Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 05:15 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > > "Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one > > job for quite some time. You're right in your first conclusion that > > young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why > > should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so? > > Because, no matter your belief on the subject, it increases > productivity and overall quality of life. Giving people something that they haven't earned does *not* increase productivity. And if you, like The Reid, allow your requirements for "quality of life" to include getting something you haven't earned and making someone else pay for it then it says a whole lot about your personal values. Myself I find that something I earned is an order of magnitude more important to me than something I didn't earn. > Btw: your claim of 'majority' contradicts Jim's source. Not if you actually read the stats he posted. The stats made it quite clear that beyond age 28 people tend to stay employed and stay in their jobs. > > I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are > > 25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going > > to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of > > vacation. Vacation that they have "earned". > > Jim posted some interesting stats from a government source, do you have > something to back this up? Jim's stats. Read them.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 05:20 Keith W wrote: > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ddotc25u9dn4jmkh6uligplot2po6am6cj(a)4ax.com... > > Keith W writes: > > > >> Since Chinese growth depends > >> critically on energy availability I seriously doubt it can be sustained > >> at > >> current levels let alone increased. > > > > They can take energy from other countries. > > Such as whom ? > > Keith The logic coming from these guys is right along the lines with most Socialist thought. They don't understand the basics of economics. They don't understand, for instance, that 10% growth is only sustainable for a short time and only when the country is relatively poor. They don't understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and not thinking about investing in the future inevitably leads to failure. They don't understand the value of working and earning something. They don't understand the inherent self-destructiveness of "I want, I want, I want, you pay". They don't understand the simple adage that "Anything the government gives to the people it must first take from the people" and they don't understand the basic principle of economic entropy which shows that every time the government inserts itself into a transaction there is an inevitable loss of value. This mindset has existed from the dawn of civilization. The fact that they've been proven wrong thousands of times over tens of thousands of years doesn't slow them down.
From: Jordi on 1 Aug 2006 06:31 Tchiowa wrote: > Jordi wrote: > > Because, no matter your belief on the subject, it increases > > productivity and overall quality of life. > > Giving people something that they haven't earned does *not* increase > productivity. And if you, like The Reid, allow your requirements for > "quality of life" to include getting something you haven't earned and > making someone else pay for it then it says a whole lot about your > personal values. Myself I find that something I earned is an order of > magnitude more important to me than something I didn't earn. But, luckily, your personal belief is not consistent with reality. There are plenty of US-produced materials on overworking and lack of vacation provoking stress and other health problems (for which you have to pay for afterwards, btw). There are several misconceptions on your work religion here of which you've been told before, so I won't go through them again. > > > Btw: your claim of 'majority' contradicts Jim's source. > > Not if you actually read the stats he posted. > > The stats made it quite clear that beyond age 28 people tend to stay > employed and stay in their jobs. People jumping from one job to the other (as is the case when changing for a better paying job) don't count as having an unemployment spell and still will get back to 1or 2-week vacation. Reading the numbers is just the first step. The statistics are clear that people take a mean 10,2 jobs between 18 and 38. Do you suppose people magically stop changing jobs at 28? Even taking as good your premise that people take their more or less permanent job at 28, do you think having your first 4-week vacation at 33 is a good thing? > > > > Jim posted some interesting stats from a government source, do you have > > something to back this up? > > Jim's stats. Read them. I did, now go understand them yourself. J.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 1 Aug 2006 07:09 On 1 Aug 2006 02:12:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >And their health care will fail eventually. Simply a matter of time. Oh yeah, sure. Australia's health system is rock solid compared to America's failing system. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 1 Aug 2006 07:09
On 1 Aug 2006 02:12:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >And their health care will fail eventually. Simply a matter of time. Oh yeah, sure. Australia's health system is rock solid compared to America's failing system. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |