Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 04:14 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > Many phone companies have access to the same wires. > > But there is only one set of wires, so you can only have one provider > at a time. Wrong. I don't pay for the wires. I pay for the service. The service provider pays for the wires, either directly or through lease, and includes that in my rate. > > And the government service is lousy and losing money. > > No worse than the private sector was. DRAMATICALLY WORSE!!!! > > But I do. > > How many sets of wires do you have entering your house? Do you have a > switch you can flip to change from one electrical power provider to > another? Do you have any idea how it works? Apparently not. The various electrical providers either pay for the wires directly by installing them or pay for them indirectly by leasing them from others. I pay for the electricity, not the wires. They all flow across the same wires. But I'm not dealing with the wire provider. Ever. > > But they have a choice over who provides it and under what > > circumstances. As an example when my kids were in high school I used an > > HMO that happened to have a hospital almost across the street from > > their school. They had their cards and if they needed medical care they > > walked across the street. Now my circumstance has changed and that HMO > > is no longer convenient for me so I changed providers. > > The same choice exists with national health care. You have that > option in France, for example. No you don't. You have one payer and one system. > > So when you think of avoiding waste and abuse you think of the > > government???? > > It depends on the domain. In some cases, if I must choose between > deliberately poor service and high prices (from a private-sector > monopoly) and mere inefficiency (from a government monopoly), I choose > the latter. Name the example.
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 04:15 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > The word government comes from the Swahili word meaning "waste and > > abuse". And "corruption, inefficiency" > > It comes from Greek, via Latin and French. Abuse from the Greek, inefficient from the Latin, corrup from the French. That it?
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 04:19 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > Our deficit spending ballooned in 2001 to help recover from the > > recession caused by the tech bubble bursting. > > It didn't work. Of course it did! The US economy has been growing every quarter for 5 years! > And there are recessions every 18 months, anyway. Nonsense. There hasn't been a recession since 2001. What are you talking about? > The country has been in recession, recovering from recession, or > entering recession for the past several decades. The general quality > of life in socioeconomic terms has been on the decline for more than > thirty years. Blithering nonsense. Go look at the stats. > > As a percent of GDP it is lower than most developed countries. > > The public debt of the United States is 64.7% of GDP. It is 67.3% for > Germany, 43.1% in the UK, 66.2% in France, 158% in Japan (!), 12.9% > for Russia, and 24.4% for China. You said "deficit", not debt. Deficit is current. Our debts is lower than France or Germany or Japan. > > Our deficit is not bad at all in the grand scheme of things. > > It's a lot worse than those of Russia or China. ???????????? You consider those "developed countries", do you?
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 04:30 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > Jordi wrote: > > > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > Jordi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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? > > 40-44 for men, 45-49 for women, thats quite near retirement. What are you talking about? Standard retirement age is 66 in the US. > Thats a good 14 and 19 years over your numbers. 40 is 14 years over??? > > 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. > > Not again, less than half the males aged 35-39 have 4-week holidays > (even less females). Again, the breakpoint is at 40-44 for men and > 45-49 for women. And those older have more. And if you look at 35 to retirement then it's quite clear that *more than half* get the full complement. > > > > 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. > > You are missing the point, this discussion came right after you claimed > this: > > "I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people > are 25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going > to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of > vacation. Vacation that they have "earned". " > > If the majority of people get their first 4-week vacation at 40-44, > that means they took the job between 35-39, which contradicts you > earlier claims that 'after 28 people don't normally change jobs'. Work on your math. If people get 4 weeks vacation at 40 and it takes 10 years employment to get the 4 weeks then they started that job at 30. Awfully close to 28. Sorry about the 2 year error in my approximation. > > 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. > > Please cite where I said that. Your exact words were "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. " Post from 2 August.
From: Mxsmanic on 3 Aug 2006 04:37
Tchiowa writes: > ???? What does that have to do with being a monopoly???? If you have no choice, you have a monopoly. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |