Not all are convinced, this is the case here.
Here is an essay that analyzes a book which makes some pretty bold claims.
That France's famed social model is economically inefficient and morally flawed--as opposed to being economically inefficient but morally virtuous--is an argument brought home with eloquence and vigor by Timothy Smith in his book France in Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2006). Originally published in 2004, the book has not received the attention it deserves.
To say that France's social model is far from perfect is an understatement: in spite of the state absorbing more than 50% of GDP, France has suffered, since the 1980s, from rising child poverty rates, persistently high unemployment, a chronic sense of economic malaise, and the continual enrichment of the system's "insiders" at the expense of the system's "outsiders." More importantly, France's social model fails to deliver precisely what it proclaims to: economic justice, inter-generational fairness, economic opportunity and social protection, particularly to young workers entering the labor market, minorities, immigrants, middle-aged women and other vulnerable groups.
The article goes on to elaborate further and is not kind in its overall conclusions. Whether this book by Smith or the review that the essayist puts forth is accurate or not, the bottom line from where I stand is simple:
If this is what France wants, so be it. This must be determined by the French people, and them alone. I care very little for how their system works, pass or fail - if they like it, I like it. I am not going to benefit, nor suffer, if it does either. But know that I do not wish to see it implemented here, because i firmly believe it cannot work here.
France is smaller than the US. And for whatever benefits are perceived to be available to the French citizenry, it will not automatically translate to the American social and economic models. No one wants to be in the 50% tax bracket to pay for the perks. Can you blame us? The federal government cannot manage anything with any efficiency, as it is. Everything they touch turns into a nightmare and a bureaucratic mess. So why would we suddenly be able to achieve this pipe dream with a larger influx of cash flow?
The ultimate goal of socialism in its purest form is equality. No rich, no poor, no class distinctions, everyone is the same. Everyone lives in a harmonious bliss. It sounds noble, but in reality it's not achievable. The New Harmony experiment is a microcosm of what we could expect from a greater theater. If that is not enough, ask those that lived under the Soviet system, and you'll see that not all are looking back at that social model with endearing eyes. The USSR experiment sounded noble on paper, but it was nothing more than a sales campaign that did not deliver and went bankrupt.
In both cases, apathy replaced enthusiasm. This being the case, it's hard for me to understand why the status quo must be maintained in this instance, and why some people in America think the French system is so great they want it here.
Maybe I am wrong, but are the headaches generated by high taxation and high levels of entitlements to those that are on the inside, worth it? I mean, talking about a flawed theory (based on emotions) while thinking it can work is one thing. Making it work is an another. Is it a good system? Doesn't sound like it from this perspective. But like I said, I do not live in France. I live here and from what I hear, there are certainly mixed reviews.