I am only a student of economics at a small American university, but several of your points in this article appear to disagree with what I have learned. Perhaps they only require some clarification.

"Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country's collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year."

If there was a store owner running a grocery in a small town, and suddenly a new grocery store opened across the street that was willing to sell cheaper food of the same quality, it would seem to be common sense that the store owner would either have to work harder or accept a lower wage. Fortunately, in this small town, as in France, the benefits to grocery customers will outweigh the disadvantages to the store owner. Not that we shouldn't help the owner get back on his feet again if he is hit too hard by the competition, but it seems odd to boycott the more efficient grocery simply because of a temporary misfortune for a minority of workers.

"Another mistake that is commonly made in this debate is to compare France's income or GDP per person to the U.S., by which France lags: $30,693 for France versus $43,144 for the U.S. (these are adjusted for purchasing power parity). But this is not a fair comparison, because the French do not work nearly as many hours as we do in the United States. Economists do not say that one person is worse off than another if she has less income simply due to working fewer hours."

As of 1996, the average output per hour of a French worker was 10% higher than that of that of his American counterpart, though he worked 32% fewer hours than the American worked. So, while I agree with your figures, I do not agree that it is an advantage to the Frenchman to work fewer hours if he does so because of a higher marginal tax rate on each additional hour worked. Perhaps he would prefer to work more and thus consume more if he could keep a larger portion of the proceeds of his labor.

My statistics came from this paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR2811.pdf

"The standard measure of unemployment puts the unemployed in the numerator, and unemployed plus employed in the denominator (u/u+e). By this measure, French males age 15-24 have an unemployment rate of 20.8 percent, as compared to 11.8 percent for the US. But this difference is mainly because in France, there are proportionately many more young males who are not in the labor force - because more are in school, and because young people in France do not work part time while they are in school, as much as they do in the United States. Those who are not in the labor force are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate."

At least according to my introductory macroeconomics text (written by Joe Stiglitz, a top scholar at Columbia University) this is the appropriate way to measure unemployment. It adversely affects French happiness if 20% of those seeking a job are unable to find one, whether or not this is a large segment of the full population of those who are 15-24 years old. One possible reason that the labor force is so small may be that young French are simply discouraged from looking for a job in an unresponsive labor market. Also according to my textbook, France has had the largest unemployment rate of the US, UK, Germany, or Japan since 1987. Why are such a large portion of young people who are seeking employment unable to find it if all is well?

"Sarkozy proposes making it easier for employers to fire workers, cutting taxes (including inheritance taxes), pushing back against the 35 hour work week, and other measures that will favor upper-income groups and owners of corporations."

Although it is counterintuitive, it is possible that making it easier to fire workers, lowering taxes, and allowing a longer work week could actually increase employment and wages for lower and middle-income groups. One easy way to explain it is that employers will be less willing to hire workers if they are unable to fire them. Would you want to buy a house, a large investment, if you were told that it would be extremely difficult to sell it again if you were dissatisfied at a later date?

As for lower taxes, I would point you to the paper I cited earlier, where it was found that there was a large negative correlation between the number of hours worked and marginal tax rates. When a worker (even a rich one) decides whether to work an additional hour or use it as leisure, he will certainly take into account how much that additional hour of labor will earn him. If we decrease the opportunity cost of leisure, surely more hours of leisure will be consumed. This reduces the work done by the most productive individuals, those most capable of spurring French growth and thus providing new and better paying jobs.

Inheritance taxes are similar. Part of the allure of working an additional hour is that you will be able to use your wages however you please. Many of the most productive individuals have already made more money than they could realistically spend, but they will continue to work and contribute to the economy if they have the option of passing the money on to their children.

Likewise, a 35 hour work week limits the freedom of the worker to dispense with his time as he pleases. We cannot consider working more hours as a loss of economic welfare if the worker believes that it is a worthy trade-off, which he must believe if he is enduring the work voluntarily.

Then again, I am only a student of economics, and there is much more for me to learn. However, it is important to note that someone with a rudimentary education in economics does not find your arguments (at least as they were presented here) even partially convincing.

As a French citizen, living in France, I must tell that I am surprised to read so much misinformation from an Ph. D in Economics.
France suffers from huge unemployement (9%), and a huge debt 64% of GDP without real growing rate (2%). Each year debt is growing dangereously to a point that almost everybody, left-wing to right-wing, are agree to say it will be unsustainable for next generation.

So Mr. Mark Weisbrot you should give a global view of French Economy, before giving lessons of Arithmetics.

Just to say that to be honnest, Mark Weisbrot should also say that it's been a 25 years of state-subsidized employment policy that paradoxally led to this very bad rate of employement.

So ok, Mr. Weisbrot, let's try it again and again...you'll pay the bill ?

I think people should begin to protest, economically, against people like Thomas Friedman. It is the only response fatcats like Friedman pay attention to. In reaction to their stealing our taxes, forcing us to compete against slaves in other countries, and changing laws to weaken our position in society, I suggest the following:
1-Live as well as you need to (not extravagantly, but on their credit if necessary), and, don't hesitate to declare bankruptcy. It is not as difficult as you might imagine, and will enable you to compete economically again. (I've done it twice, and found it to be seriously enabling).
2-If you're stuck in a job that is not truly providing you with good wages and benefits, seek out co-workers to see if they are being treated similarly. If that is true, try to join an appropriate labor union. If you think that's not possible, look for a better job and get out of where you are quickly. It costs employers quite a bit of money to replace workers, and by leaving you are making them realize that the level of compensation you were receiving for that job was unfair, and that there is a price they will have to pay for that treatment.
3-Stop patronizing companies if they are unfair, irresponsible, or unsatisfactory. I haven't had cable TV for 5 years, because of the junk content, the constanly rising prices, and the decision to run commercials. I start my day off reading the NY Times online for free, skip Thomas Friedman in the non-free Times Select section (why would I want to pay to read that jackass), and head for Common Dreams.org. The flip side of this is that you should support companies and organizations who are decent (thus, Common Dreams gets my yearly subscription money, not the NY Times. When the NY Times decides to start print all the news that's TRULY fit to print again, and stops promoting wars that are not in my interest, I may consider paying for them again).

France is paradise. There are NO Frenchmen in New York and London working, getting rich and escaping stultifying regulations in France. The French Ghettos are in a state of perfect bliss, where every Muslim youth who wants a job gets one. France is such a paradise, that studies show that French worker satisfaction is far higher than that of American workers.

"Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying!" Those words, uttered decades ago by Jimmy Stewart, playing the heroic George Bailley in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, should be the rallying cry of all those opposed to free trade agreements. Free trade isn't about selling, it's about "sourcing." Thomas "Flat World" Friedman's concern for the working class worldwide is as fictional as George Bailley.

Thomas Friedman is married to a heiress of billions of dollars
in real estate fortune and live in 11,000 Sq.ft house in Washington
D.C. Suburb. He is nothing but a mouth piece for the super rich
and their globalization schemes that benefit nobody but them.

The fallacy behind the Eurozone has been brought home by America's failed experiment in democracy.

The consolidation of a large group of provinces into a single adminsitrative unit has mostly military benefits. It strengthens the group, fortifying it against attack.

Economically, it mirrors communism, making the successful small state sell out its wealth and productivity to an elite core of public officials that governs the whole group of states.

Thomas Friedman is a phony. He's not a competent intellectual, nor analyst, of history nor of economics. Everyone knows that he's a neocon, a political activist, who's leveraged his way into journalism.

His voice is not worth considering in any debate.

Dr. Zimmerman,

Thomas Friedman belongs to a large group of prognosticators and pundits who, in typical fashion, predict that all will benefit if only we follow a certain policy X, knowing it is almost certain that he will benefit under X and thinking that maybe the rest of us will too, but not really worrying about our fate all that much and not critically examining the issues to determine how likely it is we would benefit or suffer under X.

interesting item noted in the in flight magazine leaving paris last winter -

in the partnership ad for Norhtwest and air france each was described as having just over 300 aircraft yet NW had around 37,000 employees while airfrance had 70,000 -

The French right seems to be saying: "The French workers need to lower their living standards so that the French economic elites can make off like bandits like their counterparts in the USA. Life is just unfair unless some people can make off like bandits, especially when so many are in other countries, where the working people are suffering as they should." I can see why the French elites are trying it, because something similar sure worked to bamboozle the American hoi polloi.

In America, it went something like this: "You must give up your silly ideas about your kids getting a college education, or you having a decent retirement. Your betters stole the fruits of your labor fair and square and it wouldn't be right to make them sacrifice their extra yachts and villas just so you can escape eating dog food."

Thomas Friedman would have us believe that the worker concessions in the 80's helped keep jobs in the USA.
Thomas Friedman would have us believe we are better people when we work long hours (not lazy.)
Thomas Friedman lives off the long slave wage hours of the working class.
Thomas Friedman is delusional.