[quote] The Europeans apparently talk only to our elites on the East Coast, who in turn apparently worry whether they are treated politely or rudely in London or Paris. But the vast majority of Americans simply could not care less. They do not think K-Mart or Target are crass; they eat fast food instead of hour-long lunches because they work at hectic 40-50-hour a week jobs that would send much of Europe into a revolution. They are trying to assimilate millions of some of the poorest people in the planet into their culture - a far more daunting task than reuniting East and West Germany. <hr></blockquote>
Err, some minor points...
1. The idea that Europeans in general eat hour long lunches is ridiculous. Talk about expanding sterotypes about France on all of Europe. Way to go. All of the US must be like Tennessee then...
2. The idea that a 40 - 50 hour work week is unknown in Europe is just as dumb as well. Here in Germany, it's 38.5 hrs/week for regular workers, but in a lot of jobs you can forget about that, especially in jobs that require academic degrees and offer decent career paths. We do have more holidays though (in my case, 28 days a year).
3. Which brings us to the weirdest thing of all : the alleged correlation between working a lot and eating lots of fast food. To me it seems that most of the _regular_ fast food eaters are the working class types and pupils. I know a lot of people who often work 60 hrs+ weeks (virtually all of them have an academic background) and I have yet to witness a workload induced fast food epidemic.
4. The next wonderful allegation is that one of the factors why the population is so stressed out is because they have to integrate so many poor immigrants. Sheesh! It really must be a horrible thing to suffer from that Mexican guy who mows your lawn for $3.50/hour. My god. That would really stress me out, too.
5. Historically speaking, the US is an immigration country while European countries are not. Things have changed a bit, and it's about time to open your eyes. One example : Germany has a higher immigration rate than the US (4.01 vs 3.5 per 1000 population). The school classes with lots of pupils who are really struggling with the local language exist here just as well.
6. Also, since Germany pays lots of money to jobless people (well, maybe some Scandinavian countries pay more, but in comparison to the US it is LOTS), the integration of immigrants is a much more costly endeavour for tax payers here that it is in America. I don't understand the whining.
7. If you add 75% of Mexico as the 51st state, then we can talk about a task of the size of the German reunfication. Taking in a few immigrants a year does not count.
Man, I really hate it when people accuse other people of being cluesless while having no clue themselves....
Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower. In fact they're the only one that rivals the US at the moment. We need to play nice with the chinese for some time to come while encouraging them to slowly loosen their grip on the people.
<strong>Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower.</strong><hr></blockquote>China has a huge population, but their economy is still third-world. The US economy is about 10 trillion, and China's is about 1 trillion. So per capita, our GDP is about 40 times larger than theirs. Theirs is growing, but it won't catch up with the US or the EU for a long, long time.
Many of the individual countries in Europe, like France, Germany, Italy, UK, have larger economies than China. Combined, I believe the EU is about the same as the US.
And China is still basically isolationist in its foreign policy.
[quote]US workers put in the longest hours on the job in industrialized nations, clocking up nearly 2,000 hours in 1997, almost two weeks more than their counterparts in Japan, where hours worked per year have been gradually declining since 1980, according to a new statistical study of global labour trends published by the International Labour Office (ILO).
The study examines 18 Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) including labour productivity, labour costs and hours worked. It shows that the US pattern of increasing annual hours worked per person (which totalled 1,966 in 1997 versus 1,883 in 1980, an increase of nearly 4%) runs contrary to a worldwide trend in industrialized countries that has seen hours at work remaining steady or declining in recent years.
The long working hours of US and Japanese workers (whose 1995 total was 1,889 annual hours worked versus 2,121 in 1980, a decline of more than 10%) contrasts most sharply with those of European workers, who are logging progressively fewer hours on the job, particularly in the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden where hours worked in 1997 were, respectively 1,399 and 1,552 per year.
In France, which recently introduced legislation limiting the work week to 35 hours, men and women workers put in 1,656 hours in 1997 versus 1,810 in the 1980s. In Germany (Western), the annual total of working hours was just under 1,560 in 1996 versus 1,610 in 1990 and 1,742 in 1980.
Workers in the United Kingdom, putting in 1,731 hours annually in 1997, appear to have neither gained nor lost much free time since 1980 when they worked 1,775 hours. Irish workers' annual hours dropped from 1,728 in 1980 to 1,656 in 1996, putting them roughly on par with Switzerland (1,643), Denmark (1,689 hours for male workers in 1994) and Netherlands (1,679 for male workers in 1994).
Workers (both men and women) in Australia logged only slightly longer hours than their counterparts in New Zealand in 1996 (1,867 versus 1,838). Canadian workers have seen their work schedules decline by more than a full work week during the last decades, with 1996's result of 1,732 hours closely resembling 1980's total of 1,784....<hr></blockquote>
One more thing: the cost of immigration is considerably more than the price of labor. There are also stresses on the education, health care and criminal justice systems.
I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.
Do the math. I posted my vacation days per year (28 days; I've been out of university for 2 years now). Compare that to the amout of days of vacation Americans get, multiply the difference by 8 hours and you'll see the difference in work hours / year shrink considerably.
I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.
Do the math.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do the math. Americans get less vacation but we still get vacation time. The difference is about a week or two, depending on which European country you're comparing with the U.S. Add 40-80 hours to those European totals and it's still not in the same ballpark.
Why don't you read every page on this site (notice who has published the numbers), and if you still think everything is balck and white, don't bother to post an answer, ok?
<strong>LOL. We have a saying here in Denmark that probably can´t be translated correctly to english but I´ll try anyway:
Scott is beyond educational reach
And no: The name is not optional. The saying was invented with scott in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Because I don't tow the party line? I read and learn a lot. I'm much more open than most of the people here. I'm so ****ing smart I see targetting buses and malls as an illegitimate means to obtain an objective. And I say so. Very vigorously.
But Scott, we aree with you that targeting buses and malls are illegitimate means to obtain an objective, but we also think that there are illegitimate ways to occupy and oppress (spelling?) a whole people for 35 years...
Don't you see this at all?
And did you read any of the information I linked to?
I think some people believe Israel is NOT occupying and that the land is their own birthright. You can't give it to them 50 years ago and then expect them (Israel) to just pack up and leave. Not gonna happen.
<strong>I think some people believe Israel is NOT occupying and that the land is their own birthright. You can't give it to them 50 years ago and then expect them (Israel) to just pack up and leave. Not gonna happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eh? You do know that Israel is occupying large areas right?
The bright area on this map was what Israel got in 1948:
I admit it wasn´t well thought through by UN but the 68´ boarder should be the one that counts. It links the areas of Israel together and at the same time give the palestinians the land they live in (Gaza and the West Bank). The settlements should either be removed or the inhabitants accept they live in Palestine.
[edit: Sorry. I just discovered that you said "some people believe...".]
To say that because they now have occupied the areas for so long they shouldn´t back out is wrong IMO. Palestinians are living there as an underclass without the rights of the rest of the people of Israel. If there weren´t a huge population living in refugee camps the matter would have been different. It would be like saying that because the black population in Apartheid South Africa should just accept their fate because it had been like that for many years.
Years ago Israel offered to give the West bank to Jordan. They turned it down. Seems Jordan is fed up with Palestinians also.
What about the Palestinians in Lebanese camps, why haven't they been dispersed to live normal lives in other Arab countries? Seems their Arab 'brothers' don't want them either.
Funny, only Israel, the victors in every war waged against them, are trying to help Palestinians gain a State. Find another trritorial conquest that was reversed by the victors willingly?....................
<strong>Years ago Israel offered to give the West bank to Jordan. They turned it down. Seems Jordan is fed up with Palestinians also.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right but the term fed up is not the best. There is many palestinian in Jordan, and the king is not palestinian himself but (pardon me if i am wrong) he is from a minority who is in charge of Jordan. The king does not want to have more Palestinians people that he already has, to keep his power in place.
That's because Arafat tried to over throw him (his father) year and years ago. Arafat, like bin Laden, is a guy that looks for trouble. Where he doesn't find it he causes it. He never should have been allowed to rise to this level.
Comments
Err, some minor points...
1. The idea that Europeans in general eat hour long lunches is ridiculous. Talk about expanding sterotypes about France on all of Europe. Way to go. All of the US must be like Tennessee then...
2. The idea that a 40 - 50 hour work week is unknown in Europe is just as dumb as well. Here in Germany, it's 38.5 hrs/week for regular workers, but in a lot of jobs you can forget about that, especially in jobs that require academic degrees and offer decent career paths. We do have more holidays though (in my case, 28 days a year).
3. Which brings us to the weirdest thing of all : the alleged correlation between working a lot and eating lots of fast food. To me it seems that most of the _regular_ fast food eaters are the working class types and pupils. I know a lot of people who often work 60 hrs+ weeks (virtually all of them have an academic background) and I have yet to witness a workload induced fast food epidemic.
4. The next wonderful allegation is that one of the factors why the population is so stressed out is because they have to integrate so many poor immigrants. Sheesh! It really must be a horrible thing to suffer from that Mexican guy who mows your lawn for $3.50/hour. My god. That would really stress me out, too.
5. Historically speaking, the US is an immigration country while European countries are not. Things have changed a bit, and it's about time to open your eyes. One example : Germany has a higher immigration rate than the US (4.01 vs 3.5 per 1000 population). The school classes with lots of pupils who are really struggling with the local language exist here just as well.
6. Also, since Germany pays lots of money to jobless people (well, maybe some Scandinavian countries pay more, but in comparison to the US it is LOTS), the integration of immigrants is a much more costly endeavour for tax payers here that it is in America. I don't understand the whining.
7. If you add 75% of Mexico as the 51st state, then we can talk about a task of the size of the German reunfication. Taking in a few immigrants a year does not count.
Man, I really hate it when people accuse other people of being cluesless while having no clue themselves....
[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: amyklai ]</p>
Better Europe than, say, China.
Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower. In fact they're the only one that rivals the US at the moment. We need to play nice with the chinese for some time to come while encouraging them to slowly loosen their grip on the people.
<strong>Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower.</strong><hr></blockquote>China has a huge population, but their economy is still third-world. The US economy is about 10 trillion, and China's is about 1 trillion. So per capita, our GDP is about 40 times larger than theirs. Theirs is growing, but it won't catch up with the US or the EU for a long, long time.
Many of the individual countries in Europe, like France, Germany, Italy, UK, have larger economies than China. Combined, I believe the EU is about the same as the US.
And China is still basically isolationist in its foreign policy.
So I don't agree that China is a superpower.
<strong>
Man, I really hate it when people accuse other people of being cluesless while having no clue themselves....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I hate that too.
This is from a <a href="http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/31/work.htm"; target="_blank">1999 study</a>.
[quote]US workers put in the longest hours on the job in industrialized nations, clocking up nearly 2,000 hours in 1997, almost two weeks more than their counterparts in Japan, where hours worked per year have been gradually declining since 1980, according to a new statistical study of global labour trends published by the International Labour Office (ILO).
The study examines 18 Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) including labour productivity, labour costs and hours worked. It shows that the US pattern of increasing annual hours worked per person (which totalled 1,966 in 1997 versus 1,883 in 1980, an increase of nearly 4%) runs contrary to a worldwide trend in industrialized countries that has seen hours at work remaining steady or declining in recent years.
The long working hours of US and Japanese workers (whose 1995 total was 1,889 annual hours worked versus 2,121 in 1980, a decline of more than 10%) contrasts most sharply with those of European workers, who are logging progressively fewer hours on the job, particularly in the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden where hours worked in 1997 were, respectively 1,399 and 1,552 per year.
In France, which recently introduced legislation limiting the work week to 35 hours, men and women workers put in 1,656 hours in 1997 versus 1,810 in the 1980s. In Germany (Western), the annual total of working hours was just under 1,560 in 1996 versus 1,610 in 1990 and 1,742 in 1980.
Workers in the United Kingdom, putting in 1,731 hours annually in 1997, appear to have neither gained nor lost much free time since 1980 when they worked 1,775 hours. Irish workers' annual hours dropped from 1,728 in 1980 to 1,656 in 1996, putting them roughly on par with Switzerland (1,643), Denmark (1,689 hours for male workers in 1994) and Netherlands (1,679 for male workers in 1994).
Workers (both men and women) in Australia logged only slightly longer hours than their counterparts in New Zealand in 1996 (1,867 versus 1,838). Canadian workers have seen their work schedules decline by more than a full work week during the last decades, with 1996's result of 1,732 hours closely resembling 1980's total of 1,784....<hr></blockquote>
One more thing: the cost of immigration is considerably more than the price of labor. There are also stresses on the education, health care and criminal justice systems.
That doesn't disprove anything I said.
I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.
Do the math. I posted my vacation days per year (28 days; I've been out of university for 2 years now). Compare that to the amout of days of vacation Americans get, multiply the difference by 8 hours and you'll see the difference in work hours / year shrink considerably.
[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: amyklai ]</p>
<strong>
That doesn't disprove anything I said.
I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.
Do the math.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do the math. Americans get less vacation but we still get vacation time. The difference is about a week or two, depending on which European country you're comparing with the U.S. Add 40-80 hours to those European totals and it's still not in the same ballpark.
[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>What I want to know is whether it's better or worse to work 2000 vs. 1500 hours per year?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair question. Depends on where you are in life. What are your goals? Are your goals truly worth the long hours?
Why don't you read every page on this site (notice who has published the numbers), and if you still think everything is balck and white, don't bother to post an answer, ok?
<strong> don't bother to post an answer, ok?</strong><hr></blockquote>
um? okay. ooops I just did <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Did you read any of the linked information?
[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
It's the Anti-Semitics Stupid!
[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
Scott is beyond educational reach
And no: The name is not optional. The saying was invented with scott in mind.
<strong>LOL. We have a saying here in Denmark that probably can´t be translated correctly to english but I´ll try anyway:
Scott is beyond educational reach
And no: The name is not optional. The saying was invented with scott in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Because I don't tow the party line? I read and learn a lot. I'm much more open than most of the people here. I'm so ****ing smart I see targetting buses and malls as an illegitimate means to obtain an objective. And I say so. Very vigorously.
Don't you see this at all?
And did you read any of the information I linked to?
<strong>I think some people believe Israel is NOT occupying and that the land is their own birthright. You can't give it to them 50 years ago and then expect them (Israel) to just pack up and leave. Not gonna happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eh? You do know that Israel is occupying large areas right?
The bright area on this map was what Israel got in 1948:
I admit it wasn´t well thought through by UN but the 68´ boarder should be the one that counts. It links the areas of Israel together and at the same time give the palestinians the land they live in (Gaza and the West Bank). The settlements should either be removed or the inhabitants accept they live in Palestine.
[edit: Sorry. I just discovered that you said "some people believe...".]
To say that because they now have occupied the areas for so long they shouldn´t back out is wrong IMO. Palestinians are living there as an underclass without the rights of the rest of the people of Israel. If there weren´t a huge population living in refugee camps the matter would have been different. It would be like saying that because the black population in Apartheid South Africa should just accept their fate because it had been like that for many years.
[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
What about the Palestinians in Lebanese camps, why haven't they been dispersed to live normal lives in other Arab countries? Seems their Arab 'brothers' don't want them either.
Funny, only Israel, the victors in every war waged against them, are trying to help Palestinians gain a State. Find another trritorial conquest that was reversed by the victors willingly?....................
<strong>Years ago Israel offered to give the West bank to Jordan. They turned it down. Seems Jordan is fed up with Palestinians also.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right but the term fed up is not the best. There is many palestinian in Jordan, and the king is not palestinian himself but (pardon me if i am wrong) he is from a minority who is in charge of Jordan. The king does not want to have more Palestinians people that he already has, to keep his power in place.