🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:30:28 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>There were a number of organizations (both public and private sector)
>that exploited the "salaried" status of their employees, requiring
>them to work long hours without any extra compensation.  It amazed
>me that programmers at such places--who did NOT get a great base
>salary, were so willing to accept such conditions for extended
>periods of time (not short-term crises.)
>
>Some business continue to screw low-end employees, people who
>don't even make that much to begin with.  The following article
>describes it:
>
>http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/philly-restaurants-to-pay-workers-830000-in-back-wages-damages-20171128.html

One of my employers tried that with us. We only worked 40 hours a
week. They wanted us to come in on the weekend, and prvide support for
those employees who had chatted the week away and had to come in on
Saturday to get their work done. We were told, about a week or so
later, that they had been informed by someone in the government that
if we were placed on call; we would have to get a pay raise, pagers,
company cell phones, milage, etc. The company decided to not make us
be available past our regular work hours after all. It was a
government contract.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> There were a number of organizations (both public and private sector)
> that exploited the "salaried" status of their employees, requiring
> them to work long hours without any extra compensation.  It amazed
> me that programmers at such places--who did NOT get a great base
> salary, were so willing to accept such conditions for extended
> periods of time (not short-term crises.)
>
> Some business continue to screw low-end employees, people who
> don't even make that much to begin with.  The following article
> describes it:
>
> http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/philly-restaurants-to-pay
-workers-830000-in-back-wages-damages-20171128.html
>
>
>
One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
paid.

/BAH

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
> paid.

Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better 
treated by the company than hourly workers.

However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public 
and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There 
have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
standard.

I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:42:23 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>> paid.
>
>Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
>usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better 
>treated by the company than hourly workers.
>
>However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public 
>and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There 
>have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
>time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
>standard.
>
>I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
>harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.

And the people who are pretending they are descendenta of the Moors,
and got here before the Native Americans. Lots of bogus paperwork for
world courts that may or may not exist.

On 2017-12-01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>> paid.
>
> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better 
> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>
> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public 
> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There 
> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
> time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
> standard.
>
> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.

I read somewhere that there was a problem for the old telegraph 
operators who while being regarded, and expected to be `middle class'
(good clean clothes, etc) were not really that well paid.



-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>> paid.
>
> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better
> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>
> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public
> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There
> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
> time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
> standard.
>
> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.

Neither of my newphews are having a hard time.  They are smart
but the difference I observe is that they like to work and hate
lazing around.  Their cohorts, in school and at work, waste
a lot of time.

/BAH

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:17:20 AM UTC-5, maus wrote:

> I read somewhere that there was a problem for the old telegraph 
> operators who while being regarded, and expected to be `middle class'
> (good clean clothes, etc) were not really that well paid.

What time frame are you referencing?

I'll give the old Western Union credit for one thing--unlike the
Bell System, in the 1950s, they seemed to have been a little more
open minded about hiring.  For instance, they hired certain ethnic
minorities the Bell System wouldn't touch.  Also, they had women
doing a lot of higher jobs, such as being an office manager, which
Bell would never do.  Lastly, they used men and women together as
Teletype operators, Bell wouldn't do that.  Bell was very rigid
about separating job titles for men and women until about 1974.
They strongly discouraged men working as telephone operators, even
in customer PBXs.

Admittedly, I think blacks were relegated to messenger jobs only
in that era; they don't appear in any of the pictures.  However,
in the _early_ 1960s, Western Union embraced OIC and aggressively
began training programs for inner city youths to work for their
company.  They sent instructors and donated equipment to schools.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-12-01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> 
>>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work without
>>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>>> paid.
>> 
>> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
>> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better 
>> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>> 
>> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public 
>> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There 
>> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
>> time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
>> standard.
> 
> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
> 
>> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
>> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.
> 
> I'm not convinced.
> 
> 

I am, but again I'm in the US. College loans are killing them. If Bernie
had proposed nationalizing the lenders and cancelling the debts I'd have
been enthusiastically for him. Doing something for _some_ current students
without fixing the accumulated problems would only make things worse.

-- 
Pete

On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.

You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.

Thanks, but no thanks.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>
>You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>
>Thanks, but no thanks.

Half the people I work with could easily take their skills to places
that have such policies.  They don't want to.  I keep hearing about
"blah blah weeks a year vacation".  My boss had to yell at me to get
me to use up the four I have--I've got too much interesting stuff to
do to want to waste time on vacation.

On 12/2/2017 8:59 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
 >>   [snip...]             [snip...]             [snip...]
>>
>> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
>> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.
> 
> Neither of my newphews are having a hard time.  They are smart
> but the difference I observe is that they like to work and hate
> lazing around.  Their cohorts, in school and at work, waste
> a lot of time.
> 

"He who by the plow would thrive, himself must either hold or drive."
           -- Benjamin Franklin


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2017-12-02, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:17:20 AM UTC-5, maus wrote:
>
>> I read somewhere that there was a problem for the old telegraph 
>> operators who while being regarded, and expected to be `middle class'
>> (good clean clothes, etc) were not really that well paid.
>
> What time frame are you referencing?
>
> I'll give the old Western Union credit for one thing--unlike the
> Bell System, in the 1950s, they seemed to have been a little more
> open minded about hiring.  For instance, they hired certain ethnic
> minorities the Bell System wouldn't touch.  Also, they had women
> doing a lot of higher jobs, such as being an office manager, which
> Bell would never do.  Lastly, they used men and women together as
> Teletype operators, Bell wouldn't do that.  Bell was very rigid
> about separating job titles for men and women until about 1974.
> They strongly discouraged men working as telephone operators, even
> in customer PBXs.
>
> Admittedly, I think blacks were relegated to messenger jobs only
> in that era; they don't appear in any of the pictures.  However,
> in the _early_ 1960s, Western Union embraced OIC and aggressively
> began training programs for inner city youths to work for their
> company.  They sent instructors and donated equipment to schools.
>
>

Book I read in the 1990s, about why the old telegraph sustem never made 
it to homes, like the Internet did. The time frame mentioned would have
been in the 'widely-used' telegraph era, say 1830-1910. There were lots
of jobs then that men were expected to dress well, speak well at, but 
did not pay much better than labouring jobs. Think Bob Cratchett.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2017-12-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
><rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>
>>You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>
>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> Half the people I work with could easily take their skills to places
> that have such policies.  They don't want to.  I keep hearing about
> "blah blah weeks a year vacation".  My boss had to yell at me to get
> me to use up the four I have--I've got too much interesting stuff to
> do to want to waste time on vacation.
>

Rough guess, you have no family.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 09:10:06 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2017-12-03, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in 2015)
>>> and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>
>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
> 
> Actually not. Taxes in the US and UK are roughly comparable. Indeed,
> when my parents emigrated from the UK to the US, some 35 years ago, they
> could choose where to have some of their income taxed, and they chose
> the UK, because the rates were lower. For what the USA spends on
> Medicare and Medicaid, they could have a socialised medical service to
> UK standards. And before your knee jerks to say how awful that would be,
> I have two comments;
> firstly I have experience of both, and they're comparable, and secondly;
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1

I'll just add to that. We have quite a few friends in the USA. One family 
(husband, wife and two children) visited for a year so that husband could 
attend a university course in Brighton.

Towards the end of their stay, they went on holiday to Cornwall, self 
drive. They were in a bad car crash (not their fault) with some serious 
injuries. 

They were shocked at their treatment. Shocked at the speed at which 
ambulances arrived. Shocked that they were just treated - no questions. 
And shocked at how good the treatment was. (they paid, via travel 
insurance, in the end; but that wasn't obtrusive)



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>
>>You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>
>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> Half the people I work with could easily take their skills to places
> that have such policies.  They don't want to.  I keep hearing about
> "blah blah weeks a year vacation".  My boss had to yell at me to get
> me to use up the four I have--I've got too much interesting stuff to
> do to want to waste time on vacation.

yea.  We had 4 weeks/year with a maximum of two-year's accumulation
(8 weeks).  If we didn't take them, we'ld lose the > 2 years vacation
time.  I kept losing mine until JMF and I started taking 2-3 week
cruises.

/BAH

Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work
without
>>>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>>>> paid.
>>>
>>> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
>>> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better
>>> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>>>
>>> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public
>>> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There
>>> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
>>> time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
>>> standard.
>>
>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>
>>> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
>>> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.
>>
>> I'm not convinced.
>>
>>
>
> I am, but again I'm in the US. College loans are killing them. If Bernie
> had proposed nationalizing the lenders and cancelling the debts I'd have
> been enthusiastically for him. Doing something for _some_ current students
> without fixing the accumulated problems would only make things worse.

Who is going to pay?  Somebody has to move cash into the schools to
pay for infrastructure, personnel, and maintenance.  The academic
quality would eventually deteriorate.  Socializing isn't the answer.

/BAH

On 03/12/2017 09:53, maus wrote:
{snip}

> 
> Book I read in the 1990s, about why the old telegraph sustem never made
> it to homes, like the Internet did. The time frame mentioned would have
> been in the 'widely-used' telegraph era, say 1830-1910. There were lots
> of jobs then that men were expected to dress well, speak well at, but
> did not pay much better than labouring jobs. Think Bob Cratchett.
> 
> 

Telegraph needs a person there to write the message down. Telex may have 
made it to the home.

On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
> 
> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 

IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare 
contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of 
any developed nation.

Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>


-- 
Cheers, Rob

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:38:00 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>> 
>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>> 
>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>> 
>
>IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare 
>contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of 
>any developed nation.
>
>Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>
><http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>

If I lived in the UK I would be paying on the order of 60% of my
income in various taxes.  Before you trot out an income tax
comparison, consider corporate tax, that I pay whenever I buy anything
that is produced or sold by a corporation, VAT which in the US is
called "sales tax", property tax, the gas tax which is nearly the US
retail price, and I'm sure I've forgotten some.

Just focusing on "health care" is ignoring the whole tax picture.

On 12/3/2017 9:27 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work
> without
>>>>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>>>>> paid.
>>>>
>>>> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
>>>> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better
>>>> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>>>>
>>>> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public
>>>> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There
>>>> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of
>>>> time and loss of traditional benefits that not so long ago were
>>>> standard.
>>>
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>
>>>> I dare say a kid coming out of college today will face a much
>>>> harder time of it economically than a kid, say, 40 years ago.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am, but again I'm in the US. College loans are killing them. If Bernie
>> had proposed nationalizing the lenders and cancelling the debts I'd have
>> been enthusiastically for him. Doing something for _some_ current students
>> without fixing the accumulated problems would only make things worse.
> 
> Who is going to pay?  Somebody has to move cash into the schools to
> pay for infrastructure, personnel, and maintenance.  The academic
> quality would eventually deteriorate.  Socializing isn't the answer.
> 

ISTM that state run universities used to put much more money into 
subsidizing those schools...


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>> 
>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>> 
>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>> 
> 
> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare 
> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of 
> any developed nation.
> 
> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
> 
> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
> 
> 

Where we rank low are areas of access, efficiency, equity, and something
called "healthy lives."  I'm not sure these are fair criteria, since
obviously they favor a socialized solution over free-market medicine. If
you take out this touchy-feely stuff we rank quite a bit higher, although
nowhere near as high as we should be doing.

-- 
Pete

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:07:55 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>> 
>>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>>> 
>> 
>> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare 
>> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of 
>> any developed nation.
>> 
>> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>> 
>> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
>> 
>> 
>
>Where we rank low are areas of access, efficiency, equity, and something
>called "healthy lives."  I'm not sure these are fair criteria, since
>obviously they favor a socialized solution over free-market medicine. If
>you take out this touchy-feely stuff we rank quite a bit higher, although
>nowhere near as high as we should be doing.

The whole "healthy lives" business is a crock.  It is not something
that a "health care system" can bring about other than by forcibly
lining people up and making them take exercise and by forcibly
preventing them from eating foods that are not good for them, and even
if they do that it's probably going to raise the general stress level
enough to counter any benefits.

Government efforts at "efficiciency" periodically bring about
money-pits like the TFX and the F-35--maybe some other government can
do something "efficiently" but the US one can't.  Too many pork
barrels to be filled.

There are access and equity gaps I admit--if you're dirt-poor you can
get decent medical service at government expense and if you have a
decent job you get it as part of your compensation, it's the people in
the middle who get screwed and one of my objections to Obamacare is
that it doesn't actually help them very much--if you can't afford
insurance you're exempt from the mandate--if you can't afford it and
aren't poor enough for government-provided medical then you're just as
screwed with Obamacare as you were without it.

On 2017-12-03, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-12-03, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>>><rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>>
>>>>You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>
>>> Half the people I work with could easily take their skills to places
>>> that have such policies.  They don't want to.  I keep hearing about
>>> "blah blah weeks a year vacation".  My boss had to yell at me to get
>>> me to use up the four I have--I've got too much interesting stuff to
>>> do to want to waste time on vacation.
>>>
>>
>> Rough guess, you have no family.
>
> He's got a Mom. Whose basement do you think he lives in?
>
>

One of my daughters, unmarried, had a story that she volunteered
to work over Xmas, one of the others that are working has 4 children,
he wants to keep away from them for those days. Bet his wife dosn't 
know that (That he volunteered).


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2017-12-03, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of my early goals was to get to salaried status so I could work
> without
>>>>> having management beat me up for illegalities.  I didn't care what I got
>>>>> paid.
>>>>
>>>> Historically, salaried status was better.  Salaried workers were
>>>> usually more respected, better paid, had more benefits, and better
>>>> treated by the company than hourly workers.
>>>>
>>>> However, in more recent years, a lot of organizations, both public
>>>> and private sector, have been exploiting salaried workers.  There
>>>> have been demands for very long work hours over a long period of


>
> Who is going to pay?  Somebody has to move cash into the schools to
> pay for infrastructure, personnel, and maintenance.  The academic
> quality would eventually deteriorate.  Socializing isn't the answer.
>
 There is nothing more important than education, from infancy to
 work. It can mean, however, that people can, and do, move anywhere in
 the world, after being expensively educated locally. Local radio is
 full of grannies looking forward to see grandchildren coming `home' 
 for the first time. 

-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 03/12/2017 18:37, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:38:00 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>
>>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>
>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare
>> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of
>> any developed nation.
>>
>> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>>
>> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
> 
> If I lived in the UK I would be paying on the order of 60% of my
> income in various taxes. 

It varies considerably in the US - gross about 50% on average?

> Before you trot out an income tax

Whoops

> comparison, consider corporate tax, that I pay whenever I buy anything
> that is produced or sold by a corporation, VAT which in the US is
> called "sales tax", property tax, the gas tax which is nearly the US
> retail price, and I'm sure I've forgotten some.
> 

The UK is mostly an importer - we don't make much any more. But you're 
right - it is a very involved calculation.

> Just focusing on "health care" is ignoring the whole tax picture.
> 

'Fact remains' the UK state run health care system is more equitable, 
efficient and effective than privatised.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

On 4 Dec 2017 10:01:17 GMT, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:

>On 2017-12-03, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-03, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>>>><rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>>>
>>>>>You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Half the people I work with could easily take their skills to places
>>>> that have such policies.  They don't want to.  I keep hearing about
>>>> "blah blah weeks a year vacation".  My boss had to yell at me to get
>>>> me to use up the four I have--I've got too much interesting stuff to
>>>> do to want to waste time on vacation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rough guess, you have no family.
>>
>> He's got a Mom. Whose basement do you think he lives in?
>>
>>
>
>One of my daughters, unmarried, had a story that she volunteered
>to work over Xmas, one of the others that are working has 4 children,
>he wants to keep away from them for those days. Bet his wife dosn't 
>know that (That he volunteered).

And just for reference, my mother died more than 20 years ago.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:08:32 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On 03/12/2017 18:37, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:38:00 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>>
>>>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare
>>> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of
>>> any developed nation.
>>>
>>> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>>>
>>> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
>> 
>> If I lived in the UK I would be paying on the order of 60% of my
>> income in various taxes. 
>
>It varies considerably in the US - gross about 50% on average?
>
>> Before you trot out an income tax
>
>Whoops
>
>> comparison, consider corporate tax, that I pay whenever I buy anything
>> that is produced or sold by a corporation, VAT which in the US is
>> called "sales tax", property tax, the gas tax which is nearly the US
>> retail price, and I'm sure I've forgotten some.
>> 
>
>The UK is mostly an importer - we don't make much any more. But you're 
>right - it is a very involved calculation.
>
>> Just focusing on "health care" is ignoring the whole tax picture.
>> 
>
>'Fact remains' the UK state run health care system is more equitable, 
>efficient and effective than privatised.

How do you know that it is more of those things than it would be if
privatized?  It hasn't been privatized in decades.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:07:55 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>> 
>>>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare 
>>> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of 
>>> any developed nation.
>>> 
>>> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>>> 
>>> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Where we rank low are areas of access, efficiency, equity, and something
>> called "healthy lives."  I'm not sure these are fair criteria, since
>> obviously they favor a socialized solution over free-market medicine. If
>> you take out this touchy-feely stuff we rank quite a bit higher, although
>> nowhere near as high as we should be doing.
> 
> The whole "healthy lives" business is a crock.  It is not something
> that a "health care system" can bring about other than by forcibly
> lining people up and making them take exercise and by forcibly
> preventing them from eating foods that are not good for them, and even
> if they do that it's probably going to raise the general stress level
> enough to counter any benefits.
> 
> Government efforts at "efficiciency" periodically bring about
> money-pits like the TFX and the F-35--maybe some other government can
> do something "efficiently" but the US one can't.  Too many pork
> barrels to be filled.
> 
> There are access and equity gaps I admit--if you're dirt-poor you can
> get decent medical service at government expense and if you have a
> decent job you get it as part of your compensation, it's the people in
> the middle who get screwed and one of my objections to Obamacare is
> that it doesn't actually help them very much--if you can't afford
> insurance you're exempt from the mandate--if you can't afford it and
> aren't poor enough for government-provided medical then you're just as
> screwed with Obamacare as you were without it.
> 

There was a case of one family that was making just a few hundred more than
the cutoff who had to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums than a
family making just a bit less. The guy tried to get his employer to cut his
salary, but fir some reason it couldn't be done. Such are the economic
distortions that occur when the government sticks it nose into something
that's none of its business.

-- 
Pete

Huge wrote:
>> On 12/3/2017 9:27 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>> Socializing isn't the answer.
>
> "Proof by assertion".

All you have to do is extrapolate, IOW, think, long-term.

/BAH

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 4:53:54 AM UTC-5, maus wrote:

> >> I read somewhere that there was a problem for the old telegraph 
> >> operators who while being regarded, and expected to be `middle class'
> >> (good clean clothes, etc) were not really that well paid.
> >
> > What time frame are you referencing?
> >
> > I'll give the old Western Union credit for one thing--unlike the
> > Bell System, in the 1950s, they seemed to have been a little more
> > open minded about hiring.  For instance, they hired certain ethnic
> > minorities the Bell System wouldn't touch.  Also, they had women
> > doing a lot of higher jobs, such as being an office manager, which
> > Bell would never do.  Lastly, they used men and women together as
> > Teletype operators, Bell wouldn't do that.  Bell was very rigid
> > about separating job titles for men and women until about 1974.
> > They strongly discouraged men working as telephone operators, even
> > in customer PBXs.
> >
> > Admittedly, I think blacks were relegated to messenger jobs only
> > in that era; they don't appear in any of the pictures.  However,
> > in the _early_ 1960s, Western Union embraced OIC and aggressively
> > began training programs for inner city youths to work for their
> > company.  They sent instructors and donated equipment to schools.
> >
> >
> 
> Book I read in the 1990s, about why the old telegraph sustem never made 
> it to homes, like the Internet did. The time frame mentioned would have
> been in the 'widely-used' telegraph era, say 1830-1910. There were lots
> of jobs then that men were expected to dress well, speak well at, but 
> did not pay much better than labouring jobs. Think Bob Cratchett.

The telegraph did not end up in people's homes in 1830-1910 because
(1) in that era an awful lot of people were illiterate and (2)
using the telegraph required having the skill to use Morse code,
and (3) the average person didn't have a need for telegraph messages.
Those who could read/write could use the mail.

Note, however, by the late 1800s many businesses did employ a
telegraph operator and have a line to Western Union to expedite
messages.  Also by that time Western Union had offices everywhere
(over 100 within the city of New York alone), plus utilized railroad
station agents.  They had the use of cheap labor in boy messengers
to deliver or accept telegrams from the last mile.

In the 1950s, with the loss of cheap boy messengers, WU faced a
big challenge in getting the message delivered to the last mile.
Teleprinters were too expensive to be installed at a customer site
unless there was very heavy traffic.  A cheap DeskFax helped a
lot in the 1950s.

In 1965, Western Union hoped to be the communications carrier
for what became the Internet.  Unfortunately, in 1965, terminals
were still too expensive for home use.

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-5, Andrew Swallow wrote:

> > Book I read in the 1990s, about why the old telegraph sustem never made
> > it to homes, like the Internet did. The time frame mentioned would have
> > been in the 'widely-used' telegraph era, say 1830-1910. There were lots
> > of jobs then that men were expected to dress well, speak well at, but
> > did not pay much better than labouring jobs. Think Bob Cratchett.

> Telegraph needs a person there to write the message down. Telex may have 
> made it to the home.

The Teletype model 33 was cheap enough for many businesses, but
Telex was still too expensive unless the business did a lot of
traffic.  Too expensive for home use at that time.

The Bell System used the 33 and a modem to transmit over the POTS
network at regular telephone rates.  This turned out to be a lot
more competitive.  Timesharing, which initially used Western Union's
Telex, evolved on the Bell System's voice network.

I _think_ WU's Telex and Bell's TWX were more suited for long
distance messaging than local messaging within a city.  Time
sharing tended to have local phone number access.

I don't know the rates, but I think Bell's decreasing long distance
rates made a separate TWX network obsolete, since customers could
use the POTS network.  Ironically, that was around when Western
Union was finally able to buy Bell's TWX network.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:05:50 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 4:53:54 AM UTC-5, maus wrote:
>
>> >> I read somewhere that there was a problem for the old telegraph 
>> >> operators who while being regarded, and expected to be `middle class'
>> >> (good clean clothes, etc) were not really that well paid.
>> >
>> > What time frame are you referencing?
>> >
>> > I'll give the old Western Union credit for one thing--unlike the
>> > Bell System, in the 1950s, they seemed to have been a little more
>> > open minded about hiring.  For instance, they hired certain ethnic
>> > minorities the Bell System wouldn't touch.  Also, they had women
>> > doing a lot of higher jobs, such as being an office manager, which
>> > Bell would never do.  Lastly, they used men and women together as
>> > Teletype operators, Bell wouldn't do that.  Bell was very rigid
>> > about separating job titles for men and women until about 1974.
>> > They strongly discouraged men working as telephone operators, even
>> > in customer PBXs.
>> >
>> > Admittedly, I think blacks were relegated to messenger jobs only
>> > in that era; they don't appear in any of the pictures.  However,
>> > in the _early_ 1960s, Western Union embraced OIC and aggressively
>> > began training programs for inner city youths to work for their
>> > company.  They sent instructors and donated equipment to schools.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> Book I read in the 1990s, about why the old telegraph sustem never made 
>> it to homes, like the Internet did. The time frame mentioned would have
>> been in the 'widely-used' telegraph era, say 1830-1910. There were lots
>> of jobs then that men were expected to dress well, speak well at, but 
>> did not pay much better than labouring jobs. Think Bob Cratchett.
>
>The telegraph did not end up in people's homes in 1830-1910 because
>(1) in that era an awful lot of people were illiterate and (2)
>using the telegraph required having the skill to use Morse code,
>and (3) the average person didn't have a need for telegraph messages.
>Those who could read/write could use the mail.
>
>Note, however, by the late 1800s many businesses did employ a
>telegraph operator and have a line to Western Union to expedite
>messages.  Also by that time Western Union had offices everywhere
>(over 100 within the city of New York alone), plus utilized railroad
>station agents.  They had the use of cheap labor in boy messengers
>to deliver or accept telegrams from the last mile.
>
>In the 1950s, with the loss of cheap boy messengers, WU faced a
>big challenge in getting the message delivered to the last mile.
>Teleprinters were too expensive to be installed at a customer site
>unless there was very heavy traffic.  A cheap DeskFax helped a
>lot in the 1950s.
>
>In 1965, Western Union hoped to be the communications carrier
>for what became the Internet.  Unfortunately, in 1965, terminals
>were still too expensive for home use.

One of the things I had to be ready to do in CubBoy Scouts in the late
1950s was to deliver telegrams in case of a disaster like a tornado or
flooding. There was a flood about a year after I was told that, but
the mayor decided to not get the kids involved.

On 04/12/2017 12:05, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:08:32 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/12/2017 18:37, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:38:00 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2017 06:58, Roger Blake wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-12-02, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> At least in the USA. In the Yoo Kay and Yoorp, working hours are
>>>>>> falling, vacation time rising (I was getting 7 weeks a year paid
>>>>>> vacation time plus Public Holidays (8), by the time I retired in
>>>>>> 2015) and we have that evil communist socialised medicine.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also have taxes out the wazoo to pay for it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, US Americans pay on average double the per capita healthcare
>>>> contribution of western Europeans. And the UK is one of the lowest of
>>>> any developed nation.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe US healthcare is better if you can afford it. Maybe not:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror>
>>>
>>> If I lived in the UK I would be paying on the order of 60% of my
>>> income in various taxes.
>>
>> It varies considerably in the US - gross about 50% on average?
>>
>>> Before you trot out an income tax
>>
>> Whoops
>>
>>> comparison, consider corporate tax, that I pay whenever I buy anything
>>> that is produced or sold by a corporation, VAT which in the US is
>>> called "sales tax", property tax, the gas tax which is nearly the US
>>> retail price, and I'm sure I've forgotten some.
>>>
>>
>> The UK is mostly an importer - we don't make much any more. But you're
>> right - it is a very involved calculation.
>>
>>> Just focusing on "health care" is ignoring the whole tax picture.
>>>
>>
>> 'Fact remains' the UK state run health care system is more equitable,
>> efficient and effective than privatised.
> 
> How do you know that it is more of those things than it would be if
> privatized?  It hasn't been privatized in decades.
> 

Well, I meant but didn't make explicit - 'compared to largely privatised 
systems in other countries'.

The UK does have a significant private health care system, so presumably 
some analysis is possible - I'm not sure.
-- 
Cheers, Rob

On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 06:40:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There are access and equity gaps I admit--if you're dirt-poor you can
>> get decent medical service at government expense and if you have a
>> decent job you get it as part of your compensation, it's the people in
>> the middle who get screwed and one of my objections to Obamacare is
>> that it doesn't actually help them very much--if you can't afford
>> insurance you're exempt from the mandate--if you can't afford it and
>> aren't poor enough for government-provided medical then you're just as
>> screwed with Obamacare as you were without it.
>> 
>> 
> There was a case of one family that was making just a few hundred more
> than the cutoff who had to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums
> than a family making just a bit less. The guy tried to get his employer
> to cut his salary, but fir some reason it couldn't be done. Such are the
> economic distortions that occur when the government sticks it nose into
> something that's none of its business.

	That is certainly one valid way to look at it. However, IMO it 
seems more like the problems inherent in trying to merge two completely 
opposite ideologies together - the for-profit insurance companies with 
the health-care-for-all Obamacare. With them each working at cross-
purposes to the other, it seems almost inevitable that gaps like this 
would occur. To me, the better question is could it have been done 
without the insurance companies in the middle? Maybe it couldn't have 
passed without leaving them there, but it seems like it was a *huge* 
handout to the insurance companies that were driving up the costs in the 
first place. After all, at a minimum they were handed millions more 
customers on a silver platter, no matter who was actually paying the 
premiums.

	Me, I would much rather have the government, with all its faults, 
collecting appropriate taxes and paying health providers to handle basic 
medical care. Cut out the insurance company middle-men and you have 
already made it more efficient by however much profit they make every 
year. Wall off the money by law so politicians can't play tricks with it 
(yeah, right), negotiate basic care and drug prices, and police the hell 
out of it for fraud . . . .

	Hmm, maybe you are right and it can't be done. If you *could* 
keep all the cheaters, fraudsters, and politicians (but I repeat myself) 
out though, I think it would probably wind up way cheaper per person. 
Hell, the paperwork savings alone would probably be in the billions, 
assuming you no longer need the insurance company claim dance. 

	(And yes, I am naively assuming that having all claims handled by 
one DMV-like agency would still be cheaper than the complete cluster-fuck 
of paperwork we have now. Mostly since the *amount* of paperwork should 
be cut to something like 25%, I'm thinking, and the amount of back-and-
forth should be way less. I base most of these WAGs on conversations with 
a dentist friend of mine about what it took for her to actually receive 
any money after treating somebody.)

	And after all, theoretically the government is there to "promote 
the general welfare", while all the for-profit companies involved in 
health care have as their first priority making as much money as possible 
for their owners/shareholders. You might or might not be able to hold 
down costs with the government running things, but you are pretty much 
guaranteed constantly increasing costs with the for-profit model we have 
now.

	(NOTE: All of my comments above are meant to apply to "basic" 
health care - flu shots, broken bones, whatever. Elective stuff, 
experimental stuff, etc. would probably have to remain for-profit as it 
is now.)