Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know...the worldwide competition process sure doesn't seem to support the growth of vacation time. Economic growth rates in Europe are very poor as compared to other nations in the world. My guess is that you will see a change in Europe more towards being more productivity centered, possibly altering the amount of time allocated for leisure:
Who is benefiting from the growth? Is there a goal in growth...or is growth, itself, the goal? Growth is what...profits used to generate more profits? More bonuses and perks for executives?
I wonder if anyone is interested in quality in life? Do you work to live, or live to work? I'm sure there are of plenty posters who wouldn't know what to do with 4 weeks (or more) vacation per year. If you have nothing else better to do with your life than spend it at a job, I feel sorry for you.
Europe may change in giving workers more vacation time, but I don't think they will ever look to America as the standard. If American workers received 5 days more vacation per year, and the Europeans 5 days less, it would still be an immense gap.
In any propaganda campaign, the corporate influenced American media will only tell us of bad things that happen in Europe.
Many Americans don't have the slightest clue about anything that happens outside of America. If they were informed, they might ask; if they can do it, why can't we?
I think that's at the heart of it. In other countries, if people don't like something, they'll go and complain and fight it. In the U.S., people only fight when they're in the military and sent off to some other country. Americans won't fight for things at home that have more of an impact on their lives (like time with family/friends)--which to me, seems very undemocratic.
Americans will let themselves get squeezed into oblivion, as long as its being done in the name of 'free enterprise.' You can get away with anything you want in the U.S., even taking people's pensions, making them work long hours, keeping them from their families, ignoring them when they're sick, sending their older sons to go fight in wars for resources... as long as you know the two magic words: 'free enterprise.' You just say these two words, and you're untouchable.
Because no one is allowed in the U.S. to suggest that we even put just a few tiny restrictions on our free enterprise system that might favor human beings... and I'm just talking a few tweaks here. No, right away you'll be called a socialist... regardless of the fact that you've owned small businesses, you own stocks and property...
So, unlike in Europe, few people in the U.S. will push for making life a tiny bit easier for people; if they do, the media/whoever just says the two magic words 'free enterprise' and those people become marginalized.
Also, it seems like a lot of companies have this unspoken assumption that you're expected to work more than 40 hours and most people just go along with it--even if it means giving up their life, family, etc. And over in the Business forum, people are talking about working 55-60 hours a week: http://www.city-data.com/forum/busin...ou-really.html
I worked like that at a few jobs, and then 'saw the light.' :-) Now when I go job-hunting, I look specifically for something that is no more than 40 hours a week and I negotiate on getting more vacation time--even if it means earning a little less. I realize that a lot of people may not be in the position to negotiate like this, but I think that if more people who are in the position to do so, would communicate that they expect more of a work/life balance, then these benefits might eventually become a standard for everyone. Unfortunately, many of my peers would rather work longer hours even though we're doing the same work (and they don't have to work the long hours). These are the same people who may not even take all of their vacation. Their behavior then seems to encourage employers to expect that everyone is willing to work long hours and give up some of their personal life...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer
American employers can afford to give all these to their employees if European and Australian do it. I think had people in Europe not fought for these we would still have workhouses and no human rights and labour laws at all . Americans employers just want to maximise profits and squeeze the last drop out of their employees. For example if restaurants paid their employees a decent living wage we wouldn't have to contribute through tips as customers. It's all about money, pure and simple.
You should work to live and not live to work. Our time on earth is far too precious to waste it all on working like a slave. As Visvaldis pointed out Economic growth is all very nice but it never seem to trickle down to the "normal" populace. It only seems to line the pockets of the greedy fat cats who feed on the work done by the middle and working classes. I don't know about you but my main goal in life is not to become a millionaire but to be happy and live my life, travel and have experiences , make memories with my loved ones. I am shocked that the US has no mandatory paid leave . We do not value our workers enough. Everybody who works should be entitled to decent time off, whether they are janitors or accountants. All working individuals contribute to our society, some might look down at manual workers, garbage collectors, janitors or burger king employees but we need them , without them there would be no other professions. The cleaners and other so called "menial" workers are part of a labour chain and enable white collar people for example to go out and earn money. I suspect not many of us would be very happy if there was nobody willing to do all the less sexy jobs. These still have to be done.
My partner gets 32 days off a year and we both decided that these are far more valuable to us than a slight increase in salary from less holiday generous employers.
Money is not everything in life, we might regret many things on our death beds but I suspect not spending more time at work will be one. We work hard, we also deserve time off. Employers might have to reconsider their not "being able to afford to pay for paid leave" if people refused to be exploited. Fair work fair pay, fair leave.
To suggest a fairer system which values people's hard working contributions always seems to engender calls of "socialism" and "anti-Americanism". It's really sad and a bit pathetic. I love America but isn't it time the government and businesses realise that one of our human rights should be to be able to relax and have a life outside of the office/factory ?
Moosketeer - How dare you suggest that employees have any obligations besides their loyalty to their corporate masters? Why that would be against free trade and the proper worship of Mammon, the god of the greedy.
Moosketeer - I agree with you completely. That was very eloquently said. Thank you.
Generation X is the first generation ever in this country to have it their standard of living worse than previous generations.
Thats odd. The average house size has increased from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2349 square feet in 2004. Now over 99% of households have a television where that number was around 75% in the 60's, and most homes having at least 2 televisions where that was a rarity in the past. There is typically an auto for every person with a license, where it used to be common for a family to share a car and there was much less public transportation.
I had also read some interesting numbers regarding the percentage of total income spent on housing and car payments in 1970 vs. today and there was a huge gap.
I think any drop in the standard of living between the baby boomers and Gen X is self induced by the gotta have it mindset.
Part of what I'm seeing from the transition from the Boomers to Gen X is that the Boomers didn't really save much for thier children as has been done in generations past. "Inheritence" is a word for the wealthy now. The rest of us get a '72 Impala and $100 gas money now...
Seriously though, I think we've converted into a "Live for Today" society for the most part where we maybe plan to fund our children through College, maybe, and then release them on the world. Yes the phenomenon of returning to the nest is greater than ever, but it isn't because we're saving for our kids or anything.
Just a theory. Also I realize there are exceptions, so please spare me if you're that 55 year old Boomer mother who has saved every dime for thier kid and stand to bequeath $1.2 Million dollars of hard-saved money upon your demise. You aren't the norm...
While I understand the concerns about the allocation of time between work and family, I would like to point out that this "crunch" is caused by multiple factors. Many folks today truly like their jobs, and don't view it as a burden, resulting in their working long hours and keeping up when on vacation (if even taking much vacation). I found an interesting Chicago Tribune editorial with a pretty balanced approach to the subject:
I keep reading postings indicating Europe is the model we should be emulating, but here are a couple of articles indicating all is not running smoothly there:
You should work to live and not live to work. Our time on earth is far too precious to waste it all on working like a slave. As Visvaldis pointed out Economic growth is all very nice but it never seem to trickle down to the "normal" populace. It only seems to line the pockets of the greedy fat cats who feed on the work done by the middle and working classes. I don't know about you but my main goal in life is not to become a millionaire but to be happy and live my life, travel and have experiences , make memories with my loved ones. I am shocked that the US has no mandatory paid leave . We do not value our workers enough. Everybody who works should be entitled to decent time off, whether they are janitors or accountants. All working individuals contribute to our society, some might look down at manual workers, garbage collectors, janitors or burger king employees but we need them , without them there would be no other professions. The cleaners and other so called "menial" workers are part of a labour chain and enable white collar people for example to go out and earn money. I suspect not many of us would be very happy if there was nobody willing to do all the less sexy jobs. These still have to be done.
My partner gets 32 days off a year and we both decided that these are far more valuable to us than a slight increase in salary from less holiday generous employers.
Money is not everything in life, we might regret many things on our death beds but I suspect not spending more time at work will be one. We work hard, we also deserve time off. Employers might have to reconsider their not "being able to afford to pay for paid leave" if people refused to be exploited. Fair work fair pay, fair leave.
To suggest a fairer system which values people's hard working contributions always seems to engender calls of "socialism" and "anti-Americanism". It's really sad and a bit pathetic. I love America but isn't it time the government and businesses realise that one of our human rights should be to be able to relax and have a life outside of the office/factory ?
Sorry for the big grin, but this was my genuine reaction to your post Moose. Not only do we have people advocating health insurance rights, but we now have vacation rights. How about a-television-in-every-room rights? Or Lexus rights where everyone is entitled to drive a Lexus?
Seriously now, the benefits associated with a job is in the hands of the potential employee. If that person is marketable enough, then the employer will be willing to compensate him/her according to his/her potential value to the company. If the applicant doesn't like the benefits, one has at least two options, make oneself more marketable or apply at a different company. Of course, another option would be to accept the company's offer. Why do so many people put the responsibility of the individual's lifestyle onto the employer? If the employer is willing to offer these benefits, he/she will attract better employees. Remember, the job belongs to the employer/owner who created the job by, in most cases, working hard and investing resources to make the job available.
Most of the jobs you described as "menial" aren't taken by those "willing" to do them. They are usually taken by those who have no choice, usually either because they aren't marketable or they just settle for something that will provide them spending money. These jobs don't "enable" white collar jobs, they are a RESULT of white collar jobs and those achievers who invest time and money to create them. And, yes, its socialistic/fascist and anti-American to have the federal government mandate wages, time off, health insurance, and other benefits.
Thats odd. The average house size has increased from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2349 square feet in 2004. Now over 99% of households have a television where that number was around 75% in the 60's, and most homes having at least 2 televisions where that was a rarity in the past. There is typically an auto for every person with a license, where it used to be common for a family to share a car and there was much less public transportation.
I had also read some interesting numbers regarding the percentage of total income spent on housing and car payments in 1970 vs. today and there was a huge gap.
I think any drop in the standard of living between the baby boomers and Gen X is self induced by the gotta have it mindset.
The number of TVs per room, or luxury cars in the garage do not indicate a quality of life. Materialism is not necessarily quality in life. It may be interesting to note the percentage of the cars on the road today that are being paid for by the month. The use of credit cards in the 70s is nothing like it is today. Judging by media commercials, a whole lot of people have many things, but are way over their heads in debt.
Capitalism is a good tool to use in life, but, unfortunately, it has been elevated to a scared religion.
Sorry for the big grin, but this was my genuine reaction to your post Moose. Not only do we have people advocating health insurance rights, but we now have vacation rights. How about a-television-in-every-room rights? Or Lexus rights where everyone is entitled to drive a Lexus?
Seriously now, the benefits associated with a job is in the hands of the potential employee. If that person is marketable enough, then the employer will be willing to compensate him/her according to his/her potential value to the company. If the applicant doesn't like the benefits, one has at least two options, make oneself more marketable or apply at a different company. Of course, another option would be to accept the company's offer. Why do so many people put the responsibility of the individual's lifestyle onto the employer? If the employer is willing to offer these benefits, he/she will attract better employees. Remember, the job belongs to the employer/owner who created the job by, in most cases, working hard and investing resources to make the job available.
Most of the jobs you described as "menial" aren't taken by those "willing" to do them. They are usually taken by those who have no choice, usually either because they aren't marketable or they just settle for something that will provide them spending money. These jobs don't "enable" white collar jobs, they are a RESULT of white collar jobs and those achievers who invest time and money to create them. And, yes, its socialistic/fascist and anti-American to have the federal government mandate wages, time off, health insurance, and other benefits.
I would not have expected any less from you , as responses go it's almost as balanced and logical as something from NirvanaGuy or Chloedog ( are you all related by the way because you sound like carbon copies of each other ?). I very much hope that one day your right wing ideas will come back to haunt you but somehow I doubt it.
Even Japan has mandatory paid leave, and you could hardly accuse them of being left wing or socialist. ( Pretty good productivity for such liberals too...)
"Socialist" France ( according to US right-wing posters, as the truth is it has had a right wing government for 12 years ) is more productive ph, than the US. The Japanese, Germany, French and UK economies ( all much smaller countries, all with mandatory paid leave and all bar Japan with a big social net and universal healthcare come respectively as 2nd,3rd,4th, and 5th in size after the US, land of workers exploitation, no leave, no rights, no healthcare. Doesn't sound to me like the US has that much to be so proud of ...
Forbes.com: France, Bastion Of Productivity (http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/22/cx_da_0322topnews_print.html - broken link)
I assume an article from Capitalist Forbes is an acceptable source but there are many more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
