Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Oct 30th 2004, 2:26 pm
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.
Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
(if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.
Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
(if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
Oct 30th 2004, 2:37 pm
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Rod Speed wrote:
> "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>That is just plain wrong, most obviously with Japan.
>>>>No it is not.
>>>Yes it is.
>>>>Do some homework.
>>>Dont need to.
>>Yeah, you do. Your opinion just doesn't make it so Sparky.
> You carefully deleting all the massive holes pointed out in
> the crap you quoted cuts no mustard what so ever, Sary.
If you are referring to the supposed arithmetic you mentioned about the
average vacation consider that Sara may well be referring to the median
vacation instead of the mean vacation. Given the volatility of the
distribution of vacation time that would be the proper measure of
central tendency or average.
>>http://japanupdate.com/en/?id=4942
>>http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.2/aid.1940/column.htm
>>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/077.html
>>http://www.shalomctr.org/freeourtime/labor03.html
>>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...ays_noovertime
>
>
> Completely useless on the particular silly claim you made,
> that the average for the US is 2 weeks vacation.
>
>
>>>>"In 1996, Americans surpassed the Japanese in our long work hours, becoming
>>>>the workaholics of the world."
>
>
>>>Just another journo spewing without even a cite to backup that claim.
>
>
>>And you're just another Usenet poster spewing without even a cite to back up
>>your claims.
>
>
> Dont need to with the basic maths that I rubbed your
> nose in and you carefully deleted from that quoting.
>
>
>>Let's see 'em.
>
>
> You just deleted the basic maths I rubbed your nose in.
>
>
> "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>That is just plain wrong, most obviously with Japan.
>>>>No it is not.
>>>Yes it is.
>>>>Do some homework.
>>>Dont need to.
>>Yeah, you do. Your opinion just doesn't make it so Sparky.
> You carefully deleting all the massive holes pointed out in
> the crap you quoted cuts no mustard what so ever, Sary.
If you are referring to the supposed arithmetic you mentioned about the
average vacation consider that Sara may well be referring to the median
vacation instead of the mean vacation. Given the volatility of the
distribution of vacation time that would be the proper measure of
central tendency or average.
>>http://japanupdate.com/en/?id=4942
>>http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.2/aid.1940/column.htm
>>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/077.html
>>http://www.shalomctr.org/freeourtime/labor03.html
>>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...ays_noovertime
>
>
> Completely useless on the particular silly claim you made,
> that the average for the US is 2 weeks vacation.
>
>
>>>>"In 1996, Americans surpassed the Japanese in our long work hours, becoming
>>>>the workaholics of the world."
>
>
>>>Just another journo spewing without even a cite to backup that claim.
>
>
>>And you're just another Usenet poster spewing without even a cite to back up
>>your claims.
>
>
> Dont need to with the basic maths that I rubbed your
> nose in and you carefully deleted from that quoting.
>
>
>>Let's see 'em.
>
>
> You just deleted the basic maths I rubbed your nose in.
>
>
Oct 30th 2004, 2:41 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>> state and local governments.
>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
>companies for 10 years these days?
According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
comes to switching jobs.
>The average American worker gets two weeks and it does not mean only
>entry-level workers. That statement is correct.
That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.
>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>You are incorrect.
My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.
>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>> state and local governments.
>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
>companies for 10 years these days?
According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
comes to switching jobs.
>The average American worker gets two weeks and it does not mean only
>entry-level workers. That statement is correct.
That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.
>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>You are incorrect.
My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.
Oct 30th 2004, 3:02 pm
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Rod Speed wrote:
> "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the
>>>>>>US is ahead of Japan.
>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>Is that right ?
>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>Really?
> Yes, really.
>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
> You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
Actually it does appear to imply what she says. There are two problems
with the OECD report. The primary one is that it includes all workers
not just those working full time. Strangely, I would expect that to
reduce the relative work time for the US compared to the rest of the
world. The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it
somewhat out of date. The trends, however, do not appear to have
reversed in other reports so the relative position should be similar.
I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the
report isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to
the OECD report that they were using?
The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite
comparable to the Economist graph. It interesting though. The
difference in Japanese hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the
last millennium. By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until
now Japan & the US were trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do
appear to be about a day and a half ahead. It is interesting stuff. I
suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes in the use of part
time employment. I may try to look at the sources to see if they are
properly accounting for the possibility that part timers may have
multiple jobs and were the hours properly aggregated.
> "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the
>>>>>>US is ahead of Japan.
>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>Is that right ?
>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>Really?
> Yes, really.
>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
> You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
Actually it does appear to imply what she says. There are two problems
with the OECD report. The primary one is that it includes all workers
not just those working full time. Strangely, I would expect that to
reduce the relative work time for the US compared to the rest of the
world. The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it
somewhat out of date. The trends, however, do not appear to have
reversed in other reports so the relative position should be similar.
I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the
report isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to
the OECD report that they were using?
The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite
comparable to the Economist graph. It interesting though. The
difference in Japanese hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the
last millennium. By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until
now Japan & the US were trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do
appear to be about a day and a half ahead. It is interesting stuff. I
suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes in the use of part
time employment. I may try to look at the sources to see if they are
properly accounting for the possibility that part timers may have
multiple jobs and were the hours properly aggregated.
Oct 30th 2004, 3:02 pm
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
In article <[email protected]. net>,
nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>> state and local governments.
>And in today's Bush environment, working for a single company for
>ten years is almost impossible.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, 31% of workers age 25 or
over have been with their current employer for at least ten years.
If anything, BLS is undercounting, because a lot of college graduates
don't start working until they are 22 or 23, and don't accumulate 10
years of tenure until they are 32.
>Being laid-off is quite common.
Apparently, it's less common than you think. I wonder why.
nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>> state and local governments.
>And in today's Bush environment, working for a single company for
>ten years is almost impossible.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, 31% of workers age 25 or
over have been with their current employer for at least ten years.
If anything, BLS is undercounting, because a lot of college graduates
don't start working until they are 22 or 23, and don't accumulate 10
years of tenure until they are 32.
>Being laid-off is quite common.
Apparently, it's less common than you think. I wonder why.
Oct 30th 2004, 3:16 pm
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite
>comparable to the Economist graph. It interesting though. The
>difference in Japanese hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the
>last millennium. By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until
>now Japan & the US were trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do
>appear to be about a day and a half ahead. It is interesting stuff. I
>suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes in the use of part
>time employment.
Actually, the drop in average annual worked hours in Japan since 1990
is highly correlated with their economic troubles. Expect the hours
to go up as their economy is improving.
In any case, looking at the number for the US, Australia and Japan, it
appears that the only place in the first world where government-mandated
laziness has taken hold is Europe. It's been more than 150 years since
Bastiat debunked the lump-of-labor fallacy, but European governments
never learn.
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite
>comparable to the Economist graph. It interesting though. The
>difference in Japanese hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the
>last millennium. By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until
>now Japan & the US were trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do
>appear to be about a day and a half ahead. It is interesting stuff. I
>suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes in the use of part
>time employment.
Actually, the drop in average annual worked hours in Japan since 1990
is highly correlated with their economic troubles. Expect the hours
to go up as their economy is improving.
In any case, looking at the number for the US, Australia and Japan, it
appears that the only place in the first world where government-mandated
laziness has taken hold is Europe. It's been more than 150 years since
Bastiat debunked the lump-of-labor fallacy, but European governments
never learn.
Oct 30th 2004, 3:32 pm
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:57:33 GMT, Phyl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jacques Chirac wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When an American friend told me people in the US only have two weeks
>>>of paid leave PER YEAR I could scarcely believe it. He said yeah but
>>>we get paid public holidays.
>>>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???
>>>Life can't all be about work. It seems such a system would breed
>>>highly neurotic and hysterical people. I wouldn't want to live like
>>>that no matter how much they paid me.
>>
>>
>> Everybody around the world knows that Americans are highly neurotic
>> and hysterical - and now you have discovered the reason.
>>
>> Americans live to work. The rest of the people in the world work to
>> live.
>>
>> Americans don't have enough vacation time to travel to other countries
>> and see how other people live so they think they live in "the best
>> country in the world" and other such propaganda that their government
>> feeds them. They don't know that many millions of people live better,
>> especially in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, etc.
>>
>> Americans are ignorant and their government likes it that way, it
>> makes it easier to brainwash them.
>My husband gets six weeks of vacation, I get four.
>Not ignorant, not brainwashed. Next?
So you are government workers then ??
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jacques Chirac wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When an American friend told me people in the US only have two weeks
>>>of paid leave PER YEAR I could scarcely believe it. He said yeah but
>>>we get paid public holidays.
>>>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???
>>>Life can't all be about work. It seems such a system would breed
>>>highly neurotic and hysterical people. I wouldn't want to live like
>>>that no matter how much they paid me.
>>
>>
>> Everybody around the world knows that Americans are highly neurotic
>> and hysterical - and now you have discovered the reason.
>>
>> Americans live to work. The rest of the people in the world work to
>> live.
>>
>> Americans don't have enough vacation time to travel to other countries
>> and see how other people live so they think they live in "the best
>> country in the world" and other such propaganda that their government
>> feeds them. They don't know that many millions of people live better,
>> especially in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, etc.
>>
>> Americans are ignorant and their government likes it that way, it
>> makes it easier to brainwash them.
>My husband gets six weeks of vacation, I get four.
>Not ignorant, not brainwashed. Next?
So you are government workers then ??
Oct 30th 2004, 4:00 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with Japan.
>>>>> No it is not.
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>> Do some homework.
>>>> Dont need to.
>>> Yeah, you do. Your opinion just doesn't make it so Sparky.
>> You carefully deleting all the massive holes pointed out in
>> the crap you quoted cuts no mustard what so ever, Sary.
> If you are referring to the supposed arithmetic you mentioned about the
> average vacation consider that Sara may well be referring to the median
> vacation instead of the mean vacation.
Nope. Those cites were ALL to mass market media articles, and few
journos in rags like that can even manage the concept of a median.
Sara just mindlessly respouted what was said in those,
and most of those articles had basic math howlers in
them you could drive an aircraft carrier thru.
> Given the volatility of the distribution of vacation time that would be the
> proper measure of central tendency or average.
Sure, and thats why an operation like The Economist is a vastly
more viable source than those silly rags she actually cited on that.
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in634664.shtml
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyl...tion0824p1.asp
>> http://money.howstuffworks.com/benefits3.htm
>> http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...ts/6049680.htm
>> http://www.commonground.ca/iss/04101...9_Europe.shtml
in message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with Japan.
>>>>> No it is not.
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>> Do some homework.
>>>> Dont need to.
>>> Yeah, you do. Your opinion just doesn't make it so Sparky.
>> You carefully deleting all the massive holes pointed out in
>> the crap you quoted cuts no mustard what so ever, Sary.
> If you are referring to the supposed arithmetic you mentioned about the
> average vacation consider that Sara may well be referring to the median
> vacation instead of the mean vacation.
Nope. Those cites were ALL to mass market media articles, and few
journos in rags like that can even manage the concept of a median.
Sara just mindlessly respouted what was said in those,
and most of those articles had basic math howlers in
them you could drive an aircraft carrier thru.
> Given the volatility of the distribution of vacation time that would be the
> proper measure of central tendency or average.
Sure, and thats why an operation like The Economist is a vastly
more viable source than those silly rags she actually cited on that.
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in634664.shtml
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyl...tion0824p1.asp
>> http://money.howstuffworks.com/benefits3.htm
>> http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...ts/6049680.htm
>> http://www.commonground.ca/iss/04101...9_Europe.shtml
Oct 30th 2004, 4:27 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>> I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>> ahead of Japan.
>>>>>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>> Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>> Is that right ?
>>>>> The ILO says otherwise.
>>>> The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>> I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>> Really?
>> Yes, really.
>>> Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>> You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
> Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
> There are two problems with the OECD report.
The main problem with that particular one is
that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
> The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
> time.
Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
on the particular issue being discussed.
> Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
> compared to the rest of the world.
Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
> The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
> of date.
Completely useless in fact when the Economist
article uses much more current data.
> The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
> relative position should be similar.
Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
> I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
> countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
> isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
> report that they were using?
Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
> The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
> the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese hours
> was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has seen.
> By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
> trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
> a half ahead.
My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
God knows how you actually get much of a handle
on the actual hours worked in that situation.
We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
> It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
> in the use of part time employment.
To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
> I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
> the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
> properly aggregated.
Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>> I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>> ahead of Japan.
>>>>>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>> Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>> Is that right ?
>>>>> The ILO says otherwise.
>>>> The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>> I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>> Really?
>> Yes, really.
>>> Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>> You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
> Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
> There are two problems with the OECD report.
The main problem with that particular one is
that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
> The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
> time.
Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
on the particular issue being discussed.
> Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
> compared to the rest of the world.
Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
> The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
> of date.
Completely useless in fact when the Economist
article uses much more current data.
> The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
> relative position should be similar.
Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
> I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
> countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
> isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
> report that they were using?
Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
> The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
> the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese hours
> was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has seen.
> By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
> trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
> a half ahead.
My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
God knows how you actually get much of a handle
on the actual hours worked in that situation.
We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
> It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
> in the use of part time employment.
To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
> I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
> the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
> properly aggregated.
Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:42 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:41:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>>> state and local governments.
>>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
>>companies for 10 years these days?
> According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
> of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
> know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
> or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
> salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
> they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
> in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
> comes to switching jobs.
That's a joke.
You should talk to all the highly qualified software engineers in
Silicon valley who can't find a job.
>>The average American worker gets two weeks and it does not mean only
>>entry-level workers. That statement is correct.
> That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
> the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
> and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
> includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
> all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.
>>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
>>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>You are incorrect.
> My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
> can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
> a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
> ``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.
(Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
>>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
>>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
>>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
>>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
>>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
>>> state and local governments.
>>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
>>companies for 10 years these days?
> According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
> of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
> know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
> or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
> salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
> they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
> in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
> comes to switching jobs.
That's a joke.
You should talk to all the highly qualified software engineers in
Silicon valley who can't find a job.
>>The average American worker gets two weeks and it does not mean only
>>entry-level workers. That statement is correct.
> That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
> the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
> and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
> includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
> all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.
>>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
>>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>You are incorrect.
> My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
> can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
> a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
> ``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:46 pm
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>
>>Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.
>>
> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
> to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
>
Could you provide a link to cite please?
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
>In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>
>>Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.
>>
> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
> to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
>
Could you provide a link to cite please?
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
Oct 30th 2004, 4:52 pm
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
>> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
>> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
>> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
>> to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
>Could you provide a link to cite please?
http://www.economist.com/printeditio...ory_ID=3109465
But I suspect you won't be able to read it unless you are a subscriber.
It's this year's August 21 issue with a belching dragon on the cover.
>> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
>> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
>> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
>> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
>> to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
>Could you provide a link to cite please?
http://www.economist.com/printeditio...ory_ID=3109465
But I suspect you won't be able to read it unless you are a subscriber.
It's this year's August 21 issue with a belching dragon on the cover.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:58 pm
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Rod Speed wrote:
>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>>>ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>Is that right ?
>>>>>
>
>>>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>>>
>
>>>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>>>
>
>>>>Really?
>>>>
>
>>>Yes, really.
>>>
>
>>>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>>>
>
>>>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>>>
>
>>Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
>>
>Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
>Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
>say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
>
>>There are two problems with the OECD report.
>>
>The main problem with that particular one is
>that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
>
>>The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
>>time.
>>
>Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
>on the particular issue being discussed.
>
>>Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
>>compared to the rest of the world.
>>
>Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
>much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
>
>>The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
>>of date.
>>
>Completely useless in fact when the Economist
>article uses much more current data.
>
>>The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
>>relative position should be similar.
>>
>Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
>
>>I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
>>countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
>>isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
>>report that they were using?
>>
>Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
>I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
>did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
>
>>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
>>the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese hours
>>was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
>>
>Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has seen.
>
>>By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
>>trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
>>a half ahead.
>>
>My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
>aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
>salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
>God knows how you actually get much of a handle
>on the actual hours worked in that situation.
>We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
>shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
>are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
>
>>It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
>>in the use of part time employment.
>>
>To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
>situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
>God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
>to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
>
>>I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
>>the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
>>properly aggregated.
>>
>Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
>
Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off
your own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made
with any real citation. How odd.
Could you please provide a link to your sources? Your credibility is in
doubt. Since you feel the data is too old, please provide at least two
or three recent sources that support your opinions.
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>>>ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>Is that right ?
>>>>>
>
>>>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>>>
>
>>>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>>>
>
>>>>Really?
>>>>
>
>>>Yes, really.
>>>
>
>>>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>>>
>
>>>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>>>
>
>>Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
>>
>Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
>Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
>say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
>
>>There are two problems with the OECD report.
>>
>The main problem with that particular one is
>that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
>
>>The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
>>time.
>>
>Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
>on the particular issue being discussed.
>
>>Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
>>compared to the rest of the world.
>>
>Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
>much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
>
>>The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
>>of date.
>>
>Completely useless in fact when the Economist
>article uses much more current data.
>
>>The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
>>relative position should be similar.
>>
>Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
>
>>I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
>>countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
>>isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
>>report that they were using?
>>
>Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
>I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
>did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
>
>>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
>>the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese hours
>>was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
>>
>Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has seen.
>
>>By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
>>trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
>>a half ahead.
>>
>My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
>aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
>salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
>God knows how you actually get much of a handle
>on the actual hours worked in that situation.
>We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
>shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
>are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
>
>>It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
>>in the use of part time employment.
>>
>To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
>situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
>God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
>to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
>
>>I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
>>the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
>>properly aggregated.
>>
>Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
>
Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off
your own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made
with any real citation. How odd.
Could you please provide a link to your sources? Your credibility is in
doubt. Since you feel the data is too old, please provide at least two
or three recent sources that support your opinions.
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
Oct 30th 2004, 4:59 pm
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
Rod Speed wrote:
>"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>"
>>>
>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the
>>>>>>US is ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>
>>>Is that right ?
>>>
>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>
>
>>Really?
>>
>Yes, really.
>
>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>
>
>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>
>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>
You appear to be Rod Slow.
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
>"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>"
>>>
>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the
>>>>>>US is ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>
>>>Is that right ?
>>>
>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>
>
>>Really?
>>
>Yes, really.
>
>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>
>
>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>
>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>
You appear to be Rod Slow.
--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
Oct 30th 2004, 5:24 pm
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AMERICANS ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR???
"Sara" <[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
>>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>>>>ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>>>Is that right ?
>>>>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>>>Really?
>>>>Yes, really.
>>>>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>>>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>>>Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
>>Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
>>Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
>>say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
>>>There are two problems with the OECD report.
>>The main problem with that particular one is
>>that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
>>>The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
>>>time.
>>Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
>>on the particular issue being discussed.
>>>Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
>>>compared to the rest of the world.
>>Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
>>much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
>>>The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
>>>of date.
>>Completely useless in fact when the Economist
>>article uses much more current data.
>>>The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
>>>relative position should be similar.
>>Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
>>>I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
>>>countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
>>>isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
>>>report that they were using?
>>Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
>>I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
>>did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
>>>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
>>>the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese
>>>hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
>>Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has
>>seen.
>>>By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
>>>trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
>>>a half ahead.
>>My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
>>aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
>>salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
>>God knows how you actually get much of a handle
>>on the actual hours worked in that situation.
>>We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
>>shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
>>are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
>>>It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
>>>in the use of part time employment.
>>To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
>>situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
>>God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
>>to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
>>>I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
>>>the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
>>>properly aggregated.
>>Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
> Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off your
> own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made
I made no assertion whatever when I rubbed your nose in the
massive math holes in the silly journalist crap you waved around.
> with any real citation.
Dont need one when pointing out the massive math
holes in the silly journalist crap you waved around.
> How odd.
How pathetic in your case. Even you should be able
to manage better than this pathetically hoary old line.
> Could you please provide a link to your sources?
Same sources YOU cited, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Your credibility is in doubt.
Pathetic, really. Even you should be able to
manage better than this pathetically hoary old line.
> Since you feel the data is too old,
It obviously is if you actually read the OECD
pdf you waved around with Japan.
> please provide at least two or three recent sources that support your
> opinions.
Dont need to, what Vitaly has already cited will do me fine.
Even you should be able to check his cite on the economist site.
> --
> "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across
> this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>Sara <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
>>>>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the US is
>>>>>>>>>ahead of Japan.
>>>>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
>>>>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
>>>>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
>>>>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
>>>>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
>>>>>>Is that right ?
>>>>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
>>>>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
>>>>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
>>>>>Really?
>>>>Yes, really.
>>>>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
>>>>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
>>>Actually it does appear to imply what she says.
>>Nope. It isnt even the appropriate OECD table that
>>Vitaly mentioned. Thats where she lied. Sorry, I did
>>say that rather too carelessly the first time around.
>>>There are two problems with the OECD report.
>>The main problem with that particular one is
>>that the data is ancient, particularly with Japan.
>>>The primary one is that it includes all workers not just those working full
>>>time.
>>Yeah, so its essentially completely useless
>>on the particular issue being discussed.
>>>Strangely, I would expect that to reduce the relative work time for the US
>>>compared to the rest of the world.
>>Dunno, the mix of full and part time doesnt change all that
>>much world wide in the particular countrys being discussed.
>>>The other is that ot only includes data thru 1996 which makes it somewhat out
>>>of date.
>>Completely useless in fact when the Economist
>>article uses much more current data.
>>>The trends, however, do not appear to have reversed in other reports so the
>>>relative position should be similar.
>>Unlikely given what the Economist had to say on that.
>>>I did manage to look up the Economist article and it does put about 5
>>>countries at pretty much the same point. However, the quality of the report
>>>isn't discernible from the article. Do you have any reference to the OECD
>>>report that they were using?
>>Fraid not. I did have a quick look, and basically gave up, because
>>I doubt the Economist would have mangled that story and if they
>>did, plenty would have pointed that out by now.
>>>The one that I found doesn't appear to be returning data quite comparable to
>>>the Economist graph. It interesting though. The difference in Japanese
>>>hours was eroding rapidly toward the end of the last millennium.
>>Yeah, likely as a result of the severe recession/depression that Japan has
>>seen.
>>>By the last year of that millennium (2000) and until now Japan & the US were
>>>trading places for annual hours. The Aussies do appear to be about a day and
>>>a half ahead.
>>My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of the
>>aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
>>salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
>>God knows how you actually get much of a handle
>>on the actual hours worked in that situation.
>>We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
>>shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those hours
>>are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level of employee.
>>>It is interesting stuff. I suspect that the rapid shifts reflect the changes
>>>in the use of part time employment.
>>To some extent, tho its not a big feature of the japanese employment
>>situation and thats the one that has seen the biggest shifts.
>>God knows whats happened in china as they've finally come
>>to their senses and tossed communism in the bin forever.
>>>I may try to look at the sources to see if they are properly accounting for
>>>the possibility that part timers may have multiple jobs and were the hours
>>>properly aggregated.
>>Like I said, its unlikely that thats a major factor in japan.
> Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off your
> own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made
I made no assertion whatever when I rubbed your nose in the
massive math holes in the silly journalist crap you waved around.
> with any real citation.
Dont need one when pointing out the massive math
holes in the silly journalist crap you waved around.
> How odd.
How pathetic in your case. Even you should be able
to manage better than this pathetically hoary old line.
> Could you please provide a link to your sources?
Same sources YOU cited, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Your credibility is in doubt.
Pathetic, really. Even you should be able to
manage better than this pathetically hoary old line.
> Since you feel the data is too old,
It obviously is if you actually read the OECD
pdf you waved around with Japan.
> please provide at least two or three recent sources that support your
> opinions.
Dont need to, what Vitaly has already cited will do me fine.
Even you should be able to check his cite on the economist site.
> --
> "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across
> this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7
>
