From: dgs on 3 Aug 2006 20:25
> Anecdotal evidence. Once again, it's okay when other people use it,
> but unacceptable when I use it.
Glad you figured that one out.
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 20:30
> Tchiowa wrote:
<over and over again snipped>
> I said something like that earlier. Excessive work, OTOH, does cause
I asked before and I'll ask again: define "excessive". If someone works
8 hours a day and works 240 days a year and thus has 125 days a year
off is that "excessive"? That's defining a 2 week vacation and 10 days
of holidays which the typical American worker gets after 2 years on the
job. 235 days worked per year after he's been there 5 years. 230 after
10 years. And some get that vacation addition a bit earlier.
How is that "excessive"?
Why is 230 days "not excessive" while 240 days *is* "excessive"?
Exactly where is the line drawn? Is 236 days "excessive"? 232.45168
The American system of work benefits (including but not limited to
vacation) is based on what people "earn". Your rewards are directly
related to your efforts including, yes, loyalty and time on the job. In
Europe the benefits are considered "rights" and everyone gets them
regardless of whether or not they have earned them.
A system that rewards efforts produces results. A system where benefits
are not tied to efforts produces mediocrity.
A quick comparison of US and European economies over the past couple of
decades since the US stopped its march to Socialism (promoted initially
by LBJ) but Europe continued on that path shows that the US system
works and the European system doesn't.
The first time I went to Europe a couple of decades ago most of what I
saw was fairly close to the US level of living standards. The US has
advanced quite dramatically while Europe has not. Stagnation might be a
good word. The level of living standards in Europe is now noticeably
below the US.
And the trend is pointing to an even wider divergence.
You can talk all day about the benefits of getting something for
nothing. But when people get something for nothing that's what they
produce: nothing. And eventually they get nothing for nothing. And
that's why Socialism fails and that's why it is failing in Europe right
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 20:42
Jim Ley wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2006 17:02:55 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Jim Ley wrote:
> >> 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.
> >Who said anything about "repetitive"? Workers get promoted, new
> >opportunities, new challenges.
> So you mean people change to do a new job, with new challenges and new
> opportunities, I thought you said people were unproductive in new jobs
> so shouldn't be getting much holiday - now you're saying people should
> be promoted out of where they're productive?
People get promotions to new jobs when they have learned the skills
that they need for that job. And while they may not be as productive as
someone who has been in their new job for a longer period, they are
more productive than they were in their old job. That's why they get
Rewards for effort.
Apparently something you disagree with.
> >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
> I'm a homeless person who's regularly unemployed, but the jobs I do
> and the people I do them with are far from dead end.
> >> 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.
> Didn't show any such thing.
Sure did. And several other articles besides that.
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 20:51
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> Electricity is completely fungible. Power from supplier A is identical
> to power from supplier B. This is different from phone service.
I've been using USENET for years and you're the first person I've seen
who not only can use the word "fungible" but actually appears to
understand what it means.
(I get in endless debates with people about oil.)
From: Tchiowa on 3 Aug 2006 20:54
Keith W wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Keith W writes:
> >> Its called an electricity meter, I believe they have them in the
> >> US and France too
> > How does the provider ensure that only its own power passes into a
> > customer's premises?
> They dont, nor do they care.
> >> 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.
> > How does the new provider ensure that only the power it is generating
> > reaches your home?
> They dont , nor do they care.
> If you use 200 kw hours , your meter records it, they push that
> much onto the grid and you pay them for it.
Exactly. Just like oil in an oil pipeline. You get to take out what you
paid the supplier to put in. You don't necessarily get the molecules
that he put in. But he puts in a product and you take out a product and
pay him for it. The pipeline owner gets a cut for transporting it.
Same with electricity.