In addition to the copy of the article that you have, you can access the article by clicking on the picture or the article title above. Remember, for extra credit, post a thoughtful comment, or reply to another's comment, based upon the reading. Reflect on the features of the socialist system as it exists in France, the good, the bad, or anything else that you found interesting.
Oh yeah, and remember that posts must be made by 11:59 on Tuesday 11/17, and make sure you identify yourself by first name, last initial, and class period!
Just as in every other nation, the government of France has its advantages and drawbacks. Social welfare systems are provided to the French at the expense of higher taxes. I believe that this is a beneficial impact on French society. Thousands of people in nations that do not provide these benefits through their governments are left without health insurance and higher education simply because they can't afford it. By having the government pay for these benefits, more people obtain them and therefore France becomes a stronger nation as a whole. As stated by the article, much of the French population does not mind paying higher taxes, if those taxes are benefiting those in need. Admittedly, 48% taxes are very high, and provide many hardships individually. A nation that dependant on their government is not ideal, as well. But I believe the benefits provided by the French government are beneficial to society as a whole.
I find it interesting that some families become dependent on the subsidies they receive from the French government because without it, people claim they would barely be able to provide for their family. It's fine to have some reliance, but to be totally dependent on that pay, rather than your monthly or yearly incomes can have a negative effect. Luckily, the government pays for child care, health care, retirement, and the elderly with a small tax on workers and employees. However, the tax can become close to fifty percent, and paying fifty percent of your paycheck for taxes seems unreasonable. It does not leave people with much money to spend for family necessities.
This article shows many of the negative aspects of the French economy and society. Although, the article pointed out some of the positive outlooks on society such as the fact that the government pays for child care and education and that there are programs available for poorer neighborhoods. On the contrary,even though health care is out there, it is very expensive for the people who need it most. Some families depend of a "family subsidy" which is a small amount of money given to them by the government. This is a bad part of French society because the working class is getting taxed so others can afford small pleasures. Patrick Jouve, a small business owner, must pay hefty fines for having a painting over 36 feet on his storefront because it is considered advertising. Lastly, the president of France, Francois Hollande, wants to require people to work eighteen months longer before being eligible for retirement benefits. French economy and society has made a turn for the worse in the recent past.
In France, a lot of economic burdens seem to be taken off of common people due to aspects of Socialism. Compared to the United States of America, the French government has more control over work and education. For example, the government pays for child care and a higher education, as well as health benefits. The disadvantage to this is that the average household income is low, although people don't have to spend as much money. The quote by Louis Paris, " 'You cannot take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from French people' "stood out to me. This statement shows how the French depend on the financial aid, so to speak, that they believe they are entitled to. Without pensions and subsidies, families would have more financial instability and less patience for their government. Any conservative president in France will disrupt the lives of people because laws will change and the government will not "give away" money as freely. Therefore, the dependency of France on the government could become a bit of an issue in the future.
“You cannot take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from French people,” I found this comment to be a quite interesting comparison. Take the right to bare arms for example. We are given the right to protect ourselves from harm by supplying ourselves with weapons in times of threat and harm. But what if we abuse those rights? What if we take advantage of it? I thought this concept was very well discussed in the article. The French government was great in the sense that they had family subsides and financial support for those who were less capable of raising their families, which is a good thing, since the government actually cared for and took notice of what serivces they need to provide to their people. But in my opinion, i felt people began to take adavntage of that. Think of it this way: the services were made to help those who really needed it, which is sad, but a positive thing. But what about those others? What could possibly be going through the minds of people who do not qualify for those benefits? Maybe they will start to become lazy, and not want to work anymore, because why not, if you could just live off government support? Why would i have to work if i could get "free money" from the government? The French government is corrupt this way because their service qualifications aren't strict enough that they spend so much money on people who are capable of going out and getting a job. The demand for benefits just keeps growing, and the amount of tax money to fund it just keeps declining.
I found it very interesting and surprising how much people depend on the government to give them money to be able to get by. I find it surprising that they say they can't be able to support their families without. I think that's a negative for their society because even though its easier on them now, the families aren't independent and if the government goes into debt so would they. They should be able to support their family on their own. However, there are some positives, like the government being able to pay for child care, education, health care and also helping with unemployment.
I found it important to note that although the article presented many positives and negatives, it didn't offer a solution to this problem. It's explained how the government takes care of three of the largest financial burdens in Americans, and how the average salary is around 1/2 of that of America. This makes me question how the rest of their savings are divided.
Although it's great that France helps those who need it, at what point does intervention become too much? A steep payroll tax, and now the attempt to impose stricter laws to qualify for benefits, is a bit too much for employers and the unemployed. The people are reliant on the government, and with the implementation of new policies it could really put some people in trouble. Also the selective system likely has loopholes. Maybe somebody who truly can't work gets no compensation, while another perfectly able-bodied person who has access to employment could cheat the system for money. However, I'm interested to see where France's future goes as I expect more controversy and financial issues to arise in the future.
The socialist system in France certainly has its benefits and drawbacks. I believe using the citizens of St. Étienne was smart because of the diversity among the people. To clarify, while Patrick Jouve may suffer from the strict regulations on the size of paintings on storefronts, he also benefits from the government pension he will receive at 62. The advertisement restrictions are a drawback to anyone wishing to paint large murals on their storefronts. However, the fine of $1,350 on murals over 36 feet is arguably reasonable due to excessive government spending. Family subsidies, child care, and higher education are paid for by the government. On the contrary, the cost of health care is included in taxes given to workers and employers. Furthermore, workers contribute 10 percent of their paychecks to cover health insurance, which adds up to 22 percent for all benefits. The socialist policies are held dear to the citizens, and in the words of Louis Paris, "they won't stand for [cuts in social benefits]." This attitude is accountable because of the overwhelmingly positive ways the government helps those who are struggling. With the median household income being $25,000, parents specifically benefit from monthly payments for each child they have after the first. I believe the reason why opposition to cuts in benefits is so prevalent is the number of poor it will affect is too great. Government subsidies help to pay for higher education and health care, promoting the spirit of nationalism. Whether nationalistic ideals reside in the struggling classes is not the case, but the fact that these benefits improve the quality of life for some is. However, employers can suffer greatly from this system, especially with a payroll tax of 48 percent. In the words of Salvatore Garaffa-Botta, "[some] are also slaves to this system." In the end, attitudes towards socialist policies in France are determined by who is getting affected by them. The policies are therefore only inherently good to those who prosper from them. Possibly for the future, alternative policies can be made to keep benefits yet be more generous to employers. Until then, I believe the socialism in France is beneficial because it serves the greater good.
The socialist system in France is two faced, meaning it has positive and negative effects. There is a big controversy from workplace rules as far as health and education benefits. France questions if it can sustain the social democracy since post World War 2. However, I believe the positive far outweigh the negative.One of the positive things is that the government ensures the poor has an ample safety net. Another, is that the middle class is given the minimum amount to live on so they don't become poor. Child care and higher education is provided by the government for a child's future. Even though there are bad alternatives in this Socialist system like raised takes and reduced social security, the overall effect is positive.
I find the different opinions on socialism very interesting. For some, they gain a lot of benefits that really help them out in the long run, such as the family subsidy and the immense amount of benefits provided for the poor. Many families might be able provide basic needs for their families but without the subsidy, they wouldn't be able to afford much more than that. One woman, who works for the nonprofit organization says that she is "glad to pay more in payroll taxes so that there can be would be more for others. However, some people seem to be hesitant on the whole idea of socialism. These people tend to be business owners and or possibly of a higher economic class. The "producer" doesn't seem to be getting much out of Socialism and that is why I believe they are not completely for the idea. One man, who happens to be the deputy secretary of the largest union in St. Etienne, claims that "we are slaves to this system". One of Adams Smith's main concerns was to furthermore benefit the consumer, which socialism definitely does, especially with all the things provided for them. However, Smith believed that when the consumer is doing good, they will be wiling to spend more money and I don't really see, at least in this article, that being fully true.
Many of the citizens mentioned in the article are dependent on the government as they do not have enough money coming into the house to pay for their small luxuries. This shows that they are dependent and makes me question why they aren't being paid enough. "She [Virginia] and her husband work six days a week and bring in about $2,200 a month, but without the subsidy, they would have trouble providing the family with “small pleasures." It's great that families have this option, though. Their government gives back to people and helps them out in their tough times which I thought is wonderful. It benefits both the parties, the family receiving the extra help and the government because if the citizens are well-off, the government is in a better position as well. France has a protective government that looks out for its citizens by paying for child care, unemployment and education. By doing all of this, it promotes nationalism as discussed earlier in class.
The Socialist system of France definitely has some negative aspects in addition to the positives. The importance of the government's financial aid to the population France, shown in the statement, "You cannot take away guns from Americans, in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from the French people," shows to me the reliance of the French people on government aid, alarmingly revealing problems the system brings upon itself. Although, yes, health care and family necessities are being paid for by the government, in order to do this, the government must take a hearty tax percentage out of the entire populations paychecks, automatically forcing them to rely more on any money they can receive from the government, and quite possibly disabling them from paying for more needed goods and services, other than health care. The problems with nation-wide social benefits in France is that they take a great amount of money away from the population as a whole, to pay for necessities that may not be needed by every individual family. So, instead of using the money that is instead taken away by social benefit taxes for more needed or preferred services, the entire population of France is left in varying degrees of need, as some families feel that their money was rightfully being taxed for their fully utilized health care benefits, whereas others were taxed and later found themselves barely using any health care services, yet the money they need to pay for more important services instead, such as urgent home repair, was taxed away for others use and not theirs. The basic, overall, and nationwide policies, thought to benefit the greater good, do not account for each individual's needs, desires, or circumstances.
In this article on French economics and how it affects social aspects I found that there are both positives and negatives. Of course, it is great that a family doesn't have to pay separately for health care as it is included in their mandatory tax. On the other hand, this makes the tax quite high for the average working family. In the article it was included that "10 percent of their paycheck to cover health insurance and a total of about 22 percent to pay for all of their benefits." This, in fact, does add up as payroll tax for those who work could be up to 48 percent. It was also mentioned that a family depends on the "family subsidy" given by the government. This can be seen two ways. One, as the government taxes too much so this is needed. And two, the government is generous enough to supply this to families. In my opinion, the way of the French economic system was stable but could have been better.
I found the content within this article interesting because a few sections of the article showed how the dependents impact the French society. The presence of the dependents in the French society really seems to weigh France and its government down. This is due to the the costs of a variety of social welfare programs. These programs have all but exhausted the government's ability to raise taxes to pay for it all. Thus, many political problems have risen. This trickle down affect was definitely compelling to observe as the article progressed. Although these programs did not impact the government in a positive way, they did happen help the everyday citizens of France live comfortable and happy lives.
In the socialist system in France, the government provides numerous benefits to the people in exchange for a higher raise in taxes. In theory, this arrangement seems logical, and at first glance it appears to operate successfully, but hidden beneath the nationalistic pride and the obvious betterment that is a result of socialism in French government, is a series of faults and poor administrative planning that is ultimately causing damage to French society. While it does provide health care, subsidies to those in need, unemployment insurance, and paid education, the government raises taxes to an incredible amount. For example, business owners' employees must have an additional 50% of their salary taxed to pay for these. This leads to owners not wanting to hire and thus unemployment, which causes the need for government support, and continues in a cycle of debt in which more people are unemployed and investors look to other countries to create jobs. Of course, if it did not benefit people in some way, it would not still be in use, but as said by Salvatore Garaffa-Botta, “The state has put in place a system,... But we are also slaves to this system.” This represents that due to the reliance that many people have on subsidies and insurance from the government, they cannot hope to change this system without severely damaging themselves, which as many others have already commented on, they are completely unwilling to do. Until one party is willing to budge in terms of social reform, no progress will be made and the social structure will continue to deteriorate as unemployment and general dissatisfaction of the people increases.
French society began to take advantage of their government, and honestly many people in other countries would do the same if their governments were practically handing out money. The French government gave out monthly subsidies to families to help raise children. What is surprising about this is that families would heavily rely on these subsidies to support their family, rather then try and earn that money and save it on their own. Child care, education, and in some cases health care, are all other things the French government pays, or helps to pay for. In most cases, the money for health care comes directly from the employees' paychecks. 10% goes towards health care and overall, 22% is taken out to cover all the benefits. In these cases, the workers help to pay for their own benefits, which is a positive. However, the average employee gets two years of government paid unemployment and most salaried workers must take five weeks vacation time, which in turn sets the government back further in terms of money. When government officials attempted to revise these laws and cut back on government spending, the public was not at all supportive. The French working class wanted to keep these subsidies, as they were greatly relied on. The French government is not made of money though, and this large amount of money continuously flowing out is not good for the economy and has a serious negative effect of the country as a whole. Small businesses slowly begin to go out of business as a result of the increased taxes. If the French government goes into debt, so does the entire country and that is not at all a positive.
The article demonstrates many more negative than positive effects concerning modern day French economics, and social life. Although the French government provides people with child care, education, etc, there are many hardships that the French "commoner" has to deal with in everyday life. This includes families relying on "subsidies" which was a small amount of money given to them from the government. This would enable them to enjoy only "small pleasures" and without it, they would have none. I find it concerning that families need to rely on these "subsidies" in order for them to enjoy pleasures. Additionally, the median household income in France is $25,000; which is about half of the national average in the U.S. So if people think living in America is tough, it turns out that there are actually even worse economic conditions in other parts of the world. It surprises me that people think living in America is so bad, but in reality, people wish they could live in America because it has so much more to offer than their home country. Thus, French economy and society could be on the brink of turmoil.
Socialism had a large impact, both positive and negative, within French society. Many of the citizens within the article reflect their views on socialism within France and how it has transformed society post World War II. One aspect of the article I noticed and found interesting was that many people without children were against socialism while on the contrary families with children agreed with socialist policies especially the government support to children. I agree with Krystle in that this is a negative aspect of socialism as many families became too dependent on the subsidies they received from the government and as Krystle said they did not rely on their monthly or yearly incomes claiming they need government support. Even though I feel this is negative as some people were not pushed to work as hard as others, socialism was good in the fact that it attempted to create less disparity between the wealthy and poor along with middle class and working class. It also helped that the government supplied child care to those who really could not provide for their children and whole families not just to those who chose not to work. Overall I believe that socialism according to the article was negatively viewed within French society more then it was a good thing even though their were benefits like child care, it was very easy to cheat the system and receive government care to their undeserving of it.
The article makes it clear that the socialist system as it exists in France creates many advantages, yet also many disadvantages. For example, I found it interesting that while many employees are guaranteed 2 years of unemployment insurance by the government, there are few small businesses that can afford to hire more employees. This is a result of the 48% payroll tax for employers that guarantees those employees unemployment insurance. The socialist system has become so ingrained in French society that it has caused many French citizens to become dependent upon it for daily life. Because of this, it has become extremely difficult to make budget cuts to these government funded programs. The fierce opposition that faces proposals of cuts to these programs has caused for increased tension playing out in individual lives. The costs of a socialist society are catching up with France and the system will fail if France cannot adapt its system over time. This is best summarized in a quote from the article by Salvatore Garaffa-Botta who states “The state has put in place a system… But we are also slaves to this system”
While in theory, socialism is meant to be a positive for the average person by allowing them to have similar prosperity to those above them in society, the term has taken on a negative connotation over time. The article did a good job at presenting both sides of the argument on socialism, and it made me compare the issue to socialism in the US. While it is clear that socialism is not an ideal system for business owners or the wealthy, I think this article proves that when executed correctly, it can benefit the majority of the population. Government regulation usually sounds like a bad thing, but in the case of France, it seems as though the well-being of the people is a genuine concern. Universal healthcare is very important to working families, as is government paid child care because it allows parents to actually work and bring in income. The argument against socialism can also be refuted in this article because it shows how, like in America, most people don't take advantage of welfare programs, and that there is a very small percentage that does - in America it is only 1%. Additionally, it shows how welfare programs are not necessarily for people whom critics call "lazy and unemployed", but also for people who actually have jobs and can't make ends meet with what they earn. Because middle class families are forced to pay a significant amount of taxes in order to receive benefits, I think the French government should take a different approach to the situation, maybe by taxing the wealthy rather than cutting programs. Ultimately, socialism can be hugely beneficial to the average person, but it usually carried out in a way that does the opposite.
As I read this article I became more aware of both the positive as well as the negative aspects of Socialist society in France. The major problem faced by the French government is whether or not it can maintain a post WW2 model of society and continue to give a majority of people health and educational benefits. Since a large portion of France's capital is being invested into these benefit programs it is becoming increasingly difficult to innovate and improve technology. The article compares the French people and health benefits to Americans and their possession of guns. By making this analogy it becomes clear that the people rely heavily on these benefits and governmental systems as a part of their life. However the way the government finances all of these benefits is by taking up to 50% of French citizens paycheck. This is where controversy comes into play because being that the average annual income is already very low it becomes even more of a struggle to maintain other necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing. After reviewing this passage i agree with the concept of the French Socialist system, but it still imposes major flaws.
I found this article very interesting, especially when compared to American society. There seems to be a huge amount of government reliance from the French people and although government support is necessary, especially in regards to the poor classes, I believe that the amount of government subsidies are simply too high. Such a strong reliance on government welfare programs can be bad for the economy and financial aid from the government may lead to a lack of drive for citizens to gain their own living without any help. Also, I found it interesting when Louis Paris side, " You cannot take guns away from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from French people." I feel this is completely off-base considering guns and social benefits are two very different things. Guns can be used as a means of safety and protection; the whole American population does not rely on guns to make a living. However, social benefits in France may be seen as a sort of crutch; maybe they do protect people, but only from a poorer lifestyle and the need to actually work. This quote shows just how reliant people are on government subsidies in France, and clearly this system cannot last forever.
Socialism has a very big impact; both good and bad, on many societies today. I found it very interesting that throughout this whole article, although there were many negatives and many positives, there was no offer for a definite solution. The socialist system in France has its benefits as well as things that aren’t so beneficial. For example every employee was offered a 2 year guarantee of unemployment insurance but not a lot of businesses were able to hire a lot of employee’s because they couldn’t afford it. This shows how socialism wasn't beneficial to the wealthy business owners. When compared to American society the French seemed to rely a lot more on their government. I agree with Tharini, socialism can be good and beneficial to any person but also carries out in a way that does the opposite for many.
In France, the system of socialism has divided the population due to the positive and negative aspects. Throughout the article, I've noticed that socialism is much more favored by the employees and more disfavored by the employers. With the government's offering of numerous subsidies that are viewed to help those not able to provide a secure enough backing, France can be seen as a prime example of how socialism can create an effective society. Additional benefits include guaranteed child care, education and healthcare (as long as you pay your taxes) as well as payroll tax. On the contrary, the payroll tax is one factor that contributes to the employers' detestation towards socialism. In the article, it was mentioned that "small business owners, along with many employers large and small across the country, say they cannot afford to hire more workers because of the mandatory 48 percent in payroll taxes on top of wages." This can automatically cause a disruption in the efficiency of business and production. The government has played a crucial role in the well being of the French citizens, and I agree with my classmates' point that they became too intervened to the point where the entire working class has become reliant on them. Salvatore Garaffa-Botta also agreed with this idea, claiming "The state has put in place a system. But we are also slaves to this system." I hope to see some improvement in France's social and economic system in the future and solve these issues but also allow the people to keep their "safety net".
France's socialist system is shown to have helped many individuals as well as families get by. The French government takes away the burden of having to pay for health care, public school, and even higher education in most cases. The government even provides unemployment insurance and various subsidies for different circumstances. However, are the high taxes on the people maintain these programs. Workers are required to make contributions of about 22 percent in total in order to pay for all of their benefits and employers must pay payroll taxes that can be up to 48 percent of a worker’s salary. Due to this high payroll tax, many small businesses cannot afford to hire more workers which in turn has a negative effect of the economy. Nonetheless, cuts in government spending to social programs have been strongly opposed by the French people such as when President François Hollande proposed a requirement for people to work an additional 18 months in order to receive retirement benefits. Even though some cuts may be necessary to save France’s economy, Louis Paris’s statement “You cannot take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from French people,” is in my opinion very accurate and shows that any change in France would take a large amount of time if it is even possible. In the long run I believe the French economy could suffer from the high spending but the benefits to the people of France may outweigh the consequences.
This article discusses the pros and cons of French socialist ideas and the role these ideas portray on society. During the 19th century, French economics faced many highs and lows. The beginning of the socialist phase consisted of many lows that overrode any positive aspects of socialism, for the most part. For example, as mentioned in the article, social welfare programs dig deep into the pockets of the French economy, which ultimately led to political struggles after the French government could not tax their citizens anymore than they had been. This obviously was a problem for the French nation. In addition, college graduates could not find jobs out of college due to the lack of benefits that full-time jobs offered. However, over time, the French economy began to improve. The government began to pay for child care, higher education, and health care, relieving parents and other citizens of the stress of paying bills, caring for their children, and keeping their homes. In addition, Nicolas Sarkozy made unemployment benefit opportunities much more convenient and it allowed for the economy to grow as more people were able to have some sort of income to live off of. Some families even got paid per child after having two or more children. The parents would be paid a minimum start of $176 to care for that child for the month. While this would not suit the expectations of caring for a child in the 21st century, the extra money each month was definitely a help and allowed families to be a little less worried about paying bills, paying for food, clothes, housing, etc. Although it took some time, French socialist ideas eventually became beneficial towards not only landowners and the middle class, but the unemployed as well.
The French Socialist system has created many benefits for the people of France. However, these citizens might take this for granted. For example, the government gives out family subsidies that many families, like Virginie Chargros', depend on to help raise their families. Citizens also depend on the child care and health care provided by the French Government that is universally available to them. This can be extremely dangerous for the French citizens to do because if the government changes their policies towards subsidies and what they provide for the people, many people may become unable to provide these things for themselves and their families. Lastly, if the government goes into a recession or a depression, then both the government and its subjects can both be in serious trouble. This can be a problem for both because if the government becomes poor, then they can"t provide for the people, which combined with the lack of earnings from their jobs due to the recession/depression, can be extremely detrimental to how they can contribute to society and cause the French economy to crumble.
I was very intrigued by this article because I never knew of the many different aspects of France's socialist system and ways of welfare programs. To much of the French's benefits, families are provided with money to help raise a family, after the first child. Also, there are social service organizations supported by the government that serve in poor ares of France, helping people receive the minimal amount of money needed to survive and raise a family. On the other hand, it must be difficult in France because people have to pay a "payroll tax" as high as 48%. Also, I felt it would be difficult because of the proposal that requires people to work 18 months longer to qualify for retirement benefits. This would be difficult because it may require a 65 year old man to work 18 more months, meanwhile he may not even be physically capable of working those extra months, to receive retirement benefits. Overall, I felt that this article opened my eyes to the many ways France's socialist system can be beneficial and negative for the French people.
Socialism is seen with having positive and negative qualities. This is article shows more of a negative side. It's surprising tm see how much people in France reply on the government. This can be horrible because of anything happens to the government what will happened to the people who depend on it. Without support from government people will not be able to take of themselves or their families.
The French socialist system had many positive effects for the French people. But it also had some faults as well. The socialist system provided families with health care, paid for higher education, and public school. This lifts a large burden from families. The government even provided unemployment for people looking for work. But, the system had some short comings. For example, French people often had to pay a 22% tax on their pay check. Employers of business had to pay a 48% payroll tax on their workers pay check which often meant that smaller business could not afford to hire many workers. Although the French offered unemployment, some people who were layed off from temporary jobs or part time jobs did not qualify for unemployment. These factors cause many mixed feeling about the French socialist system.
France has a socialist system that has many benefits and downsides. Although there were many beneficial effects, the negative effects eclipse the positive ones. One reason for this is that people have become dependent on this socialist system through government aid/welfare. “Down the street, Virginie Chargros, a baker’s wife, depends on the $404 monthly “family subsidy” she gets from the government to help raise the couple’s three children.” I found this interesting because this demonstrates that families are reliant on this socialist system. If the government makes budget cuts in social programs, the people will be greatly affected in that they will lose their financial security. Another example is, “The median household income in the city is $25,000, about half the national figure for the United States and slightly lower than the average for France. But that figure does not capture how many things the government pays for here.” I found this statistic particularly intriguing because it indicates that government social programs and subsidies have an impact on people in that it makes them reliant on government aid, which accounts for their low income. In turn, the French government cannot/should not cut social programs as it may cause severe consequences. Another reason in that the negative effects eclipse the positive ones is that the socialist system results in tensions and opposition over proposals in regards to social programs. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies generated large protests. Another example, is that Mr. Hollande’s proposition that people should work eighteen months longer before qualifying for retirement benefits caused stiff opposition. Clearly, France’s socialist system has many advantages and disadvantages.
The French socialist system provides both generally positive and negative outcomes. An example of this would show how in France, most child care and higher education are paid for by the government, but the cost of the health care is embedded in the taxes that are imposed on the worker. Families rely The French citizens have become so reliant of the socialist system due to the fact that the government provides two years of government-paid insurance. If the government were create budget cuts to the social welfare programs there would be a fierce opposition. It's great the the French government are providing to these in need, however if there is any financial crisis it would gravely damage the French economy as well as the people. As said by Salvatore Garaffa-Botta, "The state has put in a system, but we are also slaves to the system." To summarize this, it means that working class are putting way too much reliance on the socialist system. To conclude, the socialist system is greatly beneficial to the average person, but if depended on too far, it will cause an economic crisis to the French economy.
*Families that can't provide as much solely rely on the subsidies that are provided by the government.
Although the French socialist system has many positive aspects, it also has quite a few negatives. The statement, "You can not take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from French people", as said by Louis Paris, reflects the dependence of French citizens on the implemented socialist system. Workers often rely on family subsidies given to them by the government in order to support their families. If they stopped receiving this income, the families would be constantly struggling for money. And it is because of this, that their is resentment when government officials attempted to modify these laws and lessen government spending. Also, child care and education, as well as heath care are also payed for by government through taxes enforced upon the workers and employers of the French society. Although this is very helpful for those receiving these benefits, it negatively affects the paychecks of the employers. Therefore, they are losing 22% of their income, leaving most of the population of France in this constant struggle for money.
I was very interested by the difference between American life and French life; when I had heard that the average french income is nearly half of the average American income. While it is interesting that the cost of living is so low, it also seems sort of extraneous for the government to give out such large amounts of assistance and subsidies. I find it funny that the American people sometimes believe that America gives out too many handouts, while over the Atlantic, their lives are based on government pensions and help. The government provides child care, education, healthcare, and much more, all of these are crucial to life in society. While these programs are very arguably necessary to the common people, it comes at a cost (literally). This cost is through high tax rates, for example the 48% payroll tax, and was very costly to the government of France. Compared to other countries, France spends the most and imports more than it exports. The problem with this is that France is slowly crippling itself by spending more than it earns, and if they don't innovate their government system, it may be the cause of their downfall. Even though Socialism is a crucial part of the French lifestyle, it may be the cause of France bringing itself into troubles.
The socialist system implemented within in France society has generated some positives for France, but has mainly drained and damaged the economy of France. Even though the socialist programs have provided lower class families with "free" social programs such as health care, child care, and higher education which do, in fact, help these families, these programs severely hurt the economy. The reason for this is because these "free" welfare programs are really not "free". In order to provide these benefits to the people of France, the government pays for it through extremely high taxes. These taxes can be high as 22% of the average paycheck. These high taxes economically limit the people of France. This is evident by the high unemployment and the fact that capitalistic entrepreneurs and investors avoid French businesses. Socialism goes against some of the keys aspects of economy such as the idea of a free market. Socialism, in theory, could work effectively and efficiently, but, in practice, socialism can be seriously abused through some of its key flaws. For example, people could try to 'cheat' the system and acquire some of the benefits they truly don't need or deserve. However, I believe that socialist policies within France are here to stay, due to the fact that the population has already become too dependent on the government. To conclude, socialism does provide some positives such as welfare programs for low-income families, but socialism mainly only damages French society, especially the economy.
The French socialist system have resulted in many positive as well as negative impacts on the French people. According to the article, many financial benefits have been payed for by the French government. Child care, education, and also health care are paid by the government through the collection of taxes emposed on workers. Compared to America, the French enjoy many social benefits that the Americans have to pay for out of pocket. Child care and education are in fact are the most costly items in the budget of American families. Most French people argued social benefits are as important to them as a gun is to an American. This claim was expressed by an unemployed man who depends on social benefits to survive. Once the French people began to rely too much on their social benefits, the more fed up they became when government cut spending. Protests grew throughout France and more and more people felt government needed to be suited around their needs.
The current socialist system that exists in France is very controversial. When you compare it to the systems of other countries or places, like America, there's an obvious difference in the amount of welfare given to the people; the French are given significantly more amounts of money than others. Compared to America, the three most costly elements in a typical family's budget are paid for in full by the French government. However, even though the French are being well taken care of, there are some major negative points to their way of life. Individual income is low and the government is thoroughly involved in society, creating a growing dependence of the people on government funding and care.
I think that their current way of life is unhealthy for France's economy. Not to say that people shouldn't be dependent on their government, but I think families should be independent to an extent. Because their net incomes are so low, it would be difficult for parents and their children to live comfortably if the government hadn't been handing out subsidies. According to the article, "The median household income in [St. Étienne] is $25,000; about half the national figure for the United States and slightly lower than the average for France. But that figure does not capture how many things the government pays for her". The only problem about the government's financial aid, is that the wealth of the nation is slowly decreasing, causing France's economic downturn. "The government is paying for so many things in French society, that Americans and citizens of other countries have to pay for themselves, that they're running out of money and funds to keep paying for the social welfare of the French citizens...". This brings back the fact that, if France suddenly becomes unable to pay for child care, education, and/or health care, normal people won't be able to pay for it themselves because of the low wages that they earn on an everyday basis. I think it's easy to see that too much dependence isn't a good thing. Yes, having these privileges paid for in full is extremely helpful, but families should be able to produce enough income to stand on their own if necessary.
There's still good to be found in France's socialist system; like planned retirement being paid for in full (and the child care, health care, and education costs that were previously mentioned). These are all things that I think American and other foreign governments should strive for. Things like education shouldn't be a privilege, they're rights that everybody should have; the same goes for all of the other positive factors.
Overall, I think this article gives France's take on socialism a negative connotation. But when it comes down to it, not everything is bad; some features of France's socialist system are quite admirable and should maybe even be modeled after when it comes to our own nations.
I think this was a very interesting article because it has the positive and negative aspects of French socialism. Overall I think this was a negative system, for example families that don't receive subsidies from the government are deprived of "small pleasures". Also a 48 percent payroll tax was set on wages..."yet small business owners here, along with many employers large and small across the country, say they cannot afford to hire more workers because of the mandatory 48 percent in payroll taxes on top of wages." Although most child care, higher education and health care are paid by the government and employees get up to two years of government-paid unemployment insurance, and also Parents get a monthly payment for each child after the first...these things are not actually given by the government, but are fueled by a heavy tax on the wages of majority of the French working class.
In my opinion the French people are too dependent on the French government for support. If there is a depression in the economy all the French citizens will suffer.
As an American, I am surprised about how much the government intervenes in the daily life of a French citizen, compared to the U.S. citizen. In France, child care, education, family subsidies, and health care are paid for by the government. This is beneficial but can also affect the people of France negatively. If a person loses their job or goes through a financially rough time, their children, health care, and education will be taken care of. Generous pensions are also given for eligible people. These are all guaranteed no matter what, so people gain trust for their government as a result of this. On the other hand, because of this, people can become dependent on the government for their needs, which can cause a problem if the government ever has a financial problem.
The socialist system in France had a generally positive effect on French society with a couple negative effects that followed. For example, families with more than one child received a monthly payment from the government for each child they had after the first one. Families such as the Chargros had received "family subsides" from the government along with their paychecks to provide for their family. The negative effect of "family subsides" and getting paid for your children is that families will become too dependent on the government to support their family. Another positive effect of the socialist system is that the government pays for child care, higher education, and health care. The downside to that is that the government will usually take 10% of an individual's paycheck to cover the health care and 22% overall to pay for all of the benefits. The socialist system is also beneficial those that are unemployed because it provides the unemployed with up to two years of government-paid unemployment insurance. This is definitely beneficial to the unemployed; however, the unemployed as well as the employed may be too dependent on the insurance. The unemployed may take advantage of this by waiting till the end of two year mark to find a job and the employed may take their job for granted knowing that they can "always" rely on the insurance to help them if they become unemployed. In conclusion, the socialist system in France has an overall positive effect on the French society, but also makes the society dependent on the government.
The French Socialist system provides society with great benefits as well as negative factors that impact society. In the article, the government pays for child care and higher education which is clearly a positive factor. However, these beneficial factors are due to the fact that they are combined with the taxes they must pay. The main downfall of this policy is that through the workers pay checks, 10% is taken to cover this health insurance and only 22% is used to pay for all their benefits. Also, i found that the French people benefit greatly by the subsidy people get from the government. Parents often were able to provide more for their families and provide the "small pleasures" to their children to make their lives easier. On the other hand, with various social programs implemented in society, conservatives tended to feel that even the most minor cuts to society were wrong which stimulated intense political opposition to go against most of the policies that benefit society. For example, "Nicholas Sarkozy, a conservative reduced some social security payments, narrowed the criteria for obtaining unemployment and minimum income benefits." With these policies, the reason why more of these weren't implemented was due to rampant protests that drew hundreds of thousands to rebel.
Compared to American life, French life seems relatively easy. They are so dependent on their government to help them out with their everyday life, like raising a family. They're given generous pensions and family subsidies. In addition to that, education, child care, and health care are paid for by the government. This can be viewed as a positive effect because they are guaranteed these certain privileges and can survive with the help of their government, increasing the citizen's trust in them. American life is the total opposite because here, you have to do everything on your own. Americans are so independent with their life while the French can't live a good life without the help of their government. This is mostly a negative because since they are so dependent, without their government they wouldn't be able to function. If their government shut down or they were left in debt then the people wouldn't have anything.
Socialism in France gives people an advantage but it also puts them
in a bad place when the government can't afford to help them anymore. I think that people who have jobs should make enough money to be able to support themselves and their family. It's alarming that they have to rely on the government to help them get by. Compared to France, other countries don't have as many social benefits and reforms as France does, and while some of those countries may have a higher poverty rate than France, at least they aren't dependent on their government. As mentioned in the article, the government can only do so much for their people before they crash and it becomes too much for them to keep up with the new social reforms they put into place. I think socialism benefits a person in general since it gives them a retirement pension so they know they'll be secure in the future, and also pays for health care, child care, and higher education,and many more. However, citizens are too dependent on the government, which puts France in a tough position because what if France can't afford to pay for social benefits anymore? People would protest and France would fall into poverty.
The socialist economy of France can be described as beneficial but also can be considered to be detrimental. Although Virginie Chargros, a baker’s wife, depends on the $404 monthly “family subsidy” she gets from the government to help raise the couple’s three children, some people take advantage of the French government's substantial aid it offers to the citizens. I realized that many people in the French society were taking advantage of the French government. These people although capable of working often refused to work so that they could live off the subsidies provided by the government. Some of subsidies provided by the government include child care, higher education, unemployment insurance, and health care. Problems with these subsidies include that the cost of health care is embedded on workers and employers. Taxes have increased which has created turmoil between the French people and the government. The working class relies heavily on assistance from the government. Salvatore Garaffa-Botta said that "The state has put in place a system. But we are also slaves to this system." This implies that any change in the governmental system currently in place would severely impact negatively on the citizens that rely on the system for survival. On a side note, one example in our lives today is our Government changing the education system to common core. This change in education is creating a great deal of stress and dissatisfaction among students, teachers, and parents.
The French social system had many positive benefits however with positive benefits come many negetive aspects. For example childcare, higher education and health insurance were all paid for by the government and were used to benefit the society. Although these were great benefits that were present in society, the benefits paid for by the government was really taken out of the employees paycheck. 10% of their paycheck went to health insurance and a total of about 22% was used to pay for all their other benefits. Another positive factor the French social system has was the availability of a $404 monthly family subsidy. Virginie Chargros states that she and her husband work six days a week and only brong home about $2200 a month. She also states that without the $404 family subsidy, she would have trouble providing her family with "small pleasures". Virginie Chargros' point can help define the point Salvatore Garaffa-Botta makes, stating "The state has put in place a system... But we are also slaves to this system". This shows how dependent the working class or the proletariat class was on the French government for providing these benefits to them. These are the positive and negative factors of the French social system
I found this article to be intriguing, for it brought the aspects of the French socialist system upon me. The article examined the positive and negative side of the system. On the negative side there are extremely high taxes, for example an employer may have to pay up to forty-eight percent of a workers salary in tax. This forces many small business to keep small staffs for hiring employees is much to expensive. This high tax also had positive outcomes, it allows the French government to give a subsidy to any family bearing more then one child. According to the article many families rely on this small subsidy, to enjoy the "small pleasures" in life. The government also pays for many aspects of life such as higher education, and health care. This likely accounts for the fact that the Average income in France is much lower then that of other countries such as America. The socialist system also allows poorer people to have a safety net, a feature that is not common in many other societies. There were may interesting aspects of the French socialist system that were brought up throughout this article. This article broadened my horizons on the many negative aspects of socialism as well as the positive.
The French socialist system had positive and negative effects on French society. The French government had paid for financial benefits using the money they have collected for taxes. These benefits included health care, education, and child care. Government also provided pensions and monthly "family subsidy". With the help of this government aid, parents were able to provide their children with other pleasures. This system was also productive because if a parent was to get fired, they would still get these monthly incomes and unemployment wages. Although this system resulted in positive effects, if it was depended on too much, it can have negative effects. For example, if parents were to rely on their monthly "family subsidy" to support their family, which many did, if there was to be an economic downturn, many families would not be able to support themselves. There is too much reliance on this French socialist system because of all the benefits it gave to society.
Overall, I found this article very interesting. The very last paragraph of the article, in which the deputy secretary of the largest union in Saint Étienne says, "The state has put in place a system… But we are also slave to the system," really shocked me due to the severity and seriousness of his choice of words. however, it sums up the article very well. It explains how the state put in the socialist system with free education, retirement subsidies, living subsidies, and much more governmental help. on the other hand, it shows how highly dependent the French are to their social service system, where the society would collapse if government help what vanish.
I believe that the article showed positives and negatives to a socialist economy. To begin, a large benefit for families is the health care given by the government. This saves families a lot of money and without this some families can rapidly lose wealth and end up on the streets. In addition, the government supporting the families in their country with subsidies helps grow a population and allows for the survival of some families who do not happen to have a large amount of wealth. Other benefits include education, after retirement pension, and mandatory vacation weeks for workers. However there are many negative aspects to socialism. The negatives mainly revolve around business owners and "wealthier" employees. Business owners are forced to follow specific government regulations or else they will be fined. I think that this is interesting because it is the owner's business and if they want to invest in a big sign I think that they should be allowed to do so. I believe that the government is handing out so much money to the poorer people, they need some form of revenue from the wealthy. Even if this means through ridiculous fines. I also find the way pension works interesting. Employees spend their entire life working and getting large taxes taken out of their checks evey week, but use the government's money after retirement to survive. If the government did not take as many taxes out of people's paychecks, would their be a need for an after-retirment pension?
Socialism has it's strengths and downfalls, like any economic system, but ultimately it is an economic system designed to address the downfalls of capitalism. Namely, to protect the working class in capitalism. Citizens such as Sarah Revet rely on government programs to maintain a comfortable standard of living. Of course, being reliant on the government has raised some questions with other students; but the chances of the French government suddenly collapsing are so negligible, it is better left unaddressed.
Nonetheless, French citizens do "tailor their education,work habits, and aspirations to benefits they see as intrinsic elements of their lives.", which makes it difficult to make changes to these programs. Beyond making changes to these programs, and particularly childcare, healthcare,and higher education, many programs have the vulnerbility of being ineffective, but some have become so integral to French culture, they cannot be abolished.
Protecting the worker sometimes means stifling the business owner. Inevitably, the capitalism cannot flourish when restrained. High taxes discourage business owners from hiring more employees, which causes the government to hire workers to keep down unemployment, which creates yet again higher taxes to pay those salaries. It becomes a vicious cycle. The French strain of socialism (and unfortunately, most strains) may support under-privileged citizens currently, but struggles to maintain itself.
The article, "Under Strain, France Examines Its Safety Net", truly represents the idea of socialism as a whole. Socialism, as we've discussed in class, is the "anti-thesis" of laissez-faire capitalism, and that is absolutely prevalent in this article. Not only do the citizens of France disregard the ideas of laissez-faire capitalism, but they follow the complete opposite, in that they strongly depend on the government's involvement in the French economy. It's mentioned many times in the article that without the benefits provided by the government, including family subsidies, pension, child care, and education, most French individuals would be left with nothing. Specifically, Virginie Chargros, the wife of a baker who shares her thoughts on France's socialistic tendencies, goes so far as to say that her and her husband "without the subsidy,... would have trouble providing" for the family. She is referencing the family subsidy that she relies on from the French government to help raise her children. Indeed, it is a good thing that the government of France is willing to support their working class and provide them with many ways to make a source of income for themselves when they're not able to, but when does it go too far? When do the eager attempts from the government in order to provide everything for their working class, including a sense of cooperation and togetherness in the workplace, result in trouble, rather than success in the lives of the working middle class? It is when these proletariats become too dependent on the government benefits that they become a bad thing. Like we have seen already with Virgina Chargros, and with many other individuals from the article, families and individuals in France rely too heavily on the subsidies and benefits the government would offer them. This includes Mr. Jouve from the article, who is planning his whole future around the "generous government pension" he will recieve when he's 62 years old. This includes Sarah Revet, a 31 year old
mother who depends on the government-subsidized preschool that is provided for her 3 year old child, and the government family payments she gets to allow her to pay a babysitter to take care of her one year old child. Salvatore Garaffa-Botta, a butcher and a deputy secretary included in the article, summarizes this government-revolving society perfectly in one sentence. Garaffa-Botta says that "the state has put in place a system, but we are also slaves to this system". The working class of the French economy do benefit from the services provided through the state, but they rely too much on them and tend to build their whole lives based on these benefits alone.