From: dgs on
Martin wrote:

> So what does that make Mixi?

An ISO Substandard, of course!
From: dgs on
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Only people who actually read my posts know that.

Only people who actually read your posts know what? And why
should they give a damn about whatever it is, anyway?
From: Tchiowa on

Jordi wrote:
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > 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.

28 came from the previous data. So the true figure is a few years
higher than that? Possibly. But the point is that half the people over
35 get the full complement of vacation which completely contradicts
what you and others were saying. You asked for stats, you got them.
Apparently you didn't like them.

> Also, the site has 2000 year figures and clearly states that the
> tendence is to go even lower.

The site has figures from the beginning of a recession which would be
skewed 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?

Again, the point was that people stay in their jobs longer as they get
older. Not magic, maturity.

The stats proved you wrong. Including your statement above that most
Americans "even at mature age" don't stay in their jobs and get the
full vacations.

From: Tchiowa on

Jim Ley wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 17:08:10 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> 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.

Who said anything about "repetitive"? Workers get promoted, new
opportunities, new challenges.

I'm a "knowledge worker" and I can assure you that I don't suffer from
boredom. Each new day, each new assignment brings about challenges and
successes which greatly improve my "quality of life" and are anything
but "boring".

Sounds to me like someone is in a dead end job and doesn't see how
others can enjoy what they are doing and how they can get better by

Did you read the full pdf article I posted?

> >> 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?

Yeah, go look at the stats I posted from BLS.

From: dgs on
Mxsmanic wrote:

> English.

English what?