From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 22:14
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Hatunen
> >instancve, the courts have already ruled that American citizens
> >do not lose their rights when detained at Guantanamo.
> pity about everybody else.
Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
acts, and other minor infractions.
From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 22:41
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > > you were justifying why people don't have
> > > to keep their holiday allowance when changing to a new job.
> > Try again.
> > In fact some employers specifically grant the additional vacation based
> > on previous experience as part of a "package" to recruit experienced
> > employees.
> Note the 'some'.
Exactly right. Each employer can do as he chooses. And if I am looking
for a job and one employer makes a better offer than another I choose
him. So the other employer has to "catch up" if he wants to compete.
That's how the market works.
> > And there are cars, TVs and cellphones in Angola.
> > The fact is that the average European has a lower income than the
> > average American and has less money to spend on free time. And your
> > response completely ignores the question.
> In terms of Purchasing Power Parity, two EU members are above the US in
> GDP per capita (Luxembourg and Ireland).
First, note that PPP is a subjective measure. And particularly when you
get to things like travel (this is a travel group) those prices are
fairly constant internationally so the PPP distorts that.
Second, when you point out that only 2 individual members have better
PC GDP than the average of the US you are acknowledging that, taken as
a whole, Europe is in worse economic shape than the US.
Third, you are taking pieces of the whole in Europe and comparing them
with the whole in the US. Try comparing pieces against pieces. Take the
best countries in the EU and compare them with the best states in the
US. A more accurate comparison. And the same result as I pointed out.
Europe has a poor economy compared with the US. And this employment
policy is one (of several) reason.
> Also, the EU has a more even distribution of income than the US.
Yes. Evenly low.
> So your point that somehow Europeans are deprived of cash to do what
> they want is plain false. They have, and they have more time to spend
> it the way they want.
Your "so" doesn't follow at all from your data.
And I didn't say Euros are "deprived of cash" I said that they have
less than Americans. And they do. You pointing out that only 2
countries in the EU have a better PC GDP than the average of the US
> > > > So then why do you want to reduce pay in order to inflate vacation? The
> > > > vacations are costing the employer and he's going to offset it with
> > > > proportionally reduced salaries.
> > >
> > > Told it to you before: rested and happy people make better employees.
> > 1) You completely ducked the response. First you say pay is the best
> > way to reward efforts then you won't respond as to the obvious
> > contradiction when you support a process that reduces pay.
> There is no process reducing pay. People who want to have the option to
> renounce to part of their holiday allowance and work instead if both
> employer and employee agree to.
????? The pay is reduced from the outset. You just described how you
can recover part of that reduction by renouncing vacation. By doing so
you acknowledge that the pay is lower than it would be it there were
less vacation. So you proved yet another of my points.
> > 2) You still won't respond after repeated attempts as to why an
> > employee who is off over 1/3 of all days during the year is not "rested
> > and happy". Or why a person who works 20.5% (1800/8760) of the hours
> > during a year is "rested and happy" while a person who works 21.5%
> > (1880/8760) of the hours during a year is not. What is it about
> > crossing the 21% threshhold that makes work "excessive" and leaves
> > workers worn out and unhappy?
> Again. There are no thresholds, this is social science.
Your'e the one who claimed that this is some how excessive and causes
stress. Explain the difference.
> Playing with numbers is always fun, 1% more hours obviously sounds
> better than two less weeks vacation but it's still two less weeks
And what does that mean? Maybe 2 weeks more vacation causes family
stress, boredom, loss of skills, etc. You're the one claiming that
somehow 4 weeks vacation is the magically correct level and 2 weeks of
vacation is slavery. Justify it.
> You can as well say over 30% of the year is spent sleeping, it still
> means nothing.
No, it means that which ever number you use, you spend more time
sleeping than you do working. So how is that stressful?
From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 22:44
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Jordi
> >So your point that somehow Europeans are deprived of cash to do what
> >they want is plain false. They have, and they have more time to spend
> >it the way they want.
> he doesn't want to hear that!
If it were true it would be interesting. But Jordi's own statements
From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 22:48
> Tchiowa writes:
> > Conscription is *not* involuntary servitude ...
> You are "serving" your government, and you cannot refuse. Therefore
> it is involuntary, and it is servitude.
Involuntary servitude has a specific meaning and you can't parse it
apart and try to change its meaning.
> > ... and the courts have already rules that it doesn't violate
> > the Consitution.
> Because they care more about the status quo than respecting the Constitution.
The Constitution specifically grants the government the power to raise
> > Civil forfeiture must involve certain laws and courts and thus
> > does, in fact, follow "due process".
> It does not allow due process because there is no conviction of
> wrongdoing required.
Nonsensical statement. Due process simply means that you have access to
the courts and can have your rights protected. Due process does not
require proof of wrongdoing.
> It's like prior restraint (which is also unconstitutional).
Wrong again. First, it is nothing like "prior restraint". Second, prior
restraint is *not* unconstitutional. There are some specific
requirements that must be met but it is not unconstitutional.
> > The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not followed.
> The fact that some people deny their rights are being eroded doesn't
> mean that those rights are intact. It always starts that way.
You don't know what rights you are talking about.
From: Hatunen on 8 Aug 2006 22:51
On 8 Aug 2006 19:48:09 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
>> Tchiowa writes:
>> > Conscription is *not* involuntary servitude ...
>> You are "serving" your government, and you cannot refuse. Therefore
>> it is involuntary, and it is servitude.
>Involuntary servitude has a specific meaning and you can't parse it
>apart and try to change its meaning.
>> > ... and the courts have already rules that it doesn't violate
>> > the Consitution.
>> Because they care more about the status quo than respecting the Constitution.
>The Constitution specifically grants the government the power to raise
>> > Civil forfeiture must involve certain laws and courts and thus
>> > does, in fact, follow "due process".
>> It does not allow due process because there is no conviction of
>> wrongdoing required.
>Nonsensical statement. Due process simply means that you have access to
>the courts and can have your rights protected. Due process does not
>require proof of wrongdoing.
In fact, cicil mattters don't require proof, only the
preponderance of evidence.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *