Annual Leave

[chrisname]

Computergeek01 wrote:

why shouldn't we let them

Because it's not fair for someone to get free money specifically because they can't be asked to get a job while everyone else supports them. If they are unable to work because of disability, illness, mental illness, etc. then they should be kept in a fairly comfortable life by the government. If they currently don't have a job, then they get a choice - take whatever job the government has for you, or look for another job (in which case, the government will pay you an allowance (based on how much tax you have paid in your lifetime) until you find one). If they just don't want to work, then it isn't fair for everyone who puts up with it (or even enjoys it) to have to prop them up, no matter how meagre their government allowance. The other options are to arrest them for vagrancy (extreme), let them starve (very extreme) or give them free money (not fair on everyone else). The only viable option is to make them work (or you could conscript them into the army).

Computergeek01 wrote:

I don't think I should be forced to interact with the absolute dregs of society due to someone elses principles

You don't think you should be forced to interact with them, but you do think you should be forced to pay for them to sit around doing nothing?

[Disch]

but you do think you should be forced to pay for them to sit around doing nothing?

Well here's the segway...

Joe works a job and makes X dollars, but pays a percentage of it in taxes.

Biff doesn't have any job, but is given Y dollars by welfare or another such government program because there is no work available.

To keep this example simple, let's say that X and Y are comparable.

End result: Joe (and the rest of the tax paying workforce) end up paying for Biff, who has no job.

Obviously an unfair situation. What's more, it's also pretty common. So what's the solution?

The government's solution is to try and create more jobs so that Biff can get work. However this is totally retarded. If there's no work for him to do, why would you want to make up more work? That's pointless.

I propose Biff simply takes over half of Joe's job. Split shifts or whatever. Joe still gets payed X by his employer, Biff still makes Y from the government. But now Joe doesn't have to work as much, so he doesn't mind that some of his tax money is going to Biff.


The next thing to consider is Joe's employer. Maybe they prefer to have one dedicated employee instead of two "part time" employees. So you incentivise it. Tax breaks for each government provided employee that you take in. The government would basically be acting like a large temp agency, but would be in a better position to get people hired.

Of course, government jobs don't even need to be incentivised.


So what's different?
- Joe doesn't have to work as much (yay) and still makes a livable wage (yay)
- Biff has work (yay) and makes a livable wage (yay)
- Joe's employer gets tax breaks for supplying work to Biff (yay)
- No pointless new jobs created (yay)
- The government has to cough up some extra money to incentivate the employer (bad)
- The government, in a sense, is still paying Bill's paycheck (bad, sorta)

Really the only party put out here is the government. Everyone else is a winner. But the magic thing with the government is they have and endless supply of income called tax money! (joking, of course, I realize it isn't endless).

So taxes get hiked for everyone, and in exchange, people work less, and at the end of the day make enough money to live happily. The private sector can still run businesses the old fashioned way with full-time employees as long as they can find people willing to take the jobs.

- Can't find a job on your own? Pick one up from the gov't!
- Can't find an employee to fill that position you need? Get one from the gov't!


The "nasty" side effect of this (and I put "nasty" in quotes because I don't see it as a bad thing), is that the hightened taxes to the private sector and easier work conditions for governmental employees will result in a shift in the work force. The private sector will shrink, and the range of government jobs will grow.

Bad for the Rockefellers of society, but good for Joe Everyman.

What you're left with is basically Socialism. Nearly everything government run and regulated, high taxes, but still the option to be in the private sector if that's what you want.

[chrisname]

I like that solution, actually; it's quite smart. One problem: what if X and Y aren't comparable, i.e., X > Y (or even Y > X)?

[kbw]

Are you aware of what happened in France in recent years? Hours were capped and employers were pretty much forced to take on more workers to do the hours that the employed would do.

To make a long story short, everyone's demoralised and productivity is low. No one can be forced to do a good job, and no one wants to. What are you gonna do, fire them?

[Disch]

One problem: what if X and Y aren't comparable, i.e., X > Y (or even Y > X)?

X > Y: the easy answer here is just to say that Biff would get payed less. He would technically be a government employee, not an employee of the company. Just like a temp agency. Temps get paid less than actual employees. That's pretty standard.

Y > X: then Joe's employer sucks and he should consider quitting and getting a gov't job. Or he can choose to keep his existing job because he likes the certainty and familiarity of it and doesn't mind the lower wage.

The tricky bit is how the government supplies the temp workers. The whole appeal to the private sector would be that it's a free labor force. In that same vein, it can't possibly be a free labor force because that's unrealistic. So there would have to be rules in place... like...

- if you take a government employee, you must reduce the hours of one of your existing employees to match (or within a certain percentage) without reducing their wage.
or
- The government will only provide a workforce to match your existing workforce. IE: government won't give you more than X worth of labor. (Or within a certain percentage)

Hours were capped and employers were pretty much forced to take on more workers to do the hours that the employed would do.

That's a different thing entirely. The government intervention here is strictly optional from the private sector's perspective. If they don't want to participate, they don't have to.

The only non-optional part would be the tax increases. But businesses can adapt to that.

everyone's demoralised and productivity is low

I don't think that would happen here. People who were previously unable to get work now have work, and people who were trapped in 50 hr/week jobs suddenly have more free time. I think it would boost morality and productivity.

No one can be forced to do a good job, and no one wants to. What are you gonna do, fire them?

Yes. If you're a deadbeat and can't hold down a job, then yeah. You get fired. The government can try to put you somewhere else, but if they see on your file that you can't hold a job for longer than 2 months, then yeah, your ass is out on the street.

[sohguanh]

X > Y: the easy answer here is just to say that Biff would get payed less. He would technically be a government employee, not an employee of the company. Just like a temp agency. Temps get paid less than actual employees. That's pretty standard.

Y > X: then Joe's employer sucks and he should consider quitting and getting a gov't job. Or he can choose to keep his existing job because he likes the certainty and familiarity of it and doesn't mind the lower wage.

The above assume Y (Biff) can at least do some of the work of X (Joe) correct? Now the problem is for some specialized job say a doctor will require certain expertise correct? If Joe is a doctor and Biff has no medical training by any means he cannot effectively share Joe's work-load correct? The most Biff can do is to say work as a clerk or nurse to assist the doctor.

Now the clerk/nurse by itself is already a position already. So maybe Biff could share work-load with the existing clerk/nurse which will go well with your proposition.

But the problem is Joe work-load cannot be minimized since Biff cannot adequately help to cover some of Joe's doctors work. That is why, to solve the work-load sharing, upgrading the skill-sets of the unemployed is highly critical but yet for certain professions, you need certificates and authority.

So while your proposition may work for 'lesser' jobs it will not work for 'higher' jobs. And so most doctors have to still work longer hours. The solution to such like my country is to import doctors from overseas to alleviate this problem. It may or may not be the best solution.

PS I use doctor profession as an example. I can use programmer profession as an example too.

[sohguanh]

Muhahahahaha Bulgaria (my home country) has 20+12 days, and the Czech republic (where I work atm) has 4 weeks (=28 days). The two countries I am related most to are both top 10 muhahahahaha....

Gimme welfare, I don't wanna work! Just sit all day on my ass and do my hobby (which is, well, programming :).

European countries with such scheme are now seeing their own downfall isn't it? Greek is bankrupt, Spain and Italy and Portugal and many others are in danger of needing cash bail-out. And which country is supporting them? Germany! Look at Germany working laws and their operation, they have to do something right with their system else they will not be the one needing to bail out their neighors.

If I am a German citizen, I would loathe how my neighboring countries is so extravagant in their spending in good economic years. It was a bad move to join the Euro Dollars. And now my neigbors are like on welfare system looking for hand-outs from me.

Of cuz if I'm a Greek citizen, my point of view will be totally different. Drastic cuts in my country welfare system will invoke riots and potentially bring down the government leading to chaos etc. So my wealthy neighor Germany should prevent this by lending me monies.

So it all boils down to fate, if you are born in Greek, you are lucky. If you are born in Germany, you got to make sure your hard-toiled monies are to be split between you and other people!

Finally, any great economist can propose a theory or a solution to bridge this divide? It is happening all around the world not only in Europe. Look at Asia and we have similar situations on hand too!

[TheMeerkat]

@computergeek: Thanks for clearing this up a little for me, I was always aware that people in the US take much less time off work than most other developed countries, and I had even read a thing about how quite a lot of Americans don't feel comfortable taking the full amount of time that their employer offers them each year, which seems really bizarre to me. But I still don't really understand, how do these "Federal Holidays" differ from public holidays which most countries have? On that list on wikipedia that I linked to, for most countries it tells you how many days people can take, and it tells you how many public holidays there are, eg

United Kingdom - 5.6 weeks (28 work days), including 8 public holidays

Is the wiki article just incorrect? Or is there a significant enough difference that they simply aren't public holidays. What you were saying about people being asked to work when they are entitled to the day off holds true for public holidays in most countries as far as I'm aware.

We also have legal minimum leave for things like Family Emergencies and Paternal Leave (Which is avalible to both Men and Women). This is a minimum set amount of time where if I come back with in it, my company leagally has to hire me back at the wage I was making when I left. In addition to this there are also more obvious things that you would expect like if someone serves in the Military Reserves then they cannot be fired because they get deployed\called up and stuff like that.

All of this will also hold true in most (at least some, I don't pretend to know the exact laws for every country) of the other countries that are also on this list. Also if Americans take maternity leave do they not get any income at all? Thanks for explaining some of this to me, I find American politics / laws really interesting, for the most part they share a lot in common with the rest of the "western" world, but there are still so many things that so unfamiliar and (without meaning to cause offense) strange to me. I'm from Northern Ireland encase anyone was wondering.

[tition]

European countries with such scheme are now seeing their own downfall isn't it?

... said the US...

So it all boils down to fate, if you are born in Greek, you are lucky. If you are born in Germany, you got to make sure your hard-toiled monies are to be split between you and other people!

Ahem... I lived 5 years in Germany (where I got my diploma). Germany is the most socialist country ever.

On German tv, an interviewed Hartz 4 receiver (help for unemployed) was complaining: this is horrible! My government isn't giving me enough: how am I supposed to live with 400 euros a month (+apartment from the government+ utility bills)!

Well, I when I was growing up, my entire family lived with that much money per month (with approximately the same purchasing power).

To make my statement clearer, I would wanna be on welfare in Germany, not in Bulgaria. Oh, and by the way, Germany has more vacation days and one of the best motherhood leave options.

Oh, and one more thing: in Germany, when on welfare, you receive additional government money if you own a large dog. This is why all the punkheads in Germany have dogs.

[zwA4jE8b]

@Disch first post.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but thats how the poor are kept poor and the rich are kept rich (one of the ways). If the majority of people work at a shitty life consuming job for near minimum wage they will not have time to follow their dreams or change anything :)

[Computergeek01]

@ sohguanh: IMO Dischs plan isn't a good solution for unskilled labor either but it was a rough outline of an idea, not a 10 page report on how to save our economy. The reason that it doesn't work for unskilled labor is things like the service industry, specifically Table Waiting. The income for these people revolves around tips, in the US they legally make less then minimum wage. Less hours means less customers served and less potential for tips. On a whole though, targeted at specific secotors and with competent leadership this is not a bad idea.

There is a quote from a movie that scared the hell out of me as a child; "I can't get a job because I don't have experiance, and I don't have experiance because I can't get a job..." (This was before I understood what an internship was). I honestly thought this was going to happen to me, I consider it luck of the draw that it didn't. This quote is the reason I argue for "Work-fare", basically the government assigns you a public works job and your foreman or whoever writes up a report on your performance. This is then used on your resume and Abra-Kadabra you have experiance and a referance to show your potential employer. This would also keep those useless people I mentioned at least somewhat productive, if they don't work they don't get their benefits, while keeping them out of the workforce because the report would sumerize all a potential employer needs to know.

[sohguanh]

To make my statement clearer, I would wanna be on welfare in Germany, not in Bulgaria. Oh, and by the way, Germany has more vacation days and one of the best motherhood leave options.

Oh, and one more thing: in Germany, when on welfare, you receive additional government money if you own a large dog. This is why all the punkheads in Germany have dogs.

If what you say is true, then shouldn't it reflect the Germany government is doing a pretty good job? They give generous welfare like what you said and yet they remain very strong economically. Such that now they need to help bail out their neigbors in danger of going bankrupt?

So extravagant spending neigbors need to learn a thing or two from Germany isn't it? Hopefully the Euro crisis will pass and all European countries government learn something out of it.

[TheMeerkat]

@titon: Yea I couldn't work out if you thought what you were saying was a good thing or a bad thing. I would look at being a very socialist country and still having one of the strongest economies in the world as about the best possible way a country could be.

[sohguanh]

Just to add on, and if not for the World Wars they started, I believe in current days, Germany economy could rival even that of US and China!

[TheMeerkat]

@sohguanh: I would tend to agree with you, however it can often be very difficult to predict what would have been. For example perhaps without WWII the EU might not have been formed and then maybe this could have had a major impact on German, or a million other things could have changed.

Also Germany didn't start the first world war.

[sohguanh]

Agree totally. Without WWII, US won't even become a superpower like they are today. Pre-WWII days, England,France,Holland,Portugal,Spain,Russia etc are major superpowers then. Look at the number of countries they colonize! But WWII destroyed all that and the trend shift elsewhere.

[1yR4jE8b]

With the current state of American economics, it won't be long until China surpasses the United States as the most powerful country in the world.

[chrisname]

@darkestfright,
http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html
See #5

[TheMeerkat]

@chrisname,
that whole article was really good. I love some of the phrases the guys from cracked use.