The Independent’s John Lichfield, writing about Nicolas Sarkozy:
His ideas are based on two simple but accurate diagnoses of France’s economic decline in the past 30 years.
First, France does not work enough. Young people enter the workforce late; experienced people retire early; the standard working week is now just 35 hours. France works an average of just over 600 hours per inhabitant per year, taking into account all the people not in work; Britain 800 hours. Result: slow growth, low incomes and high unemployment.
Yes, he really did blame high unemployment on the number of people not in work. As it turns out, French people (if Lichfield’s figures are right) work 25 per cent fewer hours than the British, however, that includes the hours of potential work lost to joblessness. Of course, this is quite a valid reason to object to unemployment – it’s literally a waste of time, but this isn’t what he’s getting at. He seems to suggest that if only the others would work harder, they would either generate enough supply-which-creates-its-own-demand to create more jobs, or else they would spend enough extra income to create more aggregate demand and create more jobs.
Current UK unemployment is 5.5 per cent, French 8.4 per cent – so just over a third (34 per cent) greater. All other things being equal, you’d expect the hours gap to change pro-rata with the unemployment gap – that is, if like the Indy, you are stupid enough to contaminate your proposed cause with a measurement of effect. But clearly something is not equal. If the greater quantity of worklessness is too great to explain the lesser quantity of work, the excess must have been cancelled out by something – which can only be that the people in work are working harder.