[Troll]

I don't understand why this is happening in a country where everything suggests things should be getting worse. However, the number of unemployed people in France dropped 10% in 2006 (15% down from Feb 2005) to it's lowest rate since July 2001.

The unemployment rate now officially sits at 8.7%. Bearing in mind the definition of unemployed used in France and the fact that unemployed people can more easily survive on social security than on the minimum wage, I find it quite remarkable that the rate is so low.

Despite living here, I still don't understand how the French manage to live in such comparative comfort. They seem to do everything wrong economically and yet the economy continues to kick over and people still have comparatively good lives.

Le ch�mage a baiss� de 10% en un an
Le Monde.fr : Le ch�mage a baiss� de 10 % entre novembre 2005 et novembre 2006

[voodoo]

Interesting, yes. Well done France.

V

[design219]

I want so much to be above dissin' the French, but darn, it's so hard. Good for them. I guess.

[olePigeon]

7 hour workday. 1 hour lunches. I think less stress equals happy and productive workers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

7 hour workday. 1 hour lunches. I think less stress equals happy and productive workers.

Only thing different is I work an extra hour. No biggy.

[tie]

Rule 6 violation! We only post bad news about France and Canada here. Reported.

[Kerrigan]

Good to see Europe's GDP growing, and unemployment rate shrinking.

(yes that was very WDLovesque)

[spindler]

I heard somewhere that the average house in Europe is a tiny 1300 square feet, slightly smaller than what Americans lived in in the 1960s. The average American house is 2500 square feet.

So basically it is a tradeoff. If you want to have free time and essentially average four days a week of work you can do it, but then you don't have a real house, basically a large apartment. If you want a real house, nice and comfortable, then you have to work a long exhausting work week, and have less time to enjoy culture or even that house you work so hard for.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Despite living here, I still don't understand how the French manage to live in such comparative comfort. They seem to do everything wrong economically and yet the economy continues to kick over and people still have comparatively good lives.

Easy really. We're paying for you to relax.

Common Agricultural Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[turtle777]

Europe's economy is on the up swing, the US on the down swing. Good for them, bad for US.

-t

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by spindler 

I heard somewhere that the average house in Europe is a tiny 1300 square feet, slightly smaller than what Americans lived in in the 1960s. The average American house is 2500 square feet.

So basically it is a tradeoff. If you want to have free time and essentially average four days a week of work you can do it, but then you don't have a real house, basically a large apartment. If you want a real house, nice and comfortable, then you have to work a long exhausting work week, and have less time to enjoy culture or even that house you work so hard for.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/03/real...2006/index.htm

Slightly old figures, but it looks like you've got some cheap housing in the USA. I'd go big too.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Europe's economy is on the up swing, the US on the down swing. Good for them, bad for US.

-t

I keep hearing and hearing about this...

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Europe's economy is on the up swing, the US on the down swing. Good for them, bad for US.

-t

There is no such thing like "Europe's economy". And the U.S. economy is doing quite well.

Regards
PB

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spindler 

So basically it is a tradeoff. If you want to have free time and essentially average four days a week of work you can do it, but then you don't have a real house, basically a large apartment. If you want a real house, nice and comfortable, then you have to work a long exhausting work week, and have less time to enjoy culture or even that house you work so hard for.

No, it's not that simple. You seem to be saying that if you work hard, then you earn a lot of money and can afford a big house. And because the Europeans don't work hard, they don't have big houses. Not true.

1) The French may not work particularly hard but that isn't a European trait. When it comes to productivity, the Germans outdo the Americans, for example.

2) The population density in Europe is higher than in the US. They have the same number of people crammed into a smaller space. There simply isn't space available in Europe for everyone to have a 2,500 square foot house no matter how hard they work. The population density in the US is comparatively low.

3) Whenever the demand for property is high, prices are high. Property prices in New York compare with prices in London or Paris because of the demand. Property prices in L.A. don't. Obviously, some Londoners will be able to afford huge houses in London but unless new properties are somehow created (for example if the proposal to build more skyscrapers were approved), the market will move with you as you work harder. Europe generally looks more like lots of New Yorks than lots of LA's which explains why the average price is closer to New York than L.A. The average property prices here are therefore higher and people can afford less with the same salaries. I looked at properties in West Palm Beach a while back. The price was around $180 per square foot which is about 1,550 EUR per square meter. In Paris, the average price per square meter is about 6,000 EUR, so roughly 4 times more expensive.

The biggest reason why Americans have bigger houses is because housing is comparatively cheap in the US. Other than New York and perhaps some of the other big cities, the land is comparatively cheap. In addition, the actual buildings are cheaper in the US because of their construction (being generally timber-based as opposed to the bricks and mortar housing in Europe).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by spindler 

I heard somewhere that the average house in Europe is a tiny 1300 square feet, slightly smaller than what Americans lived in in the 1960s. The average American house is 2500 square feet.

So basically it is a tradeoff. If you want to have free time and essentially average four days a week of work you can do it, but then you don't have a real house, basically a large apartment. If you want a real house, nice and comfortable, then you have to work a long exhausting work week, and have less time to enjoy culture or even that house you work so hard for.

What do you want with 2500 sq. ft? I just bought a 980 sq. ft. condo, and that's plenty for myself, my fiancee, and our cat.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What do you want with 2500 sq. ft? I just bought a 980 sq. ft. condo, and that's plenty for myself, my fiancee, and our cat.

80 ft. for you and your fiancee, 900 for the cat?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What do you want with 2500 sq. ft?

Space to entertain. Space to pursue hobbies.

I mean, there's a reason why the working classes of the UK don't do much more than watch the TV and go to the pub - they haven't got the space.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Space to entertain. Space to pursue hobbies.

I mean, there's a reason why the working classes of the UK don't do much more than watch the TV and go to the pub - they haven't got the space.

Our condo has plenty of room to entertain despite being under 1000 sq. ft. And I'm setting up the second bedroom as an office and we have basement space, both of which could be used for hobbies.

Doing nothing besides watch tv and go to the pub has squat to do with space. It's a conscious choice to sit on your ass and do nothing productive despite tons of available alternatives (like taking a walk, going to a park, going to a show, going to a museum, going to the library, going to a game, joining a sports league, &c, &c, &c). Why waste money on a TV (and license) when there's plenty of free entertainment out there?

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Space to entertain. Space to pursue hobbies.

I mean, there's a reason why the working classes of the UK don't do much more than watch the TV and go to the pub - they haven't got the space.

I like land but I'd actually like to downsize my house. We don't use all the rooms.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Doing nothing besides watch tv and go to the pub has squat to do with space. It's a conscious choice to sit on your ass and do nothing productive despite tons of available alternatives (like taking a walk, going to a park, going to a show, going to a museum, going to the library, going to a game, joining a sports league, &c, &c, &c). Why waste money on a TV (and license) when there's plenty of free entertainment out there?

OK. But the stuff you mention there isn't actually productive. It's passive recreation, not an active hobby. You try taking up, say, the drums in an average British house when you have wife and kids and see how far you get.

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I like land but I'd actually like to downsize my house. We don't use all the rooms.

I've just downsized (sold the farm, moved into one of my rentals for a short time). IMO, it sucks immensely. Each to his own, I guess.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You try taking up, say, the drums in an average British house when you have wife and kids and see how far you get.

That's not just a British thing, mate.

As long as you live in a city, you're just not going to ever have all that much space (unless you're ridiculously wealthy). If you want to have room to spread out you have to move to the country (which I'll undoubtedly do eventually, but for the time being I enjoy the conveniences of the city with only the occasional visit to the country).

But, for me at least, the space that's important is outdoor space. I could live in a tiny one-room shack and be perfectly comfortable, if I didn't have a single neighbor on this side of the horizon.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What do you want with 2500 sq. ft? I just bought a 980 sq. ft. condo, and that's plenty for myself, my fiancee, and our cat.

So he can have a 600 sq ft formal dining room with an expensive fake persian rug, and that is never going to be used but sure will be shown to the guests. Size of houses in the US suburbia is out of hand. Gota keep up with the Joneses.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Troll 

In addition, the actual buildings are cheaper in the US because of their construction (being generally timber-based as opposed to the bricks and mortar housing in Europe).

That is so true. The townhouse I bought brand new some years ago was given a life expectancy of... 65 years. Cheaply built.
This reminds me of that guy who insisted in buying a brand new house, in northern NJ. The reason : 'I don't want buy a used house'. I laughed.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I mean, there's a reason why the working classes of the UK don't do much more than watch the TV and go to the pub - they haven't got the space.

I find the opposite actually. About 2 years ago I moved into a bigger apartment. We are now cocooning much more than we ever did in the small place. We almost never switched on the TV in the old apartment. Now we watch TV at least once a week. I think that when you have less space, you tend to go out more.

Oh, and we have two cats who do indeed occupy 95% of the surface area despite being tiny!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I find the opposite actually. About 2 years ago I moved into a bigger apartment. We are now cocooning much more than we ever did in the small place. We almost never switched on the TV in the old apartment. Now we watch TV at least once a week.

You need a hobby. Try playing the drums or painting. Or cheesemaking.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

7 hour workday. 1 hour lunches. I think less stress equals happy and productive workers.

This is what I've heard from friends who live there. When they work, they really work and they do their jobs. Think about an American workplace and how much time is wasted. It makes perfect sense to me.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This is what I've heard from friends who live there. When they work, they really work and they do their jobs. Think about an American workplace and how much time is wasted. It makes perfect sense to me.

I'm open to the possibilty, but France is basically the closest thing to communism in Western Europe.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm open to the possibilty, but France is basically the closest thing to communism in Western Europe.

That is probably the reason why they have a conservative administration and a right wing president.

Try Sweden, maybe.


Regards
PB.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm open to the possibilty, but France is basically the closest thing to communism in Western Europe.

The Idiocy is strong with This One.

Use the Farce, Luke.

[tie]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm open to the possibilty, but France is basically the closest thing to communism in Western Europe.

And communism rhymes with terrorism.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm open to the possibilty, but France is basically the closest thing to communism in Western Europe.

Yeah, right.

-t

[ink]

I see Bush's tax cuts are working.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Idiocy is strong with This One.

Use the Farce, Luke.

Hold your tongue, Linfidel

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

Hold your tongue, Linfidel

Oh, I see, you're just a troll account. Good.

-t

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

That is so true. The townhouse I bought brand new some years ago was given a life expectancy of... 65 years. Cheaply built.
This reminds me of that guy who insisted in buying a brand new house, in northern NJ. The reason : 'I don't want buy a used house'. I laughed.

Huh?!? "65 years" life expectancy, that's complete rubbish. Who said that to you? Have they never been to Boston? I call BS.

Well, I can possibly understand it if you live in a trailer park. If I were you I'd move. It must suck to live there!

My last house was built in 1881 and it was a timber framed house. ALL of the houses around it were built 100+ years ago and were in great shape. My current house is solid brick built in 1900 and it is in much worse shape. I am going to spend a fortune hiring a mason this summer.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What do you want with 2500 sq. ft? I just bought a 980 sq. ft. condo, and that's plenty for myself, my fiancee, and our cat.

Wow, you are judging the lifestyles of millions of people based upon your needs.

We'll talk when you have two kids. And a hobby other than MacNN.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, I see, you're just a troll account. Good.

-t

I got an infraction for insulting a troll account.

EDIT: I got two "10 point" infractions for insulting this troll account.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Our condo has plenty of room to entertain despite being under 1000 sq. ft. And I'm setting up the second bedroom as an office and we have basement space, both of which could be used for hobbies.

"Entertain"? What, two people?

We regularly have 20+ people over. Our house is 1,800 sq. ft. and we're elbow to elbow crammed in here.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

I am no troll account. Trolls attack people personally. I intend to bring another voice to the debate.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

I am no troll account. Trolls attack people personally. I intend to bring another voice to the debate.

Why not use your original account then?

Trolls don't just attack people personally. They also say intentionally inflammatory things to get people worked up.

Troll accounts are account created to say things they don't want their original account to be associated with. You claim to have been here since 1998. Quite hiding.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

I am no troll account. Trolls attack people personally. I intend to bring another voice to the debate.

Oh dear. The corpse has returned.

Yeah, this is a troll account. He's always been a troll.

V

[voodoo]

http://forums.macnn.com/members/uday-s-carcass/

http://forums.macnn.com/members/usama-s-carcase/

http://forums.macnn.com/members/usama-s-carcass/

http://forums.macnn.com/members/zarqawi-s-stump/ (banned)

http://forums.macnn.com/members/zarqawi-s-eye/

etc etc

all vitriolic and trollish accounts.

V

[Zarqawi's Eye]

I have changed, much like the venerable Ca$h. Enlightenment and time have brought me to a deeper understanding of the wisdom I might yet offer to the Linfidels and appeasers.

To refrain from personal attacks is the course I now take, with my soul, burning bright in Hell for my terrorist sins, lighting the path in darkness for the boards to follow.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Huh?!? "65 years" life expectancy, that's complete rubbish. Who said that to you? Have they never been to Boston? I call BS.

\

No trailer park, no thanks. LOL. It was on the final state inspection. I am not surprised, that is the way a lot of houses are constructed these days in the US. People want large houses for cheap : corners must be cut somewhere.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

No trailer park, no thanks. LOL. It was on the final state inspection. I am not surprised, that is the way a lot of houses are constructed these days in the US. People want large houses for cheap : corners must be cut somewhere.

FUD.

House built today are far more resistant to decay and rot. They have a much greater longevity than houses built (that are still standing BTW) hundreds of years ago. Modern building codes, and research in building materials have come a long way in the last century.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

FUD.

House built today are far more resistant to decay and rot. They have a much greater longevity than houses built (that are still standing BTW) hundreds of years ago. Modern building codes, and research in building materials have come a long way in the last century.

I know you doing a lot of work with your hands, but are you sure about this? From what I've seen the cookie-cutter house that is springing up in suburbs everywhere in Canada is relatively poorly-built. They use cheaper woods, and cut corners wherever possible to save time and money.

My father and my mom's uncles built our two-story (~2600 sq. ft) house in Newfoundland (and it was well-built too, considering the weather conditions there). He was absolutely appalled when we moved to the Toronto area in 1999. He totally redid the interiors of both the houses they've owned in the area, and if you want to hear disparaging tales of shoddy construction work you only need ask him about it (one was built in 1990, the other in the early 1980s...he has also helped renovate some friends' newer homes as well). He can go on all day about how the thinnest plywood is used for the roof, cuts are hasty and ill-jointed, and the gyprock poorly plastered.

Anyways, it's just a thought. However better our building codes and materials are, I imagine that building companies nowadays are far more focused on the bottom line. Way back in the day things were often built with the future in mind, instead.

greg

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I know you doing a lot of work with your hands, but are you sure about this? From what I've seen the cookie-cutter house that is springing up in suburbs everywhere in Canada is relatively poorly-built. They use cheaper woods, and cut corners wherever possible to save time and money.

My father and my mom's uncles built our two-story (~2600 sq. ft) house in Newfoundland (and it was well-built too, considering the weather conditions there). He was absolutely appalled when we moved to the Toronto area in 1999. He totally redid the interiors of both the houses they've owned in the area, and if you want to hear disparaging tales of shoddy construction work you only need ask him about it (one was built in 1990, the other in the early 1980s...he has also helped renovate some friends' newer homes as well). He can go on all day about how the thinnest plywood is used for the roof, cuts are hasty and ill-jointed, and the gyprock poorly plastered.

Anyways, it's just a thought. However better our building codes and materials are, I imagine that building companies nowadays are far more focused on the bottom line. Way back in the day things were often built with the future in mind, instead.

greg

I know more about how to fly the NASA Space Shuttles than I do about building practices/codes in Canada.

I am speaking entirely about current USA building codes and construction practices. Today, pretty much every detail is specified down to how many nails need to be use per inch when nailing sub floor.

My current major certifies me to teach building trades classes in high schools and trades schools. I do know what I am talking about.

If a house today is shoddily built, then it was done illegally.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

FUD.

House built today are far more resistant to decay and rot. They have a much greater longevity than houses built (that are still standing BTW) hundreds of years ago. Modern building codes, and research in building materials have come a long way in the last century.

Well what can I say that's what was on the inspection report I got. I don't live there anymore anyways so it ain't my problem. to chime on what StM said, I followed the construction of the house, and neither the quality of the materials (compressed wood from Quebec by the way) nor the workmanship impressed me.