The Worldwatch Institute and logic

Doug Keenan notes two separate, but clearly related clauses in an article by Erik Assadourian of the Worldwatch Insitute in the Wall Street Journal.

"there's a responsible way to grow the [French] economy"

and

"shrink [the] economy by two-fifths"

Here's the full quote (the article is paywalled):

There are many competing priorities that demand the new French president's attention: a shaky euro, public debt, French troops in Afghanistan. But with jobless rates hovering near 10% and 23% of French youth now unemployed, stimulating growth is surely at the top of François Hollande's to-do list.

Yet considering France's ecological footprint is 64% larger than the planet can sustain, France will have to shrink its economy by two-fifths over time to prevent widespread ecological decline in France and beyond, even as its population continues to grow.

In other words, there's a responsible way to grow the economy and there's an irresponsible way. Here are some suggestions on how Mr. Hollande can bring France closer to sustainable prosperity, rather than just create another short-term economic bubble that the breakdown of Earth's systems will pop a decade or two down the road:

Comments

[johanna]

A little bit OT, but could someone help me understand these 'youth unemployment' rates. How can they be as high as 23% in France and over 50% in Greece and Spain? Aren't there streets to clean, isn't there garbage to put out, food to buy and prepare, and so on? Just as 4% is considered 'full employment,' isn't there some sort of threshold over which unemployment rates can't climb because there is a base level of activities and jobs people need to do to sustain themselves?
Jun 15, 2012 at 2:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterB.O.B.
------------------------------------------------------
B.O.B., youth unemployment figures are always high, even in economies which are going gangbusters. 25% is quite usual when the overall rate is 7-10%. It is partly a statistical artefact, and partly a reflection of the nature of the population.

The statistical artefact is due to the structure of employment levels by age. It is highest in the mid-period of people's working lives, and lowest at the younger and older ends. I bet that unemployment in the over-50s in that study is not too flash either, and while the magnitude of the effect changes, the employment curve by age always looks like this.

The reasons for higher unemployment at each end of the curve differ. For young people, it is relative lack of experience, availability of older workers who are a better bet for various reasons, and the lower motivation that comes from not having things like a mortgage and kids, wanting to have fun, etc. A lot of young workers are not devastated if they are fired, or just quit because they don't like their jobs. Some are juggling study with work. The turnover is high. So, at any given moment, many may be unemployed, but that doesn't mean they won't be working next month or next year.

Youth unemployment is a hardy perennial for the welfare lobby, but that is because the figures are always higher than the average by a considerable margin. Long-term unemployment is much more significant as a measure of what is really happening, in any demographic.

[Clunking Fist]

I went and posted a helpful comment on the blog:

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/growing-france-towards-a-degrowth-economy/

2 minutes later I went back to the post, "Comments are closed." Funny that!