Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThat is something that middle class Americans really, really want, based on a recent Pew Research Center national public opinion survey.
Oh, to be able to read a book! To lie down on the beach and hear just the waves breaking instead of all that rush-hour traffic! To have time to just sit there, instead of always doing something!
Or that's how I imagine the internal conversations of the poll respondents. Ezra Klein points out that leisure time was rated more desirable in the poll than careers, marriages and having children:
Now, it's probably not that adults really value leisure time above their families and their god. So the impressive showing of leisure time suggests that that's where Americans feel particularly squeezed and out of control -- that's their top priority because it's the one they don't know how to achieve. And that's a shame. We're a rich society. We could afford to guarantee our workers paid vacation, we could afford to offer paid sick days, we could afford to make it easier to live a life in accordance with our preferences, rather than constantly fearing that actually taking necessary or desired time off will tarnish your reputation around the workplace.That's it, in a nutshell. The US is the only advanced economy that doesn't require firms to give their workers any paid vacation time. So it's up to the workers to request it, and any such request will have to comply with the implicit corporate norms or you will start looking like a loafer, like someone not willing to work hard.
Perhaps this is why the average full-time worker in Germany has almost eight weeks of holiday and paid vacation time in a year, while the average full-time worker in the US gets by with a little less than an annual total of four weeks? Even the Irish get to spend almost six weeks off the job every year, and theirs is the next most dismal figure in this international comparison of vacation times. All those other countries have statutory minimum vacation time which the workers must be given, though the actual time off exceeds that.
The story sometimes told to explain the more harried American worker is based on the idea that Americans, on average, value income more than time off. Hence, they select a package of compensation which has a greater proportion of money while their European cousins pick a package with less money and more leisure time.
But if this is true, how do we explain the responses in the Pew poll? The desire to stop, to rest, to recover, to spend more time with the family? It could be that the respondents were just sighing over their lack of free time without actually wanting to do anything to address the problem. It could also be that negotiating for vacation time, one worker and one boss at a time, always has that threat of "a tarnished reputation" hovering above the worker's head, the threat based on what other workers might be doing in their vacation talks and how those choices make one's own choice look. Imagine what might happen if all workers could negotiate on the length of their vacation time together?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
"Imagine what might happen if all workers could negotiate on the length of their vacation time together?"
You mean in something like "one big union"?
That kind of talk makes me go all Wobbly in the legs!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 11:08am
"Imagine what might happen if all workers could negotiate on the length of their vacation time together?" You mean in something like "one big union"? That kind of talk makes me go all Wobbly in the legs!...heheh
by MASK
well, they have negotiated their health and safety standards together.
look, i even found a link: [osha.gov]
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 11:35am
ms. goodrich!
please stop pimpin' your arab women. i'm married!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 11:37am
serious. americans would be a lot more productive with a 35 hour work week. everyone gets off friday at 1pm. 2.5 day weekend.
everyone would be happier. a lot f*cking happier.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 12:05pm
who cares about the robots?
that's what ambien is for.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 11:35am
Sorry, FZ, but Federally-run universal health care has more of a shot than "more paid vacations"...in an economy where people WANT to work to make more money.
Sure, they'll tell Pew they'd LIKE to have more paid vacation...is this surprising?!?!?
But the politics of it are disasterous. Any liberal or Democrat who tried to push it would get swathed in a big ol' splash of "Typical liberal, wanting to give away FREEBIES for no work...have us all sitting around drawing paychecks that somebody else has to pay for, for sitting on our butts...didn't we learn anything from welfare in the 60s" paint.
The Party distances themselves from it...the Leadership distance themselves form it....and it quickly dies in Committee
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 12:33pm
Financial Times -- 7 February, 2008
'A waiter at the Cafι Valmy next door to the Paris headquarters of Sociιtι Gιnιrale remembers Jιrτme Kerviel as being different to many of the brash banking types that drank there....Later that month, when SocGen's human resources department alerted Mr Kerviel's boss that he had not been on holiday for eight months except for four days in August, he was asked to take some leave. But Mr Kerviel told them December was the anniversary of his father's death and he did not want to be alone, persuading his boss that he could wait until January. "With hindsight, this was a mistake," admits Mr Martineau. Most investment banks require traders to take at least two consecutive weeks' holiday a year, which limits the scope for concealing their positions....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/14/2008 @ 12:57pm
So, J GOODRICH, what you're asking is YET ANOTHER way that Gov should mandate to business a decree which requires an outlay of money without a corresponding increase in production or wealth. You "workers rights" types just won't stop till you've completely disrupted the profitability of all the business in this country,will you? And when that happens and more and more businesses fail and people are out of work you'll probably still find a way to blame them.
And your logic behind this great idea? The "We are the Only Ones" arguement: "We are the only ones" who don't do this or that, the "others" in most cases being Europe, as if we're the barbarian thinkers on the matter. I would submit to you that, since we are still the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, then perhaps it is WE who are the smart ones BECAUSE we don't do it their way.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/14/2008 @ 1:20pm
DARLADOON:
Yes everybody would be a lot effing happier getting off a 1 on Friday-And a lot effing happier still if worked stopped for the weekend at 4:30 on Thursday. Why, come to think of it they'd be ecstatic if the week ended on Wednesday, and downright delirious if the weekend started on Tuesday.
And what would we have then? A whole lot of happy, ecstatic, delirious broke people. That should keep us economically health.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/14/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by MASK 04/14/2008 @ 12:33pm
well, i don't think anything will happen as to vacations. i see osha standards being relaxed as a bigger possibility (in order to "compete" -- yeah, compete to the bottom).
however, i think people really don't WANT to work so much.
they NEED to work so much.
first, the wife started working,
then they both worked more hours,
then they maxed out the credit cards,
then they took out another mortgage.....
a lot is because they spend on unnecessary junk (and that substance they call "food")
but a lot is because inflation can only be hidden for so long.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 1:40pm
And in related news, most women would like to have larger breasts and smaller waists, and most men would like to be hung like Long Dong Silver.
Posted by usc1 at 04/14/2008 @ 1:41pm
ATTENTION ANTS!!!!!
DUE TO THE LATEST "RATE-CUT" BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE RUBBER FACTORY, ALL ANTS MUST WORK AN ADDITIONAL 13 SUNSHIFTS BEFORE RECEIVING A DOSE OF APHID-AID.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 1:49pm
Wait a minute.....didn't Bush propose something like this about 3-4 years ago? Something about giving employees the option of comping out their overtime or just taking the overtime pay. As I recall it was shot down by the opposition as "helping Corporations so they don't have to pay overtime wages"
Posted by Sliver at 04/14/2008 @ 1:51pm
chip (moron), who said anything about a 2-day work week?
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 1:56pm
And in related news, most women would like to have larger breasts and smaller waists, and most men would like to be hung like Long Dong Silver
which do you prefer, usc1?
or are you one of those asexuals?
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 1:57pm
I have been planning on negotiating away my pay raise this year for a week of vacation - my pay raise (and every other non-executive at this company) is never even at the cost of living anyway - I don't have expensive techno-toys to pay off - I would rather have the time. I work hard, we all do, and where does the value of my work go? a renovation for my boss? a Jag for his boss? an extra yacht for his boss? and how will I effect change - where will I find a more equitable business model? It's hopeless - give me the time off to live just a little of the life I love. I wonder, though, if they will agree to it, after all, my work is clearly worth a great deal more than the peanuts I get paid for it, and I think that is why vacation time is apportioned so slenderly...
Posted by jenni_poo at 04/14/2008 @ 1:59pm
so few conservatives are willing to even to negotiate the possibility of more vacation time! it's, frankly, unbelievable how much the bush administration has pushed "conservativism" into sheer radicalism.
now, we have people:
a) advocating torture
b) wiretapping
c) secret prisons
d) more wars
e) longer work weeks and less vacation/sick time
f) wiretapping
g) what else?
the nation's forum has turned into a cess pool of extreme right wing radicals, one moderate (mask), and a handful of progressives.
how exciting....
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 2:00pm
Here it is ---> http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb2405CompTimeDB.pdf
Posted by Sliver at 04/14/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 04/14/2008 @ 12:57pm
Shaka. When the walls fell.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 2:01pm
well, i don't think anything will happen as to vacations.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 1:40pm
Then we're in agreement.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 2:03pm
"There is really a quite simple explanation why Old Europe grants more vacation times......marginal tax rates are so high that most middle class (and up) would prefer more time off than higher income.....Duh!!"
"Happy2," you are a victim of your INABILITY TO DO MATH. Progressive taxation does not make higher-income earners poorer than lower-income earners. It only brings all the income classes a little closer together. You STILL end up richer if your income is higher and poorer if your income is lower.
Taxing progressively is like grading on a curve. When you grade on a curve, you do not transform A-students into C-students and vice versa. You simply bring everybody's grades closer together, usually so that fewer test-takers FAIL.
To my mind, everybody who is able to hold onto a job deserves a decent wage - and some vacation time, too. If we have to trim the privileges at the top in order to raise the comfort level of those at the bottom, then I say let's do it. Common decency requires it of us.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/14/2008 @ 1:57pm
I'm happy just the way I am, thanks...but, since Goodrich was making "news" out of the obvious, I thought I would join in.
Let's try some more...
most people would like to see a cure to cancer...
most people would like to be smarter...
most people would like everyone else to be nicer...
most people would like an end to "bad hair days"...
most people wish others would let them merge into traffic during rush hour...
Posted by usc1 at 04/14/2008 @ 2:09pm
ANTS!!!! QUIT GOOFING OFF. BACK TO WORK!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 2:10pm
BTW, to avoid confusion...I'm not HAPPY, but I am happy.
:-)
Posted by usc1 at 04/14/2008 @ 2:12pm
(AP) Today, the federal government repealed all automotive emission standards.....
"We'll let the market regulate" one official was quoted.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 2:15pm
DARLADOON (moronette) thats where we'll be if we continue with what your suggesting, or have you determined that shutting down at 1 on Friday is IT. No more after that?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/14/2008 @ 2:29pm
USC1's strategy to deal with a serious problem:
just smile and hope it goes away
(almost as simple as john mccain's strategy of bringing coffee and donuts to appease the "adversarial" press).....
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 2:30pm
chip, i said "35 hours"
your response was (clearly) a massive exagerration, with the intent of making my reasonable proposal look silly.......
so, you are a MORON. i am merely someone who is making a modest proposal.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2008 @ 2:33pm
DARLADOON
A typical "I'm right, your wrong" response. Let me spell it out. If you continue to reduce the amount of time worked without a corresponding increase in production, the supply will fall,the demand will increase,prices will go up, and those happy people will be spending more for the things they buy, all bad things. This country has already set (ie reduced) labor standard hours twice in the past. 40 is good. Your advocating the equivalent of another: I'm seeing a pattern.
But you know all this. You just don't like logical arguments. You've been talking to Herr, aka Monsieur, DuBois for too long
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/14/2008 @ 2:49pm
If it's good for the CEO President, and the greatest Conservative EVER...
CBS News "On Thursday, Bush left for a weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine, and his family's summer compound, Walker's Point. On Monday, he heads to his Crawford retreat, where he has spent all or part of 418 days of his presidency, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent and meticulous record-keeper.
"...The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily."
And from Blog-Land USA
"Heartfelt congratulations to President Bush, who on Friday August 19th breaks Ronald Reagan's all-time record for most vacation days. The old record was 335 days, though Reagan took his sweet time of eight years to accomplish this feat. President Bush did it in nearly half the time. And with another two weeks of [vacation] on tap, he's obviously not content with simply breaking the record, he's going to smoke that record right out of the hole." --The Daily Pick, August 19, 2005.
All of that while crushing two 3rd world ME countries into democracies and flourishing economies.
What a Guy!!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 3:08pm
so, working so much our kids become mere mirages in our daily lives fights inflation.
now i understand.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/14/2008 @ 3:08pm
ah, springtime in michigan......
good for the braincells.
i saw a big ol' kingfisher yesterday.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 3:14pm
ah, springtime in michigan......
good for the braincells.
i saw a big ol' kingfisher yesterday.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 3:14pm |
It snowed on me Sunday!
It will be 70 F Wednesday.
That is springtime in MI!!
the Kingfisher is returning from vacation
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 3:16pm
Want to fight inflation?
Use less fossil fuel.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 3:18pm
Want to fight terrorism?
Use less fossil fuel.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 3:21pm
so, working so much our kids become mere mirages in our daily lives fights inflation.
now i understand.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 3:11pm
If you'd cut down on some of your "blogging" time, and spend that much time working, your kids would not only see you more, but might actually respect you as well.
Posted by Sliver at 04/14/2008 @ 3:29pm
Posted by MASK 04/14/2008 @ 2:01pm
Darla and Frosty at Tanagra. Their arms open.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/14/2008 @ 3:39pm
If you'd cut down on some of your "blogging" time, and spend that much time working, your kids would not only see you more, but might actually respect you as well.
Posted by SLIVER 04/14/2008 @ 3:29pm
easy there, cowboy.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 3:50pm
Since you brought up incentives, "Happy2," I'll bring up (again) my point that labor should be taxed less, not more than investments. Your gleeful remark that you now "make 'unearned' income that [you] get to control when to be taxed as capital gains!" is revealing - as is your placement of quotation marks around the word 'unearned.'
Because the fact of the matter is that the existence of usury - the possibility of profit by way of investment - is itself a tremendous disincentive to work. The fact that the rich can let their money WORK FOR THEM (whether earned or simply inherited makes no difference) eliminates most or in some cases nearly ALL of their incentive to work. (No, I do not consider spending a few hours a day managing a stock portfolio to be work - not if the rest of the day is spent ON VACATION.)
I recognize that investments have an important economic function as the oil that makes the machine of our economy run more smoothly. But that machine consists of LABOR and is fueled by NATURAL RESOURCES - and we are doomed if we ever forget this and imagine that the whole thing runs on oil alone.
What our economy now resembles is a broken-down machine, and what the plutocrats in our government resemble is a fraudulent mechanic who has no remedy except to add more oil.
What is needed is new investment in new infrastructure, which will create new jobs. Will the private sector provide this investment? Nope - too much risk, not enough short-term profit. So it's up to the government - as it was in the days when the Internet was being developed, the last great innovation that created the last wave of economic growth in our country's history.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by BENCHREST 04/14/2008 @ 3:39pm
BENCHREST, his arms wide.
(Actually, this only applies to the "quote language" spoken by HONESTLIBERAL...not really applicable to anybody else...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 4:01pm
Er, could we all be, like, nice to each other? Reading these comments is like watching a "Prisoner's dilemma" where the currency is civility. We all defect on each other and we all end up with next to nothing. Personally, I think debate tends to be more substantial (and pleasant) when it is less emotional. And it is good to HEAR each other, perhaps?
Posted by jenni_poo at 04/14/2008 @ 4:01pm
So it's up to the government - as it was in the days when the Internet was being developed, the last great innovation that created the last wave of economic growth in our country's history.-----Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/14/2008 @ 4:00pm |
How many people did the Government "employ" to create the Internet....and where did they work specifically?
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 4:02pm
"People would like more free time? Who wouldn't? But they only want it if it's free, which means they don't want it very much."
"MaryBretBrad's" economic argument seems strong - until we realize that her frame distorts the picture.
Suppose you HAVE two weeks of vacation every year, but your boss would like to take it AWAY. Will you let this happen "for free"? Or will you demand - or at least request - some kind of financial compensation for your loss of free time?
I bet most people would want some compensation, even very GENEROUS compensation, in exchange for the LOSS of their vacation. So no, vacation time is not worth "nothing" to us at all.
This is the wisdom behind what we call OVERTIME PAY. Overtime work cuts into our free time. Therefore, we demand a higher wage rate when we work overtime.
When workers have power - as they do in Europe - wages are comparatively high, overtime rules are strict, and generous vacations, often paid ones, are available to most workers.
When workers have less power, as they do in these United States, they are told that they don't really want free time, because they are not willing to pay for it.
Not all workers fall for this deception - but then, not all workers are "MaryBretBrad."
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:11pm
Dear "Mask,"
The origins of the Internet are of course very complex. My understanding is that it started as part of Ronald Reagan's "military Keynenianism." Apparently, the Department of Defense needed a better system to co-ordinate Armageddon. The Internet, as I understand it, was a lucky spin-off - just as "Tang" was a spin-off of the Space Program.
Of course, much of the technical know-how in creating the Internet came from the private sector. This is why so many people winced when Al Gore talked about "inventing" the Internet. But the FINANCING did come in large part from the government. The Internet just didn't yield much profit until AFTER it was built. Before the Internet was profitable, government investment was necessary to compensate the innovators in private companies who actually DID invent it.
The single-payer solution to the problem of health care would operate on the same principle. There'd still be private providers, but only one financeer - one who could drive a hard bargain and keep prices reasonable. Not cheap, mind you, but reasonable. Of course, covering EVERYONE would be the greatest benefit of all.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:21pm
Ah, what mangled spelling! I meant "military KEYNESIANISM." The reference is to the grand old economist J. M. Keynes, of course, though the military part was a more recent innovation.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/14/2008 @ 4:21pm |
Well, JAKOB, before you start SAYING things and creating analogies, using the Internet for how "the Government" will employ all these people in your plan...you might want to investigate.
For instance...it began as ARPANET in 1969 (roughly the time of Armstrong landing on the Moon). The first e-mail and file transfers were in the early 70s. MILNET DID break off from the ARPANET in 1983 under Reagan, but had little to do with its formation.
And, as you note, much of the real building of the "Internet" as we know it today WAS done in the private sector, with the early IP like CompuServe and The Source...neither receiving much Government money.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 4:29pm
Dear "MaryBretBrad,"
Of COURSE, we get things for free. We breathe for free, and many of us can still get potable water from our taps.
The notion that there is nothing free is the investor's-eye view of the world. "There is nothing worth having until I have 'freed it up' with my investment!" says the investor, who likes to fancy himself a latter-day King Midas, and who appears in the end to be just as foolish.
Because the investor's-eye view is EXACTLY BACKWARDS. Firstly, there are natural resources and human workers. Secondly, there is work done and value added. Thirdly, there is a surplus that can be re-invested. THIS is the real and natural order of things.
There was wealth in the world long before there was any money. Money is merely a tool of convenience. It is valuable not because we can consume it or re-use it. Its only value is EXCHANGE value. If there's nothing to buy, then money is worthless.
And economic justice is only a question of how much of our free goods - our time, our energy, and our work - we are willing to give up for mere money. (Well, okay, there's more to it than this, but this is an important part of it.)
The illusory value of money becomes clear when we reflect upon this old saying of the Cree: "Only when the last tree is felled, the last fish caught, and the last river poisoned, will you realize that we cannot eat money."
I think "Freiheit" should take these words to heart. Then he would understand that, yes, the environmental movement is, in fact, about the environment.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:55pm
P.S. (to dear "MaryBretBrad" again):
The only "return" that I expect from health care is...
improved health.
And, yes, when we agree to insure everyone, we will have to ration services. There will have to be triage in emergencies. We will have to give the health of pregnant women priority over the health of the embryoes or the fetuses they carry (unless these women choose otherwise). We will have to decide when it is no longer reasonable to prolong a human life further with a public subsidy.
We will have to admit that such phrases as "each human being has infinite worth" make for nice poetry, but not good public policy. The "infinite worth" trope really serves only one purpose when it is inserted into political debates - to make it impossible to talk about fairness. Because, you see, if I am infinitely valuable, then why should I share anything with YOU?
So yes, I'm in favor of rationing - as long as I have as much a say as any other citizen about how this rationing is done. What I do NOT favor is what we have now - a barbaric system that rations medical care according to people's ability to pay, a system that absolves us from responsibility for its numerous failures because we choose to regard as "virtuous" every decision that the "market" makes - without our input and often without even our awareness.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 5:10pm
"Mask," I do thank you for your postings. They are always helpful, and I'm fortunate to have the time off today to read them. (See, I mentioned "time off" - proof that I'm still on topic!)
You mentioned the "Advanced Research Projects Agency." Here's what I found at the ARPA-DARPA website:
"ARPA-DARPA: The History of the Name
ARPA - DoD directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was signed on February 7, 1958. The directive gave ARPA the responsibility "for the direction or performance of such advanced projects in the field of research and development as the Secretary of Defense shall, from time to time, designate by individual project or by category."
DARPA - On March 23, 1972, by DoD Directive, the name was changed to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA was established as a separate defense agency under the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
ARPA - On February 22, 1993, DARPA was redesignated the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) -- as the agency was known before 1972. The change was outlined in President Bill Clinton's strategy paper, "Technology for America's Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength."
DARPA - On February 10, 1996, Public Law 104-106, under Title IX of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, directed an organizational name change to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
So it seems that we were both wrong. (Though I WAS right when I said that the creation of the Internet was "complex.") The Department of Defense created ARPA way back in 1958. So credit properly goes to Dwight D. Eisenhower, not to Reagan. Of course, maybe Bill Clinton's strategy paper contributed something, too.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2008 @ 5:24pm
Worker's have power when the relative supply of labor is smaller. If that is because the government passes laws prohibiting free contracting, well sure, that increase price (decreases supply) but even that comes at a price of international competitiveness.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/14/2008 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person
Which is why we should slap tariffs on goods from countries like Columbia and China (Uh oh, some of my fellow Reds just shot me a dirty look!) because they kill trade unionists and pay starvation wages. Hell, peg all foreign trade based on a relative equality of labor costs. I have no interest in seeing economic competition based on the size of a worker's paycheck. Better to compete on the quality of design and production, and on the efficiency of production (which does take labor costs into account, but not in the crude, race to the bottom way that has characterized the Reaganite/Thatcherite/Friedmanite world economy of the last 30+ years).
And CHIP THORNTON, in case you haven't read the news in the last 10-15 years, average work hours have been increasing and people have less and less control over their work schedules, their leisure time and hence their family life.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/14/2008 @ 5:31pm
BENCHREST and MASK at Lungha.
We're paraphrasing my absolute favorite episode, ever, folks.
See The Darmok Dictionary at http://rec.horus.at/trek/lists/darmok.html.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/14/2008 @ 5:45pm
The wider point of my post has to do with something that Amartya Sen, for one, has written about extensively. There is a certain set of questions where our decision depends on what other people do. Thus, we select one way when we think the others won't cooperate, and we select another way when we think that others do cooperate. He called this the "isolation paradox" or the "assurance paradox", depending on the exact specification.
This is why it matters what the general norms about vacation times are. If you'd like to have four weeks off a year but everyone around you says that two weeks is enough, then asking for four weeks, even if you agree to have less pay with the longer vacation, also labels you as someone who differs from the norms and just might increase the odds that you will be one of the first to be let go if times get tougher.
If the general norm happens to be four weeks, then asking for four weeks and perhaps less pay with it won't label you as somehow outside the norm.
My point is that it's hard to know what combination of leisure and income people really would like to have if they were assured that all others are also asking for the amounts they actually want to have, in the absence of any tarnished reputation effect.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/14/2008 @ 5:54pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/14/2008 @ 5:24pm
Well, NO, JAKOB we "both" weren't wrong. I never mentioned the nomenclature of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, merely that the forerunner of the Internet was called "ARPAnet" and established by them. And my point was that the concept orginated well before Reagan and was NOT a massive "government works" program that could be imitated today as you claimed.
Also your "complex" answer came AFTER I pointed out the flaw in your analogy.
BTW, aside from air, there is nothing free. Heinlein was right....TANSTAAFL.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 8:01pm
Posted by CKA2ND 04/14/2008 @ 5:45pm
Thanks for the link, CKA.....one of my faves too (as a student of language).
Of course, I'm using it as a parody of the "quote machine" HONESTLIBERAL....inable to communicate except by quotes.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 8:02pm
How do you suggest we use less fossil fuel? Make our kids walk home from school more. Make air-conditioning against the law in Phoenix? Ride bikes to work and the grocery store? Stay home for all that vacation time we don't have?
You actually believe that the "environmental movement" is about the environment, don't you?
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/14/2008 @ 4:35pm
Yep, you are right, FREI, there is no middle ground to saving energy. We either drive Caddies 70mph, or we walk 50 miles, uphill both ways, to buy a pack of chewing gum.
Question: how much oil is in ANWAR, in years of oil supplied? Where would it be sold?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 8:19pm
FG. On the ocean.
Euler. On the ocean.
FG and Euler at Tanagra.
Shaka. When the walls fell.
Hillary. Her face black, her eyes red.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/14/2008 @ 8:49pm
Posted by BENCHREST 04/14/2008 @ 8:49pm
muSHa' Hillary Dogh!
Obama...Qapla'!
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 9:31pm
Well, I can't speak for your son, but your "blogging" here, earns my respect :~)
Posted by HAPPY2 04/14/2008 @ 4:00pm
thanks happy. as to my son, he's cool as long as i keep playing transformers with him.
frosty zoom is an autobot ice cream truck. destroyatron is a decepticon garbage truck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 9:35pm
Hi Crabwalk, What about drilling and mining for domestic supplies of oil?
do the math. it would amount to maybe 2 (3 perchance) years of supply. and the price would still be at world prices. thinking about nationalizing?
What about increasing domestic refinery capacity?
fat chance. that would lower gas prices. plus these guys aren't about to invest billions in a plant they know will soon be obsolete.
Both would also impact inflation and terrorism.
good luck.
How do you suggest we use less fossil fuel?
buy stop being such greedy pigs.
Make our kids walk home from school more.
yes.
Make air-conditioning against the law in Phoenix?
i'd start with lawns.
Ride bikes to work and the grocery store?
good idea.
Stay home for all that vacation time we don't have?
how about turning off the lights you're not using?
You actually believe that the "environmental movement" is about the environment, don't you?
everybody knows margaret sanger started that movement in order to exterminate black people.
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/14/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 9:43pm
by.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 9:43pm
Dogh (Yogurt Drink)
Ingredients:
500 ml plain yogurt
Pinch of salt
1/2 tsp dried mint leaves
1/2 grated cucumbers
Directions:
1. In a jug, combine all of the ingredients
2. Add about 3 - 4 cups of water and stir
3. Place in fridge for about 30 minutes or add ice cubes before drinking
hillary is klingon yogurt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 9:45pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 9:35pm
Rent "Prehistoric Park"...he'll love it.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/14/2008 @ 9:45pm
Uh...yes...actually!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 10:26pm
Pulmonoscorpius kirktonensis is a giant, extinct species of scorpion that lived during the Carboniferous. Its fossils were found at East Kirkton in Scotland. In life, this monstrous species would have grown to be up to 1 meter in length.
http://www.dinosoria.com/cinema/scorpion_bbc.jpg
Pulmonoscorpius kirktonensis? sounds like a good nickname for hrc. thanks for the advice. will find
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:37pm
ms. goodrich:
please excuse our friviality -- i guess were on permanent vacation.
i am enjoying your blog postings (and tolerance) thoroughly.
by the way, Ώare there any echidnas in your life? not serpentine, yet fascinating critters nonetheless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Echidna_-_melbourne_zoo.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:49pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/14/2008 @ 10:41pm
any time.
hey, people are worried about what is happening to our ecosystem. we are literally made of the earth.
sure, people's concern regarding the mess were making is hijacked in the name of ego or consumerism, but i think that on a whole, people are drawn to keeping the planet clean because they truly want to live a better life.
would you like a refinery next door?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:54pm
Right... The USSR had a WONDERFUL record on the environment while ol' Mikhail Gorbachev was at the helm... Crabwalk, the "environmental movement" is a front. It is duping good people like us. It's real goal is the destruction of the United States' economy. But hey, Dancing with the Stars is on!
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/14/2008 @ 11:03pm
whoa, nelly!
if the u.s. economy is to thrive, it must become a leader in clean and efficient technology. an exporter of energy technology.......
to stay rooted to dirty, poisonous technologies will be fatal.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 11:17pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 04/14/2008 @ 10:55pm
i think we need SPJC....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 11:17pm
by the way, Ώare there any echidnas in your life? not serpentine, yet fascinating critters nonetheless.
No echidnas, sadly, though I find them fascinating. I also like the cacti that were named after the same goddess.
As to the community here, well, each blog gets a community going and often it does its own thing. Like a giant town square or coffee bar. Or the old idea of the water well. It's a value in itself to talk to others who have different opinions.
I also have a question: Do people read the blogroll? I have not prepared one yet because I have been busy, but I might if it's of some use.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/14/2008 @ 11:21pm
"I never mentioned the nomenclature of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency," said "Mask."
Yes, you did, "Mask." You mentioned "ARPANET." That's the NET that was created by ARPA.
And ARPA was a government agency, as I believe I made quite clear in my last post. It was re-named DARPA long after the Internet was born, which according to your source was in 1969.
So my point - that the Internet was started with government funding - remains CORRECT.
Look it up if you don't believe me. There's the ARPA-DARPA website, and there's the "Internet" article in "Wikipedia." Take your pick.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/15/2008 @ 12:12am
Echinocereus fendleri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Echinocereus_fendleri_rob.jpg
whoa, check this out:
Echidnophaga gallinacea (http://bio.winona.edu/bates/_private/Echidnophaga%20gallinacea.htm)
the sticktight flea!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 01:43am
hey, are echino (hedgehog) and echidno (viper) the same root?
seems like they're not and thus, the cacti are not included....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 01:52am
Crabwalk, the "environmental movement" is a front. It is duping good people like us. It's real goal is the destruction of the United States' economy.
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/14/2008 @ 11:03pm
OK Rese.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2008 @ 06:53am
See, FREI, the really funny thing is that the "environmental movement" is going to be a HUGE job/wealthc creator, because soon, in less than a generation, we will have no choice. If we don't get "green" our economy IS going to collapse. Why? Because our economy runs on energy, once the fossils go....
From that hippy website, Forbes.com
According to Kevin Doyle, president of Green Economy, a Boston-based firm that promotes an environmentally healthy workforce, the green industry in the United States in 2005 was about $265 billion employing 1.6 million people in an estimated 118,000 jobs. This information was adapted from the Environmental Business Journal, he says, and does not include the organic industry.
Green businesses have also been growing at a rate of about 5% annually during the last three years, Doyle says. Two particularly hot areas are global carbon credit trading, which doubled to $28 billion from 2005 to 2006, and construction and services associated with ''green buildings'' that meet industry standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. Today, the green building industry is worth $12 billion; 10 years ago, it was unquantifiable.
Conversely, companies see new revenue streams in green technologies and social responsibility. Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), for example, has invested heavily in the wind industry. Earlier this year, Tyson Foods (nyse: TSN - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips (nyse: COP - news - people ) jointly announced plans to make diesel fuel from chicken fat. And Silicon Valley venture capital firms, like Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, are shoveling money into the development of clean technologies.
Universities--particularly business schools--also see opportunity. Schools such as Stanford, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan offer joint M.B.A./environmental science masters degrees. Derrick Bolton, director of admissions at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, says many students are taking positions with corporations that have a commitment to the environment.
"They're what I call the 'and' generation," he says. "They don't want to make money or support the environment. They want to do both."
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2008 @ 07:06am
So my point - that the Internet was started with government funding - remains CORRECT.----Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/15/2008 @ 12:12am
No...your "point" was-
"What is needed is new investment in new infrastructure, which will create new jobs. Will the private sector provide this investment? Nope - too much risk, not enough short-term profit. So it's up to the government - as it was in the days when the Internet was being developed, the last great innovation that created the last wave of economic growth in our country's history.----Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/14/2008 @ 4:00pm |
And to which, I asked "How many jobs did the 'Government' creation of the Internet create?"....
the answer is, of course, very few. Essentially the employees of DARPA and perhaps a few extra technicians at the universities where the ARPAnet was linked.
But it took the PRIVATE sector (CompuServe, Source, Microsoft, Apple, Netscape, etc.) to create the THOUSANDS of new jobs that came from the large growth of the Internet in the 1990s.
So your point was flawed.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 09:18am
the environmental trend
Posted by FREIHEIT
hardly a "trend"........
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 09:30am
I can't believe that us Americans have to work at all. We should have 2 weeks of work a year and only 35 hours each of those weeks. On top of that free healthcare and free cable tv. I mean after all people want tv more than healthcare.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/15/2008 @ 09:55am
actually, i think the pressing issues are of:
b) disease prevention and
a) the "middling" of income,
neither of which can be done for "free".
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:06am
TO CK2ND
I referred to Standard weekly hours mandated by law, all else being overtime, not actual time each individual works. read the damn post, will you?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 10:42am
"Mask," I'm sure the ghost of Charles Goodyear is nodding in recognition of your wisdom.
Goodyear invented vulcanized rubber. But did he create a large number of jobs? Did he even make much money himself? Nope. He died poor. Useless fellow.
It was the private financiers, the Seiberlings, who made something of Goodyear's invention, wasn't it? They created all the jobs, and they reaped most of the rewards, so don't they also deserve all the credit? Wasn't it a silly act of senseless charity when the Seiberlings named their company after Goodyear?
What should inventors matter to us? Especially if they work for the public sector. So forget about ARPA and forget about the ARPANET - that was a mere invention, a mere "predecessor" of the Internet, and it hardly made anybody rich. It's the private financiers who created the REAL Internet, just as they create everything. They have the Midas touch, don't they?
*sarcasm alert!*
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/15/2008 @ 10:59am
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/15/2008 @ 10:59am
Well, JAKOB, sorry if the facts get in the way of a good analogy...but before the 1970s, ARPAnet (and MILNET) were primarily used for government research and military communications.
Few jobs were created by it...and it wasn't until the widespread use of personal computers, and the entrepenuership of PC manufacturers, software developers, and the guys at Amazon, Ebay, etc. that some jobs (and monetary gain that go hand-in-hand) resulted from it.
Your original premise was that somehow the Government "created jobs" from its part in the creation of what-we-now-call "the Internet". This was not true. Those jobs came nearly 20 years later.
Now it IS true that a massive infrastruture program WOULD create jobs and auxiliary jobs off those upon implementation, as you stated.
But using the Internet was a bad analogy....sorry.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 11:59am
Okay. Now, let's start in on how massive national debt and "invisible deficts" (such as supplementals for Iraq) as well as the visible deficit are NOT good long-term things for an economy. Hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 12:40pm
don't forget negative savings rate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 1:35pm
CHIP THORNTON: I would submit to you that, since we are still the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, then perhaps it is WE who are the smart ones BECAUSE we don't do it their way.
Is that before or after taking into account the national debt?
CHIP THORNTON: And what would we have then? A whole lot of happy, ecstatic, delirious broke people. That should keep us economically health.
Don't underestimate the affect on productivity happiness has. At least not until you've tried it. The US is very old-fashioned in many ways, and this is no exception. Workers are indoctrinated to think that "this is the way it's always been and always shall be" because they're unaccustomed to speaking up for fear of losing their jobs. Essentially most jobs are one step away from self-enslavement. I take it you are an employer rather than an employee? Ask Bob Cratchet what he thinks of the current system.
The "it's always been this way and always shall be" attitude is the reason that the US's international reputation, safety, economy, freedoms and common sense have all gone South in recent years IMO.
Posted by grbrit at 04/15/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 3:03pm
So, a multi-billion dollar (approaching a trillion) "investment"...which you ADMIT may not pay off due to "variables we can't control" and still showing little progress, after 5 years, towards the "better Middle East" you claim it will produce....seems reasonable to you?
And all "on margin" (i.e. invisible debt that you have no intention of re-paying)?
And you claim to actually be a SUCCESSFUL investor?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 3:03pm
BTW, going to let the liberals use that same rationale for...
Federally-run health care?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 6:01pm
Really?...okay give me a specific and how many years it was in place and why the "cut-off" for its failure you will APPLY TO IRAQ as well?
If Iraq (under identical management McCain to Bush) is still a basketcase in 10 years, do you admit mistake and say it was "just as much a bad idea as welfare"?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 3:03pm
i agree with negative 32% of what you have written.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:40pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 10:45pm
so many dead........
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 11:04pm
Good Lord, how many damn times do we have to hear this nonsense? One question: How much time off do The Nation employees get? And I'm not talking about fly-by-night writers, I'm talking about the grunts. If it's two months a year, then where do I apply?! One comment: Get off your hoity toity ass and start a business where you give your employees two months off a year. Or become self employed and give yourself two months a year. Otherwise, juggle my nuts.
Posted by Person at 04/15/2008 @ 11:27pm
As is the case with each of these demands for more European "benefits", the answer is the Federal government has no right to interfere in mandating benefits.
And I feel very free to take a strong stand on this. I have not had a paid vacation since 1992 (my last year in the corporate world). And I haven't taken any vacations since 1993.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/16/2008 @ 01:50am
And I haven't taken any vacations since 1993.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 01:50am
c'mon up!
we can go to the beach.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:41am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 11:45pm
so many dead........
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 11:04pm
Regrettably, in the short term, there is always sacrifices and other `opportunities' not pursued......as in any long-term `investments'.
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 11:45pm
i suppose it is a sacrifice to see your child lose a leg........
thanks, iraqis for being so patient (in the short term, that is).
you're swell!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:44am
And I haven't taken any vacations since 1993.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 01:50am
and i know where to get the best mexican food...
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:56am
As a Bay Area student teacher in 1958, I had a fellow student teacher who created a "unit" for students on how to spend their leisure time. The unit was predicated on the widely discussed future leisure that adults would have thanks to the coming use of technology. My colleague was greatly praised for her far-sighted efforts. Robin Toth
Posted by rtoth at 04/16/2008 @ 08:49am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 10:45pm
And Betamax will be the format everybody uses for VCRs by 1995!
Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 09:43am
A typical "I'm right, your wrong" response. Let me spell it out. If you continue to reduce the amount of time worked without a corresponding increase in production, the supply will fall,the demand will increase,prices will go up, and those happy people will be spending more for the things they buy, all bad things. This country has already set (ie reduced) labor standard hours twice in the past. 40 is good. Your advocating the equivalent of another: I'm seeing a pattern.
But you know all this. You just don't like logical arguments. You've been talking to Herr, aka Monsieur, DuBois for too long
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/14/2008 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person
And CHIP THORNTON, in case you haven't read the news in the last 10-15 years, average work hours have been increasing and people have less and less control over their work schedules, their leisure time and hence their family life.
Posted by CKA2ND 04/14/2008 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person
TO CK2ND
I referred to Standard weekly hours mandated by law, all else being overtime, not actual time each individual works. read the damn post, will you?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/15/2008 @ 10:42am | ignore this person
I'm sorry that I didn't make my point clear enough for you, but I did realize that you were referring to pre-overtime hours. My point was that the standard maximum, pre-overtime workweek as mandated by federal labor law has become increasingly meaningless, as news reports and studies have shown for more than a decade. Between forced overtime, employer-mandated constantly shifting schedules and second and third jobs mandated by crappy wages, the 40-hour week has gone bye-bye for far too many workers, just like the lunch HOUR and the annual vacation.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/16/2008 @ 11:07am
Mary,
Actually, I think this discussion is just the latest example of you laissez faire types pretending (to yourselves or just to us) that there are some immutable economic "laws" that people, or governments, can not change, never mind all the evidence to the contrary. Wealthy people get more money AND are able to retire at 45 if they want because their investments will do the work for them, and the income from said investments will be taxed at a lower rate than the income that the non-wealthy earn from actually working with their hands and brains and bodies, but the rest of us are told that it is a zero sum game just for us, that we must always choose between time and money while the rich get more of both.
Well, the working class rejected that logic in decades past, and had to have its unions crushed by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and their Third World butchers in order to be forced to go back to working longer hours for the same or less money. The choice is not between time and money, it is between fighting and lying down, between using our power and allowing the ruling class to exert its power over us without consequence. You will of course disagree with this, but I've had more than one old-fashioned, conservative, blue-collar trade unionist agree with me that the AFL-CIO should have called a nation-wide general strike when Reagan fired the PATCO air traffic controllers. We should have shut down the entire f***ing country and shoved Drew Lewis up Ronnie's union-busting ass. We'd have more manufacturing jobs, a fairer trading regime, a better regulatory system, and higher overall wages. And we wouldn't be racing back to the damn Gilded Age.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/16/2008 @ 3:31pm
Nationally, we'd be in deep doo doo. But if the transit workers in New York had called Bloomburg and Co.'s bluff a couple of year's ago and stayed out for more than three days, they could have brought the city and the state to its knees and negotiated amnesty for the strikers.
And inspired a generation of American workers.
Sometimes one must pick one's battles, other times, you must stand and fight.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/17/2008 @ 11:57am