From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 05:27
> Tchiowa writes:
> > Jim Ley posted them. Go read them.
> I don't want Jim Ley's stats. I want a third-party reference.
BLS. How many do you want to see?
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 05:31
> 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.
page 41 discusses the value of work experience.
"Skills are learned over time, through instruction and practice. A
young labor market entrant with little schooling, by definition, is
unskilled. A worker with some education but no practical work
experience becomes more skilled through practice, on-the-job training,
and continuing education. Therefore, both education and accumulated
work experience contribute to the skill with which a worker performs a
job and the wage rate that he or she can command, so long as the prior
schooling and work experience are relevant to the current job."
It goes on:
"The accumulation of relevant work experience is a prerequisite for
most higher-skilled jobs. The amount of work experience needed before
an employee is fully competent or reaches journeyman status differs by
occupation, establishment, and industry. Given the investment made in
acquiring skills through work experience, it is not surprising that
during periods of economic downturns, employers will lay off less
senior workers first. Thus, skills and employment stability both
increase with tenure."
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 05:32
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:52:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> >Dave Frightens Me writes:
> >> With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the
> >> earmarks of a socialist nation?
> What is then?
> >> Flat? So far from failing then.
> >If it is flat, then _any_ negative change could count as "failing."
> Not if it's merely transient.
But it's not transient. It's endemic.
From: Jordi on 2 Aug 2006 06:03
> Jordi wrote:
> > You have a problem not only with interpreting statistics but also with
> > reading comprehension.
> Let's look again:
> 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.
For the age group 35-39 the median in your chart is 4,8 for men, and
3,7 for women.
Median values over 5 happen at 40-44 for men and 45-49 for women, which
clearly contradict your earlier statements of 28.
Also, the site has 2000 year figures and clearly states that the
tendence is to go even lower.
> > 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.
Big deal, how is that in % respect the total workforce?
From: Keith W on 2 Aug 2006 06:35
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> Keith W writes:
>> Case law is used for that
> Occasionally, but not usually.
>> Incorrect. I have had many professional dealings with lawyers
>> over the years and when giving advice on any but the most
>> simplistic cases they will advise their client to return after
>> they have had the opportunity to review current case law.
>> In many cases they will go for an opinion to a more
>> senior lawyer who specialises in the field concerned.
> Do they give you the citations when they meet with you?
In some cases yes
>> You claimed they work from memory, this is not the same
>> as advising clients about case law.
> I don't recall saying anything about advising them on case law, which
> is something clients don't generally care about, anyway.
>> I didnt claim they did, however they DO refer to it extensively
>> before rendering opinions to clients.
> So now it's _before_, and not _during_?
Consultations are rarely single session events, they tend
to be several meetings sparking from a single event.
For example we recently had a dispute with our office landlord.
We put our situation to our lawyers, they went away and reported
back with advice on our best actions to take and quoted
some case law on it.
We put this to the landlord and he went to his lawyers who
confirmed it and a settlement was reached.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----