I just hope the government goes a step further and requires Amazon increase their costs and charge double the shipping. That way the customers will be protected.
That is obviously a stupid idea. Regardless, that is the most probable and common measure to be taken by the governments worldwide. Because it is straightforward, incredibly lazy and bottom feeding.
It is interesting how in two comments we have encompased what are the two greatest flaws of practical governments and free markets.
In my oppinion this is a failure of competing merchants as they are sleeping and do not see writing on the wall. Instead of adapting they look up to the regulators to save their comfortable industries. Which in itself is a flaw of the modern western socioeconomic situation.
IMHO its a fact that Amazon is constantly maneouvering towards a situation where it becomes dangerous due to its modus operandi.
To be safe from Amazon threat, producers will have to find access to markets in a fashion that will prevent them from over exposing themselves to Amazon.
And any good regulation should be about lowering barrier to entry towards would be Amazon competitors.
I am certain that eventually producers will have to cut out the middleman (Amazon) or vice versa.
I guess you're not familiar with the social-minded European person. They often prefer local businesses with a personality (I go to the book store and have a chat with the owner and other customers... maybe drink a tea, read something right there...) to the big corporation, even when the big corporation offers the same products cheaper.
If that's the case, why do they need to pass a law preventing giving the customers a discount? Apparently, it's the competition that doesn't like it. Oddly, customers like discounts and free shipping. Good thing the French government is there to set them straight.
Should we ban anti-dumping laws?
Think about your post for a moment - if a company can afford to run at a loss long enough to destroy the competition, is that good in any way?
There is always a balance between service and price ... If there is competition and a level playing field.
That's a great fairy tale. In reality, at least where I live, is that local businesses don't have accommodations for reading (unlike chain stores like Fnac), the employees can't tell Dostoyevsky from Dan Brown and the selection is simply terrible.
So what's been happening is that chain stores have been eating independent book stores alive well before online shopping was widespread.
That's what people portray us social minded Europeans as but realistically, the majority will tell local businesses to get fucked when it comes down to it.
Why? Price, poor products and service and "blame it on the customer" culture.
Local businesses have been hanging themselves for years on these fronts.
Amazon sorts the above perfectly and you don't have to leave your house.
Silly me. I bought a 50euro mouse from a local chain. I took it home and after 20 minutes didn't like the ergonomics. Then I got into a 20 minute battle of wits with the clerk (the clerk, not the manager or the owner!) because I had the gall to take it out the box and try and use it.
The entire time in the back of my mind I'm thinking I could have bought the damn thing on Amazon for cheaper and would not have to put up with this bullshit. As an American in Europe I'm sympathetic to some of these stores, but a lot of them are going out of business through their own incompetence.
Now I have a 50euro credit to a chain of stores that is bankrupt.
The proof against what you are saying is the fact that the French government passed a law to force the market to be more "socially minded." If the "social-minded" European person was the majority, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
> If the "social-minded" European person was the majority, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
If the social-minded person wasn't the majority, they wouldn't have elected a government that would pass such a law.
It's a co-ordination problem: if one person does X, nothing much happens, but if everyone does X, it makes a difference. So each person, thinking as an individual, can rationally say, "It doesn't make sense for me to do X", but the same person can also rationally say "it does make sense for everyone to do X".
You are kidding, right? The correlation between the elected officials in a country and the what the citizens want is much lower than the correlation between what an individual in that country wants and buys!
No they don't prefer that. They vote with their money for Amazon. They vote with their money for Starbucks. Not for the local stores. The solution would be to let the free market forces work and force lazy buffons at local bookstores get their asses to work and be more competitive. Offer more than Amazon or Starbucks. But we can't do this, right? We cna't force local french people to work! That would be horrible! So we will subsidize them with that stupid law. At the end everyone wins here except for the reader who won't get what they want.
it's the great fracture in French society, we see how toxic American life is, we don't want to go there, but we are lured there by the short term economic forces and Hollywood culture. Because on the short term economies of scale reduce the price, but on the long term they destroy standards of living, the fabric of the society (through individualism) and the economic resilience (economic inefficiencies are also local buffers against mishaps, think of local stocks, semi-finished products standing on a shelf).
well, if that's all true - sounds like socialist politician speech propaganda to me - then why regular French person on a street would rather go to Starbucks or buy at Amazon?
What you clearly don't understand is that if you prevent laws like this from occurring, then French cafe owners or bookstore owners would be forced by the market force - competition - to innovate. Create better service or product for their customers. If a cafe owner would succeed - and not be penalized with 75% tax - then he could open more and more cafes, having a franchise, succesfully competing with Starbucks. And if his innovative ideas were good enough, he could even start threating Starbucks position in the US. But that will never happen. Why? Because with Government protection on his side there will be no market force (i.e. customers who prefer competition) to force him to innovate. He will just sit there 8-5 like rest of the French society thinking that a GOvernment edict can somehow change the world in which he's living. It can't. Because people already voted with their money clearly showing winners and losers. And unless losers get to work, they'll be just that. Loosers.
because it's the easy thing to do it's the path of least resistance. It's the cheapest.
Thinking that innovation is enough is a little bit naïve, you need more than innovation to get market space, ask Archos for details about that. Quick got a place in the sun with the very innovative position of selling hamburgers cheaply, end result: Burger King left the country crushed in the war between Mc Donald's and Quick, but innovation is zero on the hamburger front.
You've got to be shitting me: 'voting with their money' is not at all a valid point, nor would it ever trump that of an elected representative.
Notice that Starbucks and Amazon are american lifestyle companies, of course there is going to be an appeal to the lower income class for services that are immediate and cheap. Since they are paid a poverty wage, they are too busy working to have the time to do things like go out for lunch or cook a meal.
A woah, guess what? Those business models perpetuate the same conditions that lower work environment standards, wages, employee health and morale. It's a positive feedback system that needs to be nipped in the bud before it completely devours the French economy.
Starbucks is expensive. Probably more than a regular coffee at a regular French cafe. If french from all nations prefer to have more expensive coffee at starbucks than at their local vendor this just shows how badly the local vendors need to start to get back to work. Not that a regulation is needed to protect them from better competition. This might work in the short run, but it long term lack of exposure to competition will just make them weaker than they already are.
And there is another, moral hazard kind of a point: Why would you like to force people to buy something they perceive as worse? You are right they worked hard to get this money and this is not your or Government business how they spend it.
I am a European Amazon customer and I have had enough.
Amazon is a heavily subsidized corporation. It operates from a tax shelter (Luxembourg). It underpays it's American staff (who are then receiving US welfare as supplement in order to survive).
Giving away delivery for free is a form of predatory pricing. In general, large market players have been banned from predatory pricing under European competition law for decades.
Competition is great but let's not pretend that Amazon is outcompeting other (online) bookstores fair and square.
If we're being completely fair, Amazon's willingness to run in the red for almost 20 years and continually sacrifice profits for market share probably has a lot to do with their prices, too.
But your points are worth noting, and Americans might feel a little differently if it was a foreign corporation.
It's not Amazon employees, actually, their warehouses are staffed by those terrible day-labor contract places where people show up and wait for hours unpaid to find out if they get to work for minimum wage later in the day.
I've seen a lot of sources for Wal-Mart employees under similar pay levels. It was SNAP, TANF and Medicaid primarily, not so much 'welfare'. Still a sizable subsidy, and a decent % of those people's ultimate pay/benefit package.
Do you have a source regarding the day laborers who wait for hours seeking work for minimum wage? Because an article your sibling posted, which is critical of Amazon, says warehouse workers get $11 per hour (about 50% more than minimum wage). Outside of major cities, that seems like an OK wage for a fairly straightforward job. If it's not, why don't you raise the minimum wage?
You're right, it seems they pay $11. I had gotten that info about the day-contracting centers from other places that they staff, at some point. And I personally agree with raising the minimum wage, although not any higher than $11, probably, so that's immaterial.
That's still hard to make a living on at 40 hours and no benefits, though. And it is unfair to competitors who pay a more livable wage without forcing their employees to get on medicaid.
I have heard about day laborers lingering around HomeDepot, etc., hoping to land a stint with contractors (builders) who happen to make materials purchases at HomeDepot, etc. but never heard of Wal*Mart, HomeDepot, etc. hiring these people to work in their businesses.
I believe this is in reference to those who work in the warehouses. Amazon uses a large number of tempory workers, which limits the number of hours available and the ability to become ft.
Your definition of fair and square is weird to me. If other companies pay their employees more than Amazon, then it must mean that they think they gain some competitive advantage from that. If that turns out not to be true, then, assuming they're a US company, they operate in the same legal climate as Amazon and can pay their employees Amazon-scale rates rather than shutdown. If they do that and still lose, then your argument seems to fall apart.
Look, Prime is genius, their prices are ridiculously low, their return policy is more than generous, and as long as their shareholders are happy to subsidize me, the consumer, I'll probably never get enough.
As a happy Amazon customer: That line is bullshit. Employment law exists for a reason, we don't just accept "oh, that's what the market will bear" for things like unsafe working conditions or workplace sexual harrassment.
Europeans feel that underpaying your employees to the point where they rely on welfare programs to subsidize their paycheck is not only wrong (that's fine, life's not fair) but distorted and not-free-market. I have to agree with them on the distortion part.
I was careful to say, "assuming they're a US company," because I was trying to point out that, yes, employment law exists for a reason, but Amazon's competitors operate under the same employment laws as Amazon. In fact, I said this explicitly.
Edit: Maybe you're trying to say that Amazon's competitors pay their employees more than Amazon because they have bigger hearts and are willing to crash their businesses before paying (legal, but unfair) low wages. That's a pretty big claim that requires some evidence. I think it's more likely that they are losing for other reasons.
Well, Amazon's French competitors have to comply with French labor law. So there's a mismatch and market distortion there. If they don't want to change their labor law, you can see why they'd take other, ameliorative measures, even if banning low prices seems silly.
At least Amazon can still compete on service and convenience, which are their strengths anyways.
I'm not even saying I agree with labor law in France, I can just see, things being what they are, why this is more reasonable than it looks for them.
Actually, it seems that amazon has 5 warehouses in France, which it ships from and which have to comply with French labor laws. The technology is probably still mostly developed in the U.S, but those workers aren't the ones we're talking about here.
When haven't hasn't who done what? Did you somehow interpret my comment imply that I thought there wasn't government interference in employment markets? silly billy.
I would think the other Amazon markets are subsidising the books, rather than the shareholder. Does free market theory expect bookshop competition to be between bookshops, homogeneous, or heterogeneous, between bookshops and consumer electronics shops?
I was referring to the fact that, despite soaring revenues, Amazon is basically running a break-even business and its shareholders are consistently OK with this (i.e. they aren't demanding that Amazon try harder to turn revenue into profit).
This, plus great customer service and extremely popular/convenient services like Prime are probably the actual reason that Amazon is beating everyone else. The guy I was responding to is bringing his established beliefs about fair labor to a story that isn't about that, in other words.
I am absolutely opposed to governments subsidizing corporations but I am equally opposed by attempts to offset it with more bureaucracy and market manipulations. I understand that this is a US vs. France thing but it doesn't change this for me. I would be in total opposition to special legislation for products produced in China by government subsidized companies; a very similar situation.
>>Giving away delivery for free is a form of predatory pricing<<
This line of reasoning always amused me. Free = predatory? Can someone explain how one arrives at this logic?
If the thinking is that "free" leads to "monopoly" which then leads to dramatically increased pricing once all competition is eliminated, this has absolutely, empirically and historically, been shown to be false. It simply never happens. Or more accurately, if/when it has been attempted, this practice has swiftly been defeated by competition.
Edit: An afterthought: If free = predatory pricing, why do we allow charities to distribute free shelter, goods, and food? Surely these institutions are displacing some sales that would otherwise take place, thus negatively impacting those businesses that would otherwise have profited from those sales?
>If the thinking is that "free" leads to "monopoly" which then leads to dramatically increased pricing once all competition is eliminated, this has absolutely, empirically and historically, been shown to be false. It simply never happens. Or more accurately, if/when it has been attempted, this practice has swiftly been defeated by competition.
Unlimited data plans in the US (or almost everywhere else) is where this has happened
I don't follow. In the US, we went from ridiculously expensive per minute plans 10 years ago to unlimited, nationwide calling for a pretty low flat-fee per month. This seems to be the opposite of predatory pricing...
US Telecom in general is an interesting example because it's one of the few industries that typically do soak consumers, because of what essentially amount to government enforced monopolies.
Yes, because we broke up AT&T. Before that, AT&T was pushing that you had to not only buy lines, but the phones from them as well.
Perhaps this was before your time, but there's a reason that Cap'n Crunch and blue box pirates like Jobs/Wozniak had appeal - the alternative was monopoly pricing.
>>US Telecom in general is an interesting example because it's one of the few industries that typically do soak consumers, because of what essentially amount to government enforced monopolies.<<
AT&T was only able to retain its monopoly because the government helped it enforce that monopoly by prohibiting competitors from entering the market. See the Kingsbury Commitment.
The only way monopolies succeed is if government force prevents markets from functioning.
Yes, I provided it in the above comment. Go read about the Kingsbury Commitment, the The Willis-Graham Act, the history of the ICC and the FCC. In sum, the US granted AT&T a monopoly in exchange for being able to set the rates AT&T could charge (guess how beneficial that ended up being for consumers).
I don't know why people think the historical lack of monopolies (without government backing) is some right-wing nut-job theory. Not even the robber-barons wielded monopolies that allowed them to engage in "predatory pricing" or the other feared ills of monopolies. Go read about Vanderbilt or Getty or Carnegie. In each of their industries, consumers saw prices fall dramatically, even after each consolidated control over major portions of their respective markets. The fear that they would raise prices dramatically after acquiring their near-monopolies never materialized.
Edit:
>>Tell me more about functioning markets and how they can only be prevented by government force<<
Sorry, I misread your snark. I never said functioning markets can only be prevented by government force (whatever that even means). I'm saying that throughout history, you do not get monopolies that harm consumers unless the government backs the monopoly.
too bad since in France we have seen this exact scenario happen 10 years ago with radio networks (they destroyed most independent local radios). With the real hard irony that the main network who killed everybody (NRJ) used to be a pirate radio from before the free radio, and a real offspring of the radio liberalization in 1986. Now you mainly have 2 kinds of radios: non-profit and big networks.
Charities/non-profits are heavily regulated in France, and they simply can't get enough "capital" to try this kind of scheme. You need so much capital (basically you're trading capital for market share, you'd better be the biggest when you start the race) that it's mostly public companies who can do that. That is also why Europe doesn't like state owned companies on free market, having the state budget as "available" capital, they can undercut everybody without endangering their lives (that's where the left/right doctrine kicks in).
What exactly is your evidence that Amazon Fulfillment (I'm assuming) underpays people here in the US? My ex-wife here in Texas (a state that is not known for "worker friendly" laws) works in one of Amazon's distribution centers and makes slightly under $12/hr starting pay with medical benefits, stock, 401k matching, 1.5x + 8 hours holiday pay compensation, etc.
All of that paid to someone that has only a high-school equivalence certificate.
While she won't get rich working there, she doesn't have to resort to food stamps or other forms of welfare in order to make ends meet.
Exactly. So if Amazon was guilty of that, they could be charged under those laws.
If that is the true justification for the new law, it is at best "pre-crime" enforcement - protecting Amazon from themselves, from getting into a situation where them might risk committing predatory pricing and monopolistic practices.
More realistically, follow the money and apply basic public choice theory. It's not like the economic history of the world hasn't seen this pattern a few hundred times before.
And yet this bill has nothing to do with that. It just protects customers from a discount and free shipping. Thank goodness the government is looking out for the people of France and protecting them.
So you agree that Amazon is an exploitative business that treats their employees like dirt. So why are you so keen to defend them? I have absolutely no sympathy for Amazon at all and I can't understand why anybody else would if they knew what the inside of an Amazon warehouse was like.
Would you prefer it if the warehouses were staffed by robots instead?
I'm sort of serious but I am sympathetic to your viewpoint because those warehouses are as close as you can get to a legal sweatshop in a 1st world country.
A mono-culture is never healthy for an environment. Letting Amazon destroy all competitors would eventually allow for a monopolistic business. Where do you think book prices are going to go once Barnes and Noble finally bankrupts?
France is selling globally (tourism) its atmosphere, lifestyle and culture. Cities around Europe are spending enormous amount of money to revitalise their city centers after the devastation caused by huge mall and supermarket built in the 80's. So that make sense for the country to try to preserve them before they are destroyed.
Also considering the simultaneous threat coming from the ebook that is also not such a bad idea to give physical shop some breathing space to adjust their business model. From France perspective again, it is choosing between having to pay social security to those failing business owners with tax money, or let Amazon clients foot the bill instead.
So depending at what level you look at: Book Market, Global Economy, US Economy or France Economy, there are many readings you can have.
Model T vs Buggy Whip is a radical change. The closest that could apply to this case would be EBook vs Physical book.
But that's not what this is about. France has a regulated market for book. When stuff happen, like a player that manage to dodge the regulation thanks to specific circumstances, regulation need changing.
If you want to wonder about something, wonder why does France regulate book market ?
As a francophile european not living in France, I'm absolutely thrilled that France again and again volunteers to make their country both quaint and poor (thus cheap for tourists).
As a human, I can not get behind a policy that makes food and books more expensive and harder (or at least less easy) to get at.
> Cities around Europe are spending enormous amount of money to revitalise their city centers after the devastation caused by huge mall and supermarket built in the 80's.
What cities are you thinking about?
I don't know if you're right or wrong, but my data point is a noticeable increase in malls/big chain shops in the three cities I mostly lived in (rome, milan, budapest) in the last ten years.
Many cities in Belgium (Mons, Charleroi), UK (Manchester, Liverpool ), France (Lille) are like that. Major work is done in the center, with peatonal areas, cleaning up of buildings, parks, rework of public transports, ...
That being said I don't know what France is doing here. I just suggest that at country level there are more concern than just the physical book market.
"Today, everyone has had enough of Amazon, which, by dumping, slashes prices to get a foothold in markets only to raise them once they have established a virtual monopoly."
Not to say they might not do that in the future; but aah, generally Amazon's modus operandi has been to continue reducing prices even when they have a 'virtual monopoly'.
If the French really believed this, as a people, then the government would not need to intervene. Amazon would lose on its own merit. This is a vocal minority at work, comprised of the losing side (smaller bookstores), and sympathetic legislators.
Governments have longer vision than the general public, and see knock-on effects much further down the track. It's not to say that governments are visionary, but they're used to thinking in the longer term. One example is that the usual time to pass all your unpopular legislation is right after you've been elected, because it will have been forgotten about by the next election, unless it was a real stinker.
Another example is that governments have to be aware of growth patterns to plan infrastructure - they're operating at a different scale. Individuals often don't see the forest for the trees.
The 'free market' argument is really bad at long-term planning.
So above when you said "The French believe that culture is important" you meant the French Government. Not the short sighted People of France, who you believe need to be protected by the long sighted wise government.
Governments never make short sighted political decisions to protect entrenched interests. The People on the the other hand have to be protected from getting discounts and free shipping. Because that would be a bad financial option for them.
Myopic comments like this are really irritating. Who do you think votes the French government in? The Germans?
Democracies tend to gravitate around the center of what their people want. If the people consistently vote to one side, then the centre will move to that side. This is a cultural process of years - and yes, you're exhibiting exactly the forest-for-the-trees thinking I was talking about.
If you can't take derision of your comments in stride, then you shouldn't start that ball rolling yourself.
mistaking forests for trees -
That is not what that idiom means. It has nothing to do with being confused or being mistaken.
but expressing great wisdom when voting -
No, but what you're doing here is reclassifying my attempts at discussing nuance into a silly dichotomy of extremes. Even if nothing else, I never said the French were wise - nor unwise for that matter. That's you trying to strawman me into a ridiculous position. I said that long-term, over the course of years, democracies settles around certain tenets. For the French, the importance of culture is one of them.
You're free to have the last comment, as I'm done here.
"Governments" (and by that we mean politicians) don't have a vision past the next election and what it would take to get elected. Public Choice Theory 101.
If the citizens of the US of A really believed in their right to Privacy and the rest of nice stuff provided by their Constitution, they should already be at war with their current government.
Your point is well taken. One big difference here, though, is that it is considerably easier to decide not to shop with Amazon than it is to opt-out of NSA spying, or any other government activity. I can decide to never deal with Amazon, and I can't get arrested or fined as a result.
I'm generally against protectionist policies. However, the lawmakers might view this as a tragedy of the commons situation. Perhaps the people believe that they're better off if everyone in society collectively shops at small retailers that employ the locals, but any individual is better off defecting and getting a low price online harming society while helping themselves. In the same way, we still need pollution regulation even if we all agree pollution is harmful because to the individual much of the cost of pollution is borne by others. I personally don't believe that's the way to view this situation, but the French lawmakers might.
Or you could view it as a collective action problem which the french government is solving. Which is one of the reasons for government in the first place. Actually, perhaps you should google "tragedy of the commons" because you appear not to believe in such things.
Trying to apply the idea of the "tragedy of the commons" to this scenario seems like hyperbole. I throw your own recommendation back to you.
This really seems to be a solution without a problem, for the majority of people in France. Those who are on the losing end of Amazon's success are fortunate to have the ear of legislators there.
As an American living in Paris, I'm of mixed minds. I agree that France's protectionism is highly problematic and off the charts -- however, there's no-denying that their protectionism of Paris retail stores succeeds -- it creates value -- making Paris an incredibly rich and wonderful place to live and visit. It's beautiful here with countless privately-owned local cafes/businesses of various sorts - frequently the quality of which is off-the-charts. Perhaps it distinguishes itself in the market by preserving its local businesses, preserves it as a beautiful place to live with a rich public life.. where the only place to eat isn't some chain/theme restaurant that looks like everywhere else in the world.
It's been a few years since I've heard of it, but didn't france always have crazy bookseller-protection laws? I definitely remember there being some law against selling books (or anything?) below the listed RRP, or something similar.
They have had "Lang Law" in France since 1981 apparently. This prevents individual booksellers from undercutting publisher prices and essentially establishes a price fix on books. It protects booksellers from big bookstores, which is basically the same issue that this article is talking about.
It's in the publishers' best interest to set a suitable RRP value. Too high and their sales would be eaten up by used copies (which aren't subject to this same law).
ebook prices are moderated by the same price-demand rules as everything else. Availability of a cheaper hardcopy of the book vs. utility and desirability as an ebook; availability of a pirated version vs. the desire to own a legal copy; etc.
> The BBC's Paris correspondent Christian Fraser said the bill "might be seen as payback" for Amazon's practices of reporting European sales through a Luxembourg holding company, to take advantage of comparatively low corporate tax rates.
God forbid Amazon pays less in taxes and then passes the benefits over to consumers. How will we then finance the so needed new EU armed forces? Or welfare for third world immigrants who come here after we bomb their countries?
Elon Musk should create a new startup to rival Amazon, based on open source technosocial interactions and entrepreneur-focused javascript, if the EU shackling Amazon like this.
Well, the French gov and the book stores can suck it, everyone can order from neighboring countries. I still can't understand how they don't get that it's a global economy (not to mention the EU, which each member country just disregards when it comes to various laws)...
they can, but then they likely won't get free shipping.
E.g. italy has had "save the bookstores" laws enacted for a while, which means amazon can't offer discounts as high as it does elsewhere, but using amazon.it still ends up cheaper than amazon.co.uk, for delivery in italy.
Two things: 1. french books are more expensive in neighboring countries; 2. if you order from another country, you legally still have to pay french tax in addition to the tax from the source country...
Damn, I completely forgot that the books are written in French...
In my mind, everyone's reading in English, plus Amazon.de probably doesn't store English and French books, either...
We all owe the French a great deal. After all, they voluntarily act as the world's test tube, running bad economic experiments for the edification of the rest of us.
Why did this post get bumped off of the front page? The article is not spam, it got upvoted by a decent margin within in an hour, and it had almost fifty comments in an hour.
I think I read somewhere that it was a feature of HN to remove article from the front page when those kind of things happen. (take that with a grain of salt)
Ah France, the land of contradictions, but mostly political posturing. My excellent, French, local, FNAC* store, competes spectacularly well with Amazon and often undercuts them on price - certainly for electronics and probably for books too. This law is probably going to hurt them as well and may ultimately be to Amazon's benefit.
Mmm... no. FNAC is not excellent, doesn't compete "spectacularly" -- or at all, is laying of hundreds just this week and in general is a horrible place to shop.
Financially, Fnac (online or not) is really ill and may die soon. It could have been a successful competitor but it rested on its laurels. In any way, it is worse than Amazon. If a store deserved its fate its Fnac online. It is still sad.
Of course this isn't "fair". In countries without competitive industries (either because those industries are growing, or because they're fading), the domestic lawmakers want to give local business a leg-up over foreign businesses. For example, this kind of protectionism was a major strategy of South Korea's industrial growth policy.
A more specific example, for many years (and perhaps still today), to help foster the domestic film industry, foreign movie imports (which were usually American films, Japanese media has been entirely illegal until very recently) were artificially limited at some small number. The idea was to provide a little competition in the form of high-budget, high-quality films but give enough room for local film makers to figure out the top-to-bottom of making competitive movies. It was a garden fence to let air and light in, but keep damaging critters out. It worked, the Korean film industry is booming, growing and has started exporting and Korean TV dramas are watched heavily all over the region.
So, it's no surprise that France, with a strong literary heritage, wants to protect the entire domestic market and supply chain, from writers to publisher to retailers in order to keep such a cultural activity "French". The question is, is it just a wall to keep outsiders out, or is it a garden fence with a growth plan to grow and eventually export French literary culture like Korea exports Movies and Dramas?
It's funny how it's styled as an "anti-Amazon" bill (I don't know if it's styled like that in France, or if it's BBC editorializing, but I think it's pretty safe to assume).
Usually when laws "stick it to the corporations", there's at least the expectation that the cost will come out of the corporation's profits. Then if the corporation raises prices, they can be derided for that. But this is actually not possible here - this mandates a direct, customer-facing price increase. I wonder what will happen to support for the law when consumers realise this.
If this was an article stating that the US govt. passed legislation which ultimately made prices higher at IKEA, I would be furious. Footnote, I reside in the US.
of course. Just making sure anti-business image the country has is emboldened even more. 75% tax on top earners and now this. It's not that 75% tax hurts many people. The only thing it really does is propagating france image as a country that treats capitalism, investment and private initiative with the highest dose of suspicion. Thats nit a society thats enetrprenually friendly. It's almost funny how many french i know that prefer to do art and fashion in new york than paris just because france would penalize them for being succesful. And definitely it's not france that gains in the long term due to short sighted and populist left wing policies like this.
That said, I don't see how another "non populist" argument could be justified by a government...
Both the left and right of their government has approved this law. While I understand this is more in line with authoritarian politicking than libertarian politicking, they do make a decent locale/culture argument against a cultureless behemoth like Amazon.
The way I see it, this is them simply penalizing a monopoly. While you could argue some subsidize their income through Amazon, many more actual French citizens earn their income through independent brick and mortar shops.
I honestly don't see how restricting Amazon alone affects the market that much. It wouldn't affect my aspirations towards publishing a book or marketplace.
>The way I see it, this is them simply penalizing a monopoly.
Starbucks has a monopoly to sell coffee in France?
Amazon has a monopoly to sell books in France?
What are you talking about?
>While you could argue some subsidize their income through Amazon, many more actual French citizens earn their income through independent brick and mortar shops.
And in the free market economy this would be a sign that maybe, just maybe, they need to:
A) Get much better at this
OR
B) Start doing something at what they are good enough that people go there and pay them on their own for their services of products.
I'm not saying it's easy. All I'm saying is that you won't be able to protect them forever. It's good to treat them like gown-ups right from the get-go without assuming that they are too stupid to do something useful for the broader public.
>I honestly don't see how restricting Amazon alone affects the market that much.
Then why to insist on doing it?
>It wouldn't affect my aspirations towards publishing a book or marketplace.
I have several friend who have left New York and moved to France, mostly because they find the lifestyle so relaxed. The French work less than citizens of the USA, and yet they manage to remain a highly affluent society:
Average hours worked: 1,479 hours worked in France in 2012, versus 1,790 in the USA. Over 300 hours, which is more than 7 weeks of full time work, which the French avoid. That's over 7 weeks of vacation that the French enjoy, while the people of the USA are working. The French accept a smaller per capita income in exchange for a great deal of leisure.
My friends tell me that France is especially pleasant as a nation to raise children in, as the relaxed lifestyle makes it easier to achieve something like a balance between family and work. In the USA politicians, and movies, tend to adopt a strong rhetoric about being pro-family, but having the leisure to spend time with one's kids is, from what I'm told, easier to achieve in France.
France manages its economy in a manner that is heavy handed, when compared to the style that's been adopted in most of the English speaking countries. The advantages of this heavy handed management should be carefully considered: an affluent yet relaxed lifestyle.
I think this is correct, and it applies to several other european countries.
It would be interesting to hear the point of view of people that worked for the same company both in France and the US.
In my opinion, one problem in France is that many (well-paid) jobs are in Paris where housing is getting increasingly expensive. Besides, the layout of the city is such that commuting can be a pain and maybe unavoidable. I think New York is much better from that point of view.
I'm curious, is it possible to negotiate 10 weeks vacations in an american company?
Nothing (except in how they accrue, but that's getting very specific). Personal time originally was offered in place of sick days and other floating religious holidays. But Seattle now requires paid sick days, so you now get personal days + sick days.
I wouldn't expect a broken leg to keep a programmer from working, but if it did then you'd have disability leave, probably paid for by your work via disability insurance.
I just negotiated 4 weeks. Wasn't too difficult, you just have to ask. The funny thing is... I'm likely to pass on the job opportunity, while I stay with my French girlfriend in Paris, building and testing product ideas for a few months =)
Are they already rich? It's rather difficult to get a visa and a long term residency permit in France as an American if you're not already an EU citizen or have sufficient finances that you don't need to work.
I, unfortunately, do not fit into any of these categories, as much as I would love to move to France. I'm here now, but only for a year :(
I really don't see the relevance of your comment. All of what you are saying may be true, but what does it have to do with allowing Amazon to offer whatever discounts they want? In what way does this law promote an "affluent yet relaxed lifestyle?" Wouldn't being able to afford more books because they are cheaper on Amazon make me effectively more affluent? Wouldn't the free delivery make me more relaxed?
I believe I understand the argument: if the French system has advantages, why should the English-speaking world dictate to France how it should manage its own economy?
Because competition is good in theory but, in practice, many kinds of competition have side effects. Many big companies (Walmart comes to mind) have the capacity to distort the market they're in, change the rule of the market itself. Those external effects that goes beyond "simple" competition may be considered unfair.
For example in France, Carrefour ( the french walmart ) used dumping for a few decades, destroying any competition, then slowly increased its prices. Logically, competition should emerge but Carrefour is so entrenched into the infrastructure of the market that a competitor cannot really survive. This is a simplification (the french market is more an oligopoly than a monopoly) but the overall scheme is true.
Amazon may or may not have one of these effects. I don't (yet) know or more precisely I don't have enough info to have an opinion.
I have a very good relevant citation (that ironically I can't copy/paste because it's a kindle book): "You find it at Disneyland, where people flock to stroll up and down a Main Street just like the ones they abandoned wholesale in the 1950s for shopping malls. It happens at restored colonial villages like Williamsburg, Virginia, or Mystic, Connecticut, where visitors pay good money to savour the sort of tranquil village atmosphere that they long ago fled for the happy sprawl of suburbs. You find it at Disneyland, where people flock to stroll up and down a Main Street just like the ones they abandoned wholesale in the 1950s for shopping malls. It happens at restored colonial villages like Williamsburg, Virginia, or Mystic, Connecticut, where visitors pay good money to savour the sort of tranquil village atmosphere that they long ago fled for the happy sprawl of suburbs." Bill Bryson, Notes from a big country.
In France we are trying to manage those shops and this heritage. I don't say that we succeed (because now those shops are mostly franchises form mains brands, banks, assurances ans real estates, who price out independent shops), but at least we try something. We have a big problem: we know what we don't want but we have to invent what we want and the route there.
Wouldn't being able to afford more books because they are cheaper on Amazon make me effectively more affluent?
I think the argument is that cheaper books might make you more affluent in the sense that you'll have more money, while at the same time promoting a competitive work culture in which it's not possible to use that money to buy time off. In the U.S. I can't trade my money for more vacation. My job is all or nothing. If what I value is time off then what good is money if I can't use it to purchase time off?
Sure you can buy time off in the U.S, you just need to work that out with your employer rather than the Government determining the right amount of time off for everyone.
You're right that I am free to do this in that it is not illegal, but you're pretty out of touch with most jobs in the U.S. if you think that means I actually can do this.
Yes, France, where you can live the good life as long as you're a white, European Francophone. Immigrants (especially dark-skinned Muslims) need not apply.
The relaxed lifestyle is part of a greater picture I think. But first, have a look at the website setup by Jaime Clarke, a US writer who has written a book due to be published in 2014.
http://pleasedontbuymybookonamazon.com/
The name of the site says it all and he explains his reasons.
The french bill has the same goal actually as what is said by this US writer: to allow a more diverse books, authors, bookstores and publishers ecosystem. The previous french fixed price Lang's law had the same goal again: to protect independent bookstores, as they can't offer the same volume price cuts as Amazon could do. Those bookstores do not offer the same service as Amazon either, so it has been decided to favor the quality of the book ecosystem instead of the final book price only. Therefore, books, authors, publishers have a possibility to exist, even if they are not in the top 10 selling list. This is not a law against Amazon, because Amazon is actually a great bookstore in its own way, but the goal is to have the choice, even if it has a cost. There's a US saying that God helps those who help themselves: here, the french are just doing that, because that's what the way of life they want, where the country culture uses tools (legal, economic) to establish and develop, and not where economy defines what the culture should be, even if it has a price and leads to the heavier handed management you mention compared to English speaking countries.
(edit: typo)
A lot of the discussion on this thread has descended into a slanging match about French regulation and work life balance vs US libertarianism and customer service. This is mostly missing the main point which is that Amazon has an unfair advantage because they are large enough to take advantage of loopholes in EU sales tax law to gain a ~15% price advantage over local businesses selling the same products. France can't change the sales tax rate of neighbouring countries so they have introduced a new law which is a hack that tries to cancel out this unfair advantage in other ways, and they must be careful to do this without infringing EU competition law. Hence the targeting of certain business practises of 'internet retailers'.
I wonder if this kind of protectionism will become more common/useful as lower-skilled jobs become harder and harder to come by. In the past, reduction of prices via higher efficiencies (= fewer jobs) has generally been a near-universal good: it freed up the workforce for other, more useful activities. Nowadays, there doesn't seem to be any new segment of industry spurring lower-skilled job growth. The flip side of prices getting lower is that job availability/quality goes down.
One could see France's stand against higher efficiencies as, effectively, a form of monetary redistribution. Perhaps the choice is between a society with low prices and a large underclass of un/under-employed, or higher prices and most people being able to make ends meet. If you're going to choose the higher-prices approach, the French method of redistribution at least maintains valuable cultural elements and a culture of needing to work - as opposed to straight benefits.
171 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadBy "everyone", they undoubtedly mean the ones who could not compete. Amazon's customers are probably not complaining.
It is interesting how in two comments we have encompased what are the two greatest flaws of practical governments and free markets.
In my oppinion this is a failure of competing merchants as they are sleeping and do not see writing on the wall. Instead of adapting they look up to the regulators to save their comfortable industries. Which in itself is a flaw of the modern western socioeconomic situation.
IMHO its a fact that Amazon is constantly maneouvering towards a situation where it becomes dangerous due to its modus operandi.
To be safe from Amazon threat, producers will have to find access to markets in a fashion that will prevent them from over exposing themselves to Amazon.
And any good regulation should be about lowering barrier to entry towards would be Amazon competitors.
I am certain that eventually producers will have to cut out the middleman (Amazon) or vice versa.
So what's been happening is that chain stores have been eating independent book stores alive well before online shopping was widespread.
Why? Price, poor products and service and "blame it on the customer" culture.
Local businesses have been hanging themselves for years on these fronts.
Amazon sorts the above perfectly and you don't have to leave your house.
The entire time in the back of my mind I'm thinking I could have bought the damn thing on Amazon for cheaper and would not have to put up with this bullshit. As an American in Europe I'm sympathetic to some of these stores, but a lot of them are going out of business through their own incompetence.
Now I have a 50euro credit to a chain of stores that is bankrupt.
If the social-minded person wasn't the majority, they wouldn't have elected a government that would pass such a law.
It's a co-ordination problem: if one person does X, nothing much happens, but if everyone does X, it makes a difference. So each person, thinking as an individual, can rationally say, "It doesn't make sense for me to do X", but the same person can also rationally say "it does make sense for everyone to do X".
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
What you clearly don't understand is that if you prevent laws like this from occurring, then French cafe owners or bookstore owners would be forced by the market force - competition - to innovate. Create better service or product for their customers. If a cafe owner would succeed - and not be penalized with 75% tax - then he could open more and more cafes, having a franchise, succesfully competing with Starbucks. And if his innovative ideas were good enough, he could even start threating Starbucks position in the US. But that will never happen. Why? Because with Government protection on his side there will be no market force (i.e. customers who prefer competition) to force him to innovate. He will just sit there 8-5 like rest of the French society thinking that a GOvernment edict can somehow change the world in which he's living. It can't. Because people already voted with their money clearly showing winners and losers. And unless losers get to work, they'll be just that. Loosers.
Thinking that innovation is enough is a little bit naïve, you need more than innovation to get market space, ask Archos for details about that. Quick got a place in the sun with the very innovative position of selling hamburgers cheaply, end result: Burger King left the country crushed in the war between Mc Donald's and Quick, but innovation is zero on the hamburger front.
Notice that Starbucks and Amazon are american lifestyle companies, of course there is going to be an appeal to the lower income class for services that are immediate and cheap. Since they are paid a poverty wage, they are too busy working to have the time to do things like go out for lunch or cook a meal.
A woah, guess what? Those business models perpetuate the same conditions that lower work environment standards, wages, employee health and morale. It's a positive feedback system that needs to be nipped in the bud before it completely devours the French economy.
And there is another, moral hazard kind of a point: Why would you like to force people to buy something they perceive as worse? You are right they worked hard to get this money and this is not your or Government business how they spend it.
Amazon is a heavily subsidized corporation. It operates from a tax shelter (Luxembourg). It underpays it's American staff (who are then receiving US welfare as supplement in order to survive).
Giving away delivery for free is a form of predatory pricing. In general, large market players have been banned from predatory pricing under European competition law for decades.
Competition is great but let's not pretend that Amazon is outcompeting other (online) bookstores fair and square.
But your points are worth noting, and Americans might feel a little differently if it was a foreign corporation.
I've seen a lot of sources for Wal-Mart employees under similar pay levels. It was SNAP, TANF and Medicaid primarily, not so much 'welfare'. Still a sizable subsidy, and a decent % of those people's ultimate pay/benefit package.
That's still hard to make a living on at 40 hours and no benefits, though. And it is unfair to competitors who pay a more livable wage without forcing their employees to get on medicaid.
As a Tax payer in the UK I am not happy about subsiding a profitable companies work force
This article may provide a better overview: http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-conditions-in-amazons-...
Look, Prime is genius, their prices are ridiculously low, their return policy is more than generous, and as long as their shareholders are happy to subsidize me, the consumer, I'll probably never get enough.
Europeans feel that underpaying your employees to the point where they rely on welfare programs to subsidize their paycheck is not only wrong (that's fine, life's not fair) but distorted and not-free-market. I have to agree with them on the distortion part.
It just makes sure that customers aren't allowed to get 5 percent discounts and free shipping.
Edit: Maybe you're trying to say that Amazon's competitors pay their employees more than Amazon because they have bigger hearts and are willing to crash their businesses before paying (legal, but unfair) low wages. That's a pretty big claim that requires some evidence. I think it's more likely that they are losing for other reasons.
At least Amazon can still compete on service and convenience, which are their strengths anyways.
I'm not even saying I agree with labor law in France, I can just see, things being what they are, why this is more reasonable than it looks for them.
And given the Poujadist nature of french society you can add an order of magnitude at least to how this is considered in France.
I would.
This, plus great customer service and extremely popular/convenient services like Prime are probably the actual reason that Amazon is beating everyone else. The guy I was responding to is bringing his established beliefs about fair labor to a story that isn't about that, in other words.
See here: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-a-long-view-...
This line of reasoning always amused me. Free = predatory? Can someone explain how one arrives at this logic?
If the thinking is that "free" leads to "monopoly" which then leads to dramatically increased pricing once all competition is eliminated, this has absolutely, empirically and historically, been shown to be false. It simply never happens. Or more accurately, if/when it has been attempted, this practice has swiftly been defeated by competition.
Edit: An afterthought: If free = predatory pricing, why do we allow charities to distribute free shelter, goods, and food? Surely these institutions are displacing some sales that would otherwise take place, thus negatively impacting those businesses that would otherwise have profited from those sales?
Unlimited data plans in the US (or almost everywhere else) is where this has happened
US Telecom in general is an interesting example because it's one of the few industries that typically do soak consumers, because of what essentially amount to government enforced monopolies.
Perhaps this was before your time, but there's a reason that Cap'n Crunch and blue box pirates like Jobs/Wozniak had appeal - the alternative was monopoly pricing.
>>US Telecom in general is an interesting example because it's one of the few industries that typically do soak consumers, because of what essentially amount to government enforced monopolies.<<
AT&T was only able to retain its monopoly because the government helped it enforce that monopoly by prohibiting competitors from entering the market. See the Kingsbury Commitment.
The only way monopolies succeed is if government force prevents markets from functioning.
Tell me more about functioning markets and how they can only be prevented by government force.
I don't know why people think the historical lack of monopolies (without government backing) is some right-wing nut-job theory. Not even the robber-barons wielded monopolies that allowed them to engage in "predatory pricing" or the other feared ills of monopolies. Go read about Vanderbilt or Getty or Carnegie. In each of their industries, consumers saw prices fall dramatically, even after each consolidated control over major portions of their respective markets. The fear that they would raise prices dramatically after acquiring their near-monopolies never materialized.
Edit:
>>Tell me more about functioning markets and how they can only be prevented by government force<<
Sorry, I misread your snark. I never said functioning markets can only be prevented by government force (whatever that even means). I'm saying that throughout history, you do not get monopolies that harm consumers unless the government backs the monopoly.
Charities/non-profits are heavily regulated in France, and they simply can't get enough "capital" to try this kind of scheme. You need so much capital (basically you're trading capital for market share, you'd better be the biggest when you start the race) that it's mostly public companies who can do that. That is also why Europe doesn't like state owned companies on free market, having the state budget as "available" capital, they can undercut everybody without endangering their lives (that's where the left/right doctrine kicks in).
All of that paid to someone that has only a high-school equivalence certificate.
While she won't get rich working there, she doesn't have to resort to food stamps or other forms of welfare in order to make ends meet.
If that is the true justification for the new law, it is at best "pre-crime" enforcement - protecting Amazon from themselves, from getting into a situation where them might risk committing predatory pricing and monopolistic practices.
More realistically, follow the money and apply basic public choice theory. It's not like the economic history of the world hasn't seen this pattern a few hundred times before.
I know! Those independent bookstores should just move to Luxembourg so they can compete with Amazon.
I'm sort of serious but I am sympathetic to your viewpoint because those warehouses are as close as you can get to a legal sweatshop in a 1st world country.
Also considering the simultaneous threat coming from the ebook that is also not such a bad idea to give physical shop some breathing space to adjust their business model. From France perspective again, it is choosing between having to pay social security to those failing business owners with tax money, or let Amazon clients foot the bill instead.
So depending at what level you look at: Book Market, Global Economy, US Economy or France Economy, there are many readings you can have.
Just curious.
But that's not what this is about. France has a regulated market for book. When stuff happen, like a player that manage to dodge the regulation thanks to specific circumstances, regulation need changing.
If you want to wonder about something, wonder why does France regulate book market ?
As a human, I can not get behind a policy that makes food and books more expensive and harder (or at least less easy) to get at.
What cities are you thinking about? I don't know if you're right or wrong, but my data point is a noticeable increase in malls/big chain shops in the three cities I mostly lived in (rome, milan, budapest) in the last ten years.
That being said I don't know what France is doing here. I just suggest that at country level there are more concern than just the physical book market.
Not to say they might not do that in the future; but aah, generally Amazon's modus operandi has been to continue reducing prices even when they have a 'virtual monopoly'.
1. high prices - price gouging 2. low prices - anti-competitive 3. same prices - collusion
Once a company becomes a monopoly -- even if it's because they are the only sane choice -- everything they do can be construed as illegal.
Another example is that governments have to be aware of growth patterns to plan infrastructure - they're operating at a different scale. Individuals often don't see the forest for the trees.
The 'free market' argument is really bad at long-term planning.
Governments never make short sighted political decisions to protect entrenched interests. The People on the the other hand have to be protected from getting discounts and free shipping. Because that would be a bad financial option for them.
Thanks by the way, I needed a laugh today.
Democracies tend to gravitate around the center of what their people want. If the people consistently vote to one side, then the centre will move to that side. This is a cultural process of years - and yes, you're exhibiting exactly the forest-for-the-trees thinking I was talking about.
To answer your question, I think the same people voted for the French governement as the ones who are daily clicking on Amazon quite happily.
Do you think they are mistaking forests for trees when clicking on Amazon, but expressing great wisdom when voting?
Do you think that when the politicians voted on this particular law, they were thinking of the people or the business interests that fund them?
mistaking forests for trees - That is not what that idiom means. It has nothing to do with being confused or being mistaken.
but expressing great wisdom when voting - No, but what you're doing here is reclassifying my attempts at discussing nuance into a silly dichotomy of extremes. Even if nothing else, I never said the French were wise - nor unwise for that matter. That's you trying to strawman me into a ridiculous position. I said that long-term, over the course of years, democracies settles around certain tenets. For the French, the importance of culture is one of them.
You're free to have the last comment, as I'm done here.
(Exaggerated obviously, you get the point)
I don't trust any government, but I don't trust my group of fellows citizens either. Check out Gustave LeBon :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popul...
This really seems to be a solution without a problem, for the majority of people in France. Those who are on the losing end of Amazon's success are fortunate to have the ear of legislators there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lang_Law
God forbid Amazon pays less in taxes and then passes the benefits over to consumers. How will we then finance the so needed new EU armed forces? Or welfare for third world immigrants who come here after we bomb their countries?
Holly Molly! what the heck is that? please enlighten me!
E.g. italy has had "save the bookstores" laws enacted for a while, which means amazon can't offer discounts as high as it does elsewhere, but using amazon.it still ends up cheaper than amazon.co.uk, for delivery in italy.
I think I read somewhere that it was a feature of HN to remove article from the front page when those kind of things happen. (take that with a grain of salt)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnac
A more specific example, for many years (and perhaps still today), to help foster the domestic film industry, foreign movie imports (which were usually American films, Japanese media has been entirely illegal until very recently) were artificially limited at some small number. The idea was to provide a little competition in the form of high-budget, high-quality films but give enough room for local film makers to figure out the top-to-bottom of making competitive movies. It was a garden fence to let air and light in, but keep damaging critters out. It worked, the Korean film industry is booming, growing and has started exporting and Korean TV dramas are watched heavily all over the region.
So, it's no surprise that France, with a strong literary heritage, wants to protect the entire domestic market and supply chain, from writers to publisher to retailers in order to keep such a cultural activity "French". The question is, is it just a wall to keep outsiders out, or is it a garden fence with a growth plan to grow and eventually export French literary culture like Korea exports Movies and Dramas?
Usually when laws "stick it to the corporations", there's at least the expectation that the cost will come out of the corporation's profits. Then if the corporation raises prices, they can be derided for that. But this is actually not possible here - this mandates a direct, customer-facing price increase. I wonder what will happen to support for the law when consumers realise this.
Both the left and right of their government has approved this law. While I understand this is more in line with authoritarian politicking than libertarian politicking, they do make a decent locale/culture argument against a cultureless behemoth like Amazon.
If they want to make France stronger they wouldn't be killing its enterprenual spirit every time they can.
I honestly don't see how restricting Amazon alone affects the market that much. It wouldn't affect my aspirations towards publishing a book or marketplace.
>The way I see it, this is them simply penalizing a monopoly.
Starbucks has a monopoly to sell coffee in France? Amazon has a monopoly to sell books in France?
What are you talking about?
>While you could argue some subsidize their income through Amazon, many more actual French citizens earn their income through independent brick and mortar shops.
And in the free market economy this would be a sign that maybe, just maybe, they need to: A) Get much better at this OR B) Start doing something at what they are good enough that people go there and pay them on their own for their services of products.
I'm not saying it's easy. All I'm saying is that you won't be able to protect them forever. It's good to treat them like gown-ups right from the get-go without assuming that they are too stupid to do something useful for the broader public.
>I honestly don't see how restricting Amazon alone affects the market that much.
Then why to insist on doing it?
>It wouldn't affect my aspirations towards publishing a book or marketplace.
Good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...
Consider these OECD stats on hours worked:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS
Average hours worked: 1,479 hours worked in France in 2012, versus 1,790 in the USA. Over 300 hours, which is more than 7 weeks of full time work, which the French avoid. That's over 7 weeks of vacation that the French enjoy, while the people of the USA are working. The French accept a smaller per capita income in exchange for a great deal of leisure.
My friends tell me that France is especially pleasant as a nation to raise children in, as the relaxed lifestyle makes it easier to achieve something like a balance between family and work. In the USA politicians, and movies, tend to adopt a strong rhetoric about being pro-family, but having the leisure to spend time with one's kids is, from what I'm told, easier to achieve in France.
France manages its economy in a manner that is heavy handed, when compared to the style that's been adopted in most of the English speaking countries. The advantages of this heavy handed management should be carefully considered: an affluent yet relaxed lifestyle.
It would be interesting to hear the point of view of people that worked for the same company both in France and the US.
In my opinion, one problem in France is that many (well-paid) jobs are in Paris where housing is getting increasingly expensive. Besides, the layout of the city is such that commuting can be a pain and maybe unavoidable. I think New York is much better from that point of view.
I'm curious, is it possible to negotiate 10 weeks vacations in an american company?
Of course, salary is then lower than in the US.
You cannot do that for any kind of normal job, no. Maybe you could negotiate 3 weeks at most.
Also a 45 hour work week is now accepted as normal.
I, unfortunately, do not fit into any of these categories, as much as I would love to move to France. I'm here now, but only for a year :(
It's sad Schengen Area[1] does not cross oceans...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
For example in France, Carrefour ( the french walmart ) used dumping for a few decades, destroying any competition, then slowly increased its prices. Logically, competition should emerge but Carrefour is so entrenched into the infrastructure of the market that a competitor cannot really survive. This is a simplification (the french market is more an oligopoly than a monopoly) but the overall scheme is true.
Amazon may or may not have one of these effects. I don't (yet) know or more precisely I don't have enough info to have an opinion.
In France we are trying to manage those shops and this heritage. I don't say that we succeed (because now those shops are mostly franchises form mains brands, banks, assurances ans real estates, who price out independent shops), but at least we try something. We have a big problem: we know what we don't want but we have to invent what we want and the route there.
I think the argument is that cheaper books might make you more affluent in the sense that you'll have more money, while at the same time promoting a competitive work culture in which it's not possible to use that money to buy time off. In the U.S. I can't trade my money for more vacation. My job is all or nothing. If what I value is time off then what good is money if I can't use it to purchase time off?
Also, France really needs to stop deporting Romani people.
Frankly, you're amazingly privileged being black in France compared to being an Arab or a Romani.
I wonder if this kind of protectionism will become more common/useful as lower-skilled jobs become harder and harder to come by. In the past, reduction of prices via higher efficiencies (= fewer jobs) has generally been a near-universal good: it freed up the workforce for other, more useful activities. Nowadays, there doesn't seem to be any new segment of industry spurring lower-skilled job growth. The flip side of prices getting lower is that job availability/quality goes down.
One could see France's stand against higher efficiencies as, effectively, a form of monetary redistribution. Perhaps the choice is between a society with low prices and a large underclass of un/under-employed, or higher prices and most people being able to make ends meet. If you're going to choose the higher-prices approach, the French method of redistribution at least maintains valuable cultural elements and a culture of needing to work - as opposed to straight benefits.