Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Keith W writes:

Such as whom ?

Whomever they can conquer.

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

Tchiowa writes:

They don't understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and
not thinking about investing in the future inevitably leads to
failure.

How do you reconcile this with runaway deficit spending?

They don't understand the simple adage that "Anything the government
gives to the people it must first take from the people" and they don't
understand the basic principle of economic entropy which shows that
every time the government inserts itself into a transaction there is an
inevitable loss of value.

When the service or product in question is provided by a monopoly, it
is best if that monopoly belongs to the government, mainly because it
removes the profit motive. Public entities tend to place an emphasis
on service, or at the very least they do not care about profit;
whereas private entities feel their first duty is to make money for
shareholders, and they could not care less about public service.

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

Tchiowa wrote:
The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa
Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist.........
....
Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government.
....
Socialism cannot succeed long term.

So, was USSR Communist or Socialist in your oppinion? You'll have to
make up your mind. Hint: see what USSR stands for... :-P

Or did you mean to say that Communism = Socialism?

Or were you just plainly wrong?

Gorazd

Jordi wrote:
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.

No, you are wrong. Ask any businessman who has experienced and
non-experienced employees. In any job that requires intelligence and
reasoning the experienced employee will almost always outperform the
employee with lesser experience. Sometimes dramatically.

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.

Which was my point and you denied it.

Again, it's not magic, it's maturity.

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.

*PAID* vacation is something you earn. Period. The boss has to pay for
it.

And the reason behind the 2-day weekend is that unions demanded it and
got it. It's a good thing, of course, but your reason that it exists
defies history.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

???? Who are you trying to kid. The majority of people never go on
unemployment. 4% unemployment is considered "full employment" because
there is a hard core of around 4% of the people who stay unemployed
pretty much their whole lives. (Can you say "drunk and lazy"?)

Now, do most people change jobs at least once or twice in their
lifetimes? Yes they do. But the point was that the job "thrashing" is
much more prevalent with young people than with mature people.

And your calculation of 19 times is roughly double what the posted
statistics said because your assumptions were wrong.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

Jim Ley posted them. Go read them.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

You're assuming that the job change frequency stays the same regardless
of age and the stats show otherwise. You're likely to change jobs 4 or
5 times (or more) before you are 30 and it goes down the older you get.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.


Case law is used for that

They dont go on memory.

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


Incorrect. I have had many professional dealings with lawyers
over the years and when giving advice on any but the most
simplistic cases they will advise their client to return after
they have had the opportunity to review current case law.
In many cases they will go for an opinion to a more
senior lawyer who specialises in the field concerned.


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 claimed they work from memory, this is not the same
as advising clients about case law.

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.


I didnt claim they did, however they DO refer to it extensively
before rendering opinions to clients.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Following up to Tchiowa

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

Why not?

because it doesn't work.

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.

are we supposed to be surprised, or something? As I have said
several times you are fighting yesterdays wars, you told us you
learnt at your fathers knee work would solve most problems. Now
we have a new type of problem that work can make worse, if
misdirected. some things need rethinking, I realise it take right
wingers a long time to adjust to change, but it has to be done.

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

Socialism cannot succeed long term.

but you can have public services run from the tax revenue from
business in a free market economy. We do, it works. As I told you
our friends from Texas are finding their tax + insurance there
was more than tax (including NHS) here.

Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists.

I don't know enough about their detailed beliefs.

which doesn't surprise me, you argue about the situations of the
past. find out about the present and the future and its
challenges.

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.

nobody is talking about socialist governments, except you. I live
in a free market capitalist system. 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 curbing some types of consumption
to constrain global warming, partly by doing things slower and
more environmentally efficiently, meanwhile you talk of nazis and
the CCCP........

BTW, it's my parents 50th wedding anniversary coming up

Congratulate them for me.

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.

I suppose that comment well represents the crass short sighted
selfishness and state of denial of the American right. The bishop
of London would have something to say to you!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

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

Such as whom ?

Whomever they can conquer.


So which energy rich countries do you think
China can conquer ?

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----