Jordi wrote:
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > Jordi wrote:
> > > Tchiowa wrote:
> > >
> > > In this context, it's a matter of grade and word choice.
> >
> > No, in this context it's the core of what works and what doesn't work.
>
> In your black & white world, perhaps.
If you are unable to understand the difference between government
control and regulation then you have a real problem with economics.
> > > In terms of distance, it is, in cultural terms a trip from Athens to
> > > Berlin is a greater 'distance'.
> >
> > Nonsense. The difference in culture between New York City, San
> > Francisco, Miami, New Orleans are every bit as great.
>
> No, they're not.
Spoken like a true Euro who have never been to the US.
Before you come up with the "smart" response, I've been to Europe
probably 100 times and visited a large number of European countries.
> > > The boundaries are there for a reason.
> >
> > Hate, bigotry, a millienium of murder, how are those for starters?
>
> There's history, you see. Are you by any chance pretending the US is
> exempt from those?
No. Just pointing out the fact that the reason so many Euros have
passports is due to hatred and bigotry, not some cultural superiority
as has been implied.
> > > No, we're talking two completely different things. All this came after
> > > you said more or less 'what's the use of holidays if people don't have
> > > money to spend', Europeans do have enough money to keep a... say
> > > 'western' lifestyle without having to work 51 weeks a year, that's all.
> >
> > But their "western" lifestyle is lower than American's.
>
> In what sense? 1.0 litre less of engine?, 4 less inches on a flat TV?
> Having some real vacation weighs substantially more on overal quality
> of life.
As do a lot of other things. Most Americans have "real" vacations and
most have more to spend on their vacations that Euros do.
> > > I don't think so if people have to wait until they're 50 to get 4 weeks
> > > vacation.
> >
> > They don't. Some do, some don't.
>
> A vast majority don't
Wrong.
> > But are you saying that you can't enjoy time with your family and still work????
>
> You can, just less.
Quantity as opposed to quality?
> > > > Me and the official unemployment statistics.
> > >
> > > Oversimplificating again. Unemployment has very deep roots.
> >
> > And the government mandated benefits that have no relation to effort
> > and productivity are part of those roots.
>
> So you believe. Many studies show an increased vacation time reduces
> stress and improves productivity.
Where?
> > > > OK. I'm waiting for the definition and the point.
> > >
> > > "there is no way to calculate how much is excessive as it depends on
> > > every individual and work position."
> >
> > Then how can you say that the amount Americans work is "excessive"?
>
> It's less than other very productive economies (Australians have 5
> weeks, Sweden has 25 days, etc.)
Less or more is not the issue. You said *EXCESSIVE*! Then you admit you
can't calculate it. So maybe Australians vacation is *excessive*.
> > > > Most. Read the studies. Vacations are times of high family violence due
> > > > to stress.
> > >
> > > Do you have any cite or this is 'personal experience' again?
> >
> > Lots of stats. I'll dig some out for you. Although I expect that you
> > won't believe them.
>
> No conservative think-tanks, please.
Ah, I see. No one who disagrees with your pre-formed opinions. As I
said, you obviously won't believe what you read.
> > > Once they're written down by law they're not benefits any more, they
> > > become rights, and are the same for everyone. There are other benefits
> > > beyond those that businesses own to motivate them.
> >
> > ???? Of course they are benefits. Just because they are government
> > mandated doesn't change that.
> >
> > And since those benefits have no direct relation to productivity they
> > are a burden on the employer.
>
> They're rights, as any employer not granting them would be breaking the
> law, and they're the same for everyone so they can hardly be a burden
> for an individual employer.
So what???????? The are still benefits. And as the employer has to pay
them then they are clearly a burden. The fact that the governments in
the EU burden all employers that way doesn't change those facts.
> If you are talking on an international level, you will see many of
> these allegedly burdened employers competing hand to hand with other
> 'unburdened' ones.
With a whole lot less employees which is demonstrated by the high
unemployment rates in Europe.
|