Cool Your Jets.
Jeff Relf
His diagnosis fits the illness. >>
Thanks the support, Barry.
<< These are band-aids on a multiple gunshot wound.
The problems are systemic.
The treatments are largely ineffective. >>
Americans are like are farmer who:
- Borrows too much.
- Grows too much.
- Burns 90 percent of his harvest.
- Defaults on his loans.
This is what has driven interest rates so low,
After adjusting for the risk of non-payment.
This is why a recession would be good for America.
Americans work two thousand hours per year,
More than any other nation.
If they can't justify their labors,
Then they should just Cool their jets.
In my book,
a Workaholic is just as bad as an alcoholic.
They're both Slowly killing themselves for go good reason.
- Jeff Relf -
Sharx.
"Jeff Relf" <Jeff...@HowAmazing.COM> wrote in message
news:aiekd6$dm0$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
I fully agree. I went part time 14 years ago, at the age of 42. The
Europeans, many with 6 to 8 weeks annual vacation on top of multiple
holidays, have the right idea. Life is too short to fill it with work.
>
>
>
Sharx.
"CutiePie" <Imcut...@zebramail.com> wrote in message
news:3D4BA256...@zebramail.com...
>
>
> Jeff Relf wrote:
>
> > Barry Sanders << Mr. Relf has it right.
> > His diagnosis fits the illness. >>
> >
> > Thanks the support, Barry.
> >
> > More than any other nation.
> > If they can't justify their labors,
> >
>
>
> high. The working people have to work extra hard to make up for the
> poor who pay no income taxes yet suck all the resources from the
> Government's teat.
I would suggest that tax rates are higher in EUrope and the average European
government is far more socialist that the USA, **BUT*** the average EUropean
enjoys far more holidays, vacations, medical coverage than the average
American.
>
>
Ryan O'Reilley
"Sharx." <sha...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tDN29.13342$Z5.5...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> I would suggest that tax rates are higher in EUrope and the average
European
> government is far more socialist that the USA, **BUT*** the average
EUropean
> enjoys far more holidays, vacations, medical coverage than the average
> American.
Yeah, but the quality of medical care is not as high. Also, their
governments are riding off the USA military protection. They are barely
able to keep their NATO obligations. And jobs, while they have all that
time off, are harder to get in the first place.
Ask the French how the "35 hour" workweek is going. It is a disaster.
Before WWII, France was working a four day week. The USA had even less time
off than now. Who was the deciding power?
I'll take the American system any day.
Sharx.
"Pat Meadows" <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote in message
news:3genkuket4ilem1hh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 09:46:01 GMT, "Sharx."
> <sha...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> We wouldn't have to work so much if the tax rates weren't so damned
> >> high. The working people have to work extra hard to make up for the
> >> poor who pay no income taxes yet suck all the resources from the
> >> Government's teat.
> >
> >I would suggest that tax rates are higher in EUrope and the average
European
> >government is far more socialist that the USA, **BUT*** the average
EUropean
> >enjoys far more holidays, vacations, medical coverage than the average
> >American.
> >
>
> Never mind 'suggest'. I think you could 'state' it as a
> fact.
>
> Pat
Pat, so many of my fellow Canadians are such drooling anti-American wuss
types, that I probably overly compensate when I say something that might be
construed as knocking the American system or way of life, e.g. rampant
workaholicism. To me paid work is ONLY a means to getting enough cash to do
what I REALLY want to do. That's why I went part time when I was 42. I had
calculated that by being very frugal I could work a WHOLE lot less. To me,
control of my time is a VERY BIG ISSUE!!
Dave B.
R.White
Life is too short to fill it with work.
Finally something I can agree with you on.
Rick
Michael L. Coburn
OK, take it. PLEASE!
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
darkness
> "Sharx." <sha...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:tDN29.13342$Z5.5...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> > I would suggest that tax rates are higher in EUrope and the average
> European
> > government is far more socialist that the USA, **BUT*** the average
> EUropean
> > enjoys far more holidays, vacations, medical coverage than the average
> > American.
Broadly those are true. Not sure where you put 'average' medical
coverage, though. Certainly Americans are now enrolled in HMOs, which
are far more like the situation you face in France or Germany. And
they complain about them a lot.
>
> Yeah, but the quality of medical care is not as high.
Very unclear. The life expectancies are actually higher, in several
cases.
Also, their
> governments are riding off the USA military protection. They are barely
> able to keep their NATO obligations.
ish. Depends on your country. Not true of Britain and France.
Germany still uses conscripts, who are much cheaper, so spending is
lower.
US defence spend is about 3.5% of GDP. UK and France similar, other
European countries lower. What the US defence spend buys is access to
the latest technology. European defence is technologically quite
inefficient and expensive, because each country still makes its own
procurement decisions.
None of these countries has the US's global power projection. This
may not make them less secure.
And jobs, while they have all that
> time off, are harder to get in the first place.
Complex. In general, European labour markets perform worse probably
because labour mobility is worse. Actual percentage of the working
age population employed is higher in certain countries (Netherlands)
than the US.
The US has some interesting ways around high unemployment rates. For
example, the US has few unemployment benefits, so fewer people claim.
Presto, less unemployment. The US has a *massively* higher rate of
criminal incarceration than other countries: result, a big chunk of
the least employable people are 'employed' sitting in prisons (or the
criminal justice system in general). US social security allows early
disability retirement: this is where a lot of the surplus, older, blue
collar workers go. The US has a relatively large military sector,
again sopping up high unemployment demographic groups (young men from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds).
Other countries (Scandinavia) make it easier than the US to be working
mothers. Result, women who are housewives in America (not unemployed)
are working in Sweden.
Its difficult to fire a worker in continental Europe. So places like
Spain and France have all their young people on contract.
>
> Ask the French how the "35 hour" workweek is going. It is a disaster.
No, its working much better than any economist thought possible. Its
become a real problem in labour economics, that the French have made
this one work. The jury is still out.
> Before WWII, France was working a four day week.
We are a long way from the Bloc Populaire days.
The USA had even less time
> off than now. Who was the deciding power?
That is a grotesque oversimplification of what went on in WWII and the
causes of the French defeat.
It would be just as legitimate for me to ask 'Europe went to war
against the Nazis right away, the Americans stood back and tried to
not get involved. Therefore, the American culture is one of running
away from a fight and from the struggle against evil'.
The US had 25% unemployment in 1939. On your evidence, the key to
winning WWII is high unemployment and an economic slump.
>
> I'll take the American system any day.
Depends what you want. Surveys show Americans are by no means the
happiest people in the western world.
US society is quite anti-family, mobile and competitive. Studies show
all these things are not good for social cohesion and personal
happiness. I would say of Europeans (against Brits, let alone
Americans) that they know how to live, and live well.
In theory, at least, the greater efficiency of the US labour market is
a good thing. So it appears from the productivity and the dollar per
person gdp numbers. However there are other factors to strip out
(nowhere in Europe has the access to cheap land that Americans take
for granted, nor the world's best farmland) such as geographic and
human ones (net net, immigration is good for economic growth, if not
for your existing poor people).
The average American unquestionably has a bigger house, bigger car
(and more of them), more consumer electronics. He also has more debt
than the average western european. After he has paid for his kids
college tuition, his healthcare needs, is he better off? Unclear,
particularly not if you adjust for the hours worked.
If Europe were one country, with a common legal and social history,
with a common market, then it would be possible to benchmark. It is
anything but, America in 1776 was more of an integrated country than
even Western Europe is now.
There is a human cost. The US has high rates of just about every
social ill you can name, like violent crime. A society of 'winners'
means there are lots of losers: the worst slums in Europe are not half
as frightening or depressing as the typical American inner city.
Michael L. Coburn
> "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<ul6cme2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Mark Neglay wrote:
>>
>> > "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<ul5d65m...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> Mark Neglay wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Jeff Relf" <Jeff...@HowAmazing.COM> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<aiekd6$dm0$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
>> >> >> Barry Sanders << Mr. Relf has it right.
>> >> >> His diagnosis fits the illness. >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks the support, Barry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> << These are band-aids on a multiple gunshot wound.
>> >> >> The problems are systemic.
>> >> >> The treatments are largely ineffective. >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Americans are like are farmer who:
>> >> >> - Borrows too much.
>> >> >
>> >> > Though I may not agree, the analogy works here.
>> >> >
>> >> >> - Grows too much.
>> >> >
>> >> > It doesn't here. How does a single farmer grow too much of
>> >> > anything? I think you mean the industry here.
>> >> >
>> >> >> - Burns 90 percent of his harvest.
>> >> >
>> >> > Americans burn 90 percent of everything they produce?
>> >> >
>> >> > Or is consuming the same thing as burning in the "Jeff Relf Explains
>> >> > Economics" book?
>> >> >
>> >> >> - Defaults on his loans.
>> >> >
>> >> > Haven't yet and no one seems to think it will happen any time soon.
>> >>
>> >> I was understanding the bankruptcies are up.
>> >
>> > Of course I was referring to treasuries but you are correct, business
>> > bankruptcies happen all the time.
>> >
>> >> >> This is what has driven interest rates so low,
>> >> >> After adjusting for the risk of non-payment.
>> >> >
>> >> > So the fact that we borrow too much and default on our loans has
>> >> > driven interest rates low? Please, I'm really interested in this
>> >> > logical though process you must have used to come to the conclusion
>> >> > that any of the things you listed above would tend to lower interest
>> >> > rates.
>> >>
>> >> Me too. I also fail to see how bankruptcies would increase interest
>> >> rates, yet that seems to be what is happening.
>>
>> I seem to have misspelled "decrease". The post to which I was
>> responding claimed that "default on loans has driven interest
>> rates low". I was trying to get an assessment of why defaults
>> (which I spelled "bankruptcies") would _decrease_ interest
>> rates. I understand the rationale behind such happenings causing
>> an increase to interest rates. Just as is described below: -----------
>>
>> > All interest rates contain a number of risk premiums. (Sometimes
>> > consolidated and referred to simply as *the* risk premium.) One risk
>> > involved with investing is the risk of default. For any given firm,
>> > municipality, or country, as the perceived risk of default increases,
>> > so does the interest on its debt. Likewise, if the perceived
>> > likelihood of default for all firms or municipalities increases,
>> > interest rates in general would tend to increase.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So the question actually is one of why are interest rates down when
>> bankruptcies are up?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1) Bankruptcies are probably not as bad as you imagine them. We have
> had several spectacular ones. But the truth is that so far, the only
> numbers I have seen where someone has tried to present cross-temporal
> data are presented in nominal numbers, clearly in an attempt to
> stretch the truth.
>
> 2) The risk premium is only part of any interest rate. You also have
> to factor in other issues, such as inflation.
>
>> >> Yes, Mark. I is a _very_ bad thing. It illustrates what most of
>> >> us would call the economic decline of our nation:
>> >
>> > So what part represents the decline...is it the fact that we working
>> > longer hours than the French or the fact that we have consistently
>> > worked fewer and fewer hours per week over the past several decades?
>>
>> The _FACT_ is that we have worked more and more hours over the last
>> few decades as indicated by the Drudgery Rate.
>
> Nope. More and more people have worked. This has been happening for
> quite a few decades. It doesn't seem to matter what government policy
> is in place, more and more Americans are going to work every year.
>
> Part of the reason for this, in recent years, may be due to
> demographics.
>
> My point is that for any given person working, he or she works fewer
> hours.
>
>> Your repeating of
>> the mantra
>
> It's not a oft contested fact.
>
>> and calling on Republican Spun doo doo to support your
>> claims does not contradict the realities I have cited below.
>
> It's not a good sign when you call cold hard facts "spin".
I posted a link to _facts_. These are facts because they are the
hard cold numbers. Your assertion that, oh it doesn't matter
that "more people are working" is "spin". People do not seek labor.
They seek comfort and they seek to consume, and they seek security.
And the statistics I have posted that show more people working
therefore indicate exactly what I've claimed: These Drudgery
Rate clearly illustarates that it takes more people per family
working outside the home to "make ends meet". The other link
clearly demonstrates the disenfranchisement of the majority of
the citizenry as regards their lifelong fight to gain some form
of financial security in preparation for old age. It takes 60%
more labor to "own" one's home than it did when the Republican
Supply Side thieves took over the government in the 80's.
The other statistic worthy of note is that American home _buyers_
(those people that Republicans want to refere to as "owners") own
less equity in their hones that at any time since the 1930's.
20 years of fake prosperity floated on a mountain of debt
culminating in "A fascist banana republic with no bananas".
All the "industry" has been moved abroad, all the technology
is being destroyed by H1B's and "we the people" are left
holding the bag.
Mark Neglay
> Mark Neglay wrote:
> >> and calling on Republican Spun doo doo to support your
> >> claims does not contradict the realities I have cited below.
> >
> > It's not a good sign when you call cold hard facts "spin".
>
> I posted a link to _facts_.
They are the wrong facts, Mike. Surprise surprise. You didn't read
well enough what we were discussing and you decided to argue against a
point not being made.
JR:
"Americans work two thousand hours per year, More than any other
nation."
MN:
"And that's a bad thing I guess."
MC:
"Yes, Mark. I is a _very_ bad thing. It illustrates what most of us
would call the economic decline of our nation:"
(Information about the percentage of people working, not the number of
hours they work)
Do you understand the difference between the two statistics Mike? One
is the number of hours the average person works and the other is the
number or percentage of people in the US who work.
Does the difference between these two statistics still evade you?
Are so foolish that you can't see the difference or did you just see a
subject that was 'close enough' to something you had written about on
your webpage and decide to begin arguing?
Facts are facts, and Americans work shorter weeks than they used to.
That's what Jeff Relf was talking about. That's what I was talking
about. So if you *don't* want to talk about it, then at the least,
don't transfor my words in to the argument you prefer to have.
> These are facts because they are the
> hard cold numbers. Your assertion that, oh it doesn't matter
> that "more people are working" is "spin".
Picture this: I am looking at your words in disbelief. I am shaking
my head at the stupidity and laziness of your post.
*You* called my words spin. What the hell is wrong with you?
Here's a quick refresher:
-Relf complained that we work too many hours per year.
*Now pause. Jeff Relf complained that Americans are working TOO MANY
HOURS PER YEAR. Repeat that sentence over and over and don't come
back until you fully comprehend its importance.*
-I said that's a bad thing?
*Still talking about how many hours we work per year*
-You said yes, and told me that too many of us have to work.
*Now talking about a different statistic.*
-I said that we were talking about how many hours we work per year,
and that number is declining.
*Trying to remind you what Relf was talking about*
-You called my words spin and told me to concentrate on the meaningful
statistic.
> People do not seek labor.
> They seek comfort and they seek to consume, and they seek security.
> And the statistics I have posted that show more people working
> therefore indicate exactly what I've claimed: These Drudgery
> Rate clearly illustarates that it takes more people per family
> working outside the home to "make ends meet".
Good for you. You managed to get in a sermon, *AND* you managed to
pretend I was arguing with you.
Quite an accomplishment for more but easy enough if meaningful
discussion isn't something you value.
> The other link
> clearly demonstrates the disenfranchisement of the majority of
> the citizenry as regards their lifelong fight to gain some form
> of financial security in preparation for old age. It takes 60%
> more labor to "own" one's home than it did when the Republican
> Supply Side thieves took over the government in the 80's.
Speak the truth mah brother! Praise be to you!
> The other statistic worthy of note is that American home _buyers_
> (those people that Republicans want to refere to as "owners") own
> less equity in their hones that at any time since the 1930's.
Show us the light!
> 20 years of fake prosperity floated on a mountain of debt
> culminating in "A fascist banana republic with no bananas".
Wake the children to the morning light. Listen up for Mike shall
speak!
> All the "industry" has been moved abroad, all the technology
> is being destroyed by H1B's and "we the people" are left
> holding the bag.
I could agree with you 100% about everything you write and you will
still argue with me and preach. It doesn't matter. You are a closed
minded evangelist with nothing original to write and a complete
inability to read what others write and respond meaningfully.
Rule number one about Mike Coburn:
1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a meaningful discussion about *ANYTHING*
with Mike Coburn.
Michael L. Coburn
> "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<ulcubqi...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Mark Neglay wrote:
>
>> >> and calling on Republican Spun doo doo to support your
>> >> claims does not contradict the realities I have cited below.
>> >
>> > It's not a good sign when you call cold hard facts "spin".
>>
>> I posted a link to _facts_.
>
> They are the wrong facts, Mike. Surprise surprise. You didn't read
> well enough what we were discussing and you decided to argue against a
> point not being made.
>
> JR:
> "Americans work two thousand hours per year, More than any other
> nation."
>
> MN:
> "And that's a bad thing I guess."
>
> MC:
> "Yes, Mark. I is a _very_ bad thing. It illustrates what most of us
> would call the economic decline of our nation:"
>
> (Information about the percentage of people working, not the number of
> hours they work)
>
> Do you understand the difference between the two statistics Mike? One
> is the number of hours the average person works and the other is the
> number or percentage of people in the US who work.
Well, gee Mark, I do understand the difference but I appreciate
your acknowledgment and support for the facts. Not only are
more family members working so as to "make ends meet", they are,
according to the claim above, also working more hours than people
living in more civilized nations.
> Does the difference between these two statistics still evade you?
Never did.
> Are so foolish that you can't see the difference or did you just see a
> subject that was 'close enough' to something you had written about on
> your webpage and decide to begin arguing?
snore......
> Facts are facts, and Americans work shorter weeks than they used to.
> That's what Jeff Relf was talking about. That's what I was talking
> about. So if you *don't* want to talk about it, then at the least,
> don't transfor my words in to the argument you prefer to have.
The problem with your "facts" is that they are not _facts_. They
are spun up Republican doo-doo. The minimum wage numbers and the
hosing cost numbers are not. And the drudgery rate numbers are
being reported by the same "authority" that you claim is the "honest"
reporter of the unemployment rate. I know it comes as a terrible
shock to your Republican religious sentiments but the number of
hours worked by the family unit is the _sum_ of the hours worked
by the entire unit. The number of hours worked by the primary
bread winner of the unit may be less (though I think that any
"studies" indicating this are probably the result of the usual
Republican cherry picking), but the total hours worked per family
unit is increasing as _real_ wages are continuing to decline.
>> These are facts because they are the
>> hard cold numbers. Your assertion that, oh it doesn't matter
>> that "more people are working" is "spin".
>
> Picture this: I am looking at your words in disbelief. I am shaking
> my head at the stupidity and laziness of your post.
>
> *You* called my words spin. What the hell is wrong with you?
>
> Here's a quick refresher:
>
> -Relf complained that we work too many hours per year.
>
> *Now pause. Jeff Relf complained that Americans are working TOO MANY
> HOURS PER YEAR. Repeat that sentence over and over and don't come
> back until you fully comprehend its importance.*
>
> -I said that's a bad thing?
>
> *Still talking about how many hours we work per year*
>
> -You said yes, and told me that too many of us have to work.
>
> *Now talking about a different statistic.*
>
> -I said that we were talking about how many hours we work per year,
> and that number is declining.
>
> *Trying to remind you what Relf was talking about*
>
> -You called my words spin and told me to concentrate on the meaningful
> statistic.
So see if you can concentrate your very limited abilities on whether
there would be any correlation between the number of family members that
must work outside the home so as to make ends meet and the number of
hours worked by the _family_ _unit_. There is work to
be done at home and work that must be done elsewhere so as to live
in a home. There is cooking, cleaning, and maintenance. And Home Depot
did not become a huge success because people are calling in the pro
to paint the house. Americans are working too much as families. Most
breadwinners are working extra hours that go unreported because they
do not want to lose medical coverage. And the so called "statistics"
that I have seen in support of your ridiculous claim that Americans
work less are produced by spin artists of the first order.
>> People do not seek labor.
>> They seek comfort and they seek to consume, and they seek security.
>> And the statistics I have posted that show more people working
>> therefore indicate exactly what I've claimed: These Drudgery
>> Rate clearly illustarates that it takes more people per family
>> working outside the home to "make ends meet".
>
> Good for you. You managed to get in a sermon, *AND* you managed to
> pretend I was arguing with you.
>
> Quite an accomplishment for more but easy enough if meaningful
> discussion isn't something you value.
You will continue to get the exact same facts slapped across your
face every time you bring up the subject.
>> The other link
>> clearly demonstrates the disenfranchisement of the majority of
>> the citizenry as regards their lifelong fight to gain some form
>> of financial security in preparation for old age. It takes 60%
>> more labor to "own" one's home than it did when the Republican
>> Supply Side thieves took over the government in the 80's.
>
> Speak the truth mah brother! Praise be to you!
Thanx.
>> The other statistic worthy of note is that American home _buyers_
>> (those people that Republicans want to refere to as "owners") own
>> less equity in their hones that at any time since the 1930's.
>
> Show us the light!
I intend to. And I will do it in spite of Republican obfuscations.
>> 20 years of fake prosperity floated on a mountain of debt
>> culminating in "A fascist banana republic with no bananas".
>
> Wake the children to the morning light. Listen up for Mike shall
> speak!
>
>> All the "industry" has been moved abroad, all the technology
>> is being destroyed by H1B's and "we the people" are left
>> holding the bag.
>
> I could agree with you 100% about everything you write and you will
> still argue with me and preach. It doesn't matter. You are a closed
> minded evangelist with nothing original to write and a complete
> inability to read what others write and respond meaningfully.
>
> Rule number one about Mike Coburn:
>
> 1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a meaningful discussion about *ANYTHING*
> with Mike Coburn.
That is true unless you want to discuss something meaningful. You seem
overly concerned with your debating skills and with "winning" points
in regard to meaningless drivel, but it may also be a ploy to divert
attentions from the _real_ issues. I will not be playing your game.
Mark Neglay
I did neither, though I will do it. A greater percentage of Americans
work now than ever before (minus minor seasonal changes).
> Not only are
> more family members working so as to "make ends meet", they are,
> according to the claim above, also working more hours than people
> living in more civilized nations.
Yep. And yet the work week is getting shorter ever year (give or
take). That was my response.
> > Does the difference between these two statistics still evade you?
>
> Never did.
Ah so you purposefully ignored everything I wrote and just posted your
preachings instead.
> > Are so foolish that you can't see the difference or did you just see a
> > subject that was 'close enough' to something you had written about on
> > your webpage and decide to begin arguing?
>
> snore......
Probably the later.
> > Facts are facts, and Americans work shorter weeks than they used to.
> > That's what Jeff Relf was talking about. That's what I was talking
> > about. So if you *don't* want to talk about it, then at the least,
> > don't transfor my words in to the argument you prefer to have.
>
> The problem with your "facts" is that they are not _facts_.
They most certainly are. Here, here Mike. I know that you *want*
everything in the US to be shitty because it is important to your
theology. So buck up. You can just claim that the shorter work week
is due to people being forced in to part time employment.
There doesn't it make you happy when you realize there is
unsubstantiated spin available for you?
> They
> are spun up Republican doo-doo. The minimum wage numbers and the
> hosing cost numbers are not. And the drudgery rate numbers are
> being reported by the same "authority" that you claim is the "honest"
> reporter of the unemployment rate.
As is the work week. So according to you, the work week numbers are
altered but the percentage of Americans working is not. And I'm sure
you have some non-theological reason to beleive this.
> I know it comes as a terrible
> shock to your Republican religious sentiments but the number of
> hours worked by the family unit is the _sum_ of the hours worked
> by the entire unit.
I was referring to the number of hours an individual works per year,
as was Jeff Relf. The "family" isn't part of the metric.
It's ok to not understand Mike.
> The number of hours worked by the primary
> bread winner of the unit may be less (though I think that any
> "studies" indicating this are probably the result of the usual
> Republican cherry picking),
So sayeth Mike because it *must* be true.
(That's obvious when you have your conclusion before your evidence)
> but the total hours worked per family
> unit is increasing as _real_ wages are continuing to decline.
Mike, you simply discount real wage numbers so we can't have this
conversation. You will simply ignore reality...that real wages are
increasing for all quintiles. (Recessions being the possible
exception, the trend is up)
> >> These are facts because they are the
> >> hard cold numbers. Your assertion that, oh it doesn't matter
> >> that "more people are working" is "spin".
> >
> > Picture this: I am looking at your words in disbelief. I am shaking
> > my head at the stupidity and laziness of your post.
> >
> > *You* called my words spin. What the hell is wrong with you?
> >
> > Here's a quick refresher:
> >
> > -Relf complained that we work too many hours per year.
> >
> > *Now pause. Jeff Relf complained that Americans are working TOO MANY
> > HOURS PER YEAR. Repeat that sentence over and over and don't come
> > back until you fully comprehend its importance.*
> >
> > -I said that's a bad thing?
> >
> > *Still talking about how many hours we work per year*
> >
> > -You said yes, and told me that too many of us have to work.
> >
> > *Now talking about a different statistic.*
> >
> > -I said that we were talking about how many hours we work per year,
> > and that number is declining.
> >
> > *Trying to remind you what Relf was talking about*
> >
> > -You called my words spin and told me to concentrate on the meaningful
> > statistic.
>
> So see if you can concentrate your very limited abilities on whether
> there would be any correlation between the number of family members that
> must work outside the home so as to make ends meet and the number of
> hours worked by the _family_ _unit_.
Mike, Jeff Relf was talking about individuals, not families. no
matter how you spin this around and try to pretend that you weren't
being a complete idiot, you can't change that fact.
*FAMILIES* do not work 2000 hours per year. Individuals work *close
to* 2000 hours per year. In case your math is bad, that equates out
to 50 weeks at 40 hours per week. That is a very rough approximation
by Relf but it clearly applies to *individuals*.
Distract all you want. The fact is that you will not have a
reasonable discussion of anything. You are a preacher. You have no
regard for anyone else's point, only your own. Whether this is
because you are just over-excited about your own points or closed
minded about others', I don't know. But the fact remains that you are
a closed minded fool the way you go through conversations.
So enjoy that and spin that and pretend it doesn't matter. I will
tell you this though: intelligent people have this tendency to
discount people like you, not because you are right or wrong but
because you appear as a fool and a theologin.
> There is work to
> be done at home and work that must be done elsewhere so as to live
> in a home. There is cooking, cleaning, and maintenance. And Home Depot
> did not become a huge success because people are calling in the pro
> to paint the house. Americans are working too much as families. Most
> breadwinners are working extra hours that go unreported because they
> do not want to lose medical coverage. And the so called "statistics"
> that I have seen in support of your ridiculous claim that Americans
> work less are produced by spin artists of the first order.
You trust the data when you think it agrees with your religion and
conjure conspiracy theories about it when it doesn't. The funny part
is that the two data sets come from the same source.
> >> People do not seek labor.
> >> They seek comfort and they seek to consume, and they seek security.
> >> And the statistics I have posted that show more people working
> >> therefore indicate exactly what I've claimed: These Drudgery
> >> Rate clearly illustarates that it takes more people per family
> >> working outside the home to "make ends meet".
> >
> > Good for you. You managed to get in a sermon, *AND* you managed to
> > pretend I was arguing with you.
> >
> > Quite an accomplishment for more but easy enough if meaningful
> > discussion isn't something you value.
>
> You will continue to get the exact same facts slapped across your
> face every time you bring up the subject.
They aren't new to me. My God you think you are making a point don't
you? You are preaching, nothing more. No one contests the data you
present nor cares about the bullshit that follows and the hate for
Republicans it spawns in you.
> >> All the "industry" has been moved abroad, all the technology
> >> is being destroyed by H1B's and "we the people" are left
> >> holding the bag.
> >
> > I could agree with you 100% about everything you write and you will
> > still argue with me and preach. It doesn't matter. You are a closed
> > minded evangelist with nothing original to write and a complete
> > inability to read what others write and respond meaningfully.
> >
> > Rule number one about Mike Coburn:
> >
> > 1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a meaningful discussion about *ANYTHING*
> > with Mike Coburn.
>
> That is true unless you want to discuss something meaningful.
1) Relf makes a point.
2) I make a point.
3) Mike enteres the conversation with his sermon.
You joined the conversation so obviously you found something
meaningful to discuss. If it was not a point I made, then obviously
you were preaching.
> You seem
> overly concerned with your debating skills and with "winning" points
> in regard to meaningless drivel, but it may also be a ploy to divert
> attentions from the _real_ issues. I will not be playing your game.
I wish to discuss issues rationally, calmly, intelligently. You wish
to preach, ignore the gaping holes in your logic and understanding,
and cherry-pick your facts. (When was the last time I wrote that data
from the government were false, out of convenience? You do it all the
time.)
Michael L. Coburn
Thank you, again.
>> Not only are
>> more family members working so as to "make ends meet", they are,
>> according to the claim above, also working more hours than people
>> living in more civilized nations.
>
> Yep. And yet the work week is getting shorter ever year (give or
> take). That was my response.
Nice unsubstantiated claim. A moot point in any case.
>> > Does the difference between these two statistics still evade you?
>>
>> Never did.
>
> Ah so you purposefully ignored everything I wrote and just posted your
> preachings instead.
As I say above: You are attempting to make a moot point which,
other than your own hollow claim, you have failed to support
anyway. There are NO unspun data to corroborate such a claim.
>> > Are so foolish that you can't see the difference or did you just see a
>> > subject that was 'close enough' to something you had written about on
>> > your webpage and decide to begin arguing?
>>
>> snore......
>
> Probably the later.
>
>> > Facts are facts, and Americans work shorter weeks than they used to.
>> > That's what Jeff Relf was talking about. That's what I was talking
>> > about. So if you *don't* want to talk about it, then at the least,
>> > don't transfor my words in to the argument you prefer to have.
>>
>> The problem with your "facts" is that they are not _facts_.
>
> They most certainly are. Here, here Mike. I know that you *want*
> everything in the US to be shitty because it is important to your
> theology. So buck up. You can just claim that the shorter work week
> is due to people being forced in to part time employment.
>
> There doesn't it make you happy when you realize there is
> unsubstantiated spin available for you?
I see no numbers that would support this, but like I say: It
is somewhat irrelevant in the broader view. It is like counting
the deck chairs on the Titanic.
>> They
>> are spun up Republican doo-doo. The minimum wage numbers and the
>> hosing cost numbers are not. And the drudgery rate numbers are
>> being reported by the same "authority" that you claim is the "honest"
>> reporter of the unemployment rate.
>
> As is the work week. So according to you, the work week numbers are
> altered but the percentage of Americans working is not. And I'm sure
> you have some non-theological reason to beleive this.
Nope. I don't actually have a lot of faith in either of these
statistics because they are being prepared by a bunch of "yes"
men for Der Fuhrer. But Der Fuhrer is to stupid to understand
the implications of the "percantage of Americans working" and
too obsessed with aristocracy to do anything about the minimum
wage. Thus we have _some_ unspun data.
>> I know it comes as a terrible
>> shock to your Republican religious sentiments but the number of
>> hours worked by the family unit is the _sum_ of the hours worked
>> by the entire unit.
>
> I was referring to the number of hours an individual works per year,
> as was Jeff Relf. The "family" isn't part of the metric.
>
> It's ok to not understand Mike.
Fine.
>> The number of hours worked by the primary
>> bread winner of the unit may be less (though I think that any
>> "studies" indicating this are probably the result of the usual
>> Republican cherry picking),
>
> So sayeth Mike because it *must* be true.
>
> (That's obvious when you have your conclusion before your evidence)
My "evidence" is the constant stream of lies coming out of
George Bush's mouth and flowing out of my TV set.
>> but the total hours worked per family
>> unit is increasing as _real_ wages are continuing to decline.
>
> Mike, you simply discount real wage numbers so we can't have this
> conversation. You will simply ignore reality...that real wages are
> increasing for all quintiles. (Recessions being the possible
> exception, the trend is up)
Total spun horseshit as illuminated by the real "data". "real"
wages are the stuff one earns toward insuring that that ones
needs are met. If my wages rise and my rent rises faster then
my _real_ income declines.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
OK. I accept your little obfuscatory game playing match.
> *FAMILIES* do not work 2000 hours per year. Individuals work *close
> to* 2000 hours per year. In case your math is bad, that equates out
> to 50 weeks at 40 hours per week. That is a very rough approximation
> by Relf but it clearly applies to *individuals*.
And there is no accurate or even approximate accounting of the number
of hours worked by the individuals in the USA.
> Distract all you want. The fact is that you will not have a
> reasonable discussion of anything. You are a preacher. You have no
> regard for anyone else's point, only your own. Whether this is
> because you are just over-excited about your own points or closed
> minded about others', I don't know. But the fact remains that you are
> a closed minded fool the way you go through conversations.
I tend to ignore superfoluse bullshit and focus on what actually
matters. This does not endear me to obfuscators and spin artists.
But all of the, so called, "data" I have seen in support of the
ludicrous claim that American breadwinners are working shorter
hours has been trumped up Republican trash. And any claim that
"individuals" are working less hours per week produced solely
by the increase in the number of people in the work
force required to support Republican greed. As such, any
focus on a "shorter work week" for individuals is an obfuscation.
> So enjoy that and spin that and pretend it doesn't matter. I will
> tell you this though: intelligent people have this tendency to
> discount people like you, not because you are right or wrong but
> because you appear as a fool and a theologin.
I _AM_ a theologian. I believe that there _IS_ such a thing as
justice. I can no more prove that justice is a reality than I
can prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. And
further, I have this _belief_ that justice is not served by
a government that supports the "right" of a Republican
Aristocracy to steal my wages through various forms of
economic rent.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Economic_Rent.php
>> There is work to
>> be done at home and work that must be done elsewhere so as to live
>> in a home. There is cooking, cleaning, and maintenance. And Home Depot
>> did not become a huge success because people are calling in the pro
>> to paint the house. Americans are working too much as families. Most
>> breadwinners are working extra hours that go unreported because they
>> do not want to lose medical coverage. And the so called "statistics"
>> that I have seen in support of your ridiculous claim that Americans
>> work less are produced by spin artists of the first order.
>
> You trust the data when you think it agrees with your religion and
> conjure conspiracy theories about it when it doesn't. The funny part
> is that the two data sets come from the same source.
I trust the minimum wage data. I trust the housing prices data.
I have some minimal faith in the drudgery rate data because they
are antithetical to the publishing source and that source (or at
least Der Fuhrer) is to stupid to comprehend the essential nature
of the data. The
calling up of the reserves and such will tend to reduce the
unemployment rate and the drudgery rate. But as I've said many
times: "If King George can't wage world war III, he and his
aristocratic fascist pig Republican party are done". Sept. 11
gave him a political opportunity that he has pursued with
wanton lust, but the scare tactics and the boogie man ruse has
about run its course. The shit is now hitting the fan and I
am extremely pleased to see His Highness covered in his own
doo-doo from head to foot.
>> >> People do not seek labor.
>> >> They seek comfort and they seek to consume, and they seek security.
>> >> And the statistics I have posted that show more people working
>> >> therefore indicate exactly what I've claimed: These Drudgery
>> >> Rate clearly illustarates that it takes more people per family
>> >> working outside the home to "make ends meet".
>> >
>> > Good for you. You managed to get in a sermon, *AND* you managed to
>> > pretend I was arguing with you.
>> >
>> > Quite an accomplishment for more but easy enough if meaningful
>> > discussion isn't something you value.
>>
>> You will continue to get the exact same facts slapped across your
>> face every time you bring up the subject.
>
> They aren't new to me. My God you think you are making a point don't
> you? You are preaching, nothing more. No one contests the data you
> present nor cares about the bullshit that follows and the hate for
> Republicans it spawns in you.
Then don't concern yourself with it, Mark. And quit defending the
*&*&^& thieves.
>> >> All the "industry" has been moved abroad, all the technology
>> >> is being destroyed by H1B's and "we the people" are left
>> >> holding the bag.
>> >
>> > I could agree with you 100% about everything you write and you will
>> > still argue with me and preach. It doesn't matter. You are a closed
>> > minded evangelist with nothing original to write and a complete
>> > inability to read what others write and respond meaningfully.
>> >
>> > Rule number one about Mike Coburn:
>> >
>> > 1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a meaningful discussion about *ANYTHING*
>> > with Mike Coburn.
>>
>> That is true unless you want to discuss something meaningful.
>
> 1) Relf makes a point.
> 2) I make a point.
> 3) Mike enteres the conversation with his sermon.
>
> You joined the conversation so obviously you found something
> meaningful to discuss. If it was not a point I made, then obviously
> you were preaching.
>
>> You seem
>> overly concerned with your debating skills and with "winning" points
>> in regard to meaningless drivel, but it may also be a ploy to divert
>> attentions from the _real_ issues. I will not be playing your game.
>
> I wish to discuss issues rationally, calmly, intelligently. You wish
> to preach, ignore the gaping holes in your logic and understanding,
And these "gaping holes" would be what, exactly?
> and cherry-pick your facts. (When was the last time I wrote that data
> from the government were false, out of convenience? You do it all the
> time.)
The data published by _any_ agency of government is influenced by that
government _UNLESS_ the data are compiled and published by an agency
of the people. In the United States of America ,wage earners and
unemployed people we have no such agency.
The housing numbers are probably correct because a very large segment
of the business people in this nation are dependent on these numbers
and the escalating prices and these people have _agency_ in the US
Government The minimum wage is a legislated fixed number that
cannot be tampered with.
"We submit that there is no tax or monetary "silver bullet" that can
be fired at the heart of despotism and aristocracy that will, in
fact, create and maintain a steady march toward our common goal of
enriching the society as a whole, toward the enrichment of the
people. Other than maintaining a well informed and empowered body
truly representing the general citizenry, a body empowered by the
people to prevent the encroachment of aristocracy and nationalism,
there is no escape from economic despotism and the policies that
will ultimately favor an aristocratic minority at the expense of
the many."
AMEN BROTHER!!!
Mark Neglay
> Mark Neglay wrote:
>
> > "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:<ulfv9js...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> Mark Neglay wrote:
> >> Not only are
> >> more family members working so as to "make ends meet", they are,
> >> according to the claim above, also working more hours than people
> >> living in more civilized nations.
> >
> > Yep. And yet the work week is getting shorter ever year (give or
> > take). That was my response.
>
> Nice unsubstantiated claim.
http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm
You will have to navigate there. I cannot post a direct link since it
dynamically creates the report pages.
> A moot point in any case.
-Relf said that a number is too large.
-I said that it has been decreasing for years.
-You said that a completely different number is too high and then told
me that by point is moot.
Gee Mike. That makes sense.
> >> > Does the difference between these two statistics still evade you?
> >>
> >> Never did.
> >
> > Ah so you purposefully ignored everything I wrote and just posted your
> > preachings instead.
>
> As I say above: You are attempting to make a moot point which,
> other than your own hollow claim, you have failed to support
> anyway. There are NO unspun data to corroborate such a claim.
I once asked a Fundamentalist Pentacostal who was defending
creationism about all of the physical evidence for evolution. He told
me that the anthropologists and biologists lie.
That was his only response.
It's your only response, too.
> >> > Facts are facts, and Americans work shorter weeks than they used to.
> >> > That's what Jeff Relf was talking about. That's what I was talking
> >> > about. So if you *don't* want to talk about it, then at the least,
> >> > don't transfor my words in to the argument you prefer to have.
> >>
> >> The problem with your "facts" is that they are not _facts_.
> >
> > They most certainly are. Here, here Mike. I know that you *want*
> > everything in the US to be shitty because it is important to your
> > theology. So buck up. You can just claim that the shorter work week
> > is due to people being forced in to part time employment.
> >
> > There doesn't it make you happy when you realize there is
> > unsubstantiated spin available for you?
>
> I see no numbers that would support this, but like I say: It
> is somewhat irrelevant in the broader view. It is like counting
> the deck chairs on the Titanic.
'Rearranging', Mike.
> >> They
> >> are spun up Republican doo-doo. The minimum wage numbers and the
> >> hosing cost numbers are not. And the drudgery rate numbers are
> >> being reported by the same "authority" that you claim is the "honest"
> >> reporter of the unemployment rate.
> >
> > As is the work week. So according to you, the work week numbers are
> > altered but the percentage of Americans working is not. And I'm sure
> > you have some non-theological reason to beleive this.
>
> Nope. I don't actually have a lot of faith in either of these
> statistics because they are being prepared by a bunch of "yes"
> men for Der Fuhrer. But Der Fuhrer is to stupid to understand
> the implications of the "percantage of Americans working" and
> too obsessed with aristocracy to do anything about the minimum
> wage. Thus we have _some_ unspun data.
It is only "accurate" when it agrees with you and you damn well know
it.
> >> So see if you can concentrate your very limited abilities on whether
> >> there would be any correlation between the number of family members that
> >> must work outside the home so as to make ends meet and the number of
> >> hours worked by the _family_ _unit_.
> >
> > Mike, Jeff Relf was talking about individuals, not families. no
> > matter how you spin this around and try to pretend that you weren't
> > being a complete idiot, you can't change that fact.
>
> OK. I accept your little obfuscatory game playing match.
I was talking about "A". He was talking about "A". You butted in and
said, "no, 'B'!" That isn't obfuscation on my part. It's you
thinking you saw a subject you could post one of your sermons on and
butting in to a conversation with irrelevent crap.
> > *FAMILIES* do not work 2000 hours per year. Individuals work *close
> > to* 2000 hours per year. In case your math is bad, that equates out
> > to 50 weeks at 40 hours per week. That is a very rough approximation
> > by Relf but it clearly applies to *individuals*.
>
> And there is no accurate or even approximate accounting of the number
> of hours worked by the individuals in the USA.
Because this has to be true.
> > Distract all you want. The fact is that you will not have a
> > reasonable discussion of anything. You are a preacher. You have no
> > regard for anyone else's point, only your own. Whether this is
> > because you are just over-excited about your own points or closed
> > minded about others', I don't know. But the fact remains that you are
> > a closed minded fool the way you go through conversations.
>
> I tend to ignore superfoluse bullshit and focus on what actually
> matters.
Anything not contained in your bible is "superfoluse bullshit".
> > So enjoy that and spin that and pretend it doesn't matter. I will
> > tell you this though: intelligent people have this tendency to
> > discount people like you, not because you are right or wrong but
> > because you appear as a fool and a theologin.
>
> I _AM_ a theologian.
It's good to come to grips with reality.
> I believe that there _IS_ such a thing as
> justice. I can no more prove that justice is a reality than I
> can prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. And
> further, I have this _belief_ that justice is not served by
> a government that supports the "right" of a Republican
> Aristocracy to steal my wages through various forms of
> economic rent.
>
> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Economic_Rent.php
http://www.coburnbible.com/coburn_7:24.html
> >> > Good for you. You managed to get in a sermon, *AND* you managed to
> >> > pretend I was arguing with you.
> >> >
> >> > Quite an accomplishment for more but easy enough if meaningful
> >> > discussion isn't something you value.
> >>
> >> You will continue to get the exact same facts slapped across your
> >> face every time you bring up the subject.
> >
> > They aren't new to me. My God you think you are making a point don't
> > you? You are preaching, nothing more. No one contests the data you
> > present nor cares about the bullshit that follows and the hate for
> > Republicans it spawns in you.
>
> Then don't concern yourself with it, Mark. And quit defending the
> *&*&^& thieves.
Quote me, Father Coburn.
> >> You seem
> >> overly concerned with your debating skills and with "winning" points
> >> in regard to meaningless drivel, but it may also be a ploy to divert
> >> attentions from the _real_ issues. I will not be playing your game.
> >
> > I wish to discuss issues rationally, calmly, intelligently. You wish
> > to preach, ignore the gaping holes in your logic and understanding,
>
> And these "gaping holes" would be what, exactly?
For one, that everything you believe relies on your unique ability to
simply discount all evidence that disagrees as irrelevent and
manufactured.
It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is, who produced it, what
their methods, how reputable they are, and who provided it to you.
You will still ignore it and pretend it is inaccurate if it disagrees
with your theology.
You know I'm right.
Michael L. Coburn
> "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<ulio37m...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Mark Neglay wrote:
>>
>> > "Michael L. Coburn" <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<ulfv9js...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> Mark Neglay wrote:
>
>> >> Not only are
>> >> more family members working so as to "make ends meet", they are,
>> >> according to the claim above, also working more hours than people
>> >> living in more civilized nations.
>> >
>> > Yep. And yet the work week is getting shorter ever year (give or
>> > take). That was my response.
>>
>> Nice unsubstantiated claim.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm
>
> You will have to navigate there. I cannot post a direct link since it
> dynamically creates the report pages.
The "data" at the "Bureau of Lying Sadistics" claim that the workweek
as worked by an individual has declined to 34 hours. I hereby acknowledge
that Mark has provided a source for his claim.
>> A moot point in any case.
>
> -Relf said that a number is too large.
> -I said that it has been decreasing for years.
> -You said that a completely different number is too high and then told
> me that by point is moot.
>
> Gee Mike. That makes sense.
Good.
No. I said 'counting' and that is exactly what I meant:)
>> >> They
>> >> are spun up Republican doo-doo. The minimum wage numbers and the
>> >> hosing cost numbers are not. And the drudgery rate numbers are
>> >> being reported by the same "authority" that you claim is the "honest"
>> >> reporter of the unemployment rate.
>> >
>> > As is the work week. So according to you, the work week numbers are
>> > altered but the percentage of Americans working is not. And I'm sure
>> > you have some non-theological reason to beleive this.
>>
>> Nope. I don't actually have a lot of faith in either of these
>> statistics because they are being prepared by a bunch of "yes"
>> men for Der Fuhrer. But Der Fuhrer is to stupid to understand
>> the implications of the "percantage of Americans working" and
>> too obsessed with aristocracy to do anything about the minimum
>> wage. Thus we have _some_ unspun data.
>
> It is only "accurate" when it agrees with you and you damn well know
> it.
How so, Mark. I try to limit my acceptance of "data" to those which
are simply undeniable such as the legislated minimum wage or data
published by the BLS in which political distortions in the data
that would serve to sanctify, glorify, excuse, or please Der Fuhrer
could only run counter to my thesis. There is no political benefit
to the agency publishing the drudgery rate numbers to show an
escalating drudgery rate and every incentive to show a reduction in
it. I suspect that the increasing drudgery rate is actually higher
than that which is published just as I suspect the unemployment rate
is somewhat higher. But I do not base my thesis concerning an
escalating drudgery rate on any self serving malfeasance of the BLS.
Any politically self serving distortion in this number by the BLS
would be in _opposition_ to my thesis. And therin lies the efficacy
and honesty of my use of this particular statistic.
>> >> So see if you can concentrate your very limited abilities on whether
>> >> there would be any correlation between the number of family members
>> >> that must work outside the home so as to make ends meet and the number
>> >> of hours worked by the _family_ _unit_.
>> >
>> > Mike, Jeff Relf was talking about individuals, not families. no
>> > matter how you spin this around and try to pretend that you weren't
>> > being a complete idiot, you can't change that fact.
>>
>> OK. I accept your little obfuscatory game playing match.
>
> I was talking about "A". He was talking about "A". You butted in and
> said, "no, 'B'!" That isn't obfuscation on my part. It's you
> thinking you saw a subject you could post one of your sermons on and
> butting in to a conversation with irrelevent crap.
OK, Mark. You win the dabate. I've been a bad boy.
>> > *FAMILIES* do not work 2000 hours per year. Individuals work *close
>> > to* 2000 hours per year. In case your math is bad, that equates out
>> > to 50 weeks at 40 hours per week. That is a very rough approximation
>> > by Relf but it clearly applies to *individuals*.
>>
>> And there is no accurate or even approximate accounting of the number
>> of hours worked by the individuals in the USA.
>
> Because this has to be true.
See above.
>> > Distract all you want. The fact is that you will not have a
>> > reasonable discussion of anything. You are a preacher. You have no
>> > regard for anyone else's point, only your own. Whether this is
>> > because you are just over-excited about your own points or closed
>> > minded about others', I don't know. But the fact remains that you are
>> > a closed minded fool the way you go through conversations.
>>
>> I tend to ignore superfoluse bullshit and focus on what actually
>> matters.
>
> Anything not contained in your bible is "superfoluse bullshit".
So it would appear.
Certain knowledge is always dangerous.
Doug Daly
> >> >> >> developed countries.
> >> >> > I'm quite confident that has a lot to do with the US diet
> >> >> > (especially the fatty/sugarly fast-food influence) and sedentary
> >> >> > life styles.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did Rush tell you that?
> >> >
> >> > My god even the American diet is a black-and-white, Republican=evil
> >> > issue for Coburn.
> >> >
> >> >> Is that where you get your "confidence"?
> >> >> You say they don't sell burgers in the UK?
> >> >
> >> > The US diet may not be much worse than in (at least some) developed
> >> > countries. But it is definitely true that we are more sedentary than
> >> > most.
> >> >
> >> > Those damn Europeans walk everywhere.
Those Europeans can't walk 3 steps without smoking a cigarette. Ask for the
non-smoking section in a restaurant in Europe -- it'll get a good laugh.
How well do we compare w/ Europe on infant mortality and life expectancy
when you only count the middle class on up? It would be interesting if they
were a lot closer as now you're talking about groups that all have access to
health care (for the most part) 'from cradle to grave'.
Dave H
wrote:
>JR:
>"Americans work two thousand hours per year, More than any other
>nation."
Wrong. The British work an average of 43.6 hours per week which
equates to more than 2000 hours per year, even assuming we all take 4
weeks holiday a year (we don't)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1799518.stm
Dave H
<doug...@xxxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> > Those damn Europeans walk everywhere.
>Those Europeans can't walk 3 steps without smoking a cigarette. Ask for the
>non-smoking section in a restaurant in Europe -- it'll get a good laugh.
You'd be very hard pushed in the UK to find a restaurant *without* a
non-smoking area. Indeed there are a growing number of exclusively
non-smoking restaurants and bars in the UK.
>How well do we compare w/ Europe on infant mortality and life expectancy
>when you only count the middle class on up? It would be interesting if they
>were a lot closer as now you're talking about groups that all have access to
>health care (for the most part) 'from cradle to grave'.
The European diet tends to have far less saturated fat hence the lower
mortality rates.
John Jones
"Dave H" <dave...@envirotechdotfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3dc69a81...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On 12 Aug 2002 07:48:57 -0700, neg...@hotmail.com (Mark
Neglay)
> wrote:
>
> >JR:
> >"Americans work two thousand hours per year, More than any
other
> >nation."
>
> Wrong. The British work an average of 43.6 hours per week which
> equates to more than 2000 hours per year, even assuming we all
take 4
> weeks holiday a year (we don't)
I think that American men actually work on average >45 hours per
week, and American women work about 39. That's for all people in
full-time jobs (>35 hours per week). These figures come from a
less-then-perfect memory. I don't claim that's the highest in
the world or anything.
(I need to find a more efficient way of find US population
statistics.)
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1799518.stm
>
>
Mr. F. Le Mur
H) wrote:
->On 12 Aug 2002 07:48:57 -0700, neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
->wrote:
->
->>JR:
->>"Americans work two thousand hours per year, More than any other
->>nation."
->
->Wrong. The British work an average of 43.6 hours per week which
You're wrong, he's right.
->equates to more than 2000 hours per year, even assuming we all take 4
->weeks holiday a year (we don't)
->
->http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1799518.stm
->
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm
'Americans work longest hours'
France: 1656
UK: 1731
Aust: 1867
Japan: 1888
US: 1966
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/steady-cn.htm
Geneva, 6 Sep -- Workers in the United States put in the longest hours
(among industrialized nations) on the job, nearly 2000 hours per capita
in 1997, and in the period from 1980, the annual working hours in the
US has been steadily rising.
It was 1883.4 hours in 1980, jumping to 1942.6 in 1990 and 1996 hours
in 1997 - a period that marked end of post-war Keynesian economics and
unleashing of the reverse class war and attack on organized labour,
with the rise of neo-liberalism under President Reagon and successors.
In contrast, in Japan, workers in 1980 clocked an annual per capita 2121
hours per year, declined to 2031 hours in 1990, and 1889 hours in 1995
(year for which latest data is available). The US workers in that year
clocked 1952.6 hours.
Canadian workers also saw their work schedules decline by more than a
full work week during the last decades - with 1732 hours in 1996 compared
to 1784 in 1980s.
These and other data are in a new statistical study of global labour
trends,"Key Indicators of the Labour Market 1999", published by the
International Labour Office.
The KILM project is the result of collaboration of ILO, OECD and several
national and international agencies. The study draws also on data from
the UN Statistical division, the World Bank, the EU's Statistical Office
and the US Bureau of Labour statistics.
[...]
The long working hours of workers in the US (rising trend) and Japan
(declining trend) is in sharp contrast with those of European workers,
who are progressively working fewer hours on the job.
This is most evident in the Scandinavian countries, where the hours
worked in 1997 were respectively 1399 and 1552 in Norway and Sweden.
In France, where legislation has been introduced recently limiting the
work week to 35 hours, men and women put in 1656 hours in 1986 compared
to 1810 in the 1980s.
In Germany (western), the annual working hours amounted to just under
1560 in 1996 as against 1610 in 1990 and 1742 in 1980.
Workers in the UK, logged in 1731 hours in 1997, but on average have
neither lost nor gain much free time since 1980 when they worked 1775
hours. The annual hours of Irish workers dropped from 1728 in 1980 to
1656 in 1996 - on a part roughly with Switzerland (1643 hours), Denmark
(1689 for male workers in 1994) and Netherlands (1679 for male workers
in 1994).
In Australia men and women logged slightly longer hours than their
counterparts in New Zealand in 1996 -- 1867 versus 1838.
+++
http://japanupdate.com/previous/99/09/09/news19.shtml
Americans work longest hours, Japanese second longest
Workers in the United States put in the longest hours on the job in
industrialized nations, including Japan, according to a new statistical
study of global labor trends published by the International Labour
Office (ILO).
U.S. workers clocked up nearly 2,000 hours per capita in 1997, the
equivalent of almost two working weeks more than their counterparts
in Japan where annual hours worked have been gradually declining for
almost 20 years. In 1995, Japanese workers put in a total of 1,889
annual hours worked against 2,121 in 1980, a decline of more than
10 percent.
The study examined 18 Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM),
including labor productivity, labor costs, unemployment and underemployment
and hours worked. It shows that the U.S. pattern of increasing annual
hours worked per person - which totaled 1,966 in 1997 versus 1,883 in
1980, an increase of nearly 4% - runs contrary to a world-wide trend
in industrialized countries that has seen hours at work remaining
steady or declining in recent years.
The long working hours of American and Japanese workers contrasts most
sharply with those of European workers, who are logging progressively
fewer hours on the job, particularly in the Scandinavian countries such
as Norway and Sweden where hours worked in 1997 were, respectively 1,399
and 1,552 per year.
Both male and female workers in Australia logged only slightly longer
hours than their counterparts in New Zealand in 1996 (1,867 versus 1,838).
Canadian workers have seen their work schedules decline by more than a
full work week during the last decades, with 1996's result of 1,732
hours closely resembling 1980's total of 1,784.
Among rapidly industrializing countries and regions, East Asia would
appear to have the longest hours of work with Hong Kong - China, Bangladesh,
Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand all reporting between 2,200-1,300
per year, but the figures are all pre-1995, prior to the Asian financial
crisis. Figures for the Republic of Korea show a steady decline from 1980
levels of 2,064 hours per year to 1,892 per year in 1996.
+++
Michael L. Coburn
This is most likely the result of what happens when "Thacherism"
(modeled after "Reaganism") is allowed to take hold and continue.
In good old America we see that it takes 60% more labor to buy
a home than it did in 1980.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
--
Mike Coburn
"On Oct. 10th 2002, the people of the nation in a one
hundred to one majority told their representatives to
vote against the "Iraq Resolution". And the people
were simply ignored. When your supposed representative
does not act in accord with your wishes, he must be
removed." -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Society
>
> This is most likely the result of what happens
> when "Thacherism" (modeled after "Reaganism")
> is allowed to take hold and continue.
Probably. Prosperity is like that.
There *is* an alternative to the free market.
It's the slave market.
Angelique Michelin
So, tell me your alternative to the free market, Coburn.
One in which the State sets the price you pay for
your living quarters, quarters the State in its maternal
benevolence has assigned you.
> In good old America we see that it takes 60%
> more labor to buy a home than it did in 1980.
> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
Do you ding-dongs want to recalculate those
home purchases to include the ruinous interest
rates of 1980 and the current low rates today
(which are leading to greater demand for homes)?
<laugh>
You'd all be overjoyed if no one could afford a
home, eh? Then, home prices would be falling
for lack of buyers. Prices would certainly be
considered 'stable' if homes never changed
hands, wouldn't they? <chuckle>
I suggest you pinkos try taking a class in basic
economics, which is a bit more advanced than
what Karl and Freddy dabbled in. Oh, and would
you please _pass_ it before shooting off your yaps?
T'would save us all a lot of time, you'd save being
shown up as a fool, and (for your sake) we adults
would forgo the entertainment and ego-boo you
selflessly provide, Coburn.
--
All excuses for socialism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
Doug Daly
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:17:36 GMT, "Doug Daly"
> <doug...@xxxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Those damn Europeans walk everywhere.
> >Those Europeans can't walk 3 steps without smoking a cigarette. Ask for
the
> >non-smoking section in a restaurant in Europe -- it'll get a good laugh.
>
> You'd be very hard pushed in the UK to find a restaurant *without* a
> non-smoking area. Indeed there are a growing number of exclusively
> non-smoking restaurants and bars in the UK.
>
do NOT have a smoking section?
> >How well do we compare w/ Europe on infant mortality and life expectancy
> >when you only count the middle class on up? It would be interesting if
they
> >were a lot closer as now you're talking about groups that all have access
to
> >health care (for the most part) 'from cradle to grave'.
>
> The European diet tends to have far less saturated fat hence the lower
> mortality rates.
Suppose so, but I'd like to know if such information is available. Then
again, since the only people w/ good oral hygiene in the UK are American
tourists, I envison a huge population of Brits dieing of trenchmouth. :)
Regards,
Doug
Paul Fritz
"Doug Daly" <doug...@xxxsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8LRx9.965$L82.33...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
The last time I checked the lifespan rates, the U.S. fell in the middle of
the various European countries......and the percentage difference...except
for a couple of contries was insignificant.
>
> Regards,
>
> Doug
>
>