nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:57:56 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>>LOL, that's total bollocks, MIxi, and you know it. nobody "saves
    >>>up", they use credit, I could buy a TVs out of my pension every
    >>>month and hardly notice.
    >>You must live in a big house :-)
    >Or a TV shop :-)

in Dorchester, not that one :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:57:56 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>>and most people on income support have a TV, I love the way Mixi
    >>>says "colour TV" as if anybody has B&W.
    >>Somebody must have one they sill B&W TV licenses in UK.
    >I have one, a 2" model for camping.

I bet you wish it was larger :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:01:49 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> Following up to [email protected]
    >>>>In the USA? New houses have become gigantic, freakishly so. I think it's
    >>>>because everyone is afraid to go outside anymore, so they need to enclose
    >>>>enough space to live out their lives in. Ditto with the freaskishly large
    >>>>vehicles.
    >>>In parts of Europe they are running out of building land, this
    >>>constrains the size of houses.
    >> Its perhaps more a matter of not wishing to encourage sprawl. UK
    >> is one of the more crowded countries but seen from the air there
    >> is masses of available land. However, we do not wish to spread
    >> houses all over the countryside, particularly the "green belt"
    >> round London. So house size has to be constrained.
    >It's a matter of simple economics. A house builder can built one big house
    >on a plot of land and get £200,000 for it, or he can build three smaller
    >ones and get £100,000 each, which is he going to do?!

until recently in UK build three £100,000 houses and sell them for
£200,000 each.
--
Martin

Kim Dyer

    >> ... Lucky in some ways, unlucky in others. Europeans still think they've
    >> ... accomplished great things if they can buy a color TV after saving up
    >for
    >> ... ten years.

Hmmmm. Someone hasn't been outside of the former Soviet bloc in about 15 years.
-- Kimbis

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:03:40 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:11:40 +0100, The Reids
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Following up to Mxsmanic
    >>>>In France, it would take me almost a month's pay to buy a color TV, and
    >>>>that's only if I had nothing else to pay for.
    >>>so you earn about £300 a month?
    >> So much? More like £100 or less.
    >£300 will get you a nice widescreen set tho. Which is what most people would
    >refer to. If you are talking about a portable then personally I could get
    >one of those with one days wages.

a whole day? The amount earned while standing at the coffee machine is
enough. :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:04:18 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:11:41 +0100, The Reids
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Following up to Jim Ley
    >>>>and a 20" a weeks income support, now obviously if you're actually on
    >>>>income support you're not necessarily able to spend all of it on a TV,
    >>>>but it shows how it's not an expensive luxury.
    >>>and most people on income support have a TV, I love the way Mixi
    >>>says "colour TV" as if anybody has B&W.
    >> Somebody must have one they sill B&W TV licenses in UK.
    >There is no B&W TV licence, disappeared quite some time ago.

not that long ago, a B&W license was still an option 3 years ago.

--
Martin

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:05:39 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> [email protected] writes:
    >>> I thought all were.
    >> In France you work 35-hour weeks, and you get typically 6 weeks of
    >> vacation per year ... by law.
    >I work 35-40 hours per week and get 6 weeks vacation plus public holidays.
    >So I guess I'm working on the French model. That's cool, I like France :-)

and the French model that you are working on :-)

--
Martin

Kim Dyer

    >> And what _percentage_ of the total European population is that?

    >>Completely irrelevant.


HOW is that "irrelevant"? If one out of 10,000 wants to move, it's very
different from 1 in 10 wanting to move. Maybe 1 10,000 just like the weather
better in SoCal than on the Bering Sea.


-- Kimbis

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:04:18 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:11:41 +0100, The Reids
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Following up to Jim Ley
    >>>>and a 20" a weeks income support, now obviously if you're actually on
    >>>>income support you're not necessarily able to spend all of it on a TV,
    >>>>but it shows how it's not an expensive luxury.
    >>>and most people on income support have a TV, I love the way Mixi
    >>>says "colour TV" as if anybody has B&W.
    >> Somebody must have one they sill B&W TV licenses in UK.
    >There is no B&W TV licence, disappeared quite some time ago.

when did you last buy a TV license?

BOING!

Wrong.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/pre...ms127_2003.htm
Tessa Jowell Announces TV Licence Fees for 2004 - 2005

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell,
today announced the television licence fee increases effective from 1
April 2004. A colour licence will cost £121.00 and a black and white
licence will cost £40.50.

The rate of increase is set according to the formula announced by the
Government in February 2000, following a report on the future funding
of the BBC by an independent review panel.

Tessa Jowell announced the changes today in a written statement to the
House of Commons. She said:


"The television licence fee settlement announced by the Government
in February 2000 provides for changes in the licence fee of RPI plus
1.5 per cent for each year from 2000-2001 to 2006-2007. This
settlement is designed to enable the BBC to provide a strong and
distinctive schedule of high quality programmes and remain at the
forefront of broadcasting technology. The settlement includes a
requirement for the Corporation to raise around £1.1 billion through
efficiency savings and increased income over the same period.

"Application of the RPI figure of 2.8% for the year to September
2003, plus 1.5%, to the current unrounded licence fees produces new
rounded totals of £121.00 for a colour licence and £40.50 for a black
and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into
force will be laid before the House in due course. The changes will
come into effect from the 1 April next year."




--
Martin

N

"js" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] nk.net>...
    > > In the UK we get 4 to 5 weeks paid leave plus public holidays . Other
    > > countries like France get 5 to 6 weeks plus public holidays. Plus
    > > they only work 35 hours per week yet they are one of the most
    > > productive countries in the world.
    > >
    > > If this is true about the US, how can the average American live under
    > > such a system and not lose their mind???
    >
    > Why do you think the murder rate is so high over here? :-D

The good news is that it's declining and has been for many years,
perhaps due to the aging population. although with Bush letting the
assault-weapons ban expire, we could see an upswing.

nitram

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:34:38 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:25:20 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>I suppose that you are saying take-home wage after deductions for taxes
    >>& insurance.
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:32:09 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>D. Lloyd writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>People in Europe are very lucky.
    >>>>Lucky in some ways, unlucky in others. Europeans still think they've
    >>>>accomplished great things if they can buy a color TV after saving up for
    >>>>ten years.
    >Where in Europe would this be precicely.

Albania?


--
Martin

N

"me" <nospamhere> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > "Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:26:44 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, "me"
    > <nospamhere> arranged some
    > > electrons, so they looked like this :

(snip)

    >I myself have
    > never been out for more than two days at a time. But it does mean that a
    > lot of people go to work sick, and end up making others sick.

I'm in the US. I'll eventually need surgery and my MD tells me to plan
to take 2 weeks off from work. I work by the hour and won't get paid
for that time, and I also pay for my own health insurance. I make
enough money to be OK, but this would be a nightmare for anyone being
paid a low wage. (See Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed.") As it
is, I'm postponing the surgery indefinitely.

    >It also means
    > you try and find a doctor / dentist with evening and weekend hours.

Yep.

    > One of the worst policies I've seen is for people that take maternity leave
    > (and this was the policy for the last two companies I worked for, I don't
    > know how prevalent it is). They would get x amount of time (unpaid) for
    > family leave. But before that time kicks in, the time off FIRST comes out
    > of their accrued vacation and personal time off days. So if they have a
    > week of vacation accrued before they go on leave, the first week of leave is
    > counted as their vacation. So a person coming off of leave under that
    > policy comes back to work with zero days accrued for personal time off, one
    > would think with a new baby, that would be the time you'd want to have a few
    > days of personal time stashed.

I've read a study that showed that the more supportive and generous an
employer is to new moms, the sooner they come back to work. Stingy
employers lose. Somewhat counterintuitive, I realize, but it makes
more sense to lure back experienced employees when they need time off.

    > Again, just my experience from the places I've worked. YMMV

It can be much worse, especially for the many Americans who work by
the hour and are among the 40 million with no health insurance.

N

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > me writes:
    >
    > > one
    > > would think with a new baby, that would be the time you'd want to have a few
    > > days of personal time stashed.
    >
    > Having a baby is a personal choice and voluntary;

Not exactly. It's a normal part of life and it shouldn't be treated by
employers as a vacation or sick leave. Most Americans grow up, marry,
and

Interestingly, employers with a supportive attitude towards new moms
get the moms back at their jobs sooner, so the employer comes out
ahead in the end.

Speaking as a parent myself, I'll say that parenthood is such a
watershed event in anyone's life that many (most? all?) parents
reassess things and look at things differently, because a child gives
most parents a new and higher priority. Therefore, parents may
reassess their job situation and be less likely to go back to work at
a place that doesn't support parents well. If employers seem less
loyal and supportive to employees as they go through normal life
events, such as becoming a parent, employees are less likely to be
loyal and supportive to the employer, IME.

    >it's not an illness.

Correct. It's as normal as breathing and living.

Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to Frank F. Matthews

    >>A fair description would be that most workers in the US get 2 weeks
    >>vacation per year starting at about 6 months with an employer until
    >>something like 5-10 years. It will then go up to 3 weeks until about 15
    >>years employment. After which it will top out at about 4 weeks per year
    >>of vacation. The number of paid holidays will run from 8 or 10 possibly
    >>up to 15 per year. Usually any unused vacation time will accrue up to
    >>2-3 times annual at which time any additional is lost. There are more
    >>stringent arrangements and more liberal ones but I think this is a fair
    >>average.

    > I assume that people change jobs a few times, so spend most of
    > their working life near the minimum?

Some do and some don't. I changed a bit at first but have had my
current employer for 30 years.

Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to Rod Speed

    >>>Ive been given the impression US workforce is very mobile
    >>>and change jobs and location much more than Europeans?

    >>Irrelevant when most get 2 weeks in that 2-5 years.

    > you are very fond of saying "irrelevant". Are you saying getting
    > the derisory amount of two weeks off before 5 years makes the
    > matter of starting again from zero "irrelevant"?

Not irrelevant but simply one of the things to consider when thinking of
changing jobs. Usually not one of the major considerations.