Yet another last place finish for America- paid vacations

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 10:05:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 29, 2013 12:36:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are cherry picking.  Norway is running a budget surplus, and it is about as "socialist" as you can get.  there are other factors at play that "socialism" doesn't account for.

Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil so no matter how fucked up their business practices are, they are still rolling in the money.  That won't work in america

That's not true. If they followed the States example and gave 99% of the revenues from the oil to 1% of the population they could easily get into the same mess.

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 5:39:53 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I've heard such predictions, but I doubt the will ever come true unless our oil use drops a lot. Net exporter of energy doesn't sound quite as far fetched.

I wasn't making excuses for deficits so much as pointing out that being awash in oil royalties and taxes makes it a heck of a lot easier to pay for lots of social services withou going into debt. Of course, when that dries up, you're in trouble.

but what about Korea, ib?  they have budget surpluses, and are a net importer of oil.  oh, and they have universal healthcare, for the record.

[formerroomate99]

May 30, 2013 10:10:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 30, 2013 10:05:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil so no matter how fucked up their business practices are, they are still rolling in the money.  That won't work in america

Korea also has a balanced budget and is and IMPORTER of oil.  how does that square up with your thinking?

Do you think South Korea would be doing so well if they didn't have us defending them for the last 60 years?  Granted, whether or not to defend another country is a choice.  But you can't really say they are doing it all on their own dime either. 

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 11:57:19 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

May 30, 2013 10:10:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Korea also has a balanced budget and is and IMPORTER of oil.  how does that square up with your thinking?

Do you think South Korea would be doing so well if they didn't have us defending them for the last 60 years? 

sounds like a good case for purging ourselves of standing armies at taxpayer expense.

Granted, whether or not to defend another country is a choice.  But you can't really say they are doing it all on their own dime either. 

true enough. 

[jkapp]

So vacation days are a "right" now, too?  Sheesh, I didn't now how many "rights" there were until the left started pointing them out (or adding to them, whichever you prefer) 

Apparently, the only "right" the left doesn't believe we have is the right to actually keep some of the money we work for

[Deleted]

but what about Korea, ib? they have budget surpluses, and are a net importer of oil. oh, and they have universal healthcare, for the record.

I guess I don't know exactly what you're asking.  Sure, it's possible to have universal healthcare of some sort, be an energy importer, and have a balanced budget.  It's just a matter of balancing the money going in with the money going out.

But people frequently point out the "Utopia" of many European countries that offer not just UHC, but cash for all kinds of life milestones.  But that doesn't mean doing those things is good.  And it doesn't mean we can afford them.  Heck, most of Europe couldn't afford it.  They are not a model that we want to follow.

[Deleted]

 The most profitable model for investors is that one in which the labor pool is kept at a marginal, subsistence-level... and forced to work as many hours per week as possible, with no vacation, no retirement, and no "sick time"... no benefits except for their wages (less the taxes paid to the established order which enslaves them).

 By working the peasants mercilessly until they drop dead relatively young, you avoid the expense of having to support them when they're old and infirm (and "non-productive").

 THAT was the model used until FDR forced "Social Security" upon society.



 One european model we should avoid... establishing "labor camps" to maximize the amount of output that can be extracted from the peasantry... before they expire from malnutrion and/or "Typhus". 

[Deleted]

Well, last I recall the United States rated first or second on worker productivity, so I guess it's which ranking you'd rather be the top of. The laziest country or the country with the most vacation.

Personally I'd rather be known as the country that gets shit done instead of vacationing.

The most profitable model for investors is that one in which the labor pool is kept at a marginal, subsistence-level... and forced to work as many hours per week as possible, with no vacation, no retirement, and no "sick time"... no benefits except for their wages (less the taxes paid to the established order which enslaves them).

By working the peasants mercilessly until they drop dead relatively young, you avoid the expense of having to support them when they're old and infirm (and "non-productive").

What a contrast in how to look at the same situation.

[formerroomate99]

May 30, 2013 13:27:30 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

but what about Korea, ib? they have budget surpluses, and are a net importer of oil. oh, and they have universal healthcare, for the record.

I guess I don't know exactly what you're asking.  Sure, it's possible to have universal healthcare of some sort, be an energy importer, and have a balanced budget.  It's just a matter of balancing the money going in with the money going out.

But people frequently point out the "Utopia" of many European countries that offer not just UHC, but cash for all kinds of life milestones.  But that doesn't mean doing those things is good.  And it doesn't mean we can afford them.  Heck, most of Europe couldn't afford it.  They are not a model that we want to follow.

They also give up a lot to have these things.  Europeans live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, have fewer creature comforts, and many countries have rather high unemployment rates, especially for young people.  Considering the large number of people who think nothing of adding an extra 5+ hours a week to their weekly commutes to get a slightly bigger house, I think it's safe to say that Americans as a group just don't value their free time as much as their European counterparts. 

Everyone I know thinks DH and I are crazy to be raising 3 kids in a 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft townhome when moving a few miles west could have given us a bigger place, but we live in a great neighborhood with lots of ammenties (including sidewalks), can afford for DH to be a SAHD, and I have a 3 mile commute.  We traded space for time and don't regret it, but everyone else thinks we're nuts. 

[Deleted]

The most profitable model for investors is that one in which the labor pool is kept at a marginal, subsistence-level... and forced to work as many hours per week as possible, with no vacation, no retirement, and no "sick time"... no benefits except for their wages (less the taxes paid to the established order which enslaves them).

By working the peasants mercilessly until they drop dead relatively young, you avoid the expense of having to support them when they're old and infirm (and "non-productive").

This is a statement I'd expect someone to have written 200+ years ago.  People have long since figured out that this is not the case.  The economic growth we've experienced over the past 100 years would never have happened with this false mentality.

THAT was the model used until FDR forced "Social Security" upon society.

That doesn't mean it was the most profitable way.  It just means they hadn't yet figured out a better idea.

[Deleted]

This is a statement I'd expect someone to have written 200+ years ago. People have long since figured out that this is not the case. The economic growth we've experienced over the past 100 years would never have happened with this false mentality.

Companies are moving to countries that offer the cheapest labour as we speak. What evidence do you have of another model in play?

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 13:14:41 GMT -5 jkapp said:

So vacation days are a "right" now, too?  Sheesh, I didn't now how many "rights" there were until the left started pointing them out (or adding to them, whichever you prefer) 

Apparently, the only "right" the left doesn't believe we have is the right to actually keep some of the money we work for

congratulations!  you win the CAPTAIN HYPERBOLE award for 2013.  no further entries will be accepted.

[workpublic]

Which is to say that if you push a person to a limit on any subset of the above (suppose a man is famished, totally exhausted, and has to go really badly), his brain will first insist that he relieve himself, then it will insist he go to sleep, and then it will insist he eat something, in that order of priority.


is that why there are so many children in those famine ravaged countries in Africa?


i meant instinctual purpose. we are not born to pee or do great things we are born to procreate.

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 13:27:30 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

but what about Korea, ib? they have budget surpluses, and are a net importer of oil. oh, and they have universal healthcare, for the record.

I guess I don't know exactly what you're asking.  Sure, it's possible to have universal healthcare of some sort, be an energy importer, and have a balanced budget.  It's just a matter of balancing the money going in with the money going out.

But people frequently point out the "Utopia" of many European countries that offer not just UHC, but cash for all kinds of life milestones.  But that doesn't mean doing those things is good.  And it doesn't mean we can afford them.  Heck, most of Europe couldn't afford it.  They are not a model that we want to follow.

well, not for that reason, anyway.  there are a lot of good lessons to learn from Europe, as well.  we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

edit: one last thing.  over half of Europe had balanced budgets in 2007, even with all of their "socialism".  we haven't had one in over a generation.  i don't think that gives us much room to criticize, personally.  as i said, we could learn a thing or two, if we cared to.

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 14:11:47 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Well, last I recall the United States rated first or second on worker productivity, so I guess it's which ranking you'd rather be the top of. The laziest country or the country with the most vacation.

Personally I'd rather be known as the country that gets shit done instead of vacationing.

The most profitable model for investors is that one in which the labor pool is kept at a marginal, subsistence-level... and forced to work as many hours per week as possible, with no vacation, no retirement, and no "sick time"... no benefits except for their wages (less the taxes paid to the established order which enslaves them).

By working the peasants mercilessly until they drop dead relatively young, you avoid the expense of having to support them when they're old and infirm (and "non-productive").

What a contrast in how to look at the same situation.

i think it was intended to contrast, but it doesn't need to be taken that way, does it?

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 14:17:03 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

May 30, 2013 13:27:30 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I guess I don't know exactly what you're asking.  Sure, it's possible to have universal healthcare of some sort, be an energy importer, and have a balanced budget.  It's just a matter of balancing the money going in with the money going out.

But people frequently point out the "Utopia" of many European countries that offer not just UHC, but cash for all kinds of life milestones.  But that doesn't mean doing those things is good.  And it doesn't mean we can afford them.  Heck, most of Europe couldn't afford it.  They are not a model that we want to follow.

They also give up a lot to have these things.  Europeans live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, have fewer creature comforts, and many countries have rather high unemployment rates, especially for young people.  Considering the large number of people who think nothing of adding an extra 5+ hours a week to their weekly commutes to get a slightly bigger house, I think it's safe to say that Americans as a group just don't value their free time as much as their European counterparts. 

Everyone I know thinks DH and I are crazy to be raising 3 kids in a 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft townhome when moving a few miles west could have given us a bigger place, but we live in a great neighborhood with lots of ammenties (including sidewalks), can afford for DH to be a SAHD, and I have a 3 mile commute.  We traded space for time and don't regret it, but everyone else thinks we're nuts. 

sounds like you have a pretty European lifestyle. 

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 15:22:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 30, 2013 14:11:47 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

What a contrast in how to look at the same situation.

i think it was intended to contrast, but it doesn't need to be taken that way, does it?

[Deleted]

Now that you mention it, no it doesn't. That is so scary!

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 14:50:56 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

This is a statement I'd expect someone to have written 200+ years ago. People have long since figured out that this is not the case. The economic growth we've experienced over the past 100 years would never have happened with this false mentality.

Companies are moving to countries that offer the cheapest labour as we speak. What evidence do you have of another model in play?

i can speak to that.  i think MOST companies have better ethics than that.  it is only a small fraction that operate on the basis that every dollar saved is morally justified.  it really isn't.  it would be nice if the companies that failed to act in a way that comports with the ethical standards of the average consumer would be boycotted out of existence.

but we sure do love our Nike's and SmartPhones.

[formerroomate99]

sounds like you have a pretty European lifestyle.

Yes.  And we like it that way.  It was an investment in health.  Easy to go out and take a walk because of the safe neighborhood and sidewalks.  Time to go work out and cook healthy because of the shorter commute.  DH and I aren't high energy people. 

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 10:14:30 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

May 30, 2013 10:05:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil so no matter how fucked up their business practices are, they are still rolling in the money.  That won't work in america

That's not true. If they followed the States example and gave 99% of the revenues from the oil to 1% of the population they could easily get into the same mess.

Does it matter to you at all that your statement couldn't be much farther from the truth? Unless you count royalties to private landowners who are rich because of the oil, no more than a few percent goes to the 1%.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 15:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 30, 2013 13:27:30 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I guess I don't know exactly what you're asking.  Sure, it's possible to have universal healthcare of some sort, be an energy importer, and have a balanced budget.  It's just a matter of balancing the money going in with the money going out.

But people frequently point out the "Utopia" of many European countries that offer not just UHC, but cash for all kinds of life milestones.  But that doesn't mean doing those things is good.  And it doesn't mean we can afford them.  Heck, most of Europe couldn't afford it.  They are not a model that we want to follow.

well, not for that reason, anyway.  there are a lot of good lessons to learn from Europe, as well.  we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

edit: one last thing.  over half of Europe had balanced budgets in 2007, even with all of their "socialism".  we haven't had one in over a generation.  i don't think that gives us much room to criticize, personally.  as i said, we could learn a thing or two, if we cared to.

So what you're saying is they were set up where things work great as long as the world is in perfect balance. Still sounds like they set themselves up to fail.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 14:50:56 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

This is a statement I'd expect someone to have written 200+ years ago. People have long since figured out that this is not the case. The economic growth we've experienced over the past 100 years would never have happened with this false mentality.

Companies are moving to countries that offer the cheapest labour as we speak. What evidence do you have of another model in play?

So you make stuff up with no basis in fact, and the it's automatically true until someone else proves you wrong? No, I'm not going to do that. But if you can take your statement and use China as a case study to prove it, I'll eat the shorts I'm wearing. I'd suggest you start by explaining away the dramatic increases in wages and standard of living they've seen there.

[formerroomate99]

May 30, 2013 16:50:14 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

May 30, 2013 10:14:30 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

That's not true. If they followed the States example and gave 99% of the revenues from the oil to 1% of the population they could easily get into the same mess.

Does it matter to you at all that your statement couldn't be much farther from the truth? Unless you count royalties to private landowners who are rich because of the oil, no more than a few percent goes to the 1%.

On the other hand, IF 99% of the oil revenues in Norway were to go to 1% of their population, like it is in some middle eastern countries, then you can still have a messed up economy despite the oil revenues, which may be the point Later was trying to make. 

But really, Europe, Korea and Japan have all had their national defense paid for on America's dime, so while they may do some things better than we do, and we probably have much to learn from them, you can't really say they are doing things on thier own. 

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2013 16:52:05 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

May 30, 2013 15:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

well, not for that reason, anyway.  there are a lot of good lessons to learn from Europe, as well.  we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

edit: one last thing.  over half of Europe had balanced budgets in 2007, even with all of their "socialism".  we haven't had one in over a generation.  i don't think that gives us much room to criticize, personally.  as i said, we could learn a thing or two, if we cared to.

So what you're saying is they were set up where things work great as long as the world is in perfect balance. Still sounds like they set themselves up to fail.

no, what i am saying is that recessions make it difficult to balance budgets.  however, their budgets (on average) were more balanced than ours before the recession.

[Deleted]

It's a lot easier to do when they are free-riders on global security (not talking about active wars) and medical research. And that in turn makes it a heck of a lot harder on us. Why so few people care is beyond me.

[Deleted]

Unless you count royalties to private landowners who are rich because of the oil, no more than a few percent goes to the 1%.

That is exactly what I am referring to. There are more than enough natural resources in the States but you have allowed them all to become private property with very little going to the local stakeholders.

[Deleted]

But really, Europe, Korea and Japan have all had their national defense paid for on America's dime, so while they may do some things better than we do, and we probably have much to learn from them, you can't really say they are doing things on thier own.

You didn't do that out of the goodness of your heart. You wanted control of their foreign policy. Besides, how would you employ all those young men if you didn't have a vibrant military?

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 12:05:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 30, 2013 11:57:19 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Do you think South Korea would be doing so well if they didn't have us defending them for the last 60 years? 

sounds like a good case for purging ourselves of standing armies at taxpayer expense.

Granted, whether or not to defend another country is a choice.  But you can't really say they are doing it all on their own dime either. 

true enough. 

Good day to all.  Here is the info.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The world's top 5 military spenders in 2012.
Figures sourced from the SIPRI Yearbook 2013.
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)[3] % of GDP World share (%) Spending ($ Bn. PPP)[3]
— World total 1,753 2.5 100 1562.3
1 United States 682.0 4.4 39 682
2 Chinax 166.0 2.0 9.5 249
3 Russiax 90.7 4.4 5.2 116
4 United Kingdom 60.8 2.5 3.5 57.5
5 Japan 59.3 1.0 3.4 46.0
6 France 58.9 2.3 3.4 50.7
7 Saudi Arabiay 56.7 8.9 3.2 63.9
8 India 46.1 2.5 2.6 119
9 Germanyx 45.8 1.4 2.6 42.8
10 Italyx 34.0 1.7 1.9 31.0
11 Brazil 33.1 1.5 1.9 34.4
12 South Korea 31.7 2.7 1.8 44.2
13 Australia 26.2 1.7 1.5 16.3
14 Canadax 22.5 1.3 1.3 18.3
15 Turkeyxz 18.2 2.3 1.0 25.9

[Deleted]

May 30, 2013 21:20:15 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Unless you count royalties to private landowners who are rich because of the oil, no more than a few percent goes to the 1%.

That is exactly what I am referring to. There are more than enough natural resources in the States but you have allowed them all to become private property with very little going to the local stakeholders.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Even when you count private landowners most of them are not 1%ers, and I doubt more that 10% goes to the 1%. There is far mor govt land/water for producing energy that there is private. And the govt by far receives the biggest chunk of what you pay at the pump. Probably 40-50% to the govt, and most of the rest goes to direct and indirect labor, followed by royalties and lastly profits. And most of the dividends and cap gains go to the middle class.