Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Keith W wrote:
"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

The logic coming from these guys is right along the lines with most
Socialist thought. They don't understand the basics of economics. They
don't understand, for instance, that 10% growth is only sustainable for
a short time and only when the country is relatively poor. They don't
understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and not thinking about
investing in the future inevitably leads to failure. They don't
understand the value of working and earning something. They don't
understand the inherent self-destructiveness of "I want, I want, I
want, you pay".

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.

This mindset has existed from the dawn of civilization. The fact that
they've been proven wrong thousands of times over tens of thousands of
years doesn't slow them down.

Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:

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

Giving people something that they haven't earned does *not* increase
productivity. And if you, like The Reid, allow your requirements for
"quality of life" to include getting something you haven't earned and
making someone else pay for it then it says a whole lot about your
personal values. Myself I find that something I earned is an order of
magnitude more important to me than something I didn't earn.

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

There are several misconceptions on your work religion here of which
you've been told before, so I won't go through them again.


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

Not if you actually read the stats he posted.

The stats made it quite clear that beyond age 28 people tend to stay
employed and stay in their jobs.

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.

The statistics are clear that people take a mean 10,2 jobs between 18
and 38. Do you suppose people magically stop changing jobs at 28?

Even taking as good your premise that people take their more or less
permanent job at 28, do you think having your first 4-week vacation at
33 is a good thing?


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

Jim's stats. Read them.

I did, now go understand them yourself.


J.

On 1 Aug 2006 02:12:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

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

Oh yeah, sure. Australia's health system is rock solid compared to
America's failing system.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 1 Aug 2006 02:10:44 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


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.

Which says nothing about the number of job changes during that age
range relatively few people between 28 and 38 have a period
unemployed, but it says nothing about the number of job changes, as
most jobs are changed without a period of unemployment.

Jim.

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".


Your "personal experience" is way out of date.

Jordi wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:

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

Giving people something that they haven't earned does *not* increase
productivity. And if you, like The Reid, allow your requirements for
"quality of life" to include getting something you haven't earned and
making someone else pay for it then it says a whole lot about your
personal values. Myself I find that something I earned is an order of
magnitude more important to me than something I didn't earn.

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.

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.

There are several misconceptions on your work religion here of which
you've been told before, so I won't go through them again.

"Work religion"? 5555555555 Did anyone need any more proof of what you
and your compatriots are supporting?

My father taught me when I was very young that there were very few
personal problems that I would encounter in life that I couldn't
resolve but just working hard. It's been quite a successful philosophy.

I find that working hard and earning what it have is tremendously
rewarding, creates a wonderful quality of life and reduces stress quite
dramatically.

Work is good.

Sorry if you find that offensive.

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

Not if you actually read the stats he posted.

The stats made it quite clear that beyond age 28 people tend to stay
employed and stay in their jobs.

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.

The statistics are clear that people take a mean 10,2 jobs between 18
and 38. Do you suppose people magically stop changing jobs at 28?

Did you look at the stats? It doesn't have anything to do with "magic",
it has to do with maturity.

Why is it that people on a particular side of the political spectrum
never seem to be able to read beyond the headline.

Did you look beyond the first line of the first chart? Did you look at
the second chart at all?

The second chart shows employment by age. Mean unemployment "spells" do
in fact drop dramatically after 28.

For instance it says that of people 18-22 only about 1 in 5 went the
entire 5 years without being unemployed but of people 28-32 60% stayed
employed and people 33-37 70% stayed employed.

Not magic. Maturity.

Of people 18-22 only about 40% had only one or no spells of
unemployment but 28-32 had nearly 80% with one or no spells of
unemployment and 33-37 it was nearly 90% had one or no spells of
unemployment.

Not magic. Maturity.

Even taking as good your premise that people take their more or less
permanent job at 28, do you think having your first 4-week vacation at
33 is a good thing?

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.

Plus you miss the point of the stats. It doesn't say that they get
their first real permanent job at 28 it says that they already have it
by 28. And since the stats slide down significantly it appears that
most have their permanent job well before that (somewhere between 23
and 27).

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

Jim's stats. Read them.

I did, now go understand them yourself.

I did. Now you go back and read more than just the first line.

Sarah Banick wrote:
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".


Your "personal experience" is way out of date.

The stats posted disagree with you.

Jim Ley wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 02:10:44 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


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.

Which says nothing about the number of job changes during that age
range relatively few people between 28 and 38 have a period
unemployed, but it says nothing about the number of job changes, as
most jobs are changed without a period of unemployment.

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.

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.

Jim.

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.

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.

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

Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists.
--
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