Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 04:36 Tchiowa writes: > Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security, > infrastructure, job creation, etc. I don't see that in U.S. deficit spending. In fact, the most irresponsible spender in the U.S. is the government itself. > First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly > and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits. It's hard to provide electricity, water, telephone, and other services without a monopoly on at least part of the infrastructure. > Which public entity would that be? All of them. The government's goal is generally public service, not private profit for shareholders. > True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about > service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no > competition. It gets worse when the monopoly is a private for-profit entity. > Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service. Not when you're a monopoly. The best way to make a profit when you are a monopoly is to provide no service at all and raise prices sky-high, because your customers have no choice but to pay you, and you cannot lose them. > Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along > and provide that good service and take your business away. Not if you have a monopoly. > That's why the profit motive works. For shareholders, not for society--at least not when there is no competition. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 04:37 Keith W writes: > So which energy rich countries do you think China can conquer ? They aren't saying. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:57 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security, > > infrastructure, job creation, etc. > > I don't see that in U.S. deficit spending. In fact, the most > irresponsible spender in the U.S. is the government itself. > > > First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly > > and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits. > > It's hard to provide electricity, water, telephone, and other services > without a monopoly on at least part of the infrastructure. That's what the phone company tried to argue. It was broken up and service improved. Etc, Etc, > > Which public entity would that be? > > All of them. The government's goal is generally public service, not > private profit for shareholders. Goal? They may talk about goal but the reality is completely different. Tell me the government entity that you think provides good service. > > True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about > > service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no > > competition. > > It gets worse when the monopoly is a private for-profit entity. And didn't I say that monopolies are not normally good? > > Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service. > > Not when you're a monopoly. That's why monopolies are generally bad. Including government monopolies. > The best way to make a profit when you > are a monopoly is to provide no service at all and raise prices > sky-high, because your customers have no choice but to pay you, and > you cannot lose them. > > > Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along > > and provide that good service and take your business away. > > Not if you have a monopoly. > > > That's why the profit motive works. > > For shareholders, not for society--at least not when there is no > competition. You're arguing against yourself.
From: mrtravel on 2 Aug 2006 04:58 Mxsmanic wrote: > 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. > How did you calculatae a 3.3 percent chance over 40 years would come out to 74 percent. Additionally, no one said the majority would have lifetime jobs, just that they would have long term jobs. If only 74 percent (your numbers) people change jobs in their lifetime, than why does this show they are employed mainly for the long term?
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 05:27
Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/nlsoy.t02.htm > > > > > > 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. > > You have a problem not only with interpreting statistics but also with > reading comprehension. Let's look again: http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page13b.htm The median (and that means half do better than that) of time on the job *WITH THE SAME EMPLOYER* is about 5 years for people in their 30's (which completely contradicts your claim that 70% have been there less than 5 years) and climbs up to 10 as people get older. Steady growth with age. > I'll put that again for the last time: > > BLS statistics show that most Americans don't stay in their jobs enough > to get a 4-week vacation even at mature ages so your earlier statements > about 'most people' are wrong. In fact that same chart shows that half the people over 40 and way over half the people over 50 have been in their jobs long enough to get 4 weeks of vacation. |