Rebuttal: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman exemplifies a self-loathing so great that he chooses to title his column "French Family Values." Those of you who had been holding your laughter can now release it after you read our rebuttal.
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance.
That's a fancy way of arguing, "Oh no, the French like 10%+ unemployment. They think it fits in well with their culture."
If the French find productivity antithetical to their cultural values, then they should be perfectly fine with a per capita GDP less than three-fourths of America's. It is, after all, the natural result of the "social" model that touts leisure over industry.
We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
There is a lot to say for the French choice, and it usually begins with, "The French choice is a bad choice because..."
I think it can be summed up well: a choice of leisure over productivity tends to deliver low employment. I believe the purpose of this article is to prove that lower per capita GDP and higher unemployment is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as people are spending time with their families.
I suppose then that you wouldn't have spent so many columns last year gouging Mr. Bush for overseeing an increase in unemployment in the tenths of one percent had I demonstrated to your satisfaction that those workers were blissfully eating croissants and escargot instead of working.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive."
Yes, we are surprised. But it has nothing to do with the bad-mouthing. It has to do with the fact that France's economy is currently one of the weakest in the G8 - and the fact that they may spend their unemployed hours happily cavorting with their families in the Côte Azur doesn't change that.
Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
That is fortunate for the French. If they didn't pair their legally-mandated (and possibly revoked, as even M. Chirac is beginning to realize that it is a net drag on productivity) 35-hour work week with increased productivity, their current economic doldrums would look like arrant prosperity.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
Or, "It's true that French workers produce less for the economy. But that's because they work less."
Indeed, skipping work to watch a baseball game with your friends is wonderful in a solipsistic vacuum where economic interdependency doesn't exist.
O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem.
The assumption that the desire to work exists in 100% of France's unemployed is to engage in Panglossian postulation that would require at least one citation, my dear Krugman.
Good economists don't assume that there are no free riders in a society.
Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers.
It is the main story, to the extent that you are scratching your head and wondering why the Frogs still produce less per GDP than their Yankee counterparts.
The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart.
A perfunctory reading of French current events would be a lot more instructive than the statistical alchemy passed off in this column. The situation of French society is less than copasetic from an economic perspective, which might be why new Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin unveiled a slew of controversial labor proposals that are enraging unions, such as this one.
Or how about the following quotes, all from the BBC on the French situation:
"French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has set out his plans to revitalise the country's economy and get France working again... in his first policy speech, he said job creation was a priority... the prime minister acknowledged that 10% unemployment and insecurity over jobs were two of the main reasons France voted no to the European Constitution."
Two rhetorical questions: Does one "revitalize" an economy that is productive? And with all of the critcism of Mr. Bush's economic record during the 2004 campaign, was it ever so bad that it necessitated the need to "get America working again?"
The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out.
Is providing for one's family not a family value?
But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district.
Neither would Americans - if rabid socialists weren't glaring their teeth every time we mentioned school vouchers to deliver access to the best schools.
Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.
Right...
Unfortunately, in more pluralistic and Anglo-Saxon societies such as the United States and United Kingdom, such comforting incentives drive up demand for health care and create market shortages. But you knew that.
Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four.
"Compensated for their lower income with much more time together." My, that's one of the cleverest formulations I've ever seen.
Stated simply, it's the principle that when you don't show up for work, you can spend your unpaid hours relaxing with your family instead of actually providing for them.
No sense making it into an economic trompe l'oeil, non?
So which society has made the better choice?
I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans.
I'm surprised you needed a study to tell you that.
But the study also suggests that in this case, government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family - the kind of deal an individual would find hard to negotiate.
Last time I checked, Americans were free to work 35 hours a week and get paid less. I don't see why we need government regulators teaching employees the fine art of absenteeism - although that is apparently a goal of yours.
The authors write: "It is hard to obtain more vacation for yourself from your employer and even harder, if you do, to coordinate with all your friends to get the same deal and go on vacation together."
Yeah, because the United States of America likes its per capita GDP at $40,100 - not in the French range of $28,700.
And they even offer some statistical evidence that working fewer hours makes Europeans happier, despite the loss of potential income.
Well I am also surprised that you find that profound. I have no statistical evidence, but I am completely confident that I could find Americans who find the relative comfort of welfare superior to the exertion of the labor force - despite the loss of potential income.
Your column woefully lacks a point. A society works less - they produce less. France works less than America - France produces less than America.
Why the New York Times pays "economists" to publish these tautologies is beyond me.
It's not a definitive result, and as they note, the whole subject is "politically charged." But let me make an observation: some of that political charge seems to have the wrong sign.
If you're going to make observations, please try to remember that we're speaking of economics, not electrical engineering.
American conservatives despise European welfare states like France. Yet many of them stress the importance of "family values." And whatever else you may say about French economic policies, they seem extremely supportive of the family as an institution. Senator Rick Santorum, are you reading this?
American libertarians despise the way American conservatives and liberals both grovel at the trough of the government for the solution to their social problems. And whatever else you may say about government solutions, they intrinsically disregard the family (or any other private entity) as a problem-solving unit.
The American dream, for what it's worth, is not a higher productivity per hour rating than the French. It is, in varying forms, a desire to produce a good or service that is so desired by society that it thrusts the inventor into a situation of staggering wealth and few obligations. Americans, in general, pursue wealth so that they can be lazy. The French, in general, seem to pursue laziness and expect wealth.
It's no surprise then that Americans, with half the unemployment, are strutting.
Paul Krugman, Rick Santorum and le Republique Française, are you reading this?
