Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

Let's look again:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page13b.htm

The median (and that means half do better than that) of time on the job
*WITH THE SAME EMPLOYER* is about 5 years for people in their 30's
(which completely contradicts your claim that 70% have been there less
than 5 years) and climbs up to 10 as people get older. Steady growth
with age.

Which invalidates the assertion that most people over 28 do not change
jobs. Clearly, they do, several times.

Better than half stay in job a long time.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

That's what the phone company tried to argue. It was broken up and
service improved.

The monopoly on the local loop has never been broken. And the phone
company is now unbreaking itself, becoming exactly what it was before.

Funny, but I have several options for local phones in California.

Etc, Etc,

Examples?

Steel, Oil, Railroads.

Goal? They may talk about goal but the reality is completely different.
Tell me the government entity that you think provides good service.

It's easier to list government entities that do not provide good
service, but even then, nothing springs to mind offhand, except
perhaps ephemeral structures that exist for reasons other than the
ones nominally given for them, such as the DHS.

Actually it's quite easy to list the government entities which provide
good service. Here's my list. Do you have any to add?

1.

And didn't I say that monopolies are not normally good?

Perhaps, but some things have to be monopolies. You cannot have ten
sets of wires providing electricity to your home, or three sets of
pipes providing water.

But you can have different electrical providers using the
infrastructure. Which is exactly what we have in California now.

That's why monopolies are generally bad. Including government
monopolies.

But some monopolies cannot be avoided, and they should not be private.

Maybe. But to go back to the original topic, health care certainly
doesn't qualify.

Keith W wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mrtravel writes:

How did you calculatae a 3.3 percent chance over 40 years would come out
to 74 percent.

If 3.3 percent of the population changes jobs each year, then there's
a 96.7% chance that a person will not change jobs each year.

Only if you assume that each person only changes jobs once per year.
When younger there were years when I had 3 or 4 jobs


Keith

Exactly right. Heck, when I was a teenager it almost seems like there
were "weeks" when I had 3 or 4 jobs. :-)

Sid9 wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

But some monopolies cannot be avoided, and they should not be private.


There is a myth that government can't perform as well as private industry.

It's a myth.

No it's not. Cite one example.

Private industry is no more nor less competent than government entities.

Nonsense. Competition drives competence.
It depends on who's watching.

In the private world it is the people watching.

In the government world it's the government watching itself.

In private industry nobody's watching.

Really? Ever heard of the consumer?

So nobody knows how efficient or inefficient they are.

Their customers certainly do. And if they are particularly inefficient
it is their *former* customers who know.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Dave Frightens Me

With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the
earmarks of a socialist nation?

No.

What is then?

ownership of the means of production by the people,

No, it is ownership *OR CONTROL*.

a public health system is a earmark of a country with some feeling for
social justice,

A public health system is an earmark of a country with some feeling for
social justice but no idea how to bring it about so they settle on a
short term "feel good" solution that inevitably hurts more people than
it helps. But the politicians who supported it are long out of office
so they don't have to answer for the failure.

I suppose you could call it social democracy,

No, you could call it "silly".

although our Tories support it. But they are currently posturing
to the left of new labour.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

Why not?

because it doesn't work.

Because it's Socialism.

why do you keep repeating stuff nobody is disagreeing with?

Because you are disagreeing with ith.

Again (and again and again) your type of Luddism has been proclaiming
the pending end of the world if we don't retract our economies for
centuries. And you've always been wrong.

you're in a small minority of closed minds who can only make
irrelevant comments about socialism while ignoring scientific opinion.

So you think that scientific opinion supports Socialism despite the
fact of its repeated failures and obvious fatal flaws?????

There is no problem that work can make "worse".

so you "think"

Name the problem.

But it was the Socialist economy that crumbled and cause the failure of
the government, not the other way around.

We all know that. They saw the "western" model was better and the
rest followed. I'm not sure they are fully on top of democracy yet.

Uh, no. Their economy collapsed. They didn't "see" and "follow". Their
Socialist system collapsed.

I didnt totally collapse, it was in a very poor way, without a
better example to move to, it may have taken a lot longer, but
this is history, look to the future.

No, it collapsed. I was there. I've seen it. Not just in Russia but in
East Germany, Kazakhstan, Angola, and other places where Socialism
destroyed the economy.

For some reason you have a penchant for misunderstanding things
and then explaining the obvious.

For some reason you have a penchant for avoiding historical fact.

Like what?

Like what? How about like Socialism always fails.

You mostly repeat irrelevancies that nobody is arguing about.

So you finally agree?

And I didn't say that US health care was cheap. Obviously it's not. But
the system is sustainable while the NHS is already collapsing. By their
own admission. (And by several UK court rulings.)

A UK political party hardly represents the "future".

Eh? Nobody said it did, did they?.

You did.

Europe is the past.

empty assertion

Historical reality.

At it's current rate of growth (or lack thereof) compared to the rest
of the world Europe will become "Second World" by mid-Century if not
earlier. It has already fallen far enough behind the US that it can no
longer be considered economically equal.

You are. You're talking about Socialized Medicine which only comes from
a Socialist government. By definition.

nonsense, I don't have a socialist government, we have tax funded
medicine.

You have a government enforcing a Socialist policy. You don't call that
Socialist?

I live in a free market capitalist system.

Which you clearly want to socialize.

total and complete nonsense.

Are you backing off your support for Socialized medicine?

If you "clearly" see that it must
be based on some preconceived ideas of what all opponents of your
way of thinking must think. Very silly indeed.

You keep voicing your support for Socialism. If you don't want to be
responsible for your own statements, don't make them.

I am talking about things like the desirability within that system of free at point of
delivery medicine (something civilised countries see as a compassionate "must
have")

And which has been explained to you simply doesn't exist. It's not
"free". You're talking about "free to you". "I want, I want, I want,
you pay".

You are telling me our health system isn't "free" immediately
after I said it was "free at point of delivery".

Which is set up to create the illusion that it is "free".

I don't have to pay for my medical care when I receive it. I've already
paid the insurance premium. So it is "free at point of delivery". But
what you support is separating the payment from the process completely.

We *all* pay for the health system,

No, we all *don't* pay for the health system. The wealthier you are the
more you pay and many people don't pay anything at all.

we don't need you to tell us its not free, we
know its not free. did you not notice our exchange of comments
about the relative costs? I have to wonder about you at this point.

and curbing some types of consumption to constrain global warming,

No, you talking about curbing virtually all consumption

Oh, yeah, sure.

You words. Would you like them quoted back to you?

The difference between me and you is that I take a realistic view of
the world and I want to make sure that the world my children and
grandchildren inherit is better than the one I live in. I'm not
willing, for example, to sacrifice their access to quality medical care
in order to get it "free" for me right now.

nobody said it was "free", except you. It isn't free.

I said "free for me right now". Again, you want to separate the payment
from the service completely to cast the illusion that it is free and
thus make people think they are getting a free lunch. And that is one
of many reasons why it fails.

The future of our children is exactly why people are trying to
reduce polluting consumption to sustainable levels, you don't
understand that.

You link pollution with consumption. You can reduce pollution without
reducing consumption. You don't understand that so you want to reduce
consumption, period. Which you denied a few paragraphs above.

That's what compassionate, civilized people in compassionate, civilized
countries care about.

very true, (except for the comment on medical care).

As you are still at stage one of thinking I think our health care
is free (in spite of having compared costs) and thinking that I
want to socialise our economy based on god knows what, I have to
conclude there is no point in talking to you. Bye.
plonk for a while

Bye.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:01:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
I've haven't seen anyone demonstrate much in the way of skills here.
If you want me to provide professional services, you'll have to pay me
for it.

--
Doyou make people pay to see your CV too? No wonder you can't get a
real job.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:

When I lived in Washington DC a few years ago there were two local loop
providers that had reached my street. The incumbent (Verizon) and
someone else, I forgot who. They can just go into the manhole and switch
your drop.

So you can only have one provider at a time? That's a monopoly.

????????? No it's not. A monopoly is when you can only have one
provider PERIOD. You have no choice who to provide your service. I can
buy groceries from any of dozens of stores. But as I don't have a split
personality I can only buy from one at a time. Does that make them a
monopoly?

Carole Allen writes:

Actually, in order to maintain their right to practice their
professions they are required to complete a mimimum number of
professional education credits within a specific timeframe.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:32:46 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
How many, in what domain, and over what period?

--
Drs, accountants, attys. I don' t know how many for others, but attys
in WA state have to earns specific minimum CLE (continuing legal
education) credits each year, a portion of which must be ethics
credits. Judges also have to earn Judicial Education Credits, again a
portion of which are ethics. Atty licenses to practice can be
suspended for failure to earn credits, malpractice insurance can be
cancelled. Judges can face penalties as well. I think it is 45 legal
credits per year, 6 of which are ethics (not positive about those #s).
A CLE is usually a one day seminar and can earn anywhere from 3-6
credits - although 6 credits are usually 2 days CLEs. These are not
free of course; there is a tuition fee. The level of credits required
undoubtedly varies from state to state.

Teachers are also required to maintain a certain level of continuing
education credits, and many do that in the summer months when they
have a gap of 8-10 weeks.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:04:37 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


No, it does not. The whole purpose of the lawyer is to interpret the
law for her client and make appropriate recommendations; if the client
could do that by just reading a list of citations, he wouldn't need a
lawyer.

Lawyers submit jurisprudence for the purpose of persuading other
lawyers (such as judges). That is the last thing they would normally
do for most clients, and if that's all they did, then they would
certainly be falling short of their duty to clients.

Those that do lose their cases and clients

Unfortunately, no. Jury trials are usually decided by factors other
than citations of existing jurisprudence.

--
Anybody can READ a list of citations; interpreting those citations is
the trick.

You seem to think every trial is a jury trial. In fact, jury trials
in the US are a small percentage of all cases. Many many cases are
not even entitled to jury trials - unlawful detainers (evictions),
quiet title, dissolution, estates, guardianships, dependencies,
juvenile criminal trials.

Even in criminal filings, close to 90% are resolved before trial with
plea deals.

And before a case (civil or criminal) ever gets to a jury there have
been lots of pretrial hearings on issues decided by a judge, who is
relying on case law and statute. Those pretrial decisions can shape
the scope of the case; with trial parameters and admissibilty of
evidence determined, the parties often engage in some form of
mediation, and a large percentage of those cases settle before trial.
And sometimes the parties waive their rights to a jury and opt to have
a bench trial with the judge the decision-maker.

How do you know how jury trials are decided? From the few involving
celebrities you read or hear about? Have you ever actually served on
a jury?