Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Jim Ley wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:31:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Actually most job changes *do* have a period of unemployment.

Could you cite your statistics, the statistics I've previously seen
for the UK is that most people move jobs without any period of
unemployment.

But
regardless, the stats you posted don't say one way or the other. But
they clearly say that people over 28 tend to stay employed and not move
around which is what I said. After the early 30s something like 70% or
more stay in their jobs.

Cite your statistics, the BLS stats do not say that.

They say exactly that. I cited the specifics.

Jordi wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:

But, luckily, your personal belief is not consistent with reality.

It has nothing to do with "personal belief". It has to do with reality,
not some hope of reality that comes from a fantasy about getting
something for nothing.

Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with
productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a
long way from that.

Earning something is "sweatshop reasoning"?????

Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs.
The longer you're in the job (up to limits, of course) the better you
can perform and the more productive you are. Working with your mind is
probably more like this than working with your hands. You can teach a
factory worker to do his repetitive job fairly quickly but an analyst
or engineer gets better with experience.

One of the reasons that I get a lot of vacation (that you completely
misunderstand below) is that I have tons of experience so I can walk
into a job in just about any country and resolve problems in days that
people have been working on for months. I'm not any smarter, just more
experienced. I've usually seen their problem before (or something
similar) and know from experience what works and what doesn't.

There are plenty of US-produced materials on overworking and lack of
vacation provoking stress and other health problems (for which you have
to pay for afterwards, btw).

And there are plenty of material showing the opposite.

Of course, there are still people saying the Earth is flat, but the
general convention is not.

Yes. Which is why your theory of "hard work causes stress" is
considered laughable.

Work is good.

Sorry if you find that offensive.

Not at all, work is good, but there's much more to life than work.

Never said there wasn't.

It's fun how you publicly claim having several months vacation and then
basically saying the rest of the word is a lazy bunch for four weeks.

I never said anyone was lazy. I said that giving people paid vacations
that they hadn't earned was bad economics. Do you understand the
difference?

People jumping from one job to the other (as is the case when changing
for a better paying job) don't count as having an unemployment spell
and still will get back to 1or 2-week vacation. Reading the numbers is
just the first step.

If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then
jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for
your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week
vacation.

I already knew I was right, you don't need to prove it any more.

Except that proves you wrong.

Not magic. Maturity.

And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to
be able to interpret them.

You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and
38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get
unemployed on a given age.

And it goes down *DRAMATICALLY* with age, does it not? Put the stats
together and the answer is quite obvious. As I said, it's not magic,
it's maturity.

You can't infere people don't change jobs after a certain age just by
looking wether if they're unemployed or not because the chart does not
take into account those people 'jumping' directly from one job to the
other.

No it doesn't directly. But jumping directly from job to job is not as
common as losing a job and getting another. And while there isn't a
direct correlation there is a statistical relationship.

You missed that and now you're grasping at straws. This is the point
where you say "I missed that part of the chart, sorry, I was wrong" and
leave it at that.

That's statistics 101.

Yes it is. And it's as plain as day if you bother to look.

If you haven't been a reliable employee prior to that, yes! If you have
been changing jobs once a year and been unemployed part of that time
then you've had plenty of time off.

I think it's a perfect thing to earn vacation. I think that expecting
something for nothing is not a good thing.

Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having
people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation
nowadays is much more than just salary.

And what better motivation than increasing the amount of your vacation
in payment for company loyalty and staying on the job? And what worse
way of motivating people than saying that their pay and vacation has
nothing to do with performance and time on the job?

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

They were no more socialist than the USSR was communist.

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

"Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state
would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system."
"Communism - A social and political ideology advocating that
authority and property be vested in the community, each member
working for the common benefit according to capacity and
receiving according to needs."

but those naughty russkies didnt stick to the principles of
communism.

Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government. If
not then the people will throw it out because the people want to be
allowed to succeed. So the more Socialistic you get the more you end up
trending toward a dictatorial government.

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

Socialism cannot succeed long term.

The Nazis nationalized many businesses. Socialist by definition.

and supported the right in Spain rather than the socialists,
"national socialism" is to socialism what the german democratic
republic was to democracy.

Wrong. Socialism is an economic philosophy that can reside on either
side of the political spectrum.

"The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World
War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist
government"

And a socialist economy.

Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists.

I don't know enough about their detailed beliefs.

I also notice that you decide to argue about whether or not the Nazis
were Socialist and ignore the other half dozen specific examples of the
destructiveness of Socialist governments.

I wonder why that is.

(No I don't. We both know why.)

BTW, it's my parents 50th wedding anniversary coming up so I'm going to
sin and fly myself and my wife half way around the world to celebrate
with them. So you'd better stay home and do the "sackcloth and ashes"
thing to keep the world in balance.

Dave Frightens Me writes:

What makes you think there's a threshhold?

If there were not, then "the money you can demand" would not be a
distinguishing criterion.

Professionals can demand more than non-professionals.

So there must be a dividing line between what non-professionals can
demand and what professionals can demand. What is that dividing line?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Keith W writes:

And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice
they can be sued for malpractise.

You're half right. If they give wrong advice they can be sued for
malpractice--although very often in law there is way to objectively
identify right or wrong advice.

They dont go on memory.

They depend almost entirely on memory when advising clients under
normal conditions.

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

No, I do not. In fact, I said virtually the opposite.

You have a strange idea there.

It was your inference, not my idea.

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.

Precedence is important in law, but that doesn't mean that lawyers
cite it explicitly when dealing with clients.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:
Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with
productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a
long way from that.

Earning something is "sweatshop reasoning"?????

Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs.

Wrong, that's 1900's vintage thinking.

Of course, there are still people saying the Earth is flat, but the
general convention is not.

Yes. Which is why your theory of "hard work causes stress" is
considered laughable.


That's yet another misconception of yours. It's not hard work what
causes stress, but excessive work.


If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then
jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for
your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week
vacation.

I already knew I was right, you don't need to prove it any more.

Except that proves you wrong.


In what respect?


Not magic. Maturity.

And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to
be able to interpret them.

You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and
38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get
unemployed on a given age.

And it goes down *DRAMATICALLY* with age, does it not? Put the stats
together and the answer is quite obvious. As I said, it's not magic,
it's maturity.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/nlsoy.t02.htm

70,1% of Americans aged 33-38 have been on their job for less than 5
years, among them, 54,0% have been less than 2 years, and 38,7% less
than 1 year.

Of course, those % increase with younger ages.

As I said before, better brush up your Statistics there was no way you
could infere your conclusions from the 1st given charts. And, of
course, those numbers are consistent with the experience of other US
posters.

You missed that and now you're grasping at straws. This is the point
where you say "I missed that part of the chart, sorry, I was wrong" and
leave it at that.

Would you please say that again?

Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having
people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation
nowadays is much more than just salary.

And what better motivation than increasing the amount of your vacation
in payment for company loyalty and staying on the job? And what worse
way of motivating people than saying that their pay and vacation has
nothing to do with performance and time on the job?

Who talked about pay here? Vacation is not something you earn, it's a
way to keep your employees rested and productive. That's the reason
behind paid vacation and the 2-day weekend.


J.

Tchiowa writes:

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.

Which statistics are you looking at?

The overall unemployment rate is about 4.6 percent in the U.S. for
workers over age 20. The number of people in the workforce in that
same cohort is about 142,000,000. If the average person works for 40
years of 52 weeks, the total number of weeks worked is 2080. If the
unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, that means that about 95 weeks are
spent unemployed over a lifetime. The average duration of a period of
employment is five weeks. This implies that the average worker
changes jobs some nineteen times after age 20. In practice, that
means that some people change jobs a lot more than 19 times, and some
change hardly at all; but in the absence of some really strong skewing
in the population, it also implies that everyone changes jobs at least
a few times over his or her working lifetime, even after age 20.

All my data comes from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

Actually most job changes *do* have a period of unemployment. But
regardless, the stats you posted don't say one way or the other. But
they clearly say that people over 28 tend to stay employed and not move
around which is what I said. After the early 30s something like 70% or
more stay in their jobs.

Where are these statistics?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

They say exactly that. I cited the specifics.

No, they do not. Which specifics did you cite?

The BLS shows the turnover rate as being about 3.3% annually. This
implies that the chances of changing one's job each year are about
3.3%. Over 40 years, this implies that there is a 74% chance that the
average person will change jobs. This in turn implies that very few
people keep the same job for a lifetime, even in adulthood.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Frightens Me writes:

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

No.

Flat? So far from failing then.

If it is flat, then _any_ negative change could count as "failing."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.