From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.005908.12985@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.151053.274@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>>In article <1992Aug21.031756.4282@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>>
>>>>>Companies will have more money to hire workers and -- guess what?  We won't 
>>>>>have to pay as many people not to work.
>>
>>The "unemployment tax" that employers have to pay is only on the first few
>>thousand dollars of pay earned by an emplyee each year. Anything that 
>>increases the "head-count" at a company increases the unemployment tax.
>>Giving more vaction would increase the tax if employees on vaction had to
>>be  replaced. If they didn't have to be replaced, what good are they to the
>>company anyway?
>>
>>Any argument that giving more vacation would reduce unemployment is 
>>based directly on the premise that it would increase the headcount, and
>>hence it follows that it would increase the taxes the companiues would
>>have to pay.
>>
>>Of course, if the general level of unemployment fell, then the unemployment
>>tax rate could  also fall (but  don't hold your breath as long as the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Make that "tax rate will also fall"  By the way, this fact makes everything 
>you say in the first two paragraphs irrelevent.  Common sense tells us that
>the economy will benefit if unemployment is lower.  I can't believe you are
>attempting to argue the reverse.

It is also possible that the income tax rate might be reduced if there were
fewer unemployed. But the "unemployment tax" which is paid by all EMPLOYERS
would be more directly affected.

I have never argued against lowering unemployment. I have argued strongly 
against government mandated "vactations" to achieve that end.

I have suggested that it would be
Trading unemployment for underemployment may spread the misery a bit more
fairly, but it will not necessarily improve the economy.

a good idea to eliminate the tax disincentives that make it more cost effective
to have two people working 60 hrs/week each than three people working 40 hrs/
week. In other words, the unemployment tax and social security taxes paid
by employers should not have ceilings [and maybe should be made progressive],
AS LONG AS THE TOTAL REVENUES COLLECTED ARE NOT INCREASED. I have suggested
that the threshhold for overtime pay should be adjusted as the unemployment
rate varies. These sorts of things are not a strait-jacket for either
employee or employer. They are self-correcting mechanisms that strengthen
the "invisible hand". They ultimately leave the trade-off decisions with
the employers and employees. This is fitting for a democracy.
>

>tax-and-spend sugar-daddies are in control of the country).
>
>So if the government discovers a way to save, say $20 billion a year it is
>imposing through a special tax on business, it should not bother saving 
>the money because you think it will just will just spend the money anyway
>instead of returning it to business.  By your logic government should never
>bother to try to save any money because it will just get spent anyway.

How did you infer that from my words? I expressed doubt that IF the government
found a way to extract more money from businesses that it would give a
proportionate reduction elsewhere. My suggestion is that left to its own
devices, government will continue to tax and spend. It is the voter's
bailywick to do something about it.

>
>
>>If I wanted to live in a European country I would move to Europe. If I had
>
>If you don't like the idea of having more vacation time than I've got a
>simple solution for you.  Just dont take it.  Work instead.  I don't think
>the rest of us will mind.

But as I described earlier, in at least one European country (France) that
I am familiar with, the government won't allow that. Sole proprietorships
are REQUIRED to close their doors for a month.

Perhaps you don't want to follow the European model after all?

>
>I am beginning to learn that even the 3rd world gets more vacation than 
>Americans get.  (Can someone post any figures on this?)  There are almost 200 

And there are folks in LA that get 365 days of vacation a year. They are
not all smiling.

>separate nations in the world.  Does anyone know of ANY OTHER NATION IN THE 
>WORLD whose full time workers get less vacation than the two weeks Americans 
>have?  It looks like as far as vacation goes, Americans have fallen behind 
>pretty much everyone else on the planet.  So much for being #1. 
>
>
>>a month of vacation I would look for another job. I would NOT spend my month
>
>Well this tells us a lot about about yourself.  I will resist commenting 
>further.  A much more common occurance than yours is for people to switch jobs
>for the purpose of giving themselves an extra month or so off.  Yet another

If thats what they want, the present system does not prevent it.

>inefficiency in the economy caused by lack of vacation time which some people
>can't stretch their imaginations enough to think about.

Talk to CEO's about it. If you can make a good case and back it up with 
facts, I'm sure they will be all ears. 

The Congress has a lot more important things that
it SHOULD be worying about. Don't give them any excuses for NOT doing
something about the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and the education
crisis spawned by the "great society".


>
>>I also seem to recall that when I was in France that the little sole proprietor
>>bakeries and cheese shops were REQUIRED BY LAW to CLOSE THEIR DOORS for
>>one month each year. Can you say FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT?  I don't  need that
>>kind of government interference, thank you.
>
>Yet another paragraph that's not relevent.  I don't recall anyone advocating
>that here.

Maybe I misinterpreted the call for government action in this country to 
force companies in the USA to behave more like their European counterparts.
But if that was indeed the call, then pointing out the "other side of the
story" is indeed relevant.



orville

--------------------------------------       **********************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                          Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                       POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                      Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer                Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************