Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Karen Selwyn on 10 Aug 2006 06:52 The Reid wrote: > > Are there a lot of countries US doesn't need passports? The number of countries that didn't require passports of US travelers used to be quite high counting all the island nations in the Caribbean. Not surprisingly, the current political climate has changed the regs. Karen Selwyn
From: barney2 on 10 Aug 2006 08:19 In article <1155172384.690848.308800(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote: > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > *Date:* 9 Aug 2006 18:13:04 -0700 > > > Jordi wrote: > > 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. Look at a map of medieval Europe some time. The continent's history is one of unification as much as Balkanisation.
From: Jordi on 10 Aug 2006 10:02 Tchiowa wrote: > Jordi wrote: > > 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. That's a gross oversimplification. Every economy (even the US) is a mix of free market and government intervention, is the US also distorting the market? > > > > 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. Schengen has pretty much changed that for a great deal of Europeans. As per the rest, it's history, we have managed to keep many cultures and identities in a relatively small space, and not necessarily as a tourist show. > > > > So is Japan, and nobody suggests Japanese don't have money to spend > > while on holiday. > > As compared to Americans? I'm suggesting it. If everything you care about is pure income, there you have it. Keep it while you can. > > > > 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. I was talking about money in relative terms, right after you said what is the use of vacation if people have no money to spend. The truth is people have enough money and time to enjoy it. > > > > > 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. > > What??????????? > > 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"??? You are talking two different things. An European transplanted into America with his European salary would be lower or lower-middle class, but things down here are different. The average European family has a home, car, computer, mobile phone, cable-TV and whatever else the American family has, and has more time to enjoy it together. > > > 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. If you are trying to say a significant number of Europeans don't have money enough to go on vacation you're wrong. > > > > Grasping at straws again, you're jumping from one subject to the other. > > No, same subject. The vacation policy is hurting the workers. So you say. > > > 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 why follow that Euro businesses are not rewarding efforts because they don't give more holiday? (btw: some do). > > > 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 losing track. We are talking about rewarding efforts of current employees by increasing their pay, how can you come out with that? > > 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. Excessive is easy to define the point is how much is excessive. > > 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. Not really, a century ago most jobs were totally manual and any worker complaining about excessive workload would be summarily fired and with no other option but starving or turning to crime. > > > People are happier with more holiday, > > Really? Again, psychiatrists point out that vacations are often very > stressful. Which ones? > > 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 > vacation. Yes, if people are better with more vacation, the less holidays they receive the worse they are. > > > 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 (plus the difficulty in letting people go > because of other similarly non-competitive laws in Europe). No, especially in France, the problems in hiring new people is because it is quite hard to send them off if the worker turns out to be less than okay. That's why they tried to pass a law introducing a new contract for youngsters in which the employer could basically send them off for no reason (and the subsequent riots in a very French fashion). > > > > > > And what does that mean? Maybe 2 weeks more vacation causes family > > > stress, boredom, loss of skills, etc. > > > > Just if you don't know how to keep a good life/work balance. Work > > addicti
From: Jordi on 10 Aug 2006 10:11 mrtravel wrote: > The Reid wrote: > > > > 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? > > There are few left, but that will soon end as the US Government will > require them for re-entry. The percentage of foreign travelers is lower > because the US is a large country with great diversity. So is Australia and I recall them having one of the highest % of passport holders. J.
From: Jordi on 10 Aug 2006 10:14
Hatunen wrote: > On 9 Aug 2006 02:55:39 -0700, "Jordi" <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >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. A great many of > the foreign destinations for Americans don't require a passport > (so far, anyway). Athough I do have a passport I don't need it to > visit the foreign country just 100 km from my house, which I do > several times a year. I don't think you're very representative of the average USAian :) It will be interesting to see the stats once the passport for re-entry is mandatory. > >Because working makes up for more than half the time you are awake, > >conscious and actually doing things, every bit you can shave off it is > >more time to do whatever you want (family, friends, reading, etc.). > > How do you get half the time? I am asleep about 56 hours a week > leaving 112 hours. If I work 40 hours a week, that's 36% of my > waking hours. Even if I add in two hours a day for commuting five > days a week it still isn't 50%. > I said on another reply, I was thinking about weekdays, my mistake. J. |