Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 1 Aug 2006 08:25 On 1 Aug 2006 02:10:44 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Jim Ley wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4 >> >> weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this. >> > >> >"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one >> >job for quite some time. >> >> Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor >> statistics don't back that conclusion up. > >Sure they do. Look at them again. After about age 28 the mean >unemployment stint is far less than 1. Which says nothing about the number of job changes during that age range relatively few people between 28 and 38 have a period unemployed, but it says nothing about the number of job changes, as most jobs are changed without a period of unemployment. Jim.
From: Sarah Banick on 1 Aug 2006 10:11 > 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". > Your "personal experience" is way out of date.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 10:27 Jordi wrote: > 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. It has nothing to do with "personal belief". It has to do with reality, not some hope of reality that comes from a fantasy about getting something for nothing. > 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). And there are plenty of material showing the opposite. > There are several misconceptions on your work religion here of which > you've been told before, so I won't go through them again. "Work religion"? 5555555555 Did anyone need any more proof of what you and your compatriots are supporting? My father taught me when I was very young that there were very few personal problems that I would encounter in life that I couldn't resolve but just working hard. It's been quite a successful philosophy. I find that working hard and earning what it have is tremendously rewarding, creates a wonderful quality of life and reduces stress quite dramatically. Work is good. Sorry if you find that offensive. > > > 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. If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week vacation. > 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? Did you look at the stats? It doesn't have anything to do with "magic", it has to do with maturity. Why is it that people on a particular side of the political spectrum never seem to be able to read beyond the headline. Did you look beyond the first line of the first chart? Did you look at the second chart at all? The second chart shows employment by age. Mean unemployment "spells" do in fact drop dramatically after 28. For instance it says that of people 18-22 only about 1 in 5 went the entire 5 years without being unemployed but of people 28-32 60% stayed employed and people 33-37 70% stayed employed. Not magic. Maturity. Of people 18-22 only about 40% had only one or no spells of unemployment but 28-32 had nearly 80% with one or no spells of unemployment and 33-37 it was nearly 90% had one or no spells of unemployment. Not magic. Maturity. > 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? If you haven't been a reliable employee prior to that, yes! If you have been changing jobs once a year and been unemployed part of that time then you've had plenty of time off. I think it's a perfect thing to earn vacation. I think that expecting something for nothing is not a good thing. Plus you miss the point of the stats. It doesn't say that they get their first real permanent job at 28 it says that they already have it by 28. And since the stats slide down significantly it appears that most have their permanent job well before that (somewhere between 23 and 27). > > > 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. I did. Now you go back and read more than just the first line.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 10:29 Sarah Banick wrote: > > 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". > > > > Your "personal experience" is way out of date. The stats posted disagree with you.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 10:31
Jim Ley wrote: > On 1 Aug 2006 02:10:44 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Jim Ley wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4 > >> >> weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this. > >> > > >> >"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one > >> >job for quite some time. > >> > >> Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor > >> statistics don't back that conclusion up. > > > >Sure they do. Look at them again. After about age 28 the mean > >unemployment stint is far less than 1. > > Which says nothing about the number of job changes during that age > range relatively few people between 28 and 38 have a period > unemployed, but it says nothing about the number of job changes, as > most jobs are changed without a period of unemployment. Actually most job changes *do* have a period of unemployment. But regardless, the stats you posted don't say one way or the other. But they clearly say that people over 28 tend to stay employed and not move around which is what I said. After the early 30s something like 70% or more stay in their jobs. |