HR and Vacation



  • @pitchingchris said:

    ...personal time off (PTO)...

    Hate to point this out, but you and medialint made the same mistake: "PTO" almost always means "Paid Time Off" in the United States. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Welbog said:
    All this talk of having "sick days" seems really weird to me. When I get sick, I call up my boss and say, "I'm sick and I won't be coming in today". In fact I did this a few weeks ago when my inner ear decided it hates me and wants me to die. This doesn't affect my pay, nor my vacation time.
    It doesn't usually affect pay or vacation time for salaried workers unless you use up all of your sick days.  So if you are sick more than 5 days a year, your employer will request you either give up some vacation time or not get paid for the extra days you missed.
    I guess I don't know my company policy regarding sick days exactly, but for the last two weeks since my ear decided it hated me I've been showing up for work roughly an hour late (it varies) due to the fact that I wake up with vertigo every morning and can't drive until it subsides. It might just be that my immediate boss is lenient (which he is), but no one has asked me to make up that time or to shuffle my remaining vacation days to cover it. The same goes for related visits to the doctor, hospital, et cetera. It's probably just my boss, though.



  • @Welbog said:

    I guess I don't know my company policy regarding sick days exactly, but for the last two weeks since my ear decided it hated me I've been showing up for work roughly an hour late (it varies) due to the fact that I wake up with vertigo every morning and can't drive until it subsides. It might just be that my immediate boss is lenient (which he is), but no one has asked me to make up that time or to shuffle my remaining vacation days to cover it. The same goes for related visits to the doctor, hospital, et cetera. It's probably just my boss, though.

    Yeah, it varies from company to company.  In my case, sick days aren't really tracked either so my situation is similar to yours.  Other companies have their own policies, though.  Unlike most of the EU, the US doesn't have any real strict requirements for handling sick days, vacation time, etc.. because that is negotiable between employer and employee, just as salary is.  It sounds like Canada might have a system similar to the US. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It sounds like Canada might have a system similar to the US.
    Indeed it does. Canada's crazy like that: sometimes copying Europe, sometimes copying the US. Keeps us on our toes.



  • One of the Europeans asked some posts back about how we can possibly (ethically?) track sick time.  The answer is not very well, actually.  In wage jobs like waitressing or whatever, some employers seem to think you can plan illnesses.  They also tend to very subtly discourage their employees from taking sick time off so you end up with people working while sick. 

    Here's a question I think alot of Americans want to ask the Europeans:  many of us are envious of your long holiday times and would love to take a month off to visit other countries or hike Mount Everest or whatever.  But even for many of us who do get that much time off available, it's hard to find the money to actually do something.  We seem to be caught between working too much and not having any time to spend our money, or getting time off but being too poor to spend it.  How do you guys afford travel?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Any product can be produced almost anywhere and if it can be done better in one place rather than another, the former will generally reduce the potential revenue of the latter.
     

    True, but some things simply can't be moved. A phone support job can be anywhere, but the technician who does the housecall to replace the sticky R key on the user's keyboard will generally be local, and work for the local contractor/agency who has the best pay/leave package.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, restrictive laws like the European labor laws lower the value of allocating resources there which means countries with less-restrictive laws tend to remain more competitive.

    Of course, European labor laws do help out in other ways - there's no generally no (or at least, much less) need for corporate health plans, because of universal medicare. That's one major expense out of the way that American companies have to swallow.



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    We seem to be caught between working too much and not having any time to spend our money, or getting time off but being too poor to spend it.  How do you guys afford travel?

    It's a combination of (oddly enough) higher taxes and greater social services. You can look at it this way: America has a "do it yourself" type governmental system, and Europe has "here, let us do it for you". Not particularly accurate, but it's a fair way to look at it on the gross detail level.

    If you want to focus in on a particular detail, try public transportation. I know, from personal experience, that public transit in Switzerland is by far far far better than anything available here in Canada or the US. It seems expensive - a universal annual adult pass is 3,100 CHF (CHF/USD are roughly at par these days), but in exchange you get unlimited travel on all public transit systems - bus, rail, tram, boat - anywhere in the country. Think of how much the average American commuter spends on gas and parking and you'll quickly exceed that 3100 within a few months. And then factor in that it's a national pass - imagine being able to hop on a Greyhound or Amtrac and go from NYC to LA using your local bus pass. Such a thing may never be possible in the US or Canada because of the sheer distances involved



  • @MarcB said:

    True, but some things simply can't be moved. A phone support job can be anywhere, but the technician who does the housecall to replace the sticky R key on the user's keyboard will generally be local, and work for the local contractor/agency who has the best pay/leave package.

    Yes, but production of the keyboards can move to a location where high-quality keyboards that don't stick are manufactured.  Additionally, the local market will be flooded with people willing to work for very little because any job that can be move has been.

     

    @MarcB said:

    Of course, European labor laws do help out in other ways - there's no generally no (or at least, much less) need for corporate health plans, because of universal medicare. That's one major expense out of the way that American companies have to swallow.

    This has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile.  Universal healthcare is paid for by taxes.  It's not magically free, it comes out of the pockets of individuals.  The only difference is that in a system of government-mandated monopoly on healthcare there is no incentive to increase productivity or efficiency.  It's not like you can compete with a government-mandated healthcare, so there is no upward pressure to improve the system.  Universal healthcare always gets by with providing the absolute minimum it can, simply because there is no shortage of resources to be taken into account.  It's every mis-guided argument against monopolies times 100. 



  • @MarcB said:

    America has a "do it yourself" type governmental system, and Europe has "here, let us do it for you". Not particularly accurate, but it's a fair way to look at it on the gross detail level.

    Americans prefer to live their own lives and Europeans preferred to be ruled by others.

     

    @MarcB said:

    Think of how much the average American commuter spends on gas and parking and you'll quickly exceed that 3100 within a few months.

    Are you serious?  I never spent more than $2400 a year when I drove all over.  I never limited my driving, bought $3.50 a gallon premium gas, used synthetic oil and had a fairly expensive car that required high insurance premiums.  Your numbers just seem ridiculous.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @MarcB said:

    Think of how much the average American commuter spends on gas and parking and you'll quickly exceed that 3100 within a few months.

    Are you serious?  I never spent more than $2400 a year when I drove all over.  I never limited my driving, bought $3.50 a gallon premium gas, used synthetic oil and had a fairly expensive car that required high insurance premiums.  Your numbers just seem ridiculous.

     

    Yeah really, I spend ~350 a month on gas (even now with the inflated prices), with fairly thirsty cars and absolutely nothing on parking. But maybe our definitions of 'a few months' are different.

    Hell, I own 4 vehicles, and I cannot fathom where he got those numbers from.



  • Also, I'm sure they don't have state-sponsored airline and hotel expenses.  So do you guys save up for holidays better than we do, or what?



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Also, I'm sure they don't have state-sponsored airline and hotel expenses.  So do you guys save up for holidays better than we do, or what?

     

    Well, obviously going from the US to Italy is going to be more expensive than going from the UK to Italy.  Plus, there are hostels all over Europe where you can stay for pretty cheap, as long as you don't mind the conditions.  In Amsterdam, my friends and I were in a room with 6 bunk beds and no AC for like $10 a night.  We didn't spend too much time in that room though...there are a lot of better things to do there than sleep.



  • About the holidays, we get a vacation bonus around summer time, the bonus is basically a 13th month of pay which you build up by working. So for instance at the moment i make around ~2500 euro's (gross), after everything is said and done that leaves me with a net salary of 1700 euro. So last month i received a extra 1700 euro as vacation bonus.

    Now for the vacation i don't really know, i don't really do vacations. But i looked around and for a all-in summer vacation in high-season for 11 days to turkey you would lose about ~1000 euro's. Now of course you will buy some crap there so say that the vacation in total will cost  you ~1300 euro's.

    So if i want to i could pretty easily afford to have a pretty nice vacation and i think what i earn is about average for my age and field.



  • @ammoQ said:

    on the other hand, employers are more reluctant to hire people in such countries like yours or mine... especially small companies.
     

    Not to mention they have to pay an arm and a leg in taxes ...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    All companies compete in the global market.  Any product can be produced almost anywhere and if it can be done better in one place rather than another, the former will generally reduce the potential revenue of the latter.  It's not just off-shoring, but imports and exports as well as financing and viability of the domestic economy.

    Not at all. Think of a barber, a dentist or a house cleaning company. You can't send your hair to China for a cheap haircut. That said, I'm in a rather special situaion since I live in Vienna. Bratislava (capital of Slovakia) is only 60km away, so going there for a haircut and a dental treatment is an option.

     

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Currently the usd-euro exchange rate probably breaks my example, but if we look at the situation two years ago, a programmer would simply make more money in the US, where he has to work 60 hrs/week with 10 vacation days, than in Europe, with 45 hrs/week (average) and 25 vacation days.

    The value of the dollar has more to do with debt and financing than with the viability of the economy.  A low dollar does cause a short-term drop in the US economy (although it actually hasn't been that noticeable to the average American) but it is usually positive in the long-term.

    All true, but it means that € 50K is now close to $ 80K, so my assumption "more vacation days means lower wages" currently doesn't hold.

    I think most of the EU has a significantly higher tax rate than the US and most of Eastern Asia. 

    Tax is quite high, true. And don't forget the obligatory social insurance, it's also in the range of 15% or so.



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    How do you guys afford travel?

     

    Stratos already told you, the same is true here in Austria: one extra monthly salary at the end of June and one at the end of November. In Austria, taxes are lower for that extra money, so when my net income is (say) 2K p.m., the extra vacation payment is (say) 2.3K or so.

    But this is not the same in all European countries. In Germany, it depends on the employer. Some pay such extra salaries, some don't.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    Economics 101: When you enforce laws like "all employees are guaranteed 39 days of vacation per year", you lower the value of that employee as they are able to work less than they would without that restriction.

     

    Well no,  economics 101 would dictate that an employee taking a mandated 4 weeks annual leave would make their labour scarcer, hence more valuable.

    Rather than off shoring (which is not an option for so many reasons) companies tend to hire contract labour if they need to, furthermore, companies that run under this system (I run one) tend to structure their year in order to ensure there is no loss of production- generally time is taken over the Christmas/new year break, or at a mutually acceptable time.

     There are significant productivity gains in having a well rested, fresh eager employee. Holidays are important.

    <o:p></o:p>

     



  • It should be emphasized that "mandated 4 weeks vacation" in most cases means something like one week for xmas, one week around the easter holidays and two weeks in summer. It's very uncommon to consume that 4 weeks in bulk. BTW, at least here in Austria, employees need their employer's permission if they want to use the vacation to work for another company. Doing so without permission is a legitimate reason to fire them.


  • sekret PM club

    @Weng said:

    My last sit-down job, I was entitled to PRECISELY 0 days of vacation, 0 sick days, no lunch, no breaks, etc. The only day that wasn't on the schedule was Christmas day. When I pointed out this was illegal, they docked me 2 days pay. When they caught me taking lunch, they docked me 2 more days pay. When I threatened to pursue legal action, they gave me the appropriate phone numbers for the state agencies. It was useless. Thanks, Pennsylvania. You really helped a lot.

    I have some kind of utterly-crap job detection system, because I keep ending up with them.

     

     

    Out of curiosity, where is this? And how many hours a day were you working? I live and work in PA as well, and I know for a fact that it's not just state law, it's federal law that if you work more than 5 hours or so in a day, they are required to give you a 15 minute paid break, and 7 hours 15 minutes or more requires a 30 minute unpaid "lunch". Unless they were paying you under the table, in which case, call the agencies anyway and have them fined for tax evasion or something. The no-paid-time-off thing I understand, since a lot of businesses (at least around here) don't give you that unless you're full-time for at least a year or more.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Universal healthcare always gets by with providing the absolute minimum it can, simply because there is no shortage of resources to be taken into account.

    Just to be certain of what you're saying (it helps with point-to-point arguing if you know what the points are :) ) --

    You're saying that universal care means worse quality care?

    I'd prefer an answer that starts with yes or no,optionally followed by elaboration (and/or flame*).



  • @matterific said:

    Well no,  economics 101 would dictate that an employee taking a mandated 4 weeks annual leave would make their labour scarcer, hence more valuable.

    That is absolutely ridiculous.  Mandatory vacation time reduces the productivity of an employee for the time they are not working.  This reduces their value to the company.  Even if it did result in a labor shortage and an increase in the cost of labor, this is a bad thing.  Labor isn't paid for by "the corporations", it is passed on to consumers.  You might as well argue that water shortages are a good thing.  Also, as far as global economy goes, it is cheaper to invest resources elsewhere in the world.  This reduces the influx of capital into the local economy (as even local capital will likely be sent where it will accomplish more good).  This causes the jobs that cannot be exported to become more desirable, forcing people to fight for those limited jobs.

     

    @matterific said:

    There are significant productivity gains in having a well rested, fresh eager employee. Holidays are important.

    Nobody is arguing that holidays aren't important.  The problem is that mandatory vacation minimums prevent the business from making their own decisions about where to allocate resources.  This means that the business can't balance productivity with vacation time because they simply have no choice in the matter.  It's as bad as mandatory salaries or the like -- companies are not free to reward good employees. 



  • @dhromed said:

    You're saying that universal care means worse quality care?

    Absolutely.  It's a problem of mandatory resource allocation coupled with government-mandated monopoly.  There is no incentive to provide better medical care without competition.  There are also no options for individuals who might want to focus their resources somewhere other than healthcare premiums.  There is also no individual incentive to avoid health problems as healthcare is essentially a sunk cost that everyone will try to take advantage of.  Universal healthcare is communism and has all the problems that communism has.  Just because you tack communism onto an otherwise vibrant market economy it does not mean communism is the success story. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Absolutely.  It's a problem of mandatory resource allocation coupled with government-mandated monopoly.  There is no incentive to provide better medical care without competition.

     

    Bullshit. Of course there is competition between doctors, hospitals etc. More patients, more money.  And of course there are private hospitals for people who are willing to pay more.


    There is also no individual incentive to avoid health problems as healthcare is essentially a sunk cost that everyone will try to take advantage of.

     

    Bullshit. Nobody wants to be sick just because the mandatory health insurance pays for the doctor's fees. Mostly because illness, in general, is connected with pain and discomfort.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

    You're saying that universal care means worse quality care?

    Absolutely.  It's a problem of mandatory resource allocation coupled with government-mandated monopoly.

    The trouble is that there have been various studies of health care at a global level that disagree with you. [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm]US Spends more on Health care[/url] per capita than anyone else. But it seems that the US is also the [url=]most dissatisfied[/url] with the level of health care. if the US health care system was better than a state funded system, then wouldn't that be reflected in cheaper expenditure and more satisfaction?


    My own experiences of having lived in both the US with private health care and living elsewhere with a state funded system is that my level of expenditure was about the same (taxes vs direct payment) but the service is far worse here in the US (longer wait times for appointments. Shorted appointments. Less personal service). I asked about this once of a non-US doctor and his opinion was that the the US system was top heavy with a greater emphasis on big ticket items, with the loss of service at the community level. After experiencing both types of systems I totally agree.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Bullshit. Of course there is competition between doctors, hospitals etc. More patients, more money.  And of course there are private hospitals for people who are willing to pay more.

    There is no incentive to reduce administrative costs.  There is also no incentive for the hospitals or doctors to do more than absolute minimum required.  It's essentially a race to the bottom.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Bullshit. Nobody wants to be sick just because the mandatory health insurance pays for the doctor's fees. Mostly because illness, in general, is connected with pain and discomfort.

    Actually, you're wrong there.  It's been proven time and again that people will not consider future negatives when making decisions.  Nobody wants to be sick, but people are more than willing to take advantage of a free system.  It happens all the time in the US -- people who have access to government-subsidized medical care will often wait until they need emergency treatment rather than seek preventative care.  Whereas people who have to pay for their insurance are more careful about seeing a doctor before a problem crops up. 



  • @OzPeter said:

    The trouble is that there have been various studies of health care at a global level that disagree with you. US Spends more on Health care per capita than anyone else. But it seems that the US is also the most dissatisfied with the level of health care. if the US health care system was better than a state funded system, then wouldn't that be reflected in cheaper expenditure and more satisfaction?

    My own experiences of having lived in both the US with private health care and living elsewhere with a state funded system is that my level of expenditure was about the same (taxes vs direct payment) but the service is far worse here in the US (longer wait times for appointments. Shorted appointments. Less personal service). I asked about this once of a non-US doctor and his opinion was that the the US system was top heavy with a greater emphasis on big ticket items, with the loss of service at the community level. After experiencing both types of systems I totally agree.

    Wow, referencing the same thread you are posting in.  That takes some serious inability to reason.  First, Americans are dissatisified with everything.  It's just an essential part of our culture to always want something better.  Second, the US pays so much for healthcare because we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments.  We also spend an amazing amount on people who have little chance of surviving, simply because most Americans won't accept death or defeat.  Finally, I have never had a problem with the US healthcare system.  I've been all over the spectrum in terms of income and insurance and I've still been able to get the care I needed.  In fact, many times I probably would have qualified for welfare which has fantastic medical benefits (far better than what I get through my employer) but I was unwilling to go that route.  How often do you hear of wealthy Americans travelling overseas for healthcare?  Because quite frequently the rich from countries with universal healthcare go to America simply because they know they will receive better treatment.  Believe in your absurd, Communist system if that's what you want to do, but stop spreading bullshit. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You might as well argue that water shortages are a good thing.

    So based on your argument a shortage of water would actually decrease the price of water. The increased price of gas is due to oversupply?

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, as far as global economy goes, it is cheaper to invest resources elsewhere in the world.

    Totally specious. It isn't cheaper at all. Call center operations perhaps, but not software- this has been shown to be a false economy.

     [quote user="morbiuswilters "]The problem is that mandatory vacation minimums prevent the business from making their own decisions about where to allocate resources.  This means that the business can't balance productivity with vacation time because they simply have no choice in the matter.  It's as bad as mandatory salaries or the like -- companies are not free to reward good employees. [/quote ]

    Not true at all. It's a reality that many companies deal with quite adequately. Companies are not free to reward good employees? Crap- we have a very generous bonus scheme- tied to productivity.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    There is no incentive to reduce administrative costs.  There is also no incentive for the hospitals or doctors to do more than absolute minimum required.  It's essentially a race to the bottom.

    Maybe you think that hospitals are state-owned and doctors state-employed. They aren't. If they do not provide good service, patients will move on. And of course both also offer services that are not covered by the mandatory insurance.

     

    Actually, you're wrong there.  It's been proven time and again that people will not consider future negatives when making decisions.  Nobody wants to be sick, but people are more than willing to take advantage of a free system.  It happens all the time in the US -- people who have access to government-subsidized medical care will often wait until they need emergency treatment rather than seek preventative care.  Whereas people who have to pay for their insurance are more careful about seeing a doctor before a problem crops up. 

     

    I'd rather take advantage of a free system and do regular free health checks than pay for health checks when nothing feels wrong. It's been proven time and again that people will not consider future negatives when making decisions.

    Anyway, if people in the US are more likely to care about health because of the lack of a mandatory health insurance, how do you explain the high rate of obesity in the US? The United States has the highest rates of obesity in the developed world.

    http://miranda.sourceoecd.org/vl=5227743/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/health2007/g3-3-01.htm

     



  • @Rootbeer said:

    @why? said:

    I live in The Netherlands as well, and get 39 days off a year. 26 regular vacation days, and 13 days for working 40 hours while the company pays for 38.

    United States GDP per capita:  $46,000
    Netherlands GDP per capita: $38,600
    Source: CIA Factbook

     We each pay for our leisure time in different ways.

     

    Yes, I'm sure that the sole cause of the GDP difference is vacation time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Believe in your absurd, Communist system if that's what you want to do, but stop spreading bullshit.

    Three points:

    1/ This word "communist", I don't think you know what it means.


    2/ I don't see you advocating user pays military, fire brigade or police services (to name a few)


    3/ Free speech



  • I find it odd that Americans ask "how do you afford your holidays"?

    Here in Ireland anyway, your annual leave is all paid. So even if I take an entire month off to go to Egypt or wherever, I'll still see my full salary dumped into my bank account at the end of that month. So I afford a holiday by saving for it.:)

    Surely, "Annual Leave" in the States doesn't mean, "Unpaid leave"?

     As someone said earlier we have a minimum of 20 days off, not including 9 public holidays. All paid. Most companies also give an extra days for Good Friday (it's an historical thing). If you're a part-time worker, you're entitled to one-eighth of your average monthly hours as paid leave. 

    We also tend not to count sick days over here. Public sector workers have a certain number of sick days per year, but in the private sector it's up to the company itself. There's no requirement to pay an employee who's out sick - the government pays you after 3 days of continuous sickness. Most salaried employees however, get paid anyway for sick days, and get paid a certain % of their salary during a long-term illness. Workers who are paid by the hour aren't so lucky. The main bonus is that your sick days cannot be annual leave days and vice-versa. If you're sick while you're on vacation, you tell your company that and they have to give you back those annual leave days. It's also illegal to force someone to use their annual leave when they're out sick.

     What the company gets is complete control over its resourcing - the company chooses when the employee takes their holidays. In practice though, most companies just let the employees choose.

    Oh and GDP in Ireland? $43,100 :)



  • I've just found that story:

    http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

    and it becomes obvious to me that there are two extremes: the US system and the Canadian system. The European systems I know are between those extremes. E.g. it's of course legal here to have a private health insurance that pays for better treatment, it's legal here to pay privately for premium class treatment. (Most of) Our doctors and hospitals are not employed resp. run by the government, but basically private entities. Many doctors and hospitals have a contract with the insurances, but some have not and rely on private patients. (Though many hospitals are run by the state's insurance organisations).

    So the main difference between the US system and our system is that health insurance is mandatory here. In Germany, it's a bit more liberal in that most people have a choice beween different health insurance companies; here in Austria, there is a strict assignment based on where one lives and works. But this system is still a far cry from a completely government-controlled system like that in Canada, if I understand said story correctly.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     

    First, Americans are dissatisified with everything. It's just an essential part of our culture to always want something better. Second, the US pays so much for healthcare because we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments. We also spend an amazing amount on people who have little chance of surviving, simply because most Americans won't accept death or defeat. Finally, I have never had a problem with the US healthcare system. I've been all over the spectrum in terms of income and insurance and I've still been able to get the care I needed. In fact, many times I probably would have qualified for welfare which has fantastic medical benefits (far better than what I get through my employer) but I was unwilling to go that route. How often do you hear of wealthy Americans travelling overseas for healthcare? Because quite frequently the rich from countries with universal healthcare go to America simply because they know they will receive better treatment. Believe in your absurd, Communist system if that's what you want to do, but stop spreading bullshit.

     morbiuswilters, this is just bizarre.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    First, Americans are dissatisfied with everything.

    Really? All of them? Wow, that sucks.

    @morbiuswilters said:

      Second, the US pays so much for healthcare because we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments.

    The US actually spends very little on healthcare- we're talking universal healthcare, and not private healthcare. Americans spend a disproportionately high amount on health insurance compared with other OECD nations- chiefly for the reason that the US public system is so underfunded. In countries where there is a strong investment in public health- private health insurance is much cheaper.

    Health costs are not higher because as you say "we are often on the cutting-edge of expensive new treatments”

    This is simply not true. New treatments are mostly the product of drug companies, many of which are not US companies at all (Bayer, Roche, Glaxso Smith Klein, Sigma spring to mind). The high cost of pharmaceuticals is a fact most of the world has to deal with.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    In fact, many times I probably would have qualified for welfare which has fantastic medical benefits (far better than what I get through my employer) but I was unwilling to go that route.

    You just wanted to pay extra huh?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Believe in your absurd, Communist system if that's what you want to do, but stop spreading bullshit. –

    A typical reaction of the opinionated and ill informed morbiuswilters. If logic and argument defeat you, attack the man.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    We also spend an amazing amount on people who have little chance of surviving, simply because most Americans won't accept death or defeat.

    What are you advocating here? Some sort of means-tested euthanasia scheme? What was that about absurd?

    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>



  • @seamustheseagull said:

    Oh and GDP in Ireland? $43,100 :)

    I assume you mean GDP per capita, other wise Ireland would have a lower GDP than Zimbabwe ($2.211 billion (2007 est.)) :-)



  • @seamustheseagull said:

    I find it odd that Americans ask "how do you afford your holidays"?

    Here in Ireland anyway, your annual leave is all paid. So even if I take an entire month off to go to Egypt or wherever, I'll still see my full salary dumped into my bank account at the end of that month. So I afford a holiday by saving for it.:)

    Surely, "Annual Leave" in the States doesn't mean, "Unpaid leave"?

    I'm pretty sure it was a comment on the difficulty of saving for the expenses involved with long holidays, rather than any suggestion that the leave itself was unpaid - yes, you still get your salary, but you also still have to pay your rent, phone, etc etc, and where in there do you have the money to get a plane ticket to Egypt?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ammoQ said:

    Bullshit. Of course there is competition between doctors, hospitals etc. More patients, more money.  And of course there are private hospitals for people who are willing to pay more.

    There is no incentive to reduce administrative costs.  There is also no incentive for the hospitals or doctors to do more than absolute minimum required.  It's essentially a race to the bottom.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Bullshit. Nobody wants to be sick just because the mandatory health insurance pays for the doctor's fees. Mostly because illness, in general, is connected with pain and discomfort.

    Actually, you're wrong there.  It's been proven time and again that people will not consider future negatives when making decisions.  Nobody wants to be sick, but people are more than willing to take advantage of a free system.  It happens all the time in the US -- people who have access to government-subsidized medical care will often wait until they need emergency treatment rather than seek preventative care.  Whereas people who have to pay for their insurance are more careful about seeing a doctor before a problem crops up. 

    Didn't you just say people don't consider future negatives when making decisions? Then wouldn't the people who have to pay for their own insurance not consider the risk of needing future (expensive) emergency treatment when avoiding paying for present (not as expensive, but still costs $$$) preventative care? And since the people with the government-subsidized health care don't have to pay, why would they choose to wait rather than, as you say, taking advantage of the free system, for preventative care?



  •  @Random832 said:

    I'm pretty sure it was a comment on the difficulty of saving for the expenses involved with long holidays, rather than any suggestion that the leave itself was unpaid - yes, you still get your salary, but you also still have to pay your rent, phone, etc etc, and where in there do you have the money to get a plane ticket to Egypt?
    Ah right. Although brief pricing suggests that I'd get to Cairo and a week in the 5-star marriott for around €1400. Factor in spending money and a week in Egypt, including flights would cost around €2000. So maybe a month was a bit much :)

    Even so, I should be able to save up that kind of cash in 3 months or so. I would imagine most people don't take intercontinental holidays every year :). Indeed, many people I know tend to use their annual leave for 3 days here, 4 days there, and making 5-day weekends for whatever reason.

     I don't think I've ever taken a holiday which cost more than €600.



  • @matterific said:

    So based on your argument a shortage of water would actually decrease the price of water. The increased price of gas is due to oversupply?

    Way to fail logic.  One, there is no alternative to water whereas there is an alternative to local labor -- foreign labor.  Second, the value of labor is decreased by long, mandatory vacation times.  Third, even if this results in increased cost for labor, these costs are passed right back into the economy, meaning that the actual value of currency is decreased.  You are essentially arguing that making it illegal to work will create labor shortages which will make everyone wealthy.  So why not have every person work only 1 day a year?  You'd have tons of vacation time and such immense labor shortages that your pay would be through the roof!

     

    @matterific said:

    Totally specious. It isn't cheaper at all. Call center operations perhaps, but not software- this has been shown to be a false economy.

    It's not cheaper at all, eh?  I guess somebody should tell the companies pouring billions into India and China that they are doing it wrong.  Of course it is cheaper, though, because under-developed nations have less competitive labor markets and much lower costs of living.  Some of this is due to beaureaucratic overhead.  Even if higher-level jobs aren't exported, manufacturing jobs will be.  This can create an imbalance in the local labor market which hurts the entire economy.

     

    @matterific said:

    Not true at all. It's a reality that many companies deal with quite adequately. Companies are not free to reward good employees? Crap- we have a very generous bonus scheme- tied to productivity.

    It's a reality that is enforced by short-sighted politicians.  It is an extra cost the consumers must incur in the price of goods and services.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Maybe you think that hospitals are state-owned and doctors state-employed. They aren't. If they do not provide good service, patients will move on. And of course both also offer services that are not covered by the mandatory insurance.

    The hospitals are essentially state-owned and the doctors state-employed.  Because the state constitutes the vast majority of medical spending, it dictates policy at the macro-level.  An economic system that is enforced through legal fiat and is not the result of fluctuation in supply and demand is inherently flawed.  Such a system becomes stagnant, top-heavy and unable to compete.  See: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    I'd rather take advantage of a free system and do regular free health checks than pay for health checks when nothing feels wrong. It's been proven time and again that people will not consider future negatives when making decisions.

    There is no free system.  The fact you keep bringing up that nonsense bothers me and makes me think this thread will quickly devolved into Gun Thread II.  You pay for your care, you just don't pay out-of-pocket at the time of treatment.  When it comes to deferring healthcare, people will often choose to do so if it is financially feasible.  Many people in the US dislike seeking medical treatment and the fear of future expenses due to an untreated condition is actually a powerful motivating factor.  As I said, this can be observed in our quasi-private system: individuals with government-supplied health insurance are more likely to let a problem grow worse rather than seek preventative care.  Additionally, private healthcare companies in the US make a large effort to push customers into preventative care to lower their operating costs.  Most of these efforts are incentive-based and informational, like having nurses call you on the phone every 3 months to see that you are sticking to a particular healthcare plan. 

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Anyway, if people in the US are more likely to care about health because of the lack of a mandatory health insurance, how do you explain the high rate of obesity in the US? The United States has the highest rates of obesity in the developed world.

    Part of the problem here is that you are trying to compare the capitalist US and socialist Europe and draw conclusions from this.  This is flawed for two reasons: 1) the United States healthcare system is actually massively socialist already which is probably a significant source of its problems and 2) the only reasonable comparison is between a socialist and non-socialist instance of the same nation.  I think if universal healthcare were the norm in the US, we would almost certainly see our health problems become worse.  You seem to think the health problems in the US are caused by our quasi-prive healthcare system, when in fact they are more related to culture and lifestyle than anything else.  Part of the high per-capita cost we pay for healthcare is a result of this culture, not of the economic principles our healthcare system operates off of.



  • @OzPeter said:

    1/ This word "communist", I don't think you know what it means.

    Yes, it means government control of the economy.  How is a single-payer healthcare system not Communist?  I didn't say every aspect of the nation's economy is Communist, but the healthcare system and mandatory vacation time certainly is.

     

    @OzPeter said:

    2/ I don't see you advocating user pays military, fire brigade or police services (to name a few)

    That's because there are essential services that generally must be funded out of the public treasury to ensure the stability of the government.  Police and military enforce the laws.  In many places fire departments actually are funded completely by private fees, donations and volunteer work, so you fail on that one.  I never said that there weren't legitimate economic actions a government can engage in, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that universal healthcare is one of them.  You also might want to look up the strawman fallacy before you continue making an ass of yourself.

     

    @OzPeter said:

    3/ Free speech

    This is them most idiotic thing I've read in awhile.  Free speech means the government does not constrain what you say and it's pretty ridiculous for a European to be lecturing an American on free speech as we are much more free to speak than you are.  Free speech does not allow you to say anything you want in a private venue, nor does it protect you from the speech of others.  That you believe this makes you sound like a mentally-handicapped teenager who just read a civics text for the first time. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The hospitals are essentially state-owned and the doctors state-employed.  Because the state constitutes the vast majority of medical spending, it dictates policy at the macro-level.  An economic system that is enforced through legal fiat and is not the result of fluctuation in supply and demand is inherently flawed.  Such a system becomes stagnant, top-heavy and unable to compete.  See: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba.

     

    I'm sorry but it seem you talk too much about things you do not know and/or understand at all. It's a disturbing that we have to discuss concepts like "employment" and "ownership" on such a basic level. If doctors were state-employed, they would get a salary. But this is not the case. Patients, not the state, decide to which doctor they go. Doctors who fail to attract enough patients (or drive them away with bad service) go bankrupt.

    Most Hospitals are not state-owned. In fact, even the health insurance funds are not directly state-controlled. But some influence of the state on both the health insurance funds and the hospitals arguably exits.

    BTW, one question: Can private health insurance companies in the US cancel the contract when somebody becomes seriously ill? If so, that might be an alternative reason why those companies care so much about preventive health care: they want to know early when to get rid of an expensive customer.



  • @ammoQ said:

    ...and it becomes obvious to me that there are two extremes: the US system and the Canadian system.

     

    That sums it up.  If you think "vi vs. emacs" or "Windows vs. Linux" are nasty religious wars, you ain't heard the Canadian health care debate.  Sadly, there is a large faction of people in Canada who seem to think that any change to the system is an "Americanization" of it, and thus, therefore, and ergo, will totally destroy it to sheds.  I wish I was exaggerating, some people are really like that.  Objective debate is nearly impossible.

    Which system is "better"?  I can't provide a reference, but there was a recent study showing that average outcomes were roughly equal between the countries, but for completely different reasons.  Nearly everyone in Canada gets equal access to a reasonably good quality system -- once you pass the gauntlet of long wait lists -- but in the US, some people get absolutely stellar health care, and the uninsured get absolute crap.  It's the wait lists that drag things down for everyone, since for many conditions, treatment options get worse the more you wait.

    I like that people around here (Canada) don't have to stress about financial ruin just because they're sick.  But I think that it's ridiculous that if I wish to choose to spend a big wad of cash on my health (rather than, say, buy a home theatre system), I have to leave the country to do so.

    I wish we could find a middle ground.  There's no lack of non-North American examples to choose from...

    P.S. the amount of government control is relatively high-level.  i.e., they set provincial budgets and decide which services are covered and which ones are not, but there's little government control over day-to-day decisions -- just the doctors and local administrators having to cope with a limited budget.  Outside of hospitals, doctors generally run a private practice, and they bill the government for services rendered.  You can pick your own family doctor -- if you can find one that will take new patients :( 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    This is them most idiotic thing I've read in awhile.  Free speech means the government does not constrain what you say and it's pretty ridiculous for a European to be lecturing an American on free speech as we are much more free to speak than you are.  Free speech does not allow you to say anything you want in a private venue, nor does it protect you from the speech of others.  That you believe this makes you sound like a mentally-handicapped teenager who just read a civics text for the first time.

    Sorry .. not playing your personal abuse games.

    BTW you fail. I'm not European.



  • @OzPeter said:

    Sorry .. not playing your personal abuse games.

    You're the one who brought it on yourself by arguing two concepts (Communism and free speech) that you are completely ignorant of.  I'm glad you've given up so quickly, though.

     

    @OzPeter said:

    BTW you fail. I'm not European.

    Just guessing since you provided no information about your location.  My point is still valid, but I guess writing a coherent post with accurate information is "failing" in your book. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You're the one who brought it on yourself by arguing two concepts (Communism and free speech) that you are completely ignorant of.  I'm glad you've given up so quickly, though.

     

     

    STFU morbius!  Quit before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot. 



  • Ah, ok that's the difference there.  People in other countries tend to live more frugally than Americans, I think, so they can save more.  It's a little shameful, but Americans tend to live on credit, or paycheck-to-paycheck.  So there is very little saving going on.  When people do save money, it's often eaten up in unexpected expenses like the car breaking down.  Or they have to choose between saving for the kid's college fund or saving for their own retirement. 

    It's hard to say if we're really unfrugal or if it's because our cost of living is higher than yours.  Our daily expenses might be higher than yours, but your taxes are higher than ours.  Somebody should do a research project on that.  But I do know that people in England tend to be more frugal.  Homes are smaller, cars are smaller.  I visited friends in Southampton a few years back and was shocked at their kitchen.  Their refridgerator was what we Americans would call a "beer fridge".  (It fit underneath the counter.)  The dishwasher was a cloth and detergent in a sink.   The oven was small, and the wash machine looked like it could do maybe two pairs of jeans at a time.  No wonder people in other countries think we're so rich... everything we  have is very huge by comparison.



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Their refridgerator was what we Americans would call a "beer fridge".  (It fit underneath the counter.)  The dishwasher was a cloth and detergent in a sink.   The oven was small, and the wash machine looked like it could do maybe two pairs of jeans at a time.

    Good God, I never realized England was a third world nation!  I feel like we should get together some care packages and send them some of our old stuff we don't need anymore, like 8-track players and avacado-colored appliances.



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Ah, ok that's the difference there.  People in other countries tend to live more frugally than Americans, I think, so they can save more.  It's a little shameful, but Americans tend to live on credit, or paycheck-to-paycheck.  So there is very little saving going on.  When people do save money, it's often eaten up in unexpected expenses like the car breaking down.  Or they have to choose between saving for the kid's college fund or saving for their own retirement. 

    It's hard to say if we're really unfrugal or if it's because our cost of living is higher than yours.  Our daily expenses might be higher than yours, but your taxes are higher than ours.  Somebody should do a research project on that.  But I do know that people in England tend to be more frugal.  Homes are smaller, cars are smaller.  I visited friends in Southampton a few years back and was shocked at their kitchen.  Their refridgerator was what we Americans would call a "beer fridge".  (It fit underneath the counter.)  The dishwasher was a cloth and detergent in a sink.   The oven was small, and the wash machine looked like it could do maybe two pairs of jeans at a time.  No wonder people in other countries think we're so rich... everything we  have is very huge by comparison.

     

    It isn't so much being frugal as having to be space efficient. On the car thing for instance, having a big car would be a mayor pain, our city roads where laid down when people only needed to fit a horse drawn waggon  trough it. (just look at any movie car chase scene in europe). In the same fashion many houses in europe are very old, which in most cases means their also reasonably small, which means you need some more space efficient equipment. Of course that all only really applies to old parts of cities and old cottages in villages, most newly built houses are quite a bit bigger. (But who cares i personally like the style of old houses)

    Also most/some euopeans have a 13th month or summer bonus, which means they don't really have to save up for your vacation.

    On the other hand, it is quite common in europe to have a country where people are supposedly cheap-skates. For instance in belgium its commonly joked that the dutch are cheap-skates. I believe in england the same thing is said about the scotish. IAnd in the netherland it is said that people from the province of zeeland are cheap-skates. I'm pretty sure every country in europe has such a target, so perhaps in the end where all a bit cheap here in europe.

    But in the end, if you are spending more money then your earning, the official strategy to remedy that is to start earning more ;)

     

    Also i doubt there would be any use to such a research, every country has its pro and con points. simply offseting the cost of living to the average wage earned multiplied by the standard of living will be pretty much useless, as well as all the oh so much quoted GDP variants. I can tell you now, that US, canada or western europen countries will simply have a similar average. Wich can simply be described as "high". We earn a lot, we pay a lot and we can play a lot. Life for us is simply pretty good. putting a arbitary number to it tells us nothing unless you want to look at global economics, but those results don't impact our lives directly. 



  • @stratos said:

    Also most/some euopeans have a 13th month or summer bonus, which means they don't really have to save up for your vacation.

    So Europeans need their companies to force them to save because they can't do it on their own.  That sucks.  What if you prove you are capable of saving money, can you opt out of this scheme?

     

    @stratos said:

    Also i doubt there would be any use to such a research, every country has its pro and con points. simply offseting the cost of living to the average wage earned multiplied by the standard of living will be pretty much useless, as well as all the oh so much quoted GDP variants. I can tell you now, that US, canada or western europen countries will simply have a similar average. Wich can simply be described as "high". We earn a lot, we pay a lot and we can play a lot. Life for us is simply pretty good. putting a arbitary number to it tells us nothing unless you want to look at global economics, but those results don't impact our lives directly.

    Actually, I feel the differences would skew towards the US quite a bit.  Yes, we all have a good standard for living and if you are happy with your own, then more power to you.  However, when it comes to understanding macro-economics, making wise business and investment decisions and implementing economic policy, it's useful to know what strategies are more successful. 



  • @matterific said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    You might as well argue that water shortages are a good thing.

    So based on your argument a shortage of water would actually decrease the price of water. The increased price of gas is due to oversupply?

     <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>
    You're conflating value with price.  Rookie mistake.

    Value in economic terms is defined as the cost per unit (of product, services rendered, time, etc.).  Whether the relationship is directly or inversely proportional, however, depends on whether or not you are the buyer or seller.  Or, to put it another way, it depends on which commodity is the "cost" and which commodity is the "unit".

    If I own a bar of gold, and the price of gold goes up, then its value to me has gone up because I can sell it for more.  Previously it was (for example) $100 per bar (value = 100), now it is $200 per bar (value = 200).

    However, if the price of food goes up, then its value to me has gone down, because I'm the buyer.  Previously I was getting 1 steak per $10 (value = 1/10), now I get 1 steak per $15 (value = 1/15).  Clearly the second quantity is smaller here.

    When discussing labour value, you are defining it as dollars/euro per hour.  That's the rate at which you're selling.  If you add 20 vacation days for the same salary, then it's fairly obvious that your value to yourself has gone up.  Unfortunately your employer doesn't look at it that way.  He looks at the equation upside-down; your value is measured in hours per dollar/euro.  Reduce the number of hours and you've reduced your effective value.  Before, he was paying you (for example) $5 to work 1 hour (value = 0.2).  Now he's paying you $5.50 for the same hour (value = 0.18).  This is a lower value, not a higher one!

    Get it?


Log in to reply