Slashdot Mirror
Take Back Your Time!
pycnanthemum writes "Today is national Take Back Your Time Day. Boston.com has a story about it, it's a Seattle-based movement to get overworked Americans to value the non-material parts of their lives. When I read the article I thought of a lot of techies I know."
Value the non-material parts of your life: Have kids. Well...if you're the right kinda person to have kids that is. I've never felt more moved on a genetic, propagation of the family name level, then when I held my boys for the first time. It's really an indescribable feeling. And after that, you learn a LOT of the $hit you thought was important isn't.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
America's also more successful than the EU and those who choose to work hard in America enjoy a higher standard of living.
Your argument is based on the potentially erroneous argument that "higher standard of living" equals "more happiness." Just because Americans have "more stuff" doesn't mean that they are happy. Basically - "Woo hoo, I have an Escalade, a Tivo and a 27" plasma TV - too bad I'm on my way to the hospital for my 2nd heart attack after my divorce."
Ref: This study by New Scientist. Note that Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world despite having a substantially lower "standard of living" than the US.
Also, I remember hearing that a survey showed a majority of Americans would rather have and additional week off from work rather than a raise of equal value, but I don't have time to look it up now.
The article didn't point out that this was due to the HUGE number of holidays the Europeans have.
Oh please! Quit being such a free market fanboy and stop viewing "quality of life" in terms of raw GDP.
This article from the Economist which pretty much debunks the notion that Americans are so much better off than Europeans.
The simple fact is a lot of the stuff we spend money on, such as excessive prisons and gold plated highways that foster urban sprawl, raises our GDP output, but not our general welfare.
Chasing the leader
Feb 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition
Are Europeans really so much worse off than Americans?
AMERICA has been the world's economic leader for over a century. Economic theory suggests that western Europe should be catching up. Yet average GDP per head in the European Union, measured at purchasing-power parity, is only three-quarters of that in the United States. A popular explanation is that European firms are less productive because they are hampered by labour- and product-market regulation. But European productivity, measured by output per hour worked, has in fact almost caught up with America's. If Europeans are so productive, though, why are they apparently so much poorer than Americans?
America's much-trumpeted "productivity miracle" in the late 1990s created the misleading impression that Europe significantly lags America in the productivity league. It is true that, since 1995, American GDP per hour worked has risen by an annual average of 1.9%, compared with only 1.3% in the European Union. However, over any longer period, up to half a century, Europe's productivity growth has outpaced America's. Since 1990 American productivity has risen by 1.6% a year; the EU's has risen by 1.8%. Since 1950 America's productivity growth has averaged 2%, Europe's 3.3%. According to figures from the Conference Board, an American business group, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands all now boast higher output per hour than the United States. Average productivity in the EU is still 7% less, largely because of lower productivity in Britain, Spain, Greece and Portugal--but the gap has continued to close over the past decade.
The narrowing of the productivity gap has not, however, been reflected in living standards, as measured by GDP per head. The chart, taken from an analysis* by Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University, shows how Europe's productivity and GDP per head fell relative to America's from the mid-19th century until around 1950. Productivity has since rebounded, almost reaching American levels. GDP per head, on the other hand, rose sharply until 1970, but then flattened off at 77% of America's.
The surge in Europe's productivity since 1950 is largely explained by reconstruction after the war and the belated exploitation of electricity and the mass production of cars--40 years after America. The puzzle is why Europe's GDP per head has lagged so far behind productivity. Germany's GDP per man-hour is 1% higher than in America, but its GDP per person is 25% lower. The main reason is that average hours worked in Europe have fallen so sharply. In part, this reflects an increase in unemployment and withdrawals from the labour force; but it also reflects a preference for shorter working weeks and longer holidays.
A broader analysis of living standards, based on economic welfare rather than crude GDP, argues Mr Gordon, would place some value on Europeans' greater leisure time. But how much of the depressing effect of shorter hours on Europe's GDP per head should be ascribed to people's free choice to take longer holidays than overworked Americans, and how much to union pressure or government policies that try to spread jobs by compulsory limits on hours of work? Mr Gordon guesses that one-third of the discrepancy between Europe's productivity and its GDP per head, relative to America's, represents freely chosen leisure. Corrected for this, Europe's income per
when you buy alone, it's cheaper to self-insure with your own savings and risk catastrophic bills than to pay a fixed premium that almost certainly won't pay off
Bullshit. Health insurance is more affordable than going to the hospital. It's that simple. You can just keep your savings and hope to God that you never get a serious disease/injury, but a lady I work with would've made about $30K if she'd had disability insurance (which is a form of health insurance) when she had surgery recently. It's not that the insurance company is price-gouging you anyway. It's the medical community that charges outrageous rates. It's very rare that I lose money on my health insurance for a year (due to dental, etc).
You can't get good and affordable comprehensive health insurance when you buy individually;
You can get good and comprehensive coverage that is more affordable than the doctors you'll have to see. Obviously insurance companies expect to make more than they pay in claims, but many individuals are saved economically because of health insurance, and many others are fucked over royally by the doctors who claim to be trying to help them because they can't afford treatment.
That's why the working poor are, for the most part, uninsured
No, it's not. The reason they're uninsured is because medical care is so insanely expensive that companies can't afford to insure them at a rate they can afford. That's not because of "negotiating leverage". It's because of simple addition. If you spend more than you make, you don't get a profit!