The success of liberal social welfare programs

[achilleus]

By some reports the rioting is being coordinated via cellphones and the internet.

My question: how are chronically unemployed and destitute young men getting cellphones and computers?

France sounds like a pretty nice place to be chronically unemployed and destitute to me.

I am feeling a little bit of schadenfreude. Perhaps the next time some French governmental official or journalist is tempted to lecture the US about its immigration policy, its treatment of minorities, its crude social programs, its violence, etc. they will think twice.

But I doubt it.

Um, France is different than the US. I don't know if you've been there, but cellphones are more cheaper and better than here in the US. Due to the landline's costing more, many of the poor merely carry cellphones. In this area, the US is behind the rest of the world.

In addition, since most telecom companies charge by the minute, and broadband isn't as widespread as in the US, there are thriving internet cafes. In some areas, more than one per block. There cheap, and provide a fast broadband connection. I've never seen a cafe more crowded than when school let's out, and the kids get online to play games...

In other words, these items which can be difficult to get access to in the US, are widely available for cheap in France. It's not due to a welfare...

[Tomas N]

It's not due to a welfare...

Corporate welfare?

[Inquartata]

Um, France is different than the US. I don't know if you've been there, but cellphones are more cheaper and better than here in the US. Due to the landline's costing more, many of the poor merely carry cellphones.

To me, "poor"="has no/very little money". "Unemployed"="earning no money". Whether the things cost $20 a month or $5, it still ought to be money that the poor and unemployed can't afford to spend on luxuries like phones...

[achilleus]

To me, "poor"="has no/very little money". "Unemployed"="earning no money". Whether the things cost $20 a month or $5, it still ought to be money that the poor and unemployed can't afford to spend on luxuries like phones...

Poor people, even the US, have phones. In the US, the poverty line is around $12,000 if I remember. That's enough to afford a cellphone.

In France, as I mentioned, cellphones are cheaper and more cost effective than landlines. And if you're looking for work, a phone is more than a luxury, it's essential.

[Inquartata]

What!? The poor can afford nonessentials like cellphones ( and the ongoing costs for the service thereunto )?

And yet, they "have to choose between rent and health care". La. What a nice tightrope they walk when it comes to spending choices.

[achilleus]

What!? The poor can afford nonessentials like cellphones ( and the ongoing costs for the service thereunto )?

And yet, they "have to choose between rent and health care". La. What a nice tightrope they walk when it comes to spending choices.

Hmm...

Maybe you're missing the point...

A cellphone is cheap, especially in France. Cheap. I have a friend who is below the poverty line in the US. He pays rent, works, has health insurance, and has a cellphone. He bikes, doesn't spend much, and shares a room all for that internship to make the big bucks down the road. Right now, however, he's poor.

It's possible to afford these 'luxury' items and still be poor. Being poor does not neccessarily mean you have no food or shelter. Now, if you want to argue that your definition of poor is well below what is currently considered the poverty line, then that's your choice. However, when newspapers, govt. etc., refer to the poor, they are referring to people at or below the poverty line, which IIRC is $12,000/year in the US. I might be off, and the number might be higher...

In fact, in a recent article on housing prices, I was reading that families in LA can barely make it on $70,000/year. They are moving out it seems since they can't make it...

So, poor has different meanings than the image it seems to conjure in your head...

[Bayou Bum]

Poor people, even the US, have phones. In the US, the poverty line is around $12,000 if I remember. That's enough to afford a cellphone.

In France, as I mentioned, cellphones are cheaper and more cost effective than landlines. And if you're looking for work, a phone is more than a luxury, it's essential.

Since a cellphone is essential, it must be one of those items that should be provided free of charge by the government. Of course, that means the evil rich will have to pay more in taxes, but who cares. We can't deprive the poor from the essentials.

[keith]

Since a cellphone is essential, it must be one of those items that should be provided free of charge by the government. Of course, that means the evil rich will have to pay more in taxes, but who cares. We can't deprive the poor from the essentials.

sorry but here is one area, cell phones, were america is a joke compared to just about anywhere else in the world - way to expensive and crap service.

that'll do for the morning

[jeff]

The issue never was that the rioters were subject to the kind of crushing poverty that kept them from being able to buy a low-cost cellphone, but that they are poorer than and alienated from the rest of French society, so this business about their phones misses the point.

If you have a chance, pick up today's Wall Street Journal, which has a front-page article on it, plus an Op-Ed by Theodore Dalrymple (Inq - I've read this guy frequently elsewhere - now he's a real curmudgeon - makes you look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm! ) Two important points come out: the rioters are 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants from France's former possessions, who came to France in the 1950s to fill low-paying jobs during economic expansion. Jobs that native French didn't want to do at those wages. Now you have their grandchildren, who have never been assimilated into French society and have >30% unemployment. Dalrymple blames the left for policies that help them keep jobs (it's hard to fire people in France) and perks, while keeping unemployment high and tossing the unemployed enough money to feed and house them in ghettos.

I'll add that the absence of US-style liberal policies like affirmative action (and as Tomas pointed out, refusal to even take census on ethnicity) make it easier to keep Muslims and African-descent French citizens out of jobs. The classic test of submitting identical resumes, one with a Muslim or North African name and one with a traditional French name shows that the Muslim/African one frequently gets tossed in the bin.

[Slim]

The issue never was that the rioters were subject to the kind of crushing poverty that kept them from being able to buy a low-cost cellphone, but that they are poorer than and alienated from the rest of French society, so this business about their phones misses the point.

If you have a chance, pick up today's Wall Street Journal, which has a front-page article on it, plus an Op-Ed by Theodore Dalrymple (Inq - I've read this guy frequently elsewhere - now he's a real curmudgeon - makes you look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm! ) Two important points come out: the rioters are 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants from France's former possessions, who came to France in the 1950s to fill low-paying jobs during economic expansion. Jobs that native French didn't want to do at those wages. Now you have their grandchildren, who have never been assimilated into French society and have >30% unemployment. Dalrymple blames the left for policies that help them keep jobs (it's hard to fire people in France) and perks, while keeping unemployment high and tossing the unemployed enough money to feed and house them in ghettos.

I'll add that the absence of US-style liberal policies like affirmative action (and as Tomas pointed out, refusal to even take census on ethnicity) make it easier to keep Muslims and African-descent French citizens out of jobs. The classic test of submitting identical resumes, one with a Muslim or North African name and one with a traditional French name shows that the Muslim/African one frequently gets tossed in the bin.

This is another example of someone pointing out how an elitist, liberal society has basically created a monster by trying to help the unfortunates with lax immigration and welfare policies, while shunning them as "real french".

I dont think France is alone with these attitudes, but they are certainly the most extreme. It's probably just a matter of time before this type of organized rioting start breaking out all over Europe. Especially if the current riots expand and are put down with extreme force.

[Bayou Bum]

I'll add that the absence of US-style liberal policies like affirmative action (and as Tomas pointed out, refusal to even take census on ethnicity) make it easier to keep Muslims and African-descent French citizens out of jobs. The classic test of submitting identical resumes, one with a Muslim or North African name and one with a traditional French name shows that the Muslim/African one frequently gets tossed in the bin.

You may make me change my stance on affirmative action in the US. I have always believed that the US would be better off, and have less racism, if the government stopped counting people as either black or white and just counted and treated people the same. I have always thought that if the government and news would stop classifying people by race, it would go a long way toward stereotypes and help end racism. I am always angered when I hear news stories like "a black man murdered a white man" or a "white man murdered a black man", when it doesn't matter what race the men are, just that one killed the other. Unless, of course they are still looking for the killer, then his description would be helpful.

Maybe I am just naive, thinking that if the government stopped using race as an issue, people would also. When filling out government forms, I think I have been just about every race imaginable. I love to "check" a different box everytime. Don't I have the right to belong to whatever race I choose?

But as evidenced in France, maybe I'm wrong, maybe racism would be worse if the government didn't categorize us. It just seems wrong to me.

[esskreemr]

The issue never was that the rioters were subject to the kind of crushing poverty that kept them from being able to buy a low-cost cellphone, but that they are poorer than and alienated from the rest of French society, so this business about their phones misses the point.

No. I, as one of the lone conservative voices on this board, think you are wrong. It is the heart of the matter. The liberal society provides these economic throwbacks with 'necessities' of life at a great expense to the job-holding French worker. This merely creates a lower class that is unwilling to work for the 'peanuts' offered by a regular paying job. Why would they want to regulary punch a clock when they can collect their unemployment check, cash it and enjoy a mocah-latte while bluetoothing their similiarly bored buddies about what honest, hard-working Frenchman's car they want to torch next.

If you have a chance, pick up today's Wall Street Journal, which has a front-page article on it, plus an Op-Ed by Theodore Dalrymple (Inq - I've read this guy frequently elsewhere - now he's a real curmudgeon - makes you look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm! ) Two important points come out: the rioters are 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants from France's former possessions, who came to France in the 1950s to fill low-paying jobs during economic expansion. Jobs that native French didn't want to do at those wages. Now you have their grandchildren, who have never been assimilated into French society and have >30% unemployment. Dalrymple blames the left for policies that help them keep jobs (it's hard to fire people in France) and perks, while keeping unemployment high and tossing the unemployed enough money to feed and house them in ghettos.

If they don't like it, they can go back to herding camels and walking 5 miles a day for potable water. So what if their frommage is second grade? It's not the French's responsibility to hire all the poor, cell-phone carring, down-trodden youth

I'll add that the absence of US-style liberal policies like affirmative action (and as Tomas pointed out, refusal to even take census on ethnicity) make it easier to keep Muslims and African-descent French citizens out of jobs. The classic test of submitting identical resumes, one with a Muslim or North African name and one with a traditional French name shows that the Muslim/African one frequently gets tossed in the bin.

Do you have proof of this? Are you a personnel director in a French firm? Isn't everyone equal in the eyes of the law? Why should minorities recieve special favors. I like to work with people with whom I share interests and life experiences. I don't want to work next to one of these violent, no respect for society youths. Don't I have the right to choose who my cohorts are?

[esskreemr]

Maybe I am just naive, thinking that if the government stopped using race as an issue, people would also. When filling out government forms, I think I have been just about every race imaginable. I love to "check" a different box everytime. Don't I have the right to belong to whatever race I choose?

Affirmative action is just another term for discrimination. In lieu of a proper education, job experience or other expected attributes, affirmative action assures that the best person will NOT be hired. It amounts to 'bonus points' for the often underqualified minority applicant. The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies. Otherwise, it just becomes another way to differentiate 'us' from 'them'. Besides, affirmative action may have been necessary decades ago, but society has progressed to the point where Affirmative Action is not longer needed. You can't cure discrimination with more discrimination. Jews and Asians don't seem to have a problem getting jobs, why 'African-Americans'?

[jeff]

You may make me change my stance on affirmative action in the US.
(snip!)

Bayou Bum, my kudos, and a rep point, for expressing the willingness to reconsider a position.

It's a complex shades-of-gray kind of subject, where you could validly argue on both sides of the debate, and plenty of examples where it's unjust. Should, for example, children of a black investment banker at Goldman Sachs get preferential entry to Yale? (For that matter, should alumni's children get preferential entry - there's been plenty of that without people demanding such programs be ended). Since we understand that there are issues of race in our country (but pretend there's no such thing as "class") we can have some unplanned resuls.

Is affirmative action something that has outlived its usefulness in the US? I don't know, but I suspect not. I am certain that affirmative action is still needed to keep doors from being slammed in the face of _qualified_ minorities. The question is (like almost all other tricky questions): how much, when, where, for whom. Looking at France, though, it does seem that their attempt to be completely color-blind (when the reality is otherwise) has caused them problems.

[achilleus]

The issue never was that the rioters were subject to the kind of crushing poverty that kept them from being able to buy a low-cost cellphone, but that they are poorer than and alienated from the rest of French society, so this business about their phones misses the point.

This is what I was trying to get at.

Well, that and the fact, that it seems the people most criticizing the liberal elitist attitude of the French, seem to know little about France.

It's so easy to look at the current riot and automatically assume that there is one cause (liberal social welfar programs), but to me this is naive, and does more harm than good.

[jBirch]

This is what I was trying to get at.

Well, that and the fact, that it seems the people most criticizing the liberal elitist attitude of the French, seem to know little about France.

It's so easy to look at the current riot and automatically assume that there is one cause (liberal social welfar programs), but to me this is naive, and does more harm than good.

I always wonder at the media's ability to overlook what, when I was a kid, was the obvious: torching cars with molitov cocktails is FUN. What else are you going to do on a Tuesday night if you have no money, no job and no job prospects?

James.

[Inquartata]

A cellphone is cheap, especially in France. Cheap.

Immaterial to the point that if you are spending your money on luxuries you have no standing to cry for the government to provide you with free services.

The actual price of the phone is also less important than the ongoing fees one must pay for phone service(s).

when newspapers, govt. etc., refer to the poor, they are referring to people at or below the poverty line, which IIRC is $12,000/year in the US. I might be off, and the number might be higher...

The French denominate their poverty rate in US dollars?

In fact, in a recent article on housing prices, I was reading that families in LA can barely make it on $70,000/year. They are moving out it seems since they can't make it...

So, poor has different meanings than the image it seems to conjure in your head...

No, it only means that some people are not good at managing money. If you "can't make it" on $70,000 a year you are not poor, you are feckless and lack self-restraint. That they think of themselves as poor does not mean that they are in fact poor...

Since it's LA, though, "poor" probably means "can't afford to live in the Hills and drive a Hummer".

[Inquartata]

The issue never was that the rioters were subject to the kind of crushing poverty that kept them from being able to buy a low-cost cellphone,

Well, that's not how the media is painting it. I kept picturing the mob from Mel Brook's "History of the World Part I", from the wording used in the newspaper accounts.

Theodore Dalrymple (Inq - I've read this guy frequently elsewhere - now he's a real curmudgeon - makes you look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm! )

I take this as a personal affront!

Two important points come out: the rioters are 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants from France's former possessions, who came to France in the 1950s to fill low-paying jobs during economic expansion. Jobs that native French didn't want to do at those wages. Now you have their grandchildren, who have never been assimilated into French society and have >30% unemployment. Dalrymple blames the left for policies that help them keep jobs (it's hard to fire people in France) and perks, while keeping unemployment high and tossing the unemployed enough money to feed and house them in ghettos.

Maybe there's a lesson there for our immigration policies. I am reading stories about how illegal immigrants are in short supply as farm labor in some places, because they are all holding out for better jobs in construction and the like. This IMO is where the "they do jobs citizen's won't take" theory ends up: the French experience. Leftist policies or no...

I'll add that the absence of US-style liberal policies like affirmative action (and as Tomas pointed out, refusal to even take census on ethnicity) make it easier to keep Muslims and African-descent French citizens out of jobs. The classic test of submitting identical resumes, one with a Muslim or North African name and one with a traditional French name shows that the Muslim/African one frequently gets tossed in the bin.

No wonder France isn't competitive economically.

[jeff]

Well, that's not how the media is painting it. I kept picturing the mob from Mel Brook's "History of the World Part I", from the wording used in the newspaper accounts.

Shrug. The accounts I've ready in NYT and WSJ seem on the money (no pun intended, no animals harmed in making this post)

I take this as a personal affront!

Oh, you would love his columns. I enjoy his writing a lot, but have to say he's on the acid side.

Maybe there's a lesson there for our immigration policies. I am reading stories about how illegal immigrants are in short supply as farm labor in some places, because they are all holding out for better jobs in construction and the like. This IMO is where the "they do jobs citizen's won't take" theory ends up: the French experience. Leftist policies or no...

No wonder France isn't competitive economically.

Hm. Now, there's a thread topic...

[achilleus]

Immaterial to the point that if you are spending your money on luxuries you have no standing to cry for the government to provide you with free services.

The actual price of the phone is also less important than the ongoing fees one must pay for phone service(s).

Um...

If what I've been reading is accurate, the riots are about racism and part of the issue has been immigration policies.

Are they asking for more free services? The French govt., IIRC, feels they have neglected these citizens, and feels that they may need to spend more money, but that is not the same as the rioters asking for more money...

And, again, the cellphone service is cheaper than landlines and using a payphone. In much of Europe the cost for cellphones is negligable.

The French denominate their poverty rate in US dollars?

I realize you're arguing several different threads, and this a humorous comment, but really, try to read my posts:

However, when newspapers, govt. etc., refer to the poor, they are referring to people at or below the poverty line, which IIRC is $12,000/year in the US. I might be off, and the number might be higher...

No, it only means that some people are not good at managing money. If you "can't make it" on $70,000 a year you are not poor, you are feckless and lack self-restraint. That they think of themselves as poor does not mean that they are in fact poor...

Since it's LA, though, "poor" probably means "can't afford to live in the Hills and drive a Hummer".

Says the single man who doesn't live in LA.

Actually, the article (sorry don't have a link, it's over 6 months old) was discussing the high cost of living in LA. And that families of 4 were having trouble making it, so many were leaving the state. Hardly what I would feckless or lacking self restraint, but more indicative of people wanting to provide a good living situation for their children.

I know of a number of single friends in LA who do alright for themselves. If they had families though, I doubt they would be making it on their salaries...