From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:28:03 GMT

[This is drifting out of the subject of jobs into politics so I dropped
misc.jobs.misc from the newsgroups]

In article <1992Aug31.203019.11064@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>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.
>>>
>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.

No one is talking about replacing unemployment with underemployment, we are
talking about reducing unemployment by allowing those who have jobs to take
more vacation time.


>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.

Now you are talking sense.  A good start in the move to gain Americans a
respectable amount of vacation time would be to reduce the incentives employers
have keep the present 2-week/yr system.  Unfortunately, those incentives are
numerous and bureaucracies are notoriously resistant to change.


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

Right.  And if those who have jobs had more time off then fewer people would
be out of work (including those in LA) and a drain on the economy.


>>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.

Yes.  A lot of inefficiencies are not prevented by the present system.


>>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. 

Not.  CEO's don't look beyond the next quarter.  In any case the benefit to the
economy as a whole is much more apparent then the benefit to individual 
companies.  That is why the best and probably only approach is to solve the 
problem at the national level.


>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

This is not logical.  The fact that Congress has not solved problem "A" is not 
an excuse to allow them to do nothing about problem "B".  If we allowed that 
approach no problems would ever be solved.

Having said that, I agree that the budget deficit dwarfs all other problems
in the U.S., and has since the year 1981.  By vacuuming up available investment
capital, it has a ruinous effect on long term productivity and living standards.


>crisis spawned by the "great society".

Its amazing how far back in history some people will go (in your case almost
30 years) in order to find something or someone to assign blame to.  Informed 
people don't buy it.  I attribute all these things, especially the budget 
deficit, to the policy of Voodoo Economics which Reagan began implementing in 
1981 and whose bad effects have doubled under George Bush's watch.


>>>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.

Yet another paragraph that's not logical.  If someone expresses support
for a law another country has adopted, it does not follow that they support
every law adopted by that country.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.elections