Misleading stats: ...“in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70 percent of American children live in households where all adults are employed.”
"All adults"? That's a nice way of obscuring the fact that we have a lot more single parent households (with 100% of the adults working) than we did in 1960.
One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not.
I'm not sure why it is so obvious. 80% of the poor don't work at all (another 10% work only part time) and they enjoy a standard of living similar to the average 1950's American. For example, as of 1950, only 75% of the US had a flush toilet. Today (and even as far back as 1980) >99% did.
There's also the "graph on average paid vacation time in industrialized countries:" which is actually mandated vacation. I'd be very interested in seeing the 'average' graph to compare.
Before 20% of mothers worked.
Now 70% of guardians (including both adults if there are two) work
That actually indicates a net increase even greater than indicated in the article since households where there is a working mother but non-working father would not be included in the 70%.
Nothing has hurt quality of life for the average person in this country more than the mindless pursuit of "freedom from government regulation". In reality, all it means is our lifestyle is regulated by industry rather than our elected representatives.
The article ends with the statement that "Sometimes you just need to draw a line in the sand and say “enough is enough”." That's all well and good, but who can do that without the law on their side? Not many people can afford to be fired.
Or the average person is easily brainwashed by propaganda and can be easily manipulated to vote against their own interests.
I like how "death panels" became a favorite PR slogan during the healthcare debate, while the same people don't realize their employers and the insurance companies are already functioning as the effectively the same "death panels".
There is also another element to it: everyone seems to be wondering how come we are "coming out of the recession", profits are up, and yet the unemployment is so high !? The economists are just baffled and writing long essays discussing this phenomenon. To me it seems that Americans are seeing their co-workers laid off, they have their health insurance tied with their employment, they have large mortgages that they cannot afford (yes, it is their fault for taking on those depts), large credit card bills, no savings -- these are not people who will protest and demand more vacation time and higher pay. They will be working 60 hour weeks doing the work of their laid off co-workers, trying not to be next. If they lose their job, most will end up losing their home and health insurance for their children.
I understand this probably doesn't affect the average HN-ers, who are running successful startups, or would have 2 job offers the minute they walk out of their work place. But unfortunately that is not true for most Americans.
It's somewhat true that insurance coverage can determine what treatment someone will get. But, one always has the (perhaps theoretical) option of switching insurance companies or paying for treatment out of one's own pocket. When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears.
You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government.
Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with incentives not to find a job.
Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer.
Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest and by tax breaks associated with home ownership.
Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time lows.
Would that more people would vote against government regulation. Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.
An alternative to government regulations is to organize in unions. Then you can have somewhat equal partners negotiating.
Of course there are disadvantages to unions, as there are to all large organizations. They tend to take on a life of their own, with its own agenda which may not represent the will of its members.
I feel like if employees attempted to assemble into some kind of union, employers would immediately lay them off. There are thousands of other people waiting to get the jobs of the professionals who try to organize. It doesn't make sense to risk your job for a chance to have a little better pay, a few fewer hours, or another couple days of paid vacation.
Coming from the uk, whilst I'd love to work for a US based tech company something that would strongly make me reconsider is the terrible lack of paid vacation. 20 days is the minimum here - many (including me) get 25 and that allows for some proper breaks: a weeks skiing, two weeks for a long vacation, a long stretch off at Christmas and still enough for the odd day here and there. I'd be lucky to get half of that in the US, a big disincentive.
Funny - I'm in the US, and I get a comparable amount of vacation.
If you want vacation, negotiate for it. Your pay might be lowered commensurately, but there is no free lunch. Why would you care if other people choose money over time?
See Barrkel's post below http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2022642 - it's not something you can always negotiate. I don't care if others choose money over time - I'm saying many just don't have that choice.
this is not obvious to most people in America; Culturally, it's expected that we choose money over time.
On the other hand, of the last 5 years I worked for other people, 2 of them were working 3 days a week. Most of the time, if you ask (and are willing to take the hit in wages) /my/ experience has been that employers are surprised when you ask, but they seem to be happy enough to accommodate.
note, usually you have to work more than 30 hours a week to get employer-paid health insurance.
25 isn't exactly on the high side - I get 33 and I would be very reluctant to go to fewer.
Even in the UK some employers can be very "macho" about vacation - regarding holidays as something for wimps. I had someone trying to recruit me for an investment bank a while back and he got quite upset when I refused to consider the 22 days they were offering.... he more or less accused me of being soft for wanting so much holiday time! Given that they approached me I regarded this as a very odd way of trying to attract new employees.
Well there's also the other side of the spectrum as well. IBM for instance has essentially no vacation policy, and it's up to you to determine how much vacation you take. Of course some people claim that this ends up giving you less actual vacation time because the work culture promotes using the relaxed rules for a lot of remote work stuff, so you're more likely to get dirty looks if you were to try to tell them "Yeah, I'm going on vacation and I won't be on call"
I haven't met anyone who thinks US has any decent work/balance. The reality is that US is a great place to make money and lots of it. Then you spend it on the beaches of Brazil or Thailand.
The search for highest profits / lowest costs is a race to the bottom. Regulations, whether they be for child labor, working conditions, or product safety, determine where that bottom is located.
The bottom right now are starving children in many parts of Asia and Africa, and homeless people shivering outside. But that's not the case for most people being discussed here. If we want to take parental leave, then save a little while you're working so you can live on the savings when you need to. I am as guilty as anyone else, but we can't deny the reality. The US is also very high in per capita resource consumption, and we don't need the government, or a small private cartel telling us how much to work and how to spend our money. Yes, there are problems, but I don't think regulation is going to solve them.
Readit News
Misleading stats: ...“in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70 percent of American children live in households where all adults are employed.”
"All adults"? That's a nice way of obscuring the fact that we have a lot more single parent households (with 100% of the adults working) than we did in 1960.
One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not.
I'm not sure why it is so obvious. 80% of the poor don't work at all (another 10% work only part time) and they enjoy a standard of living similar to the average 1950's American. For example, as of 1950, only 75% of the US had a flush toilet. Today (and even as far back as 1980) >99% did.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:w...
Original source of the graph (afaik): http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2007-05-no-vacati...
guardian(s) = mother and/or father
household = guardian(s) + child
Before 20% of mothers worked. Now 70% of guardians (including both adults if there are two) work
That actually indicates a net increase even greater than indicated in the article since households where there is a working mother but non-working father would not be included in the 70%.
The article ends with the statement that "Sometimes you just need to draw a line in the sand and say “enough is enough”." That's all well and good, but who can do that without the law on their side? Not many people can afford to be fired.
Or the average person is easily brainwashed by propaganda and can be easily manipulated to vote against their own interests.
I like how "death panels" became a favorite PR slogan during the healthcare debate, while the same people don't realize their employers and the insurance companies are already functioning as the effectively the same "death panels".
There is also another element to it: everyone seems to be wondering how come we are "coming out of the recession", profits are up, and yet the unemployment is so high !? The economists are just baffled and writing long essays discussing this phenomenon. To me it seems that Americans are seeing their co-workers laid off, they have their health insurance tied with their employment, they have large mortgages that they cannot afford (yes, it is their fault for taking on those depts), large credit card bills, no savings -- these are not people who will protest and demand more vacation time and higher pay. They will be working 60 hour weeks doing the work of their laid off co-workers, trying not to be next. If they lose their job, most will end up losing their home and health insurance for their children.
I understand this probably doesn't affect the average HN-ers, who are running successful startups, or would have 2 job offers the minute they walk out of their work place. But unfortunately that is not true for most Americans.
You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government.
Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with incentives not to find a job.
Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer.
Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest and by tax breaks associated with home ownership.
Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time lows.
Would that more people would vote against government regulation. Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.
Of course there are disadvantages to unions, as there are to all large organizations. They tend to take on a life of their own, with its own agenda which may not represent the will of its members.
If you want vacation, negotiate for it. Your pay might be lowered commensurately, but there is no free lunch. Why would you care if other people choose money over time?
On the other hand, of the last 5 years I worked for other people, 2 of them were working 3 days a week. Most of the time, if you ask (and are willing to take the hit in wages) /my/ experience has been that employers are surprised when you ask, but they seem to be happy enough to accommodate.
note, usually you have to work more than 30 hours a week to get employer-paid health insurance.
Even in the UK some employers can be very "macho" about vacation - regarding holidays as something for wimps. I had someone trying to recruit me for an investment bank a while back and he got quite upset when I refused to consider the 22 days they were offering.... he more or less accused me of being soft for wanting so much holiday time! Given that they approached me I regarded this as a very odd way of trying to attract new employees.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wild-unattached-twenties-sp...
I find this very hard to believe. Could it be that unpaid overtime work was not always declared?
Of course, startups would be exempt, right?
Right?