I know others on FW are imminently more qualified with data and experience, but it seems to this layman that if economic or any institutional changes are to succeed the auxiliary changes must also be organized and accomplished simultaneously. Perhaps this is the case in France?
A case in point: when I lived in San Diego, California from 1986-1989, there was a problem with overcrowded schools. Two elementary schools on opposite ends of town and social class were chosen to be experimental guinea pigs for the rest of the district prior to instituting full year round schools. Jerabek Elementary, where my daughters had just enrolled, was divided into 4 tracks, not two, of revolving schedules that kept the facility in use all year and fixed groups of children and teachers rotating off and on campus. On paper, it sounded manageable and cost-efficient, with the primary purpose of continual education built around shorter vacation breaks. You can imagine what it did to after school programs like scouting, but that's not the issue. In master-planned, upper middle-class & professional Scripps Ranch where we lived, there were very few childcare providers, commercial or otherwise, for the large group of kids who were suddenly latch-keyed all day for 3 weeks at a time. The first family ski vacation in February, when the ski lift lines were short, had been great, but parents couldn't vacation as often as the kids were scheduled to and there are no summer camps in November. In Chula Vista, however, where there were many families where mothers did not work, or had a grandmother living with them, childcare was not a problem. Guess which community dissolved into chaos and which one didn't? It's impossible to make significant changes with band-aids; you must have the accessory programs in place to support it. Perhaps this happened in France, or people found that could not survive on less when nothing else in the economy had changed. Along the same subject, I read saw an interesting article in the NYT regarding unemployment, rising cost of living and part time wages in Switzerland. (See link below) In addition to underemployment, one of interesting points brought out in the piece was that child care is not readily available, a crucial ingredient in any economy where single divorced mothers have children to care for and must work. Again, I was surprised that this was the case in Switzerland, since I had no idea that western European nations had a childcare problem. We usually focus so much on the problems of American businesses and political/economics. Obviously, no one lives in the Garden of Eden. IN LAND OF PLENTY, SOME SWISS STRUGGLE TO GET BY @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/international/europe/01SWIS.html Excerpt: "Effretikon, Switzerland - At 33, Beatrice Klopfer ekes out a very bare living for herself and her two children in this blue-collar suburb of Zurich, patching together her meager wages with welfare payments and occasional child support. Her part-time job as a supermarket cashier brings in about $800 a month, but with food, rent, utilities and health insurance premiums, "by the middle of every month I'm running out of money." "So I have to be very careful," she added. Mrs. Klopfer is part of Switzerland's working poor, a category that has only recently been recognized in this country widely envied for its beauty, tranquility and, above all, its high standard of living. What those attributes obscure is the growing problem of people living on the margins, so strapped that they cannot meet basic needs." I learned that in Switzerland, one's neighbors man the local relief boards, so requests are approved or rejected by people who may or may not be objective. At least when I filed for unemployment, a bureaucrat didn't know what kind of or how loud I play my music or how much my dog barks. - Karen
