Mika

"js" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] hlink.net>...
    > "Ted Ng" <ted_ng@[nospam].com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Informer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > <[email protected]> wrote i
    > > >
    > > >> Look at American foreign policy. If that's not neurotic I don't know
    > > >> what is. The neurosis percolates to all levels, which is why you'll
    > > >> find people defending the status quo but unable to dispute the facts.
    > > >> Take the fact that the average work year has increased in the U.S.
    > > >> while its decreased elsewhere. What's the reward to the average
    > > >> American worker? Outsourcing, reduction or loss of benefits, and more
    > > >> stress.
    > > >
    > > > Yeh who would want to be an American.
    > >
    > > About 2 million additional people each year.
    >
    > I believe the largest percentages of new arrivals to the U.S. in recent
    > years have been from the Philippines, Mexico, China and India. I hardly
    > think people arriving from these countries are taking a cut in pay, benefits
    > or overall standard of living to move to the U.S.

Careful now. Plenty of Mexican farmers move to the US only because as
small corn farmers they cannot compete with subsidized US corn, which
sells at US $30 per sack, while Mexicans cannot profit at below US
$50.

They have little choice but to move north. Farm subsidies are a
wonderful thing, aren't they?

M, MUC

Frank F. Matthews

Al wrote:

    > "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    >>Al wrote:

    >>>The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..

    >>>>Following up to Rod Speed
    >>>>>>it's actually very common for people with less than 2-5 years at a company to
    >>>>>>only get 1 week's vacation, and that isn't necessarily paid vacation.

    >>>>>Small subset of 'people in the US'
    >>>>Is it a small subset? Ive been given the impression US workforce
    >>>>is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
    >>>>Europeans?

    >>>I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse benefits/pay.
    >>But they may well change to worse benefits and better pay.

    > For instance contracting jobs that don't have any benefits where the
    > pay is so high it doesn't matter. In the end people most people switch
    > jobs for higher monetary compensation.

I must admit that I have trouble understanding that attitude though.
Early on I opted for a profession with lousy pay but a great environment
and good benefits. Now I look at folks who recommend finding a new job
for after you retire and I wonder why. If you wanted that job why
didn't you start a while ago.? If it's not better than your current job
why are you retiring?

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:34:39 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Why are you posting here then?

'Here' being 5 different newsgroups!

Aaah, the magic of crossposting!
---
DFM

Frank F. Matthews

Jane Sitton wrote:

    > Al wrote:
    >
    >> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:<[email protected]>. ..

    >>> Following up to Al

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

    >>>> I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse
    >>>> benefits/pay.

    >>> But do they change jobs for better pay/worse benefits?

    >> Or vice-versa. People don't just switch jobs for the hell of it, they
    >> are looking for something better.

    > I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
    > because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
    > in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
    > I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)

    > The new job I'm starting November 1st pays about the same, but the
    > health insurance is free, and there are more paid holidays.
    >
    > So while I didn't really get a raise, if you count the improved benefits
    > and getting away from a hateful person, I'd say it's better.
    > --Jane

The job environment is a big part of informal remuneration. Long ago I
opted for an area that does well on that.

Frank F. Matthews

Jane Sitton wrote:

    > Magda wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:38:40 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, The Reids
    >> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked
    >> like this :
    >> ... Following up to Mxsmanic ... ... >> 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.
    >> ... >
    >> ... >Parents have less time to devote to an employer than people without
    >> ... >children.
    >> ... ... so do you believe employers should choose staff without
    >> children
    >> ... over those without and ask at interviews if women plan to have a
    >> ... family?
    >> They should. But somehow they got this strange idea that a parent will
    >> be more committed
    >> to the job, for fear of losing it, having blah a family blah to feed
    >> blah blah. They could
    >> not be more wrong.
    >
    >
    > A parent is less likely to pull up roots and move, switching jobs at the
    > drop of a hat. Loyalty doesn't mean what it did thirty years ago, but I
    > overheard my boss saying she wasn't going to hire someone because it
    > seemed like the person would only stay for a couple of years.
    > --Jane

If this was the boss who you couldn't stand then that may have been good
for that person. Loyalty doesn't count because modern business
practices push against it. If you don't switch regularly you usually
get hit on your salary. The only place that it hurt was on developing a
retirement account. Now that defined contribution is becoming the norm
that is no longer a problem. In a bad economy folks tend to dig in. As
soon as we see any sort of upturn I expect that there will be massive
job shifts.

Frank F. Matthews

[email protected] wrote:

    > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:57:15 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>[email protected] wrote:

    >>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:19:05 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>>>Maybe France isn't typical, in UK and NL the banks try to stuff money
    >>>>>into your wallet. There's one UK bank currently offering to loan up
    >>>>>to 9 times a couples joint salary if they need money to buy a house.
    >>>>They must be praying that the property market will soar. There is no
    >>>>way that that mortgage is sustainable.

    >>>It's already soared and is now falling, anybody taking up the offer is
    >>>an idiot.

    >>As are the folks at that UK bank. They will loose a bundle an the
    >>loans. What are they thinking of.

    > the dole queues after their work is out sourced to the Far East

So you suspect that they are trying to bring the house down before they
are out sourced? Surely there's a manager somewhere who expects to stay
and who had to approve this strange plan.

Frank F. Matthews

Owain wrote:

    > MArtin wrote
    > | >> Maybe France isn't typical, in UK and NL the banks try to
    > | >> stuff money into your wallet. There's one UK bank currently
    > | >> offering to loan up to 9 times a couples joint salary if
    > | >> they need money to buy a house.
    > | >They must be praying that the property market will soar. There
    > | >is no way that that mortgage is sustainable.
    > | It's already soared and is now falling, anybody taking up the
    > | offer is an idiot.
    >
    > Although 9x salary sounds a lot, with the current ratio of house price to
    > earnings, it's still unlikely to be anything approaching a 100% mortgage in
    > some areas. The high income multiple is sustainable as long as (a) interest
    > rates (and thus monthly repayments) stay low, and (b) salary levels are
    > maintained. Indeed, provided there is equity left in the house (and that is
    > more the lender's concern, they make you take out insurance to cover their
    > risk) and the payments are affordable, the multiple of salary is fairly
    > meaningless.
    >
    > The big housing crash happened because (a) interest rates shot up *and* (b)
    > salaries (particularly city bonuses) dropped. A+B meant people couldn't keep
    > up their repayments, so tried to sell their houses, house prices fell and
    > because far too many mortgages were at or close to 100% of inflated values
    > there were many people trapped with negative equity.
    > Owain

But 9x salary means that even at a 5% mortgage you are probably over 50%
of salary for housing costs alone. Add in income tax and other living
costs and I don't see how this is sustainable.

Deep Frayed Morgues

On 29 Oct 2004 10:12:43 -0700, [email protected] (zach)
wrote:

    >Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    >> On 27 Oct 2004 15:38:25 -0700, [email protected] (zach)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Informer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> >> "Jane Sitton" <[email protected]> wrote
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> > There are no set laws that I know of regarding how much vacation a
    >> >> > company offers. Nowadays, many companies get around offering vacation
    >> >> > altogether by hiring only part-time employees.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > --Jane
    >> >>
    >> >> In the UK the absolote minimum the law allows is 4 weeks plus public
    >> >> holidays. I would not work for a company that offered less than 5 weeks.
    >> >
    >> >So are you proud to admit to being lazy in front of thousands of
    >> >people? Interesting...
    >>
    >> I believe this link says it all:
    >> http://www.google.com/[email protected]
    >Oooo, you searched out my posts on google, I didn't know you could
    >_do_ that, you outed me, man! <sarcasm>

Gotta love the way you have to specify sarcasm there. With a cool, dry
wit like that, you could be an American.

    >> You're part of a dying breed you know.
    >What's that, people who actually work for a living and don't expect
    >others to subsidize their laziness? Yeah, you're right, especiailly
    >with respect to corrupt socialist nations which are slowly dying from
    >within because they aren't breeding enough people to take care of
    >those who do not work.

...and meanwhile your corporations are milking you sad suckers for all
you are worth. Rest assured, they are much more resourceful at getting
your money that the lazy and the old.
---
DFM

Deep Frayed Morgues

On 29 Oct 2004 18:21:33 GMT, [email protected] (bogus address)
wrote:

    >>> ... **** that, I would rather be on a beach, walking the mountains,
    >>> ... boozing with someone in Swahililand, eating food that I can't
    >>> ... pronounce or just wasting an indefinite amount of time in some
    >>> ... paradisical tourist void somewhere in the developing world!
    >>> May I join the party ? :)
    >> Your most welcome! Next stint is in Armenia/Georgia/Azerbaijan in a
    >> few months time, with some luck. Apparently it's still part of Europe,
    >> but rarely gets discussed in this place. In fact you don't seem to
    >> here much about the area at all, which makes it sound very appealing
    >> to me!
    >If you find out the best way to get into Abkhazia without dealing with
    >Russia, let me know. The line in the guidebooks is that there's no sea
    >access, e.g. from Turkey, due to blockade. But I doubt if Georgia has
    >the naval wherewithal to blockade anything, so I remain insufficiently
    >discouraged. I should be able to check this out in Trabzon next year.

The last think I want to have to do is deal with the Russians in this
region. It could sadly end up on the 'too difficult' list, along with
Belarus.

I do still need to do more research, although getting up to date info
is proving difficult, much like all the troubled intersection parts of
the world.

    >Azerbaijan isn't part of Europe, the boundary is the Caucasus and it's
    >south of that.

OK, I knew the border of Europe was around there somewhere.
---
DFM

Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to "Ted Ng" <ted_ng@[nospam].com>
    >
    >
    >>>>The fact that so many people try to
    >>>>come here ruins the hateful myth that America isn't a good place to live.
    >>>poor people move from poor countries to rich countries if they
    >>>can, they probably don't worry or know about only getting 2 weeks
    >>>leave. We are discussing here US workers having worse benefits
    >>>than Europeans, it seems neither hateful or untrue.
    >>My objection is two things. I object to the turd from (I assume) Western
    >>Europe who believes Eastern Europeans are somehow "unworthy". You snipped
    >>that portion out:
    >
    >
    > I snipped the part about "shit holes" because I had nothing to
    > argue with in your response. I have no idea if that poster is
    > western european.
    >
    >
    >>>>From Eastern Europe. The USA only attracts
    >>>>immigrants from 2nd and 3rd world shit holes.
    >>I also object to the theme of this thread, that the US is a horrible place
    >>to live. There may be better places, but the fact that so many people
    >>literally die trying to get here proves that the US isn't a horrible place.
    >
    >
    > The theme here is that leave is poor in US.
    > That many try to get to US proves either it is rich or that
    > people believe they will get a better life there. We have the
    > same thing in Western Europe.
    >
    >
    >>>>And? Are they not Europeans? Are they somehow inferior to those in Western
    >>>>Europe?
    >>>they are much poorer, which is the point.
    >>So what? The US has always been a beacon for the poor. Give us your poor,
    >>your tired, your huddled masses. What's cool is after a generation they
    >>become fully Americanized and annoy their bigoted relatives back in the old
    >>country.

    > So what? They go because they are poor, as you now acknowledge,
    > not because western europe is "worse" than US or that they feel
    > their own eastern european culture is lacking. If they become
    > rich, good luck to them. (I am not a bigot BTW).

While that may be the reason for many folks who go it is certainly not
the sole reason. Some move because of job opportunities. Certainly
over the past few decades the US has obtained many academics from
disparate european places as the UK and Russia. Academic jobs in the US
have been far better for a while except at the very top.

Some folks move because they form a family with someone from abroad.
That may mean changing to the US although it may go the other way.

Some very noted and very rich US immigrants have arrived because the US
restricts the ownership of some kinds of properties.

In any case a statement that the US only attracts ... is almost
certainly wrong. The reasons and circumstances are too different.

Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to js

    >>>What would you think of this statement?:-
    >>>"90% of US people believe they live in the best country in the
    >>>world based on no first hand knowledge of another first world
    >>>country and little second hand knowledge".

    >>Many people would like to believe the place they come from or have lived in
    >>for most (or all) of their life is the best place in the world to live.
    >>This doesn't necessarily make it so.

    > I agree.

In the US that tends to be because if they don't feel that way they tend
to move on. When I started a new job with a bunch of others who were
also starting I could rapidly see who would stay. If they found things
to like they were staying if they were always noting how much better
things were where they came from they were going back in a year or two.

Frank F. Matthews

Rod Speed wrote:

    > "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:

    >>>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
    >>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>>>>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>Ted Ng <ted_ng@[nospam].com> writes
    >>>>>>>>>>>It sucks, but I see in the news that business conditions are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>forcing Europe to cut back on the extensive social welfare system.
    >>>>>>>>>>It will never regress to the American extreme.
    >>>>>>>>>We'll see, particularly now with countrys like
    >>>>>>>>>Turkey and Poland becoming part of the EU etc.
    >>>>>>>>Poland yes in the EU but it will be a
    >>>>>>>>long while, if ever, before Turkey joins.
    >>>>>>>I used the word like for a reason.
    >>>>>>Because you couldn't be specific?
    >>>>>Nope. Because I chose a couple of examples of countrys which *IF*
    >>>>>they ended up in the EU, would be likely to have a significant effect
    >>>>>on the extensive social welfare system being discussed.
    >>>>>>Just what country is 'like' Turkey or Poland?
    >>>>>Irrelevant question.
    >>>>You seem to consider every inconvenient question to be irrelevant.
    >>>Best get your seems machinery seen to then.
    >>>>You said that countries like Turkey & Poland were joining the EU.
    >>>I did nothing of the kind. I used the word LIKE for a reason.
    >>>And I do think its likely that Turkey will join the EU eventually,
    >>>now that it has joined NATO. And its countrys LIKE Poland and
    >>>Turkey that are likely to have the most effect on that extensive
    >>>social welfare system IN EUROPE originally being discussed.
    >>>>A response was made that it will be a long while until Turkey joins
    >>>Just your opinion.
    >>>>and your response was that you used the word like. The only interpretation I
    >>>>can see for your response is that there is a different country that is like
    >>>>Turkey and that is joining the EU.
    >>>More fool you. That is NOTHING like what I intended.
    >>>You get to like that or lump it.
    >>>>I would simply like to know what the country is?
    >>>I used Poland and Turkey for a reason.
    >>>You get to like that or lump that too.
    >>>>Or were you simply making up nonsense responses?
    >>>Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
    >>>of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
    >
    >
    >>Your statement was
    >>"We'll see, particularly now with countrys like
    >>Turkey and Poland becoming part of the EU etc."
    >
    >
    > Duh. And you were stupid enough to jump to the
    > completely unwarranted conclusion that I said that
    > Turkey is CURRENTLY part of the EU, which I never did.

No I understood that you were not saying that Turkey was CURRENTLY part
of the EU. However, I do not yet see any likelihood of Turkey BECOMING
part of the EU.

    >>Now, I'll give you that you said "becoming part of" rather than "joining" but
    >>I doubt that you can stretch that to anything.

    > Your doubts are your problem. Always have been, always will be.

    >>The only possibility for the word "like" is that you can find a country "like
    >>Turkey" that is becoming part of the EU.

So you would have been happy being interpreted as saying countries like
Poland and Russia becoming part of the EU? There is a very small but
negligible difference for the two with respect to the EU.

    > Wrong again. I ONLY meant like in the sense of a country that
    > does not currently have an extensive social welfare system.

    >>Now don't try to get out of your blunder by chickening out and running while
    >>screaming bullshit. Try to find a response.

    > Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
    > of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

Frank F. Matthews

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

    > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:48:00 +1000, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    >>message news:[email protected]...
    >>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:45:52 +0200, AJC <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:19:39 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
    >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:42:19 -0700, Richard Cline <[email protected]>
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>>>>"Informer" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>It is interesting that many of the best and brightest people immigrate
    >>>>>>to the US for their career betterment.
    >>>>>>Dick
    >>>>>And piles and piles of Americans come to Europe for their career
    >>>>>betterment. Just come to the expat community in my church.
    >>>>>Barb
    >>>>Indeed it is astonishing the number of Americans one finds living all
    >>>>over Europe, and loving it judging by those I encounter.
    >>>All over the world really. I have met Americans in some very out of
    >>>the way places that are in no hurry to return home whatsoever.
    >>Just as true of most european countrys too.

    > Oh absolutely. I just think that the original poster was implying it
    > was a one way street. All those europeans rushing to get away from
    > home to real civilization and never go back and all that........
    >
If I remember how this all got started it was a statement that only
those from shit holes were immigrating to the US.

Frank F. Matthews

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

    > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:07:19 GMT, john
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:19:51 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:43:03 GMT, john
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:09:38 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>john <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>Leave it to public employees to get 4 weeks vacation after only
    >>>>>>working 3 years.
    >>>>>>there are thousands of people employed by public agencies.
    >>>>>>This includes federal, state, county and city jobs.
    >>>>>>they are all feeding at the public trough.
    >>>>>>They add NOTHING to the GNP of the country.
    >>>>>>They are leeches on the backs of the tax payers working for private
    >>>>>>industry.
    >>>>>There's more to life than adding to the GNP.
    >>>>Yeah, so what?
    >>>>What are you saying?
    >>>>There are too many people working for government agencies.
    >>>Then perhaps you wont mind the next time you have to stand inline for
    >>>six hours instead of two to renew your driver's license??
    >>>>>miguel
    >>The government should be supporting those agencies that directly
    >>support the public.
    >>There are thousands of government workers at every level--federal,
    >>state, county,city whose jobs should be eliminated.
    >
    >
    > And so all the agencies that indirectly support the public should also
    > be eliminated?? What you really mean is that if the job doesnt
    > benefit you, personally, directly, you want it eliminated.
    >
    > Most government job support the public directly or indirectly. For
    > every in your face customer service job, there are about ten support
    > positions behind it.

For example the IRS and justice department could all go.

The Real Bev

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
    >
    > Al wrote:
    >
    > > "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >>Al wrote:
    >
    > >>>The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >>>>Following up to Rod Speed
    > >>>>>>it's actually very common for people with less than 2-5 years at a company to
    > >>>>>>only get 1 week's vacation, and that isn't necessarily paid vacation.
    >
    > >>>>>Small subset of 'people in the US'
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Is it a small subset? Ive been given the impression US workforce
    > >>>>is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
    > >>>>Europeans?
    >
    > >>>I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse benefits/pay.
    > >>
    > >>But they may well change to worse benefits and better pay.
    >
    > > For instance contracting jobs that don't have any benefits where the
    > > pay is so high it doesn't matter. In the end people most people switch
    > > jobs for higher monetary compensation.
    >
    > I must admit that I have trouble understanding that attitude though.
    > Early on I opted for a profession with lousy pay but a great environment
    > and good benefits. Now I look at folks who recommend finding a new job
    > for after you retire and I wonder why. If you wanted that job why
    > didn't you start a while ago.? If it's not better than your current job
    > why are you retiring?

I think you misunderstand. 1990 truth: In professional positions (and
maybe the lesser-paid ones too) if you stay at the same place your pay
drops behind the newly-hired people with less experience than you. Even
if you"re REALLY good. The way to maximize pay is to change companies
every two years, getting a significant kick upward in pay each time.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are, of course, exceptions.

I'd be willing to guess it's about the same now, except that there's no
expectation by anyone, manager or employee, that jobs will last even as
long as two years. Stay light on your feet and be prepared to jump when
you need to. Life is very different now.

I was amazed when I found out that somebody who worked for the Oz
government for a number of years could take several months of paid
vacation every year -- which she used to become a ski instructor in the
US. And we think that OUR unionized government workers are
overpaid/overholidayed!

--
Cheers, Bev
============================================
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens
to suck you out of your car.