Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: barney2 on 17 Aug 2006 11:50 In article <1155828906.645531.258360(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote: > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > *Date:* 17 Aug 2006 08:35:06 -0700 > > > > Jordi wrote: > > Tchiowa wrote: > > > Jordi wrote: > > > > > If you are unable to understand the difference between > > > > > government > > > > > control and regulation then you have a real problem with > > > > > economics. > > > > > > > > You keep telling 4 weeks holiday is 'control' > > > > > > ??? No I didn't. I cited that as one example that is part of a > > > bigger > > > problem. 4 weeks holiday is not "control". Government ordering that > > > companies provide benefits that aren't related to performance is one > > > example of control. > > > > Pulling back now? You kept telling a 4 week holiday was unsustainable > > and government interference until provided with a couple of examples. > > You took 2 separate arguments and tried to piece the words together. > And you didn't do a very good job. > > And which examples are you talking about? Australia? (You were wrong) > Sweden? (You were wrong) In fact you haven't come up with a single > example. Not one. Every nation you've mentioned that has a government > mandated minimum of 4 weeks vacation has a higher unemployment rate > than the US. The only one that is less is Norway and they are a tiny > country. > > > > In Europe it's part of a much, much bigger problem. > > > > > > > There is a problem with unemployment in Europe. It's not at all > > related > > to the vacation policy, as some countries (some of them in Europe) > > show. > > Which ones? Again and again. You keep saying that then when you cite > countries they turn out to have significantly higher unemployment than > the US. > > The mandatory 4 week vacation is not the sole cause. But it is > undeniably one of the causes. > > > > Australia's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in decades, > > > yet > > > still 10% higher than the US rate (4.6% - 5.1%, a .5% difference > > > which > > > is 10% of 4.6% - had to do the math for you so we don't have to > > > exchange 20 more postings to get you to understand). > > > > 5% is usually considered a full employment figure. > > And Australia is slightly above that and the US is below that. And this > is the lowest it's been in Australia in decades. As compared with a > fairly typical US unemployment rate. > > > > http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview/html/overview_06.htm > > > > > > Sweden's rate is about 6%, even higher. > > > > Recovering from a 90s economic crisis, and published at 5,8%. > > Substantially higher than the US which is also recovering from a 2001 > recession. > > > > http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/unemployment_rate.html > > > > > > OK. "Other Scandinavian countries"? OK. > > > > > > Finland (2004, the most recent I found without spending hours > > > proving > > > you don't know what you're talking about): 8.9%. > > > > Finland is not a Scandinavian country, better brush up your geography. > > It was in Scandinavia when I was there. Did they move it? > > http://www.goscandinavia.com/ > > "Welcome to the Official Website of the Scandinavian Tourist Boards in > North America. Please feel free to browse the country websites of > Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia#Terminology_and_usage > > Geographically the Scandinavian peninsula includes mainland Sweden and > mainland Norway, and also a part of Finland > The beginning of that page states: "The original and most common definition includes continental Denmark, mainland Norway and Sweden." and goes on to say: "Sometimes Finland is included"
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:25 On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:19:58 GMT, mrtravel <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net> wrote: >The Reid wrote: > >> Following up to Hatunen >> >> >>>As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after >>>WW1. >> >> >> Maybe not in the current sense, I'm sure ive seen a passport >> signed by Elizabeth 1st. More a safe passage, I imagine. > >Isn't this a passport? > >http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1052/1597/1600/randall%20passport.jpg I reckon it would depend on whether Malta required such a paper for entry or if this is a simple request from from the consul asking the Maltese to show Mr Randall all the courtesy of the port. It looks more to me like a subdued threat to the Maltese that Randall is a US citizen so don't try any funny stuff. It was only a couple of decades after the US went after the barbary Pirates. Interesting that it's a printed form. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:26 On 17 Aug 2006 07:36:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> Now there's your problem. The assumption that the people in a >> city like Paris are representative of the entire country. That >> sort of dumb reasoning undermines everything you say. > >I see. So the people in Paris aren't French? How about Marseille? I >found the same thing. > >You need to get out more. You need to refine your reading skills and your logical thinking. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:32 On 17 Aug 2006 07:46:34 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Hatunen wrote: >> >> On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry >> >> >that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not >> >> >something to be proud of. >> >> > >> >> >> and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through >> >> >> any kind of passport control. >> >> > >> >> >These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of >> >> >Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently. >> >> > >> >> >Try to keep up. >> >> >> >> As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after >> >> WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much >> >> intra-European travel means that they really only served their >> >> purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European >> >> history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business, >> >> espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an >> >> indication of bigotry and hatred. >> > >> >Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said >> >that. >> >> I could swear it was you who said: >> >> "Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and >> bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for >> centuries." > >I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport, >it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries. OK. A. Passports are not an indications of bigotry and hatred. B. Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry So you claim that those two statements are not contradictory? > >Ever hear of "root cause analysis"? You should pick up a book. > >> >The need to have a passport in order to travel more than a couple of >> >hours in any direction in Europe is a result of the fact that Europe is >> >chopped up into little political entities. >> >> OK. >> >> >And that is a result of >> >1,000 years or more of bigotry and hatred and war. >> >> Ah, see, you're waffling now; that's not what you've said. You've >> said it was a result of bigotry and hatred, not war. > >What do you think caused the war? Stale wine? Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on, doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have resulted from bigotry and hatred. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: mrtravel on 17 Aug 2006 12:37
Hatunen wrote: > It looks more to me like a subdued threat to the Maltese that > Randall is a US citizen so don't try any funny stuff. It was only > a couple of decades after the US went after the barbary Pirates. > > Interesting that it's a printed form. It's a passport. Passports back then didn't come in a little book. |