From: Tchiowa on 9 Aug 2006 21:13
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > Jordi wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> So? It's irrelevant to what we were talking about here.
Wrong. It's the crux of what we're talking about. Allowing the market
to work makes things better over time. Distorting the market like they
do in Europe will eventually have a cost. It already has.
> > > 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.
> So? What % of the annual budget of the average person goes to travel?
> And Europeans do travel abroad more than Americans (just take a look at
> how many Americans have a passport).
I'm somewhat surprised that you fell into that somewhat simplistic
trap. The primary reason that more Europeans have passports that
Americans is the Balkanization of Europe. In parts of Europe you need a
passport in order to travel more than about an hour in any direct.
Americans can travel the length and breadth of North America without a
passport (inicluding Canada and Mexico). The fact that Europe fought
itself into tiny little legal entities that required people to have
passports to cross the street in some cases isn't something the Euros
should be bragging about.
> > 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.
> So is Japan, and nobody suggests Japanese don't have money to spend
> while on holiday.
As compared to Americans? I'm suggesting it.
> > 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.
> How do you weigh happier citizens with that?
Quick change of subject, I see. You were happy to talk about money
until you got boxed into a corner.
> > > Also, the EU has a more even distribution of income than the US.
> > Yes. Evenly low.
> There are more average Europeans than average Americans, that means
> someone is doing things well.
The average European is substantially poorer than the average American.
The average European would be considered lower (or lower-middle) class
financially in America. That is "doing something well"???
> > > 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
> > proves that.
> You're not following the discussion. When told that Europeans enjoy
> more vacation than Americans you replied what's the use if they don't
> have money to spend on them.
And if they have less money to spend on average then a higher
percentage will have no money to spend. Simple.
> > > > 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
> Grasping at straws again, you're jumping from one subject to the other.
No, same subject. The vacation policy is hurting the workers.
> You first said giving more holiday is a great way to motivate somehow
> implying that European business don't reward efforts.
No, you said that. I said that "rewards" are a great way. That includes
salary *and* vacation.
> Then I replied:
> that's false, they get more benefits but especially more pay (the
> ultimate reason for which the individual works).
???? Euros get *less* pay.
> > > 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.
> It's simple: excessive work causes stress but there is no way to
> calculate how much is excessive as it depends on every individual and
> work position.
Define "excessive". That was the question.
Note that most psychiatrists say that people are more stressed now than
they were a century ago. But the average person now works 50% less than
the average person did a century ago. So your linkage is getting lost.
> People are happier with more holiday,
Really? Again, psychiatrists point out that vacations are often very
> and there is no way to
> demonstrate the optimum working time (be it 2, 4 or 6 hours holiday)
Yet you seem to claim that there is a way. You do so by claiming that
the US is somehow harming its workers by not giving them enough
> so we'd better go for the point where the maximum people are happy and
> it's still economically viable.
OK. Good point. My point is that the mandatory minimum 4 weeks vacation
is not economically viable. Look at the unemployment figures in Europe.
Part of that is a direct result of mandatory vacation. Ask employers.
They are reluctant to hire new, unproven people because they are
saddled with this cost
From: Tchiowa on 9 Aug 2006 21:17
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 22:58:01 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Tchiowa writes:
> >> > Involuntary servitude has a specific meaning and you can't parse it
> >> > apart and try to change its meaning.
> >> Yes. It's not voluntary, and it's service. Conscription is not
> >> voluntary, and it's service. Therefore conscription is involuntary servitude.
> >I told you before you can't take the words apart and analyze the
> >meaning of each word then come up with a definition of the whole.
> Is this the first time you've met Mixi?
Yes. I get your point. :-)
From: Tchiowa on 9 Aug 2006 21:19
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 19:14:10 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The Reid wrote:
> >> Following up to Hatunen
> >> >For
> >> >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.
> Perhaps you should read this:
> "According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the
> Americans themselves.
Yes. Most were captured by Afghans.
> Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a
> widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in
> exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
> The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans
> handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can
> receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch
> al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
> "This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your
> tribe for the rest of your life."
> So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as
> though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were
> handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct
> result of these bounties. "
> Not quite the same picture?
???? Exactly the same picture. People with links to Al Qaeda and the
Taliban absolutely are covered by my statement above regarding
terrorists and murderers.
From: Tchiowa on 9 Aug 2006 21:22
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > Tchiowa writes:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The people being held did not generally do any of these
> > > things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has
> > > become very broad.
> > Those people being held were for the most part either captured on the
> > battlefield performing terrorist acts or supporting a terrorist
> > government while fighting out of uniform, or they were taken as members
> > of terrorist cells.
> Says who? The US military? If they did something wrong, try them in a
> court of law.
No, if they committed a "crime" you try them in a court of law. If I'm
not mistaken the Geneva Conventions bar criminal trials for prisoners
of war. These guys don't qualify for protection under the Conventions
because they were fighting out of uniform (among other reasons) but
it's still a good reference to note that what you are asking for is
From: The Reid on 10 Aug 2006 04:43
Following up to Hatunen
>>So? What % of the annual budget of the average person goes to travel?
>>And Europeans do travel abroad more than Americans (just take a look at
>>how many Americans have a passport).
>Europeans don't have as far to go to get abroad.
that of course doesn't make it untrue.
>A great many of
>the foreign destinations for Americans don't require a passport
>(so far, anyway).
what would be your guess on % of Americans who travel abroad and
who travel abroad beyond Mexico and Canada (a guess, I'm not
interested in a cites war). Are there a lot of countries US
doesn't need passports?
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"