According to Chirac and his cabinet, you're considered "employed" in France when you work at least ONE (1) hour per week. So 14 million poor Frenchmen would make that a conservative estimate.
is it difficult to speak English?
Un chiffre facile à retenir pour le Royaume-Uni : 13.
— 13 millions de pauvres : 2 fois plus qu'en France
— 13 % de chômage (contre 9,5 % en France).
Bonne nuit Adam !
----------------
UK hasn't got 13% unemployment. It's unemployment is about about 4%, one of the lowest in the developed world.
— 13 millions de pauvres : 2 fois plus qu'en France
— 13 % de chômage (contre 9,5 % en France).
Bonne nuit Adam !
----------------
UK hasn't got 13% unemployment. It's unemployment is about about 4%, one of the lowest in the developed world.
"13 millions de pauvres : 2 fois plus qu'en France "
And why does France has less people living in poverty than UK? It doesn't. Its percentage of population living below the poverty line is EXACTLY the same as Britain, except the French pay lots of money to unemployed people, making the unemployed think "I don't need to work. I'm getting paid loads just being unemployed!" And thus France has an unemployment rate of 10%, whereas the British unemployed don't get paid very much, thus increasing our perceived poverty rate, but giving much lower unemployment. Let's look at the facts....
look at Eurostat for those poverty statistics:
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/porta...E/socohe/sc021
Here we can see that, before "social transfers" (state benefits, state pensions etc.) France has 26% below the poverty line and the UK has .... 26% below the poverty line! So, on the basis of our economies, we are equal.
Now, what happens once you French have dolled out welfare cheques to everyone in sight and we Brits have sent everyone home from the DSS office with barely enough to live on.
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/porta...E/socohe/sc022
France has 12% below the poverty line (after a recent sudden drop - have you been increasing those benefits again?!), while the UK has 18%.
That is a gap, of which we should be thoroughly ashamed, but it is not 6% and 21%!
Also, it is worth pointing out that the UK's GDP per head is 9% higher than yours.
-----
I think the Brits have it right, economically. Our poverty rates are the same as France's, but once you include France's generous welfare payments then France poverty rate goes below ours.
However, in return, we get lower unemployment and higher GDP growth than France.
And why does France has less people living in poverty than UK? It doesn't. Its percentage of population living below the poverty line is EXACTLY the same as Britain, except the French pay lots of money to unemployed people, making the unemployed think "I don't need to work. I'm getting paid loads just being unemployed!" And thus France has an unemployment rate of 10%, whereas the British unemployed don't get paid very much, thus increasing our perceived poverty rate, but giving much lower unemployment. Let's look at the facts....
look at Eurostat for those poverty statistics:
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/porta...E/socohe/sc021
Here we can see that, before "social transfers" (state benefits, state pensions etc.) France has 26% below the poverty line and the UK has .... 26% below the poverty line! So, on the basis of our economies, we are equal.
Now, what happens once you French have dolled out welfare cheques to everyone in sight and we Brits have sent everyone home from the DSS office with barely enough to live on.
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/porta...E/socohe/sc022
France has 12% below the poverty line (after a recent sudden drop - have you been increasing those benefits again?!), while the UK has 18%.
That is a gap, of which we should be thoroughly ashamed, but it is not 6% and 21%!
Also, it is worth pointing out that the UK's GDP per head is 9% higher than yours.
-----
I think the Brits have it right, economically. Our poverty rates are the same as France's, but once you include France's generous welfare payments then France poverty rate goes below ours.
However, in return, we get lower unemployment and higher GDP growth than France.
In only two countries of the world is child poverty decreasing - the Anglo-Saxon nations of Britain and the United States.
In France, it is increasing year after year.
In France, it is increasing year after year.
It's no wonder France has less people in poverty than French (when you include state benefits) when people can get paid £920 per month just for sitting in a car. In other words, get £920 per month to do....nothing at all.
Carer gets £920 per month to sit around
By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 25/11/2005)
A woman is being paid to sit in her car outside her boss's home in an extraordinary example of the French "social model" in action.
Monique Piard, 56, returned from sick leave to find that the 89-year-old man for whom she cared had appointed a new care worker to tend to his needs. Under French labour laws, she would forfeit the right to unemployment benefits if she simply accepted the position and walked out.
"At my age, it would not be easy to find another job," she said. But her boss, Alfred Lascaux, for whom she has worked for 10 years, said he could not bring himself to sack her.
In a novel extension of the notion of gardening leave, he has continued to pay her wages of £920 a month even though she spends her days knitting in her car in the drive of his house in Gradignan, a suburb of Bordeaux.
Lawyers are hoping a solution can be found within the conciliation service of an employment tribunal.
Carer gets £920 per month to sit around
By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 25/11/2005)
A woman is being paid to sit in her car outside her boss's home in an extraordinary example of the French "social model" in action.
Monique Piard, 56, returned from sick leave to find that the 89-year-old man for whom she cared had appointed a new care worker to tend to his needs. Under French labour laws, she would forfeit the right to unemployment benefits if she simply accepted the position and walked out.
"At my age, it would not be easy to find another job," she said. But her boss, Alfred Lascaux, for whom she has worked for 10 years, said he could not bring himself to sack her.
In a novel extension of the notion of gardening leave, he has continued to pay her wages of £920 a month even though she spends her days knitting in her car in the drive of his house in Gradignan, a suburb of Bordeaux.
Lawyers are hoping a solution can be found within the conciliation service of an employment tribunal.
Les chiffres officiels du chômage au Royume-Uni — cad : 5 % = 1.500.000 chômeurs — ne sont qu'une grossière manipulation statistique puisque l'essentiel des chômeurs britanniques est "reversé" dans des catégories style maladie chronique ou handicap définitif. C'est ainsi que 2.500.000 Britanniques ont quitté le marché du travail — et ainsi évité d'être pris en charge par le régime chômage — depuis qu'ils sont "tombés" malades ou "devenus" handicapés. Ce qui est étrange c'est que le pourcentage de Britanniques ayant quitté le marché de l'emploi pour "raisons médicales" est 2 fois ½ supérieur à celui constaté en Allemagne — 4 fois plus comparé au pourcentage italien. Il y avait 500.000 handicapés au RU en 1981 ; ils étaient 2.300.000 en 2003...
Il ya bien sûr une explication à tout ça : le système de "protection sociale" du RU incite les chômeurs de longue durée à se définir comme "inemployables" s'ils veulent continuer à toucher des aides de l'État.
Le chiffre de 2.500.000, calculé en 2002 par le CRESR¹, représente un ***quintuplement*** par rapport à 1981 (l'époque où Thatcher a démantelé les droits sociaux de ses "compatriotes") — étrange... Cette masse de centaines de milliers de personnes inactives et payées par l'État coûte 10 milliards d'euros par an — les allocations logements et les exemptions de la fiscalité locative et foncière ne sont pas incluses dans cette somme astronomique.
Quand on calcule le ratio « inactifs suite à infirmité ou maladie / chômeurs », on s'aperçoit que le taux s'élève à *** 180 % *** pour le Royaume-Uni en 2002. Une étude internationale menée en 1999 (source ILO) parvenait aux résultats suivants :
— France = 5 % (5 inactifs pour cause d'infirmité ou maladie pour 100 chômeurs)
— Irelande = 15 %
— Allemagne = 30 %
— Espagne = 45 %
— Italie = 60 %
— Finlande = 70 %
— Belgique= 75 %
— Danemark = 90 %
— Royaume-Uni = 150 % (contre 180 % en 2002)
— Pays-Bas = 170 %
— Luxembourg = 200 %.
Autrement dit, au Royaume-Uni en 2002, il y a 36 personnes inactives suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs alors qu'il n'y en avait "que" 30 en 1999.
En France en 1999, il y a 1 personne inactive suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs.
En Irlande en 1999, il y a 3 personnes inactives suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs.
En Allemagne, 6.
En Espagne, 9.
Même si certains Britanniques sont réellement malades ou handicapés, on comprend mal pourquoi le ratio « malades ou handicapés / chômeurs » est proche de 200 %. Peut-être y a-t-il un mal spécifique à ce pays — la vache folle peut-être ? Reste que si on prend le différentiel Royaume-Uni/France (180 points - 5 points = 175 points), il faut rajouter 2.430.000 chômeurs aux 1.500.000 chômeurs officiels. Ce qui fait 3.930.000 ***VRAIS*** chômeurs au Royaume-Uni.
Et 3.930.000 chômeurs ça fait un taux de chômage de 13 %, Adam.
¹Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research,
Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB
Tel: 0114 225 3073 Fax: 0114 225 2197 Email: cresr@shu.ac.uk
Il ya bien sûr une explication à tout ça : le système de "protection sociale" du RU incite les chômeurs de longue durée à se définir comme "inemployables" s'ils veulent continuer à toucher des aides de l'État.
Le chiffre de 2.500.000, calculé en 2002 par le CRESR¹, représente un ***quintuplement*** par rapport à 1981 (l'époque où Thatcher a démantelé les droits sociaux de ses "compatriotes") — étrange... Cette masse de centaines de milliers de personnes inactives et payées par l'État coûte 10 milliards d'euros par an — les allocations logements et les exemptions de la fiscalité locative et foncière ne sont pas incluses dans cette somme astronomique.
Quand on calcule le ratio « inactifs suite à infirmité ou maladie / chômeurs », on s'aperçoit que le taux s'élève à *** 180 % *** pour le Royaume-Uni en 2002. Une étude internationale menée en 1999 (source ILO) parvenait aux résultats suivants :
— France = 5 % (5 inactifs pour cause d'infirmité ou maladie pour 100 chômeurs)
— Irelande = 15 %
— Allemagne = 30 %
— Espagne = 45 %
— Italie = 60 %
— Finlande = 70 %
— Belgique= 75 %
— Danemark = 90 %
— Royaume-Uni = 150 % (contre 180 % en 2002)
— Pays-Bas = 170 %
— Luxembourg = 200 %.
Autrement dit, au Royaume-Uni en 2002, il y a 36 personnes inactives suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs alors qu'il n'y en avait "que" 30 en 1999.
En France en 1999, il y a 1 personne inactive suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs.
En Irlande en 1999, il y a 3 personnes inactives suite à "infirmité ou maladie" pour 20 chômeurs.
En Allemagne, 6.
En Espagne, 9.
Même si certains Britanniques sont réellement malades ou handicapés, on comprend mal pourquoi le ratio « malades ou handicapés / chômeurs » est proche de 200 %. Peut-être y a-t-il un mal spécifique à ce pays — la vache folle peut-être ? Reste que si on prend le différentiel Royaume-Uni/France (180 points - 5 points = 175 points), il faut rajouter 2.430.000 chômeurs aux 1.500.000 chômeurs officiels. Ce qui fait 3.930.000 ***VRAIS*** chômeurs au Royaume-Uni.
Et 3.930.000 chômeurs ça fait un taux de chômage de 13 %, Adam.
¹Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research,
Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB
Tel: 0114 225 3073 Fax: 0114 225 2197 Email: cresr@shu.ac.uk
<is it difficult to speak English?>
Adam wrote:
That wouldn't surprise me. It's no wonder their economy's is tatters.
IN tatters is the correct one.
Adam who is also known as a saviour of English language has just answered of your above question.
Cheers.
Adam wrote:
That wouldn't surprise me. It's no wonder their economy's is tatters.
IN tatters is the correct one.
Adam who is also known as a saviour of English language has just answered of your above question.
Cheers.
English is not that difficult to speak when you are at primary school; the language then is very basic, however, as we progress through school, our vocabulary becomes greater and the language more difficult.
There is one thing I do hate about some speaker's of the language and that is when they miss the "th" out of things like "think" and "three" and replacing it with "f".
I come from Hull and have found to speak Standard English fluently is easy. I can't understand how people cannot speak correctly. I put it down to bone idleness.
There is one thing I do hate about some speaker's of the language and that is when they miss the "th" out of things like "think" and "three" and replacing it with "f".
I come from Hull and have found to speak Standard English fluently is easy. I can't understand how people cannot speak correctly. I put it down to bone idleness.
Even Phds have a problem in speaking fluently. Have a look at this link.
http://www.fluentenglish.com/principles.asp
http://www.fluentenglish.com/principles.asp
The main thing that makes English quite difficult is that it is one of the most irregular languages EVER!!!!
Take from example, the following words and their pronounciations:
trough = troff
through = throo
though = thow
true = troo
Slough ( a place in England) = slaow - (here, slough ryhmes with 'ow' i.e. ow, I hit my foot)
Take from example, the following words and their pronounciations:
trough = troff
through = throo
though = thow
true = troo
Slough ( a place in England) = slaow - (here, slough ryhmes with 'ow' i.e. ow, I hit my foot)
"The main thing that makes English quite difficult is that it is one of the most irregular languages EVER!!!!
Take from example, the following words and their pronounciations:
trough = troff
through = throo
though = thow
true = troo
Slough ( a place in England) = slaow - (here, slough ryhmes with 'ow' i.e. ow, I hit my foot)"
You're simply confusing spelling conventions with the spoken language.
Take from example, the following words and their pronounciations:
trough = troff
through = throo
though = thow
true = troo
Slough ( a place in England) = slaow - (here, slough ryhmes with 'ow' i.e. ow, I hit my foot)"
You're simply confusing spelling conventions with the spoken language.
Ben,
=>The main thing that makes English quite difficult is that it is one of the most irregular languages EVER!!!!<=
English irregular?
bend - bent - bent
breed - bred - bred
build - built - built
Wow how terribly irregular !Not.
English isn't quite difficult it's quite easy.
As JJM pointed out, you just wrote down how YOU pronounce the words.What does this prove?
=>The main thing that makes English quite difficult is that it is one of the most irregular languages EVER!!!!<=
English irregular?
bend - bent - bent
breed - bred - bred
build - built - built
Wow how terribly irregular !Not.
English isn't quite difficult it's quite easy.
As JJM pointed out, you just wrote down how YOU pronounce the words.What does this prove?
JJM, I don't know what you mean when you say that I'm confusing spelling conventions with the spoken language. (??)
Sander: ".....you just wrote down how YOU pronounce the words.." Yes, and how EVERY other English speaker pronounces them. I can't think of any dialect or accent that pronounces those words differently ( apart from some people in Ireland can't pronounce the 'th' sound, and just use a gutteral 't' sound because of their Irish language heritage).
What it proves is, that the pronounciation of this 'ough' ending is VERY irregular.
Ben.
Sander: ".....you just wrote down how YOU pronounce the words.." Yes, and how EVERY other English speaker pronounces them. I can't think of any dialect or accent that pronounces those words differently ( apart from some people in Ireland can't pronounce the 'th' sound, and just use a gutteral 't' sound because of their Irish language heritage).
What it proves is, that the pronounciation of this 'ough' ending is VERY irregular.
Ben.