• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Statutory Annual leave in 100s of other Nations but not in the United States

SirGareth said:
1) How much annual leave is a dairy farmer guaranteed?

How about a small business owner whose business is barely breaking even while he is working 365 days a year 12 hours a day?

2) His taxes are too high leave to enough money at the end of the year to modernize and increase his efficiency; how much time off should the people he hires be "guaranteed?"

3)If employees don't like the vacation and time off policy why cant they change employers or even make their own businesses?
Click to expand...

1) if the farmer is an employee, then around 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.

2) 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.

3) because most employers would offer the same amount of days. And obviously not everyone can start there own company otherwise you would be a nation of 600m one-person businesses.
 
SirGareth said:
I like the socialist systems where everyone pretends to work and the government pretends to pay them.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Literally every country in the world has mandated paid holiday leave. Every.single.one.

Are you inplying that every country in the world bar the USA is socialist?
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you don't like this country.... MOVE!

Like it or not, there are different classes in this nation. Want better work benefits, better yourself and get a better job!

People who are whiners are often the ones who stay in the lower ranks, because employers don't like whiners!
Click to expand...



So how did Trump get to the White House?
 
Aristaeus said:
1) if the farmer is an employee, then around 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.

2) 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.

3) because most employers would offer the same amount of days. And obviously not everyone can start there own company otherwise you would be a nation of 600m one-person businesses.
Click to expand...

The population doubles?
 
Aristaeus said:
What on earth are you talking about? Literally every country in the world has mandated paid holiday leave. Every.single.one.
Click to expand...

What is the required annual leave of a hotelier in Italy?

Aristaeus said:
Are you inplying that every country in the world bar the USA is socialist?
Click to expand...

No, I'm implying something else but am too polite to point it out.
 
Aristaeus said:
1) If the farmer is an employee, then around 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Farmers are not employees, nor are their children who equally work up to 365 days a year.

Aristaeus said:
2) 20 days would bring it in line with the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

No 20 days would put it in chapter 7 bankruptcy, just like all of socialism

Aristaeus said:
3) because most employers would offer the same amount of days. And obviously not everyone can start there own company otherwise you would be a nation of 600m one-person businesses.
Click to expand...

No, obviously there are inferior and superior workers, just as with all other human endeavors, which would you assume to be inferior in this regard employer or employee.

Should the servant fare better than his master as well?
 
SirGareth said:
Not here in the USA but our Soviet Socialist friends were always a rich source of such profundities:


(deleted irrelevant nonsense)

etc etc hundreds of such aphorisms from the people who really understood socialism.
Click to expand...

The people of the countries, not just Russians, controlled by the Kremlin during the days of the Soviet Socialist Republics did not experience socialism. They lived in a dictatorship, a form of government better known as authoritarianism. An actual socialist state based on the democratic choices of the people would have been a far different entity - but you just keep on believing that you actually know anything about real history and definitions of institutions.

My words won't change your mind if you haven't learned anything about the real world by this time in your life.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Interesting wording.

"the average US worker"

Really?

The average American has one testicle and one breast.

Averages are a poor way to judge they type of remedies that are looked for.

I'm curious what a better phrasing would be for your intended message?

If 20% of us workers get no vacation time, 20% get 1 week, 20% get 3 weeks, then 10% for each of the next successive weeks off... The average American gets 2.4 weeks off, even though 20% get no vacation.
Click to expand...

i'm saying that we don't get as much vacation time as workers in other first world countries and that it's dumb to have a hodgepodge health insurance system that varies wildly depending on where you work.

1408631937279_wps_2_No_Vacation_Nation_Revisi.jpg
 
Rich123 said:
Yes many do. But many more offer nothing at all. But more germane to the heart of this subject is, who should control the a countries resource. The corporation are utilizing a portion of the nation's wealth when they employ someone. If that is part of a nation's assets then it should be up to the nation as to how that asset is utilized.
Click to expand...


What a beautiful socialistic response Rich123.
 
Somerville said:
The people of the countries, not just Russians, controlled by the Kremlin during the days of the Soviet Socialist Republics did not experience socialism.
Click to expand...

Apparently no one has experienced socialism, least of all the people who live[d] under it, maybe they kill you quicker so you can experience true socialism in the afterlife.


Somerville said:
They lived in a dictatorship, a form of government better known as authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

I don't understand didn't they get to vote for the people who would be controlling them? Of all the people on Earth who would you most like to rule you?

Somerville said:
An actual socialist state based on the democratic choices of the people would have been a far different entity - but you just keep on believing that you actually know anything about real history and definitions of institutions.
Click to expand...

If i voted in such a state I would vote for you to do the work and for me to get the goods.
 
SirGareth said:
Apparently no one has experienced socialism, least of all the people who live[d] under it, maybe they kill you quicker so you can experience true socialism in the afterlife.




I don't understand didn't they get to vote for the people who would be controlling them? Of all the people on Earth who would you most like to rule you?



If i voted in such a state I would vote for you to do the work and for me to get the goods.
Click to expand...

Nicely done. You have confirmed my opinion in regards to your knowledge level.
 
Somerville said:
Nicely done. You have confirmed my opinion in regards to your knowledge level.
Click to expand...

Pretty sad rebuttal, but then socialism isn't much to be working with is it?

Nary an arrow in the quiver so to speak.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Government doesn't have to compete for the money they take in.

It's easy for governments to be generous with other peoples money, and this is historically true.
Click to expand...

The problem with your assertion sir is that it puts the cart before the horse. The wealth of any nation is determined by it's resources . Whether they are nature resources or human resources. It is obvious that human resources belong squarely within the commons as it is not corporations who call the human resource to duty in the armed services in defense of this or any other nation. So if human resources are within the realm of the commons ,then it is within the governments role to determine how those resources are utilized. The corporate player is subordinate to government that they operate in. So if a government values it's human resource, then that government seeks to protect their resource. As this American government has done many times . For instance Osha, the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage and there are many other examples. So by putting these safe guards in place our government didn't spend any one else's money, they are guaranteeing safety and fairness in the work place.
 
jonny5 said:
I agree. We dont need statutory leave. Most companies already have it without govt intervention.



https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/02/art3full.pdf
Click to expand...

The government ,any government has the right to choose statutory guidelines about anything. I America the People have some leverage within the government via our vote. In other nations not so. Yet even in dictatorial nations we see that they value their human resource and have enacted statutory annual time off. The United States have enacted other controls on how corporate employers may interact with their employees, such as OSHA, the 40 hour work week, and the minimum wage. You see it is the right of the government to choose to protect their human resource. Even though in other countries their governments have mandated minimum time off statutorily, corporations don't run away. They still do business there.
 
gdgyva said:
no

government should in NO way be able to tell a person how to run their business

other than safety standards, and child labor laws....

buyer of labor and seller of labor agree to terms....it is no one elses business
Click to expand...

Sir the proposition that you seem to be advocating for is exactly what gave us the (Gilded age). A time when there was no CHILD LABOR LAWS and children instead of going to school they worked ten hour days in Canneries and Coal Mines. This is what happens when the government doesn't advocate for their Human Resource.
 
gdgyva said:
France has 6 guys with rifles as their army (not quite but close)

Who the hell do you think protects their ass? And Italy, Sweden, Denmark, England, and so on, and so on.....

We are the worlds police force....there can be NO comparison as long as that is the case

We can stop tomorrow....i would have zero issue bringing our troops back, and dismantling the bases we have built

But when a hot spot comes into play....our boys wont be going....we can send the Italians, the French, and the Swedes to play with the NK or the Chinese, or the Russians

We as a country have to make this decision....because so many other decisions flow from this one....will we be the big dog with the big stick, or will we cut defense and go back to more of an isolationist country and to hell with the rest of the world

You cant have it both ways....
Click to expand...

The MIC has too much of a stronghold in congress to make this happen.
 
joG said:
I think you might have to concentrate on other factors leading to the 1929 bubble, than unchecked corporate prowess to explain it.
Click to expand...

You may have a fair point with that comment. It think it is fair to say that a vast concentration of wealth in the hands of a few can lead to governmental corruption which lessen controls that are needed to advert such a spectacle. There are historic correlations between the vast concentration of wealth and financial collapse. Mind you that there is a difference between a correlation and a cause, although the two can be one in the same. A country's wealth is a measure of it's Gross Domestic Product. Money is a means of exchange it's not the actual wealth. So when hedge fund managers who do not produce anything that resembles wealth in terms of a product, and they end up being rewarded by society in such lavished terms and people who actually produce items that benefit society are marginalized ,then the society is heading in the wrong direction.

I use this analogy to demonstrate that point : If your car was very old and you found yourself in the wilderness of the Alaskan Artic, who would you want to be with you, a Hedge Fund Manager or a Mechanic? You see, it is us who produce the wealth of a nation. Not the Bankers or Hedge Fund managers or even the politicians. They are all like Tits on a Bull. Who needs them?
 
Rich123 said:
You may have a fair point with that comment. It think it is fair to say that a vast concentration of wealth in the hands of a few can lead to governmental corruption which lessen controls that are needed to advert such a spectacle. There are historic correlations between the vast concentration of wealth and financial collapse. Mind you that there is a difference between a correlation and a cause, although the two can be one in the same. A country's wealth is a measure of it's Gross Domestic Product. Money is a means of exchange it's not the actual wealth. So when hedge fund managers who do not produce anything that resembles wealth in terms of a product, and they end up being rewarded by society in such lavished terms and people who actually produce items that benefit society are marginalized ,then the society is heading in the wrong direction.

I use this analogy to demonstrate that point : If your car was very old and you found yourself in the wilderness of the Alaskan Artic, who would you want to be with you, a Hedge Fund Manager or a Mechanic? You see, it is us who produce the wealth of a nation. Not the Bankers or Hedge Fund managers or even the politicians. They are all like Tits on a Bull. Who needs them?
Click to expand...

The inventor with a great idea or product but no assets

How the hell do you think plants get built?

Ask the people driving Tesla’s if they hate bankers and hedge managers

We need mechanics too....but the financial district has its purpose
 
Aristaeus said:
Except the power is disproportionately in the hands of the employer. It is not an equal relationship.
Click to expand...

In the USA if you want to even the playing field or tilt it in your favor then you need to employ yourself or become an employer. Any monkey can do it and frequently do.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I just can't stand the "entitlement mentality."

I think it is a pathetic human trait.

I don't like Scrooges either, and I am a very charitable person. I just despise those who demand charity. My money, my choice what I do with it.
Click to expand...

If one works for a wage, is he not entitle to his salary? If one pays for insurance, is he not entitled to make a claim if the need arises? This is what I don't get about the social conservative mind set. No one is asking for something for nothing. what is being asked for is fair treatment across the board. If it's fair to allow corporations subsidies to the tune of millions of dollars, and I never hear a social conservative complain about that or call it (entitlement mentality) then why is it so bad to get something in exchange for the money we spend each year on taxes?
 
Helix said:
i didn't argue for giving the means of production to the workers. i suppose we could discuss the pros and cons of that, but i suspect that we'd end up on the same side.
Click to expand...
l
What do you mean (Giving the means of production to the workers) How would you suppose that production is accomplished? Certainly Carnegie never got his hands dirty. I don't believe Vanderbuilt knew what to do with a pick and shovel. I don't think John D. Rockerfeller knew a thing about how to drill for oil. All these captains of industry had one thing in common, they knew how to get the people who knew how to do the jobs. But they didn't build anything and without their money that they acquired they would be less equipped to deal with life as you and I deal with every day. We are the ones who built this nation. We are the very means of production and we allow them to profit from our toil.

If an apocalypse were to occur and all of the workers lost everything they owned, we could still survive without the rich. But could they survive without us? What good would their money be to us if survival was the name of the game? Without their money to divide us we would co operate with one another out of necessity. That is, one knows how to farm and another knows how to build. But what does the rich know? How to use their money to their advantage and that's it. And in this scenario their money is worthless. Real wealth is from natural sources. Money is just a convenient way to exchange real wealth. In a survival society one needs food, not money to buy food. One needs shelter ,not money to buy a shelter. Therefor bartering would most likely prevail as it's more instantaneous.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
What a beautiful socialistic response Rich123.
Click to expand...

well if it's socialistic to realize that a nation is the owner of it's own resources, then fine call me a socialist. But I think that rather misguided of you to do so. Since it's a factual observation. However since you've called me a socialist I must say,Thank You.
 
Somerville said:
Nicely done. You have confirmed my opinion in regards to your knowledge level.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly my government doesn't rule me. I act in accordance with my societies and my governments rules so long as they are moral and legal in the frame work of what I know to be righteous and just. I am not ruled but I will accept governance as rightful governance produces social order.
 
Rich123 said:
If one works for a wage, is he not entitle to his salary? If one pays for insurance, is he not entitled to make a claim if the need arises? This is what I don't get about the social conservative mind set.
Click to expand...
That is not what I meant by "entitlement mentality." I would like to see everyone get paid vacations, but that isn't practical everywhere.

Rich123 said:
No one is asking for something for nothing. what is being asked for is fair treatment across the board.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. Maybe you aren't, but that's not what it appears like.

Rich123 said:
If it's fair to allow corporations subsidies to the tune of millions of dollars, and I never hear a social conservative complain about that or call it (entitlement mentality) then why is it so bad to get something in exchange for the money we spend each year on taxes?
Click to expand...
Very few corporations get actual subsidies. They get tax breaks of several types, but it is improper to call those "subsidies." If you wish to be unbiased, use the proper words, instead of words incorrectly as hot button words.

Words have meaning, and the best respected people attempt to use them properly.

I believe in the supply and demand economics. Because of our combined free trade agreements and high corporate taxation, very few businesses have to compete for employees. The more competition to get skilled employees, the better benefits they get, and the better pay they receive.

Want to correct this injustice of wages and benefits... Get those damn free trade agreements disassembled and start tariffing the hell out of products we can manufacture.

US corporations trying to compete in the world market have a very difficult time doing so, partially because we tax production and they tax consumption, without protecting trade.
 
Rich123 said:
l
What do you mean (Giving the means of production to the workers) How would you suppose that production is accomplished? Certainly Carnegie never got his hands dirty. I don't believe Vanderbuilt knew what to do with a pick and shovel. I don't think John D. Rockerfeller knew a thing about how to drill for oil. All these captains of industry had one thing in common, they knew how to get the people who knew how to do the jobs. But they didn't build anything and without their money that they acquired they would be less equipped to deal with life as you and I deal with every day. We are the ones who built this nation. We are the very means of production and we allow them to profit from our toil.

If an apocalypse were to occur and all of the workers lost everything they owned, we could still survive without the rich. But could they survive without us? What good would their money be to us if survival was the name of the game? Without their money to divide us we would co operate with one another out of necessity. That is, one knows how to farm and another knows how to build. But what does the rich know? How to use their money to their advantage and that's it. And in this scenario their money is worthless. Real wealth is from natural sources. Money is just a convenient way to exchange real wealth.

In native tribes wealth can not be horded because there is just so much you can physically hold on to. Those societies were and in some cases still are by necessity, egalitarian. Their methods of transference was bartering which is cumbersome. But man found a more convenient way of transferring wealth and thus the egalitarian life was forever destroyed. Now little peaces of paper or in some cases small peaces of various shaped metal object became symbols of what you could have within a particular society.
Click to expand...

socialism and communism work at the tribal level because every member of the tribe is accountable for their contributions. my opinion is that it wouldn't work for a nation; at least not yet. i prefer regulated capitalism with the hope of coming up with something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom