From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 03:55
> They don't understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and
> not thinking about investing in the future inevitably leads to
How do you reconcile this with runaway deficit spending?
> 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.
When the service or product in question is provided by a monopoly, it
is best if that monopoly belongs to the government, mainly because it
removes the profit motive. Public entities tend to place an emphasis
on service, or at the very least they do not care about profit;
whereas private entities feel their first duty is to make money for
shareholders, and they could not care less about public service.
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Gorazd Bozic on 2 Aug 2006 04:00
> The Reid wrote:
>> Following up to Tchiowa
>>> Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist.........
> Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government.
> Socialism cannot succeed long term.
So, was USSR Communist or Socialist in your oppinion? You'll have to
make up your mind. Hint: see what USSR stands for... :-P
Or did you mean to say that Communism = Socialism?
Or were you just plainly wrong?
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:01
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > Jordi wrote:
> > > Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with
> > > productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a
> > > long way from that.
> > Earning something is "sweatshop reasoning"?????
> > Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs.
> Wrong, that's 1900's vintage thinking.
No, you are wrong. Ask any businessman who has experienced and
non-experienced employees. In any job that requires intelligence and
reasoning the experienced employee will almost always outperform the
employee with lesser experience. Sometimes dramatically.
> > > > Not magic. Maturity.
> > >
> > > And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to
> > > be able to interpret them.
> > >
> > > You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and
> > > 38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get
> > > unemployed on a given age.
> > And it goes down *DRAMATICALLY* with age, does it not? Put the stats
> > together and the answer is quite obvious. As I said, it's not magic,
> > it's maturity.
> 70,1% of Americans aged 33-38 have been on their job for less than 5
> years, among them, 54,0% have been less than 2 years, and 38,7% less
> than 1 year.
> Of course, those % increase with younger ages.
Which was my point and you denied it.
Again, it's not magic, it's maturity.
> > > Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having
> > > people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation
> > > nowadays is much more than just salary.
> > And what better motivation than increasing the amount of your vacation
> > in payment for company loyalty and staying on the job? And what worse
> > way of motivating people than saying that their pay and vacation has
> > nothing to do with performance and time on the job?
> Who talked about pay here? Vacation is not something you earn, it's a
> way to keep your employees rested and productive. That's the reason
> behind paid vacation and the 2-day weekend.
*PAID* vacation is something you earn. Period. The boss has to pay for
And the reason behind the 2-day weekend is that unions demanded it and
got it. It's a good thing, of course, but your reason that it exists
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:07
> Tchiowa writes:
> > 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.
> Where are these statistics?
Jim Ley posted them. Go read them.
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:09
> Tchiowa writes:
> > They say exactly that. I cited the specifics.
> No, they do not. Which specifics did you cite?
> The BLS shows the turnover rate as being about 3.3% annually. This
> implies that the chances of changing one's job each year are about
> 3.3%. Over 40 years, this implies that there is a 74% chance that the
> average person will change jobs. This in turn implies that very few
> people keep the same job for a lifetime, even in adulthood.
You're assuming that the job change frequency stays the same regardless
of age and the stats show otherwise. You're likely to change jobs 4 or
5 times (or more) before you are 30 and it goes down the older you get.