yet plenty of young people are employed in the United States aren't they Lear? Just because young people have their own disadvantages doesn't mean they're useless. Each age group has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Besides you exaggerate how irresponsible young people are. If they can go to college and be responsible for themselves there, then they can hold down a job. Car insurance companies operate under different principles than employers.

[MonteZuma]

A generous welfare system is not the same as socialism.

 

What Astro said. In my first job (an office job), most young people behaved more responsibly than most older people. Most young people still had ambition and drive. The older people doing the same work were stale and often lazy. It isn't true that young people are generally less 'responsible' than older people at work.

 

Car insurance is more exxie for <30yos because young people are often less responsible behind the wheel of a car. But when it comes to doing office work or flipping burgers or operating a cash register, I doubt there is much difference between age groups. Any difference is more than made up for by the lower pay rates for young people anyway.

[LearJett+]

Yet plenty of young people are employed in the United States aren't they Lear? Just because young people have their own disadvantages doesn't mean they're useless. Each age group has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Besides you exaggerate how irresponsible young people are. If they can go to college and be responsible for themselves there, then they can hold down a job. Car insurance companies operate under different principles than employers.

 

You only make my point stronger. They are employed here because it's easy to fire them here. I don't exaggerate how irresponsible young people are -- I'm one myself. You have to look at it from the viewpoint of a business owner... young people are stereotypically irresponsible wheres older people are not. Why hire a young person over an older person when it's so much trouble to fire them?

 

Monte -- you're missing the point as well. I know that young people can be responsible, business owners do not.

[AstroProdigy]

Business owners aren't all a bunch of ignorants who know nothing about business. Successful business owners know that young people aren't just a bunch of irresponsible children and can use young people for their work and cost efficiency. You're supposed stereotypes are about as effective as racial stereotypes. They work for higher positions, but for lower positions they have no meaning. Business owners know young people have less opportunities because they are young and are less likely to be able to find a better job. Therefore, they are more reliable than older people with more experience who can go find a job elsewhere with all of their experience or simply retire.

[LearJett+]

I KNOW THAT YOUNG PEOPLE CAN BE RESPONSIBLE. !@#$%^&*ING A. I WAS JUST GIVING YOU THE REASONING BEHIND THE LEGISLATION.

 

 

[MonteZuma]

I gave you reasoning why I thought your reasoning (or the French reasoning) was unreasonable. Young people are an important part of the workforce. They shouldn't be treated as 2nd class citizens.

 

 

[LearJett+]

Yes, and I agree with your reasoning. That doesn't change the fact that French businesses aren't hiring young people simply because they're young.

 

 

It only means that the French suck.