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/ove...verview_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/Scandin...logy_and_usage
Geographically the Scandinavian peninsula includes mainland Sweden and
mainland Norway, and also a part of Finland
Norway (population 4 million, smaller than many American *cities*):
4.4%. Roughly the same as the US as a whole.
Nearly a 5% lower, following your math on Australia.
And again, smaller than some US cities. You can't take a tiny part of
the whole of Europe and make a valid comparison with the US. I can find
lots of small spots in the US with far, far lower unemployment.
So none of your examples stand.
And these are the *best examples* you can come up with. Again, as I
have pointed out before, you can try to chop pieces out of the whole to
try to prove something. But that is a distortion. I can cite parts of
the US where unemployment is around 3%. But, *TAKEN AS A WHOLE* the
unemployment rate in Europe is roughly double the rate in the US.
But you don't seem to understand that Europe can't be taken as a whole,
not even the EU.
Too bad about that. I wonder why. All those borders. Couldn't be
bigotry and hatred, could it?
You want to compare pieces of the EU with the whole of the US. Invalid
comparison. Of course that can be explained because when you compare
whole against whole or pieces against pieces you're proven completely
wrong.
Further, your stats don't prove what you claim at all. Yes it's
possible to have high vacations and a competitive economy, but as I've
pointed out *repeatedly*, the vacation mandate is just *part* of the
problem.
Please, it works in other countries, you can't blame unemployment on
vacation after seeing the figures in those other countries.
????? What countries????? Norway? Is that it?????
But that wasn't the claim. The claim was cultural superiority (implied)
due to having a lot of passports and travelling between countries.
It was you who came with that term, you can think what you want. Let's
go back to the Australians, they have an enormous diverse country just
like the Americans and an extremely high % of passport ownership..
don't you think their 5-week holiday may have something to do with
them?
They have a geographically large country but a very large part of it is
not exactly called a vacation destination.
I lived in Australia for about a year. Australia has a much freer
economy than most European countries (very similar to the US). They are
doing just fine, but would do better if the economy was even more free.
But I guess I have to ask why you are hanging your hat on Australia.
You seemed very anxious to brag on Europe's success until you
discovered that European Success is an oxymoron.
But you seem to be claiming that you can't have quality without
quantity. To me "quality" defines a "real" vacation. To you, if it's
not 4 weeks in the first year of your employment it's not "real".
Exactly.
Well then you need to examine your priorities.
I now see why you said holidays can be stressful, if you are trying to
pack an international trip on your sole 2-week holiday you will very
likely be stressed as a result.
If you lived in Europe it would be easy. But, again (and again and
again and again) Americans can do 10 times as much travel as Europeans
without crossing an international border. So you're falling back into
that same trap of assuming things are better in Europe because 1,000
years of hatred created a lot of international borders.
They seem to do pretty well, so the answer is no, as the cap on
vacation is economic sense.
"Cap"? It's a "floor", not a cap.
The floor is there by law, the cap is economic sense, as different
employers give an extra holiday allowance.
???? Do you know what a "cap" is. If there was a cap then 4 weeks would
be the *maximum* allowable.
But given your demonstrated lack of ability to understand things
economic I guess I shouldn't be surprised.