Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 2 Aug 2006 08:29 On 1 Aug 2006 17:08:10 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs. >The longer you're in the job (up to limits, of course) the better you >can perform and the more productive you are. No, not at all, you're ignoring boredom, which is something most knowledge workers suffer from if they do the same job, ditto the repetitive factory worker. >> 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. Except most people change jobs without a period of unemployment (you've used this fact in the thread yourself saying that the 4% is made up of the drunk and the lazy, which is a claim there are no unemployed people who are simply between jobs.) >No it doesn't directly. But jumping directly from job to job is not as >common as losing a job and getting another. It definately is in the UK, I'm surprised it's different in the US, do you have any evidence to back your assertion up? Jim.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 08:35 Dave Frightens Me writes: > It's a relative thing, not absolute. Professionals can demand more > money, because they are professionals. How much more money can they demand? You have to put figures to this argument at some point, or it serves no purpose. > Why must there be a dividing line? Because if there isn't, there is no distinction between professionals and non-professionals, which invalidates your position. You indicated that there _was_ a dividing line, but you've thus far refused to quantify it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 08:36 Dave Frightens Me writes: > You asked "What does that make > [Doctors without Borders]?". That can only be read as the > organisation. Then why do the British refer to organizations with plural forms of verbs? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 08:38 mrtravel writes: > How did you calculatae a 3.3 percent chance over 40 years would come out > to 74 percent. If 3.3 percent of the population changes jobs each year, then there's a 96.7% chance that a person will not change jobs each year. The chance of not changing jobs in 40 years would be .967^40, or 26.125%. Therefore the chance of changing jobs in 40 years would be 100-26.125, or 73.875%, which I rounded up. > 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? What is "this"? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 08:39
Tchiowa writes: > BLS. How many do you want to see? Enough to support the assertion. The BLS statistics I looked at support the opposite, i.e., it is clear that people change jobs a lot. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |