Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

That would be the National Socialist government that ran Germany at the
time. Perhaps you've heard of them?

They were no more socialist than the USSR was communist.

Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist.........

The Nazis nationalized many businesses. Socialist by definition.

On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4
weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this.

"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one
job for quite some time.

Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor
statistics don't back that conclusion up.

You're right in your first conclusion that
young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why
should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so?

I made no value judgement, I was simply giving evidence that made your
claim that people get 3 to 4 weeks are normal, and getting less
because they are new to the job was abnormal.

I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are
25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going
to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of
vacation. Vacation that they have "earned".

So your personal experience is not supported by the stastitcs from the
bureau of labor statistics, so maybe you should stop talking from
personal experience, and start looking beyond your small personal
sample set.

Jim.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:58:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

The money you can demand.

What's the threshold of money that separates professionals from
non-professionals?

What makes you think there's a threshhold?

Professionals can demand more than non-professionals.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 31 Jul 2006 17:07:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 30 Jul 2006 17:55:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:

Yeah, blah blah blah...

You seem to continually ignore that it's working just fine in a large
number of very affluent countries.

You seem to continually ignore the fact that it is in fact *failing* in
all those large, affluent countries. You can almost graph the level of
Socialism and the high rate of unemployment and see the parallel. The
more Socialism the slower the economy is growing and the higher the
unemployment.

France.

Germany.

Japan? Australia?

Australia is anything *but* Socialist, compared to France and Germany.

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

Japan's economy has been flat for 2 decades.

Flat? So far from failing then.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Tchiowa wrote:


"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one
job for quite some time. You're right in your first conclusion that
young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why
should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so?

Because, no matter your belief on the subject, it increases
productivity and overall quality of life.

Btw: your claim of 'majority' contradicts Jim's source.


I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are
25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going
to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of
vacation. Vacation that they have "earned".

Jim posted some interesting stats from a government source, do you have
something to back this up?


J.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JohnT writes:

You have demonstrated very little knowledge in this ng.

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.


You have no skills to offer.

JohnT

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

Dammed right they do, failure to do so leaves them open
to a malpractise suit.

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.


And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice
they can be sued for malpractise. They dont go on memory.

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.


You think lawyers who dont tell their clients about
case law are failing them !

You have a strange idea there .

Those that do lose their cases and clients

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


Jury trials are a minor part of the practise of law. 90%
of lawyers work on civil law cases and contractural disputes
where precedence is vital.

Keith

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

Since Chinese growth depends
critically on energy availability I seriously doubt it can be sustained
at
current levels let alone increased.

They can take energy from other countries.


Such as whom ?

Keith

Jim Ley wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4
weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this.

"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one
job for quite some time.

Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor
statistics don't back that conclusion up.

Sure they do. Look at them again. After about age 28 the mean
unemployment stint is far less than 1.

You're right in your first conclusion that
young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why
should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so?

I made no value judgement, I was simply giving evidence that made your
claim that people get 3 to 4 weeks are normal, and getting less
because they are new to the job was abnormal.

It's the standard rule. The overwhelming majority of companies in the
US have vacation structured like that.

I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are
25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going
to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of
vacation. Vacation that they have "earned".

So your personal experience is not supported by the stastitcs from the
bureau of labor statistics, so maybe you should stop talking from
personal experience, and start looking beyond your small personal
sample set.

You need to take another look at the statistics and learn how to read
them.

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 17:07:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 30 Jul 2006 17:55:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:

Yeah, blah blah blah...

You seem to continually ignore that it's working just fine in a large
number of very affluent countries.

You seem to continually ignore the fact that it is in fact *failing* in
all those large, affluent countries. You can almost graph the level of
Socialism and the high rate of unemployment and see the parallel. The
more Socialism the slower the economy is growing and the higher the
unemployment.

France.

Germany.

Japan? Australia?

Australia is anything *but* Socialist, compared to France and Germany.

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

And their health care will fail eventually. Simply a matter of time.

Those are not the *only* earmarks of a Socialist Nation.

Japan's economy has been flat for 2 decades.

Flat? So far from failing then.

While the rest of the world has been increasing. Yes, that's a sign of
failing.