Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Keith W on 3 Aug 2006 05:20 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:vme3d2hr0g4jga1gb0trpql46usjj6jlhi(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> Incorrect > > Explain how multiple providers can serve multiple, distinct customers > and accurately track power consumption using only one physical set of > wires. > Its called an electricity meter, I believe they have them in the US and France too >> In the UK the infrastructure (the wiring or piping for gas) is run by a >> heavily regulated company that charges the provider a fixed fee. The >> provider is >> hooked into the infrastructure as is the customer. >> >> As a customer all I need to do to switch provider is make a phone call. > > How does the provider measure your power consumption? > There's a meter outside the house which is read every 3 months. If you change providers the meter reading is taken when the change over occurs. Its really rather simple old boy. Keith
From: Keith W on 3 Aug 2006 05:23 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1me3d21mlmp66rfsb0gcle1ggi8bf8lt8a(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> In Britain if you live in a cable tv enabled area you change >> the local loop provides in a day or so for nothing > > What is the connection between cable TV and the local loop? > If you have cable TV you use that fibre optic connection INSTEAD of the local loop from the traditional telecoms provider. The telephone companies are planning to start delivering TV and movies via their local loop. Keith
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 05:52 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > Do you have any idea how it works? > > Yes. Wires lead from the service provider to your house. Electricity > flows through these wires. To receive power from a different > provider, you need wires that physically lead to a different source. > Changing providers therefore requires a change in wiring. Simply not true. More than one provider can use the same wires. > There is no > practical way to accomplish this short of running multiple power > supplies to every residence and office, and connecting only the supply > that the customer wants. Obviously, that is not done. > > > I pay for the electricity, not the wires. They all flow across > > the same wires. > > Then how does a given provider ensure that you are using electricity > generated only by that provider? Meter. > > No you don't. You have one payer and one system. > > No, you don't. Doctors work in private practice and are reimbursed by > Social Security. The same is true for hospitals. There is also a > system of entirely public hospitals with staff physicians. You can go > to the public facilities for free, or you can go to private providers > who accept Social Security as payment in full, or you can go to > private providers who accept SS as partial payment and you pay the > rest. You can also contract for private insurance for anything that > Social Security does not pay. It costs a few dozen euro per month. Not with NHS. You go where you're told to doctors with controlled rates and use drugs with controlled prices. > > Name the example. > > Passenger train service, public transit, water supply, sewer service, > garbage collection. These are your best examples of efficiency????
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 05:58 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > An hyperbole, we can set it at halfway through if you insist. Fine. Halfway through. That means people get that level of vacation for half their working lives. > > > 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. > > So? Under 40-44 ames or 45-49 females aren't worth discussing? They > made up the bulk (and most productive part) of the workforce. Look at them all!!! I made a statement about people over a certain age and you want to pick select groups out of that to try to skew the result. > > > 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. > > First you said 5, now you said 10? Which one you got wrong? 5 years gets 3 weeks, 10 gets 4 weeks. Go read the charts. > No age group in the chart you provided (not even 50-54) has a median > length of job over 10 years. Check that again. 9.9 years???? > > 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. > > We were commenting a BLS chart that stopped providing data at 38 years > of age (thus 'mature'), in a 'people start having their permanent jobs > at 28' discussion. Please check context. Nice try at ducking out of what you said. You want to quibble on small variances in numbers. My point remains and has been demonstrated: Most people stay in their jobs long enough to get plenty of vacation. People stay longer in their jobs as they get older and it has nothing to do with "magic". Virtually everyone in the US gets paid vacation based on what they earned. Work is not a bad thing and working hard does not cause stress. 28? 14? 19? 32? You're grasping at straws to duck the primary issue.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 3 Aug 2006 06:09
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:51:01 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me writes: > >> Why? More is more than less, and is preferred. That's all that >> matters. > >OK. I make more than a euro at what I do, therefore I'm a >professional. After all, a euro is more than half a euro. A professional should make much more than a non professional. There is no clear dividing line as to how much, as I have said before. >> Show me where I indicated that. > >As soon as you assert that there are two categories, professional and >non-professional, you imply some sort of identifiable distinction >between them. If you can't describe the distinction, then your >division into categories has no meaning. I did describe the distinction, but you chose not to accept it. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |