PDA

View Full Version : Why is America the 'no-vacation nation'?




madfoot
05-23-2011, 02:37 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/23/vacation.in.america/index.html?hpt=C2


No legal obligation to offer vacation

So what's going on here?

A big reason for the difference is that paid time off is mandated by law in many parts of the world.

Germany is among more than two dozen industrialized countries -- from Australia to Slovenia to Japan -- that require employers to offer four weeks or more of paid vacation to their workers, according to a 2009 study by the human resources consulting company Mercer.

Finland, Brazil and France are the champs, guaranteeing six weeks of time off.
But employers in the United States are not obligated under federal law to offer any paid vacation, so about a quarter of all American workers don't have access to it, government figures show.

That makes the U.S. the only advanced nation in the world that doesn't guarantee its workers annual leave, according to a report titled "No-Vacation Nation" by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal policy group.

Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

Danke
05-23-2011, 02:42 PM
If we had freedom from government intrusions in our lives, everyday would feel like a vacation.

Acala
05-23-2011, 02:50 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/23/vacation.in.america/index.html?hpt=C2



Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

Really? So, people are too stupid to manage their own affairs and must be "helped" (at gunpoint if necessary) by the all-wise and knowing government overseers? No tyranny in that . . . just the helpful, selfless nanny state. What could go wrong?

gls
05-23-2011, 02:50 PM
Yeah, more job-killing legislation. Just what we need with real unemployment near 20%.

Austrian Econ Disciple
05-23-2011, 02:55 PM
How about we guarantee to every employee a minimum salary of 500,000$ while we are at it? That way, the five people that are employed, are at least well-to-do.

Brian4Liberty
05-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Yeah, more job-killing legislation. Just what we need with real unemployment near 20%.

If all of the other countries mandate more vacation than the US, that would theoretically push jobs into the US.

Epic
05-23-2011, 03:01 PM
Americans must work extra to provide the production that would be obtained more easily if government was less.

Brian4Liberty
05-23-2011, 03:01 PM
Really? So, people are too stupid to manage their own affairs...

Yes, every person is responsible for negotiating their own contracts. Supply and demand comes into play. The greater the demand for workers, the better agreement they can negotiate. Unfortunately, the supply of workers outstrips the demand.

Epic
05-23-2011, 03:02 PM
If all of the other countries mandate more vacation than the US, that would theoretically push jobs into the US.

If the US didn't have a huge corporate tax rate :)

I Don't Vote
05-23-2011, 03:42 PM
If all of the other countries mandate more vacation than the US, that would theoretically push jobs into the US.

Not necessarily. They cope with it by lowering the salary of the employees to get around all the downtime from vacations. These types of interventions are easy to get around if you mess with the pay a little bit. The types of interventions that really are hard to get around are taxes and regulations. You will find way more companies moving out the country to avoid taxes and regulations rather than mandated vacation time.

Noob
05-23-2011, 03:45 PM
Vacation time is great, just should not be force on by the government as it well send you to Camp FEMA.

Acala
05-23-2011, 03:49 PM
Yes, every person is responsible for negotiating their own contracts. Supply and demand comes into play. The greater the demand for workers, the better agreement they can negotiate. Unfortunately, the supply of workers outstrips the demand.

Do you mean under current economic conditions which in no way resemble a free market?

In a truly free market, there will be people at the bottom rung of exchange value for labor. They will be able to demand the least in exchange for their labor. Would it include paid vacation? Nobody can say. But in a truly free market, capital accumulates and as it does, productivity increases, and as it does the cost of goods and services in real terms goes down, and as it does the standard of living for EVERYONE, including those at the bottom rung of the labor exchange value ladder, gets better. And no other sustainable system has ever been devised that will do this.

So am I concerned that the youngest, least skilled workers with the worst work history and attitude might not get a paid vacation until they have a few years of experieince under their belts? No I am not.

pcosmar
05-23-2011, 03:52 PM
Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making?

I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.
What libertarian policy making? When?
and
Guaranteed by who?
Payed for by who?

And to those that bumped this thread before me,,
this, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.png little red box.
Is a clue.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2011, 03:53 PM
"Finland, Brazil and France are the champs, guaranteeing six weeks of time off." Yes, but those economies don't produce much, either. ;) Plus, in this country people often have to work harder to compensate for money lost by inflation and taxation. :(

aGameOfThrones
05-23-2011, 03:53 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/23/vacation.in.america/index.html?hpt=C2



Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

kahless
05-23-2011, 04:00 PM
White collar management jobs, but not all, you see this negotiated as part of the employment contract. For everyone else in this new economy one can expect to change jobs every year or couple of years in Corporate America which means little to no vacation, EVER for some. Those whom effectively spend a lifetime enslaved to Corporate America or face starvation.

I do not like government intervention in anything but you have Corporate monopolies taking over everything so it is getting near impossible to avoid becoming a slave to Corporate America. Should large corporations have a vacation mandate? What is the Libertarian solution?

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2011, 04:12 PM
White collar management jobs, but not all, you see this negotiated as part of the employment contract. For everyone else in this new economy one can expect to change jobs every year or couple of years in Corporate America which means little to no vacation, EVER for some. Those whom effectively spend a lifetime enslaved to Corporate America or face starvation.

I do not like government intervention in anything but you have Corporate monopolies taking over everything so it is getting near impossible to avoid becoming a slave to Corporate America. Should large corporations have a vacation mandate? What is the Libertarian solution?
http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/vader-fail.jpg

kahless
05-23-2011, 04:19 PM
I said I do not like government intrusion in anything and challenge you to provide the Libertarian solution. You provide no solution but I am the EPIC FAIL?

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 04:19 PM
Or you could temp, and have all the vacation you'd like in between jobs (but no/expensive benefits).

Or you could work for yourself, and have all the vacation you'd like (but bear the burden of the consequences of taking too much vacation).

Or you could work long enough to get paid time off in large quantities.

Or you could negotiate for time off in lieu of a high salary.

Or you could make the best of the time off you do have.

Or you could work jobs with variable shifts that often leave you with a 3-4 day "weekend" often.

Or you could ... move to Finland ;)

Johnnymac
05-23-2011, 04:23 PM
If we had freedom from government intrusions in our lives, everyday would feel like a vacation.

this and i aint got no GOD DAMN MONIES

kahless
05-23-2011, 04:29 PM
In the example I provided Corporate monopolies moved in and dominate all business areas.


Or you could temp, and have all the vacation you'd like in between jobs (but no/expensive benefits).

The local corporate monopolies dominate ever business in your area. They are not offering temp jobs.



Or you could work for yourself, and have all the vacation you'd like (but bear the burden of the consequences of taking too much vacation).

Can't work for yourself since Walmart moved in and you cannot sell your products below cost as Walmart does when they move to a new area.
The other local corporate monopolies dominate every business in your area and use slave labor to produce their products. So you cannot compete.



Or you could work long enough to get paid time off in large quantities.

Or you could negotiate for time off in lieu of a high salary.

The local corporate monopoly does not allow any of this. Either take the job or we have a thousand people lined up to do it for nothing.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2011, 04:31 PM
I said I do not like government intrusion in anything and challenge you to provide the Libertarian solution. You provide no solution but I am the EPIC FAIL?

Your premises were(are) flawed.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2011, 04:33 PM
In the example I provided Corporate monopolies moved in and dominate all business areas.



The local corporate monopolies dominate ever business in your area. They are not offering temp jobs.



Can't work for yourself since Walmart moved in and you cannot sell your products below cost as Walmart does when they move to a new area.
The other local corporate monopolies dominate every business in your area and use slave labor to produce their products. So you cannot compete.



The local corporate monopoly does not allow any of this. Either take the job or we have a thousand people lined up to do it for nothing.

This is bologna. People work freelance and in successful small business in spite of corporate competition because they offer things that big firms don't (better service, etc).

Acala
05-23-2011, 04:34 PM
The corporate business form is a government creation.

Corto_Maltese
05-23-2011, 04:34 PM
I live in Sweden, which has mandatory vacation.
If you are just hired as a fill in or payed by the hour, you dont get vacation, but you get like 12% vacation adding to your salery. That means that the mandatory vacation is payed for by employer giving you less money. Better if you could decide it for yourself how much time off you want. If there should be any rules regarding this it should be that the employer cant deny you lets say 2 weeks of vacation if you should chose to take time off. Better though not to interfer at all.

pcosmar
05-23-2011, 04:36 PM
Not a valid premise in this troll thread.
Until my present unemployed situation when I was employed for many years, I had vacations and negotiated them with my employers.
My brothers and sisters that are still working get vacation time.
My wife (employed at the above named "Walmart") gets paid vacation time.

I know of no jobs that have no vacation provisions.

The OP premise is invalid.

kahless
05-23-2011, 04:41 PM
Your premises were(are) flawed.

Next time someone asks me about vacation policy, monopolies and the Libertarian solution, my response should be to mock the person with an EPIC fail and tell them their premise is flawed.:rolleyes:

If I respond in such way it will not help me win converts and I would be looked upon as childish.

dannno
05-23-2011, 04:42 PM
Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

Of course it is tyranny.

If I wasn't paying about half my income in taxes, then I could effectively take off 6 months a year, or work 9 months a year, take 3 months vacation and still come out way ahead.

That's tyranny.

QueenB4Liberty
05-23-2011, 04:44 PM
"Finland, Brazil and France are the champs, guaranteeing six weeks of time off." Yes, but those economies don't produce much, either. ;) Plus, in this country people often have to work harder to compensate for money lost by inflation and taxation. :(

Yup.

I wish I got vacation. However, I wish I got a raise more. But I'm not crying to the government to make it happen.

QueenB4Liberty
05-23-2011, 04:45 PM
Not a valid premise in this troll thread.
Until my present unemployed situation when I was employed for many years, I had vacations and negotiated them with my employers.
My brothers and sisters that are still working get vacation time.
My wife (employed at the above named "Walmart") gets paid vacation time.

I know of no jobs that have no vacation provisions.

The OP premise is invalid.

You think everyone gets vacation time?

kahless
05-23-2011, 04:50 PM
Not a valid premise in this troll thread.
Until my present unemployed situation when I was employed for many years, I had vacations and negotiated them with my employers.
My brothers and sisters that are still working get vacation time.
My wife (employed at the above named "Walmart") gets paid vacation time.

I know of no jobs that have no vacation provisions.

The OP premise is invalid.

You take this debate to any other forum and you will hear about the statistic that with corporate mergers and restructuring one can only expect to work in the same job in corporate American from 1-3 years. Very few of these jobs have the option to negotiate vacation and unless you have been employed for 1 year you do not receive any vacation. So effectively you have a workforce switching jobs yearly never able to take a vacation.

These folks are too poor to be self employed and cannot compete with Corporate monopolies even if they did. I am not defending or advocating a mandate. Just want to hear what the Libertarian solution is?

pcosmar
05-23-2011, 04:58 PM
You think everyone gets vacation time?

I know of no jobs with no vacation time. It is possible there are a few. None that I have known, and all the folks I do know get or take a vacation.

This thread starts with a couple flawed premises.
And then jumps to a false conclusion.

Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making?
This is not a shortcoming of Libertarian Policy making..
This is business and a business decision. Most businesses give vacation time because it is good for business. Happy employees are productive employees. Job burnout is a reality. and that is bad for the business owner.

And in all my years employed I have never known an employer that did not offer some vacation time.
Add to that the multiple holidays and 4 day weekends.
It is a false premise and a troll argument.

QueenB4Liberty
05-23-2011, 05:02 PM
Yeah I get holidays that the company gets off, but I contract and the company I work for doesn't give us paid vacation besides what we'd regularly get off anyhow from our client. I guess it's not so bad, we get a yearly bonus but that is taxed so it's hardly anything. And then another contractor that works on our floor provides two weeks of paid vacation.

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 05:05 PM
In the example I provided Corporate monopolies moved in and dominate all business areas.



The local corporate monopolies dominate ever business in your area. They are not offering temp jobs.



Can't work for yourself since Walmart moved in and you cannot sell your products below cost as Walmart does when they move to a new area.
The other local corporate monopolies dominate every business in your area and use slave labor to produce their products. So you cannot compete.



The local corporate monopoly does not allow any of this. Either take the job or we have a thousand people lined up to do it for nothing.

None of your points are valid. I "sell" services just fine, and WalMart does not encroach on my sales. I compete just fine by offering superior services at reasonable prices, with quick turnarounds and freebie improvements.

It is, sadly, as Pete said: an incredibly naive trolltastic thread.

kahless
05-23-2011, 05:06 PM
It is a false premise and a troll argument.

Might be but we are dealing with millions of people in both parties that would likely love to see a mandate. If people cannot provide concise talking points to counter it then we will one day have a vacation mandate just like we now have a healthcare mandate.

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 05:10 PM
Might be but we are dealing with millions of people in both parties that would likely love to see a mandate. If people cannot provide concise talking points to counter it then we will one day have a vacation mandate just like we now have a health care mandate.

Oh is that what you actually wanted? I couldn't nearly tell by the garbage you posted in response to my points. Of course, you didn't refute any of the options. You merely made a spectacular mockery of the entire subject.

All of those options are open to people, but people are allergic to it and want mandates. So be it. I'm going on vacation in a couple of months, and I don't have the paid leave saved up OMG!!! :eek: ... but I spoke to the company and they're fine with "loaning" me paid time off. I am quite sure that several co-workers believe they can't ask for vacation time because they don't have any saved up. I am also quite sure they will gripe about it, but will never ask. People really should learn to take more responsibility for themselves, but they don't.

Those issues are bigger than "mandatory vacation," which is hardly a blip on the radar to most people. There are a lot of folks who'd like a job, vacation policy or no.

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 05:12 PM
Just after I hit "Post," a related article appeared :p

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/112776/name-your-own-vacation-wsj?mod=career-worklife_balance


You can name your own price on vacation hotels or car rentals. Now, companies are asking employees to set their own vacations, by naming how many days off they should take.

Dominic Orr, president and CEO of Aruba Networks, a wireless-networking company, adopted what he termed a "no-vacation" policy two years ago for all North American employees. Orr told New York Times columnist Adam Bryant that instead of giving each person a set number of weeks off each year, the standard approach to vacation planning, Orr requires them to take responsibility for scheduling their own paid vacation time any time they want -- as long as they and their managers agree they are reaching their job objectives.

"Fundamentally, we're saying that you of course should take time for vacation, as long as you make sure you also get your work done. Employees discuss it with their supervisors, and it has worked," Orr is quoted as saying. He claims the policy gives him "a more powerful workforce," because employees concentrate harder on their jobs when they are working.

pcosmar
05-23-2011, 05:16 PM
Might be but we are dealing with millions of people in both parties that would likely love to see a mandate. If people cannot provide concise talking points to counter it then we will one day have a vacation mandate just like we now have a healthcare mandate.
Ah, now were getting somewhere. It is not libertarian policy at all in discussion, but socialist policy.

So tell me,,How much time each year should an employer be mandated to pay employees to lay on their ass doing nothing?

kahless
05-23-2011, 05:23 PM
Oh is that what you actually wanted? I couldn't nearly tell by the garbage you posted in response to my points. Of course, you didn't refute any of the options. You merely made a spectacular mockery of the entire subject.


I posted the questions that you would typically hear from the man on the street and are not uncommon in areas hit hard by Corporate monopolies. I do not like government intervention in anything is what I posted a few times and asked several times for the Libertarian solution.

You guys lose the argument. People will just walkway pissed off stuck to their mandate beliefs because of your downright hostile and childish responses.

nelsonwinters
05-23-2011, 05:26 PM
It would be interesting to see how much people in other countries earn compared to people in the U.S. and then see how income is spent by category (taxes, housing, medical, entertainment, education, etc.). How do our earnings compare. Do we vacation less by choice? If so, why? Do we spend more on other categories? If so which ones and why?

Noob
05-23-2011, 05:26 PM
Better Use Of Leisure Time (1950)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH_gncP_5vc

Why Play Leap Frog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xv5AgAj1jc

Going Places 1948

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1NXg6vRlw&feature=related

Meet King Joe, 1949

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFcUES5iWGA&feature=related

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 05:28 PM
I posted the questions that you would typically hear from the man on the street and are not uncommon in areas hit hard by Corporate monopolies. I do not like government intervention in anything is what I posted a few times and asked several times for the Libertarian solution.

You guys lose the argument. People will just walkway pissed off stuck to their mandate beliefs because of your downright hostile and childish responses.

Of course. My list was childish because you believe the average American will just get their medical billing and proofreading done at WalMart :rolleyes:

Vessol
05-23-2011, 05:29 PM
inb4 OP says that a vacation is a natural right

kahless
05-23-2011, 05:34 PM
Of course. My list was childish because you believe the average American will just get their medical billing and proofreading done at WalMart :rolleyes:

I actually like your list and do not think it was childish. I was referring to the EPIC fail picture.

I do not think my responses were garbage. The only reason you think they are garbage is since you are unable to refute them. Those responses are what I have gotten back from people. There is also not enough medical billing and/or proof reading jobs or some would say there is a corporate monopoly that is taking over medical billing from India.

MelissaWV
05-23-2011, 05:38 PM
There isn't enough red ink to fix that last post.

kahless
05-23-2011, 05:44 PM
There isn't enough red ink to fix that last post.

Why so hostile?

I said from the beginning I do not want the government involved in anything. Just to be clear, I am not for a mandate and are far more Libertarian than many that post here. Albeit I am playing a little devils advocate with this one. The reason being is the responses I posted are what I get back from people and I cannot find a short concise way to respond to it.

If this is the way people handle a regular forum member how do you expect to win converts.

low preference guy
05-23-2011, 05:46 PM
The short way to respond is that it is a violation of freedom of contract. Everyone has a right to enter into a contract and agree to work for any number of hours or days, for any payment the parties agree upon.

pcosmar
05-23-2011, 05:54 PM
Why so hostile?

.
Not so hostile.
But the OP was a false premise.

madfoot

Senior Member madfoot has a little shameless behaviour in the past

Join Date
Feb 2011
And not an honest question to start with.
It was not a question of libertarian policy but of Socialist policy.
It was not a question of NO Vacation,,but of not enough vacation. (how much is enough=undefined)

and that the whole thread should have been buried off the page by now.

Not hostility, but a bit annoying.

affa
05-24-2011, 01:33 AM
I know of no jobs with no vacation time. It is possible there are a few. None that I have known, and all the folks I do know get or take a vacation.

This thread starts with a couple flawed premises.
And then jumps to a false conclusion.


You do realize that just because everybody you know gets a vacation doesn't make it true of all, right? It's bad form to accuse other people of flawed premises when your ridicule of them is based on one.

affa
05-24-2011, 01:54 AM
The short way to respond is that it is a violation of freedom of contract. Everyone has a right to enter into a contract and agree to work for any number of hours or days, for any payment the parties agree upon.

Unfortunately, this explanation simply doesn't address any of the issues people actually have with the libertarian ideal. The most obvious being that if one party has more power than another in entering a contract, the contract may not be exactly fair. This is often the case with jobs, especially in a rough economy where the employer can simply move on to the next person. That is to say, when there is a line of a thousand people behind you willing to take the job, your bargaining power is shot.

How many people would submit to non-compete clauses, drug tests, or many of the other pro-employer things going on today if they thought resisting wouldn't cost them the job? And that's just talking about rather high paying jobs, and not even getting into no/low skill jobs.

Until you address that issue, and a couple others, you're not exactly presenting a good argument. That is to say, even if your argument is pure truth, it simply doesn't address the actual issues the people you're trying to convince have, but rather, sounds more like just a regurgitation of an ideology.

Americans have a lot of experience with employer aggression - slavery, union busting, child labor, sweat shop labor, the gradual elimination of pensions, downsizing, rightsizing, massive increase in temp hiring, slow whittling away of health care, etc, etc, etc.

Many Americans distrust corporations and employers in general. So claiming that giving businesses free reign will somehow correct all this isn't going to gain many converts if you don't back it up with a bit more than 'don't take the job if you don't want it'. Tell that to the father with a family. Many employee rights were hard fought -- simply giving them up on the word that we can trust them not to screw us over sounds a bit naive to most people.

My point is simple -- if you want to convince people, you need an actual argument that addresses -their- issues, not yours. Repeating the same old lines falls on deaf ears, because, well, the people you're talking to don't actually -agree- with you, but your statement requires that they do. That is to say, explain how someone in desperate need of a job can negotiate a fair wage and vacation time when the employer offers none. And if you can't, then just admit that this will happen to some degree. It's okay if that's the case, but be direct about it, rather than resorting to ridiculing the asker.

For the record, I'm pretty fortunate. My skill set allows me to negotiate everything from vacation time to signing bonuses. That's great for me. But I recognize that, by definition, not everyone will have a rare skill set. Some people will always have no bargaining power. And so, the question is -- what keeps an employer from steamrolling them w/o regulation? That's the question on the table, and simply saying the employee doesn't have to accept the contract simply isn't a viable answer to the question (in terms of convincing anyone other than people that already agree), because it does not address the core problem that the employer often has far more bargaining power than the employee, nor the problem that un/low skilled employees often can not be choosy about the job.

Kregisen
05-24-2011, 02:02 AM
This is ridiculous. Vacation time and salary are the exact same thing. Same with other benefits. Placing a price floor on one aspect of a salary (salary, benefits, vacation time) will simply lower the rest. Then if the government tries to "fix" the rest, it will simply enact minimum wage laws WITH a list of required benefits and required vacation time, and then unemployment will skyrocket due to the artifical tampering in the market. (and wealth will be destroyed as a result)

Anyone who thinks the government should get involved obviously failed economics 101.....

Brian4Liberty
05-24-2011, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately, this explanation simply doesn't address any of the issues people actually have with the libertarian ideal. The most obvious being that if one party has more power than another in entering a contract, the contract may not be exactly fair. This is often the case with jobs, especially in a rough economy where the employer can simply move on to the next person. That is to say, when there is a line of a thousand people behind you willing to take the job, your bargaining power is shot.

How many people would submit to non-compete clauses, drug tests, or many of the other pro-employer things going on today if they thought resisting wouldn't cost them the job? And that's just talking about rather high paying jobs, and not even getting into no/low skill jobs.

Until you address that issue, and a couple others, you're not exactly presenting a good argument. That is to say, even if your argument is pure truth, it simply doesn't address the actual issues the people you're trying to convince have, but rather, sounds more like just a regurgitation of an ideology.

Americans have a lot of experience with employer aggression - slavery, union busting, child labor, sweat shop labor, the gradual elimination of pensions, downsizing, rightsizing, massive increase in temp hiring, slow whittling away of health care, etc, etc, etc.

Many Americans distrust corporations and employers in general. So claiming that giving businesses free reign will somehow correct all this isn't going to gain many converts if you don't back it up with a bit more than 'don't take the job if you don't want it'. Tell that to the father with a family. Many employee rights were hard fought -- simply giving them up on the word that we can trust them not to screw us over sounds a bit naive to most people.

My point is simple -- if you want to convince people, you need an actual argument that addresses -their- issues, not yours. Repeating the same old lines falls on deaf ears, because, well, the people you're talking to don't actually -agree- with you, but your statement requires that they do. That is to say, explain how someone in desperate need of a job can negotiate a fair wage and vacation time when the employer offers none. And if you can't, then just admit that this will happen to some degree. It's okay if that's the case, but be direct about it, rather than resorting to ridiculing the asker.

For the record, I'm pretty fortunate. My skill set allows me to negotiate everything from vacation time to signing bonuses. That's great for me. But I recognize that, by definition, not everyone will have a rare skill set. Some people will always have no bargaining power. And so, the question is -- what keeps an employer from steamrolling them w/o regulation? That's the question on the table, and simply saying the employee doesn't have to accept the contract simply isn't a viable answer to the question (in terms of convincing anyone other than people that already agree), because it does not address the core problem that the employer often has far more bargaining power than the employee, nor the problem that un/low skilled employees often can not be choosy about the job.

Well thought out post. And you hit it on the head that some people will have no bargaining power. We all tend to form opinions based on our personal experiences, and those of people we know. The amount of bargaining power a person has is dependent on many specific factors: industry, job title, company, location, connections, etc. It is also common for major upheaval to occur in very specific jobs. Many manufacturing jobs were devastated by outsourcing. Construction, gardening, restaurant and IT programming jobs are effected by immigration. If a person is not in any of those specific areas, they might find that they are still in great demand, even with 20% real unemployment. Your mileage will vary greatly.

As easy as it is to say "suck it up, find a new career", the average former assembly line worker is not going to be able to spend $40,000 to $100,000 to go back to school and then start a new career. There may be other options, but when a huge group of people all of a sudden has to look for a new career (especially when they have families and expenses) their choices are limited. Luckily for them, there is one position where everyone who applies gets "in" the very first time. It doesn't pay a lot, but if "welfare" takes everyone, why look anywhere else? :rolleyes:

jackers
05-24-2011, 11:55 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/23/vacation.in.america/index.html?hpt=C2



Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

Why do you constantly troll around here looking for "gotcha's?" Your statist posts are all the same, "Is this a shortcoming...."

Go away.

pcosmar
05-24-2011, 12:09 PM
Why do you constantly troll around here looking for "gotcha's?" Your statist posts are all the same, "Is this a shortcoming...."

Go away.
^^^
This.
I am sometimes annoyed that folks here can not recognize (yet another) Troll post.
"Libertarianism sucks Cuz"

Did you read the article posted? Did you see the Pro-Socialist Propaganda for what it was?

Besides a handful of national holidays, the typical American worker bee gets two or three precious weeks off out of a whole year to relax and see the world -- much less than what people in many other countries receive.

So what's going on here?

A big reason for the difference is that paid time off is mandated by law in many parts of the world.

Really folks, Use your brains.
Do you support socialism?
Or do you support individual rights/Property rights and the absence of government interference in both.

kahless
05-24-2011, 12:23 PM
Why do you constantly troll around here looking for "gotcha's?" Your statist posts are all the same, "Is this a shortcoming...."

Go away.

I say bring it on since the values of liberty can withstand the "gotcha's". The casual reader that comes here is likely not familiar with madfoots trolling history so how does it look to them if his post goes unanswered? What good does it do to only debate those that agree with you? If people spend the time refuting the "gotcha's" and "trolls" perhaps those readers will learn something and if your lucky you bring new people into the movement.

I was far less Libertarian when I first came here in 2007 and have learned much since that time. Who knows, perhaps there are those that are watching his "gotcha" efforts to backup their Socialist beliefs.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
05-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Man, 6 weeks off with pay? That would be so awesome.

pcosmar
05-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Man, 6 weeks off with pay? That would be so awesome.

So is Welfare if you don't have to pay for it.
But somebody does.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

ChaosControl
05-24-2011, 01:12 PM
Six weeks would be nice.
But sorry, Finland is too cold.

123tim
05-24-2011, 01:32 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/23/vacation.in.america/index.html?hpt=C2



Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

I guess that it's all in the perspective. It certainly would seem like tyranny to me if I was struggling to keep a business from failing and I was forced to give my employees something that I couldn't afford.

I'm all for vacation. I always wished that I had more of it. I just think that the individual should finance it. I always wished that I could just take a couple of weeks off unpaid. My employers would never allow it. That's their option. I always move on when I find something better. Free market.

tasteless
05-24-2011, 01:35 PM
So is Welfare if you don't have to pay for it.
But somebody does.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

boo, you posted the canadian version of that song

Michael P
05-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Wait a sec isn't a huge chunk of the US population on a 365 days/yr vacation? Lets ask some of them how awesome it is.

My brother runs a small painting company and pays his employees for the days they work. They can take as much vacation as they want as long as there is enough of a heads up. He says its amazing how little "vacation" people take when they can see it come directly out of their overall pay.

pcosmar
05-24-2011, 01:41 PM
boo, you posted the canadian version of that song

That was for those in restricted areas.
;)

madfoot
06-23-2011, 06:39 PM
Forgot about this topic. Anywho, nobody explained to me how mandatory vacation time is tyranny. Lots of downvotes and personal attacks, though.

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2011, 07:12 PM
Forgot about this topic. Anywho, nobody explained to me how mandatory vacation time is tyranny. Lots of downvotes and personal attacks, though.
It takes tyranny to 1)mandate people take a vacation or 2) mandate employers give employees vacation time. Simple enough?