Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 19 Jul 2006 21:52 The Reid wrote: > Following up to Tchiowa > > > I can afford > >to eat as often as I want whenever I want. That gives me a better > >quality of life than someone who goes to bed hungry every night. > > which of the countries on that list go hungry? I didn't say that any did. But your inference that money doesn't contribute to quality of life is simply wrong on its face, as shown by the statement above. Money is *not* everything, of course. But it is a contributing factor. > >.Part of my quality of life is the ability to travel, to see new countries, > >to meet new people, to learn new cultures. That ain't free. If I get to > >do it more than someone who earns less money then my income provides me > >with a higher quality of life. > > it also needs free time, which some of those countries have more of than US. Again, simply not true. Workers in the US on the job more than a few years get a month vacation every year just like in Europe. And what good does it do to have time off to travel if you can't afford to buy the tickets? > >> As predicted Tchowa wants different goalposts to prove US is the > >> best of all things. > > > >Just goalposts that apply to reality rather than some far-fetched > >fantasy about everyone living together in blissful poverty. > > poverty? Which of those countries lives in "blissful poverty"? > Switzerland? Today? No. Tomorrow if they keep up the Socialism, very probably. I'm intrigued by your statement previously that part of your quality of life depends on "Guaranteed medical care even if i'm broke". Also your comments about the need to work less. Brings up a question or two. Are you really saying that in order for you to have a high quality of life you need to get things that you didn't work for? I find that being handed things is very unsatisfying. There is a very good feeling that comes from accomplishing something, from providing things to myself and my family that I earned through my efforts rather than just being given them "just because". Don't you feel that way? Work is not the sole thing that makes my life enjoyable but it is certainly part of it. And the attitude that work is annoying and that things should be free and that you don't need to put forth an effort to receive something is part of why Socialism always fails. Everyone lays around waiting for the other guy to produce. And let's be very clear. Medical care is *not* free. Somebody is paying for it. If your satisfaction in life depends on "free" medical care then what you are really saying is that your satisfaction in life depends on *you not paying* for something but rather *forcing someone else to pay* for what you receive. How does that contribute to a quality of life?
From: Tchiowa on 19 Jul 2006 22:00 Jim Ley wrote: > On 19 Jul 2006 01:46:00 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Quality of life is not just about possessions. But it is also wrong to > >ignore financial success when considering quality of life. I can afford > >to eat as often as I want whenever I want. That gives me a better > >quality of life than someone who goes to bed hungry every night. > > no-one is suggesting otherwise, The Reid was. Possessions don't matter??? > but few people in ny rich country re > going to bed hungry, although I understand it's higher in countries > with low levels of support for unemployed etc. Actually it's the other way around. Countries like France have a very high support level for the unemployed but because of that they have twice as many unemployed. And more people going hungry because of it.
From: Tchiowa on 19 Jul 2006 22:01 Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On 19 Jul 2006 01:46:00 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Quality of life is not just about possessions. But it is also wrong to > >ignore financial success when considering quality of life. I can afford > >to eat as often as I want whenever I want. > > Obesity is a collosal problem in the US. Are you fat by any chance? No, are you? Or did you just run out of logical arguments so you resort to juvenile taunts?
From: Mxsmanic on 19 Jul 2006 22:07 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > Well that's for sure : you said that there were infinite sources of > money, which can't be if it's a material thing. That is logical. > However you suggested afterwards that a print would suffice as an > infinite source of money. A print? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 19 Jul 2006 22:08
Dave Frightens Me writes: > I think we'll have a bit of warning. Here in Paris we've had warnings of 100 F and above for a week. Nobody seems to be listening. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |