Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Keith W writes:

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

They aren't saying.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security,
infrastructure, job creation, etc.

I don't see that in U.S. deficit spending. In fact, the most
irresponsible spender in the U.S. is the government itself.

First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly
and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits.

It's hard to provide electricity, water, telephone, and other services
without a monopoly on at least part of the infrastructure.

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

Etc, Etc,

Which public entity would that be?

All of them. The government's goal is generally public service, not
private profit for shareholders.

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

True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about
service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no
competition.

It gets worse when the monopoly is a private for-profit entity.

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

Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service.

Not when you're a monopoly.

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

The best way to make a profit when you
are a monopoly is to provide no service at all and raise prices
sky-high, because your customers have no choice but to pay you, and
you cannot lose them.

Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along
and provide that good service and take your business away.

Not if you have a monopoly.

That's why the profit motive works.

For shareholders, not for society--at least not when there is no
competition.

You're arguing against yourself.

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.


How did you calculatae a 3.3 percent chance over 40 years would come out
to 74 percent. Additionally, no one said the majority would have
lifetime jobs, just that they would have long term jobs. If only 74
percent (your numbers) people change jobs in their lifetime, than why
does this show they are employed mainly for the long term?

Jordi wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:


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.

You have a problem not only with interpreting statistics but also with
reading comprehension.

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.


I'll put that again for the last time:

BLS statistics show that most Americans don't stay in their jobs enough
to get a 4-week vacation even at mature ages so your earlier statements
about 'most people' are wrong.

In fact that same chart shows that half the people over 40 and way over
half the people over 50 have been in their jobs long enough to get 4
weeks of vacation.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

Jim Ley posted them. Go read them.

I don't want Jim Ley's stats. I want a third-party reference.

BLS. How many do you want to see?

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.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/rtaw/pdf/rtaw1999.pdf

page 41 discusses the value of work experience.

"Skills are learned over time, through instruction and practice. A
young labor market entrant with little schooling, by definition, is
unskilled. A worker with some education but no practical work
experience becomes more skilled through practice, on-the-job training,
and continuing education. Therefore, both education and accumulated
work experience contribute to the skill with which a worker performs a
job and the wage rate that he or she can command, so long as the prior
schooling and work experience are relevant to the current job."

It goes on:

"The accumulation of relevant work experience is a prerequisite for
most higher-skilled jobs. The amount of work experience needed before
an employee is fully competent or reaches journeyman status differs by
occupation, establishment, and industry. Given the investment made in
acquiring skills through work experience, it is not surprising that
during periods of economic downturns, employers will lay off less
senior workers first. Thus, skills and employment stability both
increase with tenure."

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:52:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

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

No.

What is then?

Flat? So far from failing then.

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

Not if it's merely transient.

But it's not transient. It's endemic.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

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

Why not?

because it doesn't work.

Because it's Socialism.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

And we discussed what they proved by their statements.

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.)

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.

A UK political party hardly represents the "future". Europe is the
past.

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.

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

I live in a free market capitalist system.

Which you clearly want to socialize.

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".

and curbing some types of consumption to constrain global warming,

No, you talking about curbing virtually all consumption and reducing
our economy completely for all kinds of (what you consider to be)
benefits.

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!

Unfortunately for you I'm not right wing. I'm fairly centric. I quite
strongly support gun control, gay marriage, civil rights, unions, etc.

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.

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

Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:

You have a problem not only with interpreting statistics but also with
reading comprehension.

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.

For the age group 35-39 the median in your chart is 4,8 for men, and
3,7 for women.

Median values over 5 happen at 40-44 for men and 45-49 for women, which
clearly contradict your earlier statements of 28.

Also, the site has 2000 year figures and clearly states that the
tendence is to go even lower.

I'll put that again for the last time:

BLS statistics show that most Americans don't stay in their jobs enough
to get a 4-week vacation even at mature ages so your earlier statements
about 'most people' are wrong.

In fact that same chart shows that half the people over 40 and way over
half the people over 50 have been in their jobs long enough to get 4
weeks of vacation.

Big deal, how is that in % respect the total workforce?


J.

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

Case law is used for that

Occasionally, but not usually.

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.

Do they give you the citations when they meet with you?


In some cases yes

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

I don't recall saying anything about advising them on case law, which
is something clients don't generally care about, anyway.

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

So now it's _before_, and not _during_?


Consultations are rarely single session events, they tend
to be several meetings sparking from a single event.

For example we recently had a dispute with our office landlord.
We put our situation to our lawyers, they went away and reported
back with advice on our best actions to take and quoted
some case law on it.

We put this to the landlord and he went to his lawyers who
confirmed it and a settlement was reached.

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 =----