Ezra Klein: Vacation In The US

« Why Americans Hate Economists; Cont'd | Main | Department of Tragically Unintended Consequences »

May 16, 2007

Vacation In The US

Speaking of our inability to focus the conversation on non-economic goods like vacation days, this new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research is upsetting stuff. After reviewing the paid vacation and holiday policies of every advanced country you can think of and a couple you can't, they find that we're the only industrialized naton not to legislate any paid time off and holidays to our workforce. And these aren't small differences: Austria gives workers 4 weeks paid vacation (5 for shift workers), the UK gives 4 weeks, Denmark gives 30 work days, Switzerland gives 5 weeks for young workers (which is an interesting distinction), and so on. We give...none.

Wait...what's that? You want to see it represented visually? Well I got just the thing!

Paid_vacation_international

It took me a moment to figure out this graph, as the final two values are a bit confusing. That last line, the one marked 10? That's Japan. There's no line for the United States because we don't legislate any vacation. That's our country. Aren't you proud?

May 16, 2007 in Economics | Permalink

Comments

Someone's got to be last. It's American exceptionalism. Hooray!!!!!

But we have more rich people and I feel good about that.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 2:07:49 PM

I don't understand why politicians don't campaign on this issue. I know it sounds like pandering to voters but there are real health and social costs to NEVER having vacation. 5 days of legislated paid vacation per citizen would be a good start. I propose election day, July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving all be paid holidays. Let companies deduct the cost of paying their employees right of their taxes and give workers who are forced to work like nurses aids, fireman, police etc. an iron-clad guarantee flex agreement to take vacation another time.

Posted by: joejoejoe | May 16, 2007 2:08:34 PM

Doesn't Japan have a huge number of holidays, like Respect for the Elders Day and whatnot? I guess they don't warrant paid time off for them, unless the annual leave is used.

Posted by: Matt | May 16, 2007 2:13:51 PM

True - we dont legislate it, but most people get 2 weeks vacation paid. That still ties us for last, but...

Posted by: yep | May 16, 2007 2:14:45 PM

Americans have a huge self-esteem problem when it comes to working; the dark side of our work ethic is that we don't really believe we deserve to be treated well in the workplace much of the time. We don't value time off because we think productivity=virtue. We're like Boxer in Animal Farm, who believes that if he just works a little harder all will be well...till he's sent to the knackers.

Posted by: emjaybee | May 16, 2007 2:17:29 PM

I'd like to see the same graph but showing the time actually used by the average citizen, rather than the time legally mandated. I think we'd still be last.
-John

Posted by: John I | May 16, 2007 2:35:23 PM

It's a really astonishing mentality among some employers. My wife's old boss granted six paid holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas, New Year's Eve, New YeaDay, and Fourth of July) and gave ten Paid Time Off days for sick or vacation leave. And mandated that five of those days had to be used during her annual vacation when she shut down the business. No health benefits.

Now my wife runs her own business and drove her former boss out of the market.

Hah.

Posted by: James F. Elliott | May 16, 2007 2:39:11 PM

Ok, so the question is why? Why is America radically different?

I can only offer some possible correlations. America seemed to be on the right track in the 30s and 40s. Lookup FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" or "Economic Bill of Rights" prrsented in 1944, I think. Something happened after winning WWII and creating the National Security State. LBJ's Great Society was a miracle and a transient overachievement.

And the European nations increased their welfare states and safety nets as they were losing their Empires.

So my guess is that US has been able to leverage its military advantage as a means of extorting cheap labor and other resources overseas(capital?), capturing markets etc, thereby pressuring domestic labor. Empire.

More recently, as labor and commodities have become less important to the American economy, politic control as become a matter of moving actual production overseas and making the economy based on the internal movement of paper/equity or I/P and the consumption it makes possible, labor has becomes even more trapped.

America is about asset inflation, not productivity. Nice to make wages dependent on high P/E ratios.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 16, 2007 2:40:20 PM

Most people do not get two weeks paid vacation. Many make receive this vacation time in theory, but in application, the reality is that most people are two afraid that if they take any time off, their employer will find someone else. This was reported, I believe, in several studies when Nightline, with the new people, did a segment on American leisure time, or perhaps it was NBC Nightly News. I can't remember, but I was truck by the reasons why. The reality of working in america is that we live in fear of not suceeding (which means utter failure) more so than we live for getting ahead as in out on the streets. Some of it is to get a head, but much of it (for the vast majority working in the middle class) it is a response to fear. Fear that one will lose one's job. Fear that one will not be able to put one's kid through school, etc. We have become so accustomed to the fear that we don't even recognize it for what it is, and indeed, we have come to think of it as something to be honored. But, that's just a rationalization.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 2:41:11 PM

We're like Boxer in Animal Farm, who believes that if he just works a little harder all will be well...till he's sent to the knackers.

Which is exactly the reason I always thought AF was as much a capitalist criticism as a communist one.

Man, this is depressing.

Posted by: twig | May 16, 2007 2:41:57 PM

Shorter Bob:Rentiers and debt peonage.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 16, 2007 2:42:34 PM

"Two afraid" should read "too afraid" and "make receive" should read "may" and "truck" should read "struck" in the above posting by me. I admit I write too fast.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 2:45:02 PM

*tsk tsk*...children, children.

Don't you know the reason our school system is set up the way it is, which is to say, geared around promoting uniformity of thinking and lockstep behavior, as opposed to creative and critical thinking, artistic pursuits and questioning of the status quo? You know, the whole Prussian Volkschule model? To produce lots of good worker-bees and, ah, no small amount of cannon fodder: "The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy."

Sprinkle generously with Work Ethic and debt-causing materialism and you've got yourself a nation of madly-driven, slave-to-the-dollar worker-bees who are too fearful, and too well-trained as parts of the whole, to see themselves as individuals deserving of lives of their own

Posted by: litbrit | May 16, 2007 2:51:58 PM

Well, yeah, it's depressing for America, but let's celebrate the land of my mother's birth -- Yay Finland!

Posted by: American Citizen | May 16, 2007 3:09:39 PM

What's even more scandalous than our lack of vacation time is the reality that about half our workforce (as recently reported by Bob Herbert, I think) doesn't even get SICK time. So we have people showing up sick at work, spreading their germs; plus we have parents who can't take time off to care for sick children or elders. It's sick, I tell you.

Posted by: beckya57 | May 16, 2007 3:20:50 PM

Yeah, because we can't think for ourselves, unlike you. Ever thought that people might actually like owning things and living to work rather than working to live?

Posted by: Jason | May 16, 2007 3:21:12 PM

There's no line for the United States because we don't legislate any vacation. That's our country. Aren't you proud?

So how come we get vacation days even though the government isn't there to protect us from big-bad-corporations?

Posted by: Jason | May 16, 2007 3:22:54 PM

I want the government to guaruntee a casual Friday dress code and make sure every American has access to a wine bistro or sidwalk cafe for unwinding after a hard 35 hour week.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 16, 2007 3:30:19 PM

Fred,

That's the first sensible thing I've heard you advocate. Here, here.

And Campari and soda for everyone. Fred's paying.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 3:36:31 PM

Jason,

You're right, we live in the best of all possible worlds and enjoy freedom of choice. Even if a huge group of Americans have no paid sick days and no health insurance. They want it that way, every last one of them. We salute their sacrifice for the GDP.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 3:39:31 PM

I don't understand the problem.

A lot of companies in this country get 6 holidays, New Year's, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Some companies also have other holidays such as Martin Luther King, President's Day, Columbus Day, Veteran's Day and the day after Thanksgiving.

They may not be federally mandated but they do exist.

90% of Japan closes down for 3 days at New Year's and for Golden Week in early May. That is at least 7 days, then they also get bunches of other days off. however, a number of companies require working on Saturday when you get a day off during the week.

Based on the US and Japan, I am not sure I trust your data.

Posted by: neil wilson | May 16, 2007 3:39:32 PM

So how come we get vacation days even though the government isn't there to protect us from big-bad-corporations?

Define 'we'.

Posted by: twig | May 16, 2007 3:40:13 PM

Neil,

What makes you think all people get paid holidays on the days that you have set forth? Many, many hourly workers do not get paid holidays at all.

Additionally, a few paid holidays are not the same as paid vacation time. Most of these European countries have paid holidays and significant paid vacation leave.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 3:54:04 PM

Based on the US and Japan, I am not sure I trust your data.

Nevermind defining we. I just had an aneurysm.

Posted by: twig | May 16, 2007 3:54:12 PM

Dan Savage argues that this is why Americans smoke more pot than citizens of other industrialized nations: it's like a mini vacation, the only one we get. And he further argues that all these stoned workers cost businesses far more in lost productivity than giving vacation days would.

Posted by: radosh | May 16, 2007 3:56:21 PM

I too would dispute the notion that we don't get paid holidays - I believe there is labor law that mandates either taking the Federal holidays or being paid extra for them (at least for hourly workers); that's (partly) why legislating Martin Luther King's Birthday caused such agita, because it added a paid holiday into the mix (and, I might add, plays hell with January, where New Year's Day also falls).

It's not that I disagree with litbrit's points, but as others do, I object to her tone; our work ethic is also a good thing, thank you very much, and plenty of creative types find their way in the world (I certainly have) even given the structures of our system (which, I'd point out, if you grant that they come from the Germans, ought to say something about them, if you get my drift). Lots of educational systems - British public schools, anyone? - are brutal, soul-killing enterprises; I think that's the nature of an insitutionalized approach to kids (not to mention, the mentally ill... and jails, come to think of it).

So do I think we can mandate vacations by government fiat? I don't think it's in our nature or our work ethic to accept such a plan. I think there's a generally accepted standard - at least for white collar workers - on vacations, and while, yes, many people don't take advantage of the time available, the fact remains many more can and do.

As I've said before, we surely can't solve this when technology and the new economy of the internet have encroached ever more on our nights, our weekends and our time off; but I do think, more than the pessimists here, that there are pressures to make our workplaces more human, more responsive to our human needs, and to let us balance our needs for time off with the needs of the workplace. And there are a lot of ways to achieve this, which speaks to a flexibility in working arrangements (and a creativity in approaching the issues) I don't necessarily see in all those lovely examples of how Europeans close down in August and go to the beach. That's not America, and it won't likely ever be. And if one really wants to follow one's bliss and not be bound to the American work ethic, I'm not sure staying in America will get you there. Not to be unkind, but this is, ultimately, to some extent about playing the hand you're dealt.

Posted by: weboy | May 16, 2007 4:03:32 PM

Yeah, because we can't think for ourselves, unlike you. Ever thought that people might actually like owning things and living to work rather than working to live?

I didn't say Americans can't think for themselves, or that I could or did (though I can and do, as can everyone here, clearly). I said that our school system is geared toward turning out worker-bees, not fostering innovative thought and creativity. Many, many people do succeed as artists and entrepreneurs despite this, but they often quit school very young. My husband is one such American; the late Frank Zappa is another.

I object to her tone; our work ethic is also a good thing, thank you very much.

Jeez, did I say work ethic was a bad thing? Then I'd be criticizing myself and everyone in my family. I said that work ethic combined with the kind of conformist, dogmatic groupthink bullshit I experienced in the US public school system (with the notable exceptions being the handful of teachers whose names and brilliant lessons I remember to this day) AND materialism-gone-wild (VISA bills anyone?) make for a human being who has to work to live. And usually suffers physically, emotionally, and socially as a result.

If my "tone" is one of finding all this very sad, so be it. I was referring to the culture at large--the culture of a nation that accepts workaholism, alienated kids, stress-related illness, divorce, and fractured families as the status quo, as opposed to legislating a nominal amount of family-time (vacation). I did not mean to criticize the individuals within it, and I'm sorry that it obviously sounded that way. Please don't take it personally.

Posted by: litbrit | May 16, 2007 4:25:22 PM

Let me understand- there are people here seriously arguing that americans get anywhere near the paid holidays that people abroad get? Seriously? Do we work in the same country? I mean being skeptical is a wonderful thing, but come on.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 4:26:10 PM

And Lilbrit- I got your point, and so did the other person. Your point is there is a difference between choosing to work hard, and being forced to work hard by a system that says that you either work hard or end up on the street. It turns the whole idea of 'choice' on its head to say that the middle class has a choice when their choices are starve or work harder than anyone else works in other comparable countries. I mean it's a choice, but who is playing jedi mind tricks on whom?

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 4:29:07 PM

Spoken like a good serf Weboy. I think an America that shut down in August would be beautiful thing.

Posted by: Eli | May 16, 2007 4:30:35 PM

I'm calling my Senator and demanding that the government guarantee free parking for all of us working stiffs. It's a bitch to find parking sometimes It's all the government's fault.
They owe it to me.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 16, 2007 4:33:09 PM

weboy:

There is no federal law that requires employers to provide time off or premium pay for holidays.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp11.htm

Posted by: Andy | May 16, 2007 4:35:13 PM

If the gov’t mandates that companies provide more paid vacation, where does that money come from? How many think it’s going to come out of your salary/wage? Do you want that? Why not take unpaid time instead? Do you really think you can have both?

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 4:41:42 PM

Weboy,

There is no federal law mandating paid holidays. Period. I've been a labor lawyer for 22 years and I can assure you that no such statute exists. I represent a lot of construction workers who get no paid holidays or vacations of any kind. This is also common in the food services industry and many other service industries.

And I am curious as to your evidence regarding the new humane workplace that is coming into being. Read the Bob Herbert column that others have referenced. This is about people getting zero paid sick leave and employer opposition to a federal mandate that would require employers with more than 15 employees to provide a princely 7 days.

And yes, as a partner in a law firm, I'm a goddamned employer. And we give all of our employees 12 paid sick days, 3 paid personal days, 2 weeks vacation the first year, 3 - 5 weeks thereafter depending on seniority, 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and free family health coverage, so I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 4:46:21 PM

Klein's TLN, you're also employing lawyers who have astronomically high value per employee and are in a competitive labor market. I want better benefits like everybody does, but I don't know if it's as realistic for Burger King to give that kind of time off.

Posted by: spike | May 16, 2007 5:06:01 PM

I think Weboy and others are saying is very out of touch with the average American worker's experience. The "pressures" to make workplaces "more humane" may exist in the highly-skilled, highly-compensated fields, but are something of a joke to blue collar and service industry workers, i.e. the vast majority of the population.

Besides, surely there can be a happy medium between "shutting down for August and going to the beach" and the current situation of zero protections for the most vulnerable.

Furthermore, all this argument about the economic cost is just silly. The UK, Australia, Ireland, Finland, etc: economic basketcases, the lot of them.

Posted by: moo-cow | May 16, 2007 5:13:35 PM

Spike,

The vacation and benefits I was talking about are for our secretarial and office staff. The lawyers damn well better not take all that time off.

Seriously, I understand that not every employer can match what we do (although our billing rates are about half of the going rates of corporate lawyers -- we just make less), but I don't understand why any employer with more than 15 employees cannot give people 7 paid sick days and 10 days of paid vacation. It's just not that much to ask.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 5:16:37 PM

I want better benefits like everybody does, but I don't know if it's as realistic for Burger King to give that kind of time off.

The answer is simple. Just have the government tell all the employers that they need to treat lawyers and burger King employers equally with fantastic vacation time because, as everybody knows, they are just as valueable. Then have them raise the minimum wage to $30 hr and solve the poverty problem. As was stated, there is no economic cost to any of this.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 16, 2007 5:20:23 PM

I went from 10 days time off/6 paid holidays/ 50% employer contribution in health insurance to 15 days times off/ 8 paid holidays/ 100% employer contribution to health insurance almost exactly a year ago. It is tough for me to imagine people not getting my previous benefits as a bare minimum as it made me miserable. Sure, I had those sorts of jobs when I was in high school and college, but a working adult is a completely different thing. I feel very fortunate to be the position I am now.

Posted by: Adrock | May 16, 2007 5:22:35 PM

If there's no federal law, is it possible that there are state mandates? I'm just asking, I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to play one on TV. :) It's just that from my time in HR and in a variety of retail workplaces, there seemd to be requirements - possibly at the state level - to pay for various federal holidays (for instance, I recall Lousiana makes your birthday a paid holiday, which is their way of getting around, I think, MLK day).

I'm not some pitiless drone and I don't appreciate the implication - I'm all for vacations and people taking them; I just think all this "we're all slaves in the chains of corporate masters" stuff is crap. You don't want chains, don't wear chains; but don't assume I'm all up there with you just cuz I do the corporate work thing. I find my previous employer and my current one to be surprisingly good on this stuff, and I think there are other examples out there. And no, I'm not some big fan of government mandated vacations or forced August shutdowns, because frankly it's antithetical to my work ethic and it sounds rather lazy and shiftless, if you ask me. And I bet, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, that there's more of me out there than one might think. I like working. I like my job. If I didn't, I'd quit. I have, I admit, more luxury than most in this life to be able to make those choices. But I think most of us are freer than we like to think and that, as litbrit suggests, all that work to beat the creativity out of so many has just the desired effect. There's more than one way to approach this problem, and more than one creative way to fix it. I don't think the knee jerk blame of corporate overlords or the reflexive Europa-ology of It's Better In [your favorite foreign entity here] reflects particularly creative thinking on this. We've gone around this discussion - and here, I'd say, I'm not sure Ezra's really doing the work he should to advance the topic - any number of times, and we're all not that far apart. I wish people took more vacations, and that businesses were more flexible. But, again, our culture doesn't work that way, our work ethic doesn't change that much, and the computer and internet age has made things arguably worse (and it was, arguably too, supposed to make things better).

And if a government mandate can't fix this - then what? I've seen precious little from those who are so unhappy about alternatives that could work, and it seems to me, it's those creative, less-expected solutions that will be the answer here, not legislation.

(PS KTLN - I don't disagree with your intrepretation per se, and I wouldn't suggest you're a bad employer on this. I think there is a sense - you can see it in the business journals and biz literature - that something has to give in the rigidity of some corporate approaches to human resources. I'm not sure they know just what to do about it either, but I think you see a number of companies - not bad actors, but interesting, creative ones in digital media and elsewhere - trying to find new ways to balance the lives and needs of their workers with the demands of the business. It's hard to change the workplace culture from both sides, the employer's needs, and the worker's approach to working. That's really about all I have, and I'd agree it's not, necessarily that much to point to that's hopeful.)

Posted by: weboy | May 16, 2007 5:23:46 PM

spike, it's not realistic for BK to give that amount of time off to their workers-- workers who don't like the vacation situation can leave, and BK will find an ample supply of workers in the food services industry willing to take no-vacation jobs. That's why union organizing or government intervention to provide a guarantee of paid vacation days would be warranted-- to counteract BK's monopsony power in the low-paid labor market.

Posted by: Tyro | May 16, 2007 5:32:18 PM

Weboy,

I think large corporations are generally better on these issues than small businesses. The exception being things like the fast food industry and large hotel chains. But small businesses employ a huge percentage of the work force in this country, so what they do is incredibly significant.

The reason to favor at least minimal mandates is that it keeps all employers on a somewhat level playing field. It is the same reason why a national health care scheme would be helpful to employers. Right now, employers who pay generous health benefits can be at an enormous disadvantage where there are employers who pay none. Again, not typically a problem for the Fortune 500 companies, but very real in industries like construction and trucking.

I would make no representations regarding Louisiana law -- the whole civil code thing is a mystery to me. But a birthday holiday strikes me as a product of collective bargaining rather than legislation.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 16, 2007 5:46:25 PM

For those of you who think of mandated vacation time as some kind of joke, I urge you to consider this-
in our business we have encountered, many times over the years, nursing homes that give their patient care staff NO DAYS OFF. These people work seven days a week, and must fight one another for Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. off once in a while. These are nursing assistants, food service staff, janitorial, people who earned at best somewhere in the range of 8 or 9 bucks an hour, tops. (RNs can be more choosy and rarely put up with such, so they get a weekend off here and there).
I want you to think about your own mother or father, or you yourself someday, living in a nursing home being cared for by a poor working stiff that hasn't had a day off since last Christmas. It's not pretty.
Basically, many employers will simply get away with as much as they possibly can, will demand as much from the working strata as they can. Obviously to some folks this practice is completely "fair", it's a holy "private enterprise" and all that, but it has serious implications for people.

Posted by: sprocket | May 16, 2007 5:46:40 PM

sprocket - I would just say there's a whole handbag/suitcase of issues in what you bring up - having to do with the abysmal state of long term care in this country and the role that it plays in the desperate need to reform health care overall. There's nothing good about the stae of working conditions for nursing home workers, but it speaks to a larger problem generally that a lot of people don't care what goes on in nursing homes, until some scandal erupts. By far, I'd say the nursing home situation is America's dirtiest, ugliest secret. And there's more to that than just vacations.

KTLN - I hear ya; I'm just not a fan of national mandates on this, a position that I freely admit is somewhat quixotic; but I have real questions about how these mandates play out in the reality of our business culture, not as idealists would like them to; it strikes me that there's a lot of mischief to be made in how these "mandates" would be structured that could worsen something that for some may not be so bad. And that's before we talk about what would surely be fierce opposition from big companies, small business, and the right in general. I'm not a general "third way" person, but on this, I think the place to start is changing the business culture and the worker culture and it's a social change that needs to drive this. Without encouraging that, we're not going to get much of anywhere, at least from what I can see. I can be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen yet - especially from a predictable liberal like Herbert - is getting me there.

Posted by: weboy | May 16, 2007 5:57:36 PM

Fred Jones,
I am aware that you are just being contrarian for the sake of it as your arguments never address specifics......but have you even even been outside the US before? In Australia, minimum wage is $19....and on top of the vacation listed above, all workers are guarateed a 3 month vacation every ten years to do serious travel.....you want to know the first thing that stuck out to me when I was there? Aside from the fact that their economy was far from suffering the chicken little fantasies that you project? People seemed much happier overall.....the hotdog vendors....the laborers...the cab drivers....everyone. The quality of life was tangible and a remarkable change from my experience here....where many retailers and laborers seemed to have a permanent disgruntled attitude......lets not even get into how a place looks when taxpayer money actually goes back into the infrastructure..........We are seriously blind to how are quality of life has aptrophied here in the gool ole' US of A....It isn't about being 'lazy' or looking for 'hand-outs' as Fred likes to imagine...but being treated fairly for hard work and actually being an active part of society in that you derive the proper benefits to actually enjoy the PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS........

Posted by: Zedd | May 16, 2007 5:57:59 PM

I don't know about mandates. But, I do know of the people work at companies with generous away time, including one where they require it (no cell phones or emails or contact from work for at least 2 weeks -- because now even when Americans take vacations their jobs go with them), the employees from the few that I know are happier than those who are threatened in subtle ways with being let go for productivity reasons when they take personal time. Coming from the lower class, and now working in the higher class of the economic strata, I think I have a good cross section of people. By the way, I would differ with some of the comments. It is not merely the blue collar and service industries that are being squeezed, but also the professonal classes as well.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 6:16:57 PM

Zedd, David Frum argued that the genius of economic conservatism is that it builds large amounts of risk into the system.

"Everyone is at constant risk of the loss of his job, or of the destruction of his business by a competitor, or of the crash of his investment portfolio. Risk makes people circumspect. It disciplines them and teaches them self-control."

In America, one of the great risks faced by the middle class is that they may end up as one of the hot dog vendors, cab drivers, or laborers, with no vacation and no benefits. If they are happy, then you take away a certain level of risk that the middle class faces. Without that risk, they may no longer be "circumspect." They might start growing beards or, as he warns "indulge themselves in a hundred little peculiarities of behavior."

Unless we build in a class of laborers who are guaranteed to be treated much more poorly and have an order of magnitude less happy lives when it comes to vacation days and health care insecurity, the very foundations of our civilization will be at risk.

Posted by: Tyro | May 16, 2007 6:21:40 PM

Well, what I have learned here today is that there is no economic cost to mandating additional costs to small business. I also learned that Australia is just plain better than the United States.

If we had known that there are no costs associated with any of this, we could have just raised the minimum to at least $19 hr like Australia and solved much of the poverty already.

So, what's the problem?

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 16, 2007 6:30:44 PM

What's the cost of the additional healthcare issues related to overworked worker? How much additional real value is added as people become more and more tired versus letting them coming to the job relaxed and renewed to work hard? Who decides whether we should work hard? The businesses or the workers? Who should take on that cost if we merely want to work only somewhat hard? The business or the work? Should we be expected to have an all or nothing approach? Let me give you example- women lawyers. Maternity leave. Should they choose between having kids or working toward partnership? What about paternity leave? What makes a better worker? The question is not whether there are costs. It's which ones are worth it. And which ones are not. Which ones are giving us choice? And which ones are not? Because its clear to me there is a lot confusion by people like Fred about for whom we should be setting up a system- businesses or the employees? If you claim to be "for the American people" it's a little hard to understand why you think the choice is a system that makes it harder for them.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 6:46:17 PM

Yes, there are costs, but there are huge (and oftentimes immeasurable) benefits to treating your employees well, even if you can't find it within your shrivelly little heart to treat people who work for you well because it's the right thing to do.

My husband's nurseries began with one employee--himself--and one part-timer: me. When we could afford to hire another person, the husband was adamant that he have ten days paid vacation plus Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, July 4th off with pay, because he had never received that from his employers. He also bought the gentleman a big turkey etc. on Thanksgiving and made sure he had a decent Christmas bonus to cover presents for the kids without draining his paycheck (all standard for everyone, now, to this day). As the business grew and we hired more people, the reputation for treating employees well became a drawing point: it's an agricultural industry, and in Florida, there are plenty of available non-skilled workers, but few who will stay at any one job, at least that was the case for most nurseries and farms. Like any business, we had some people come and go, but for the most part, the core employees that are with us now were there at the beginning. They have health care, vacations and sick leave, a better starting salary, regular raises and performance bonuses. Few agricultural businesses in Florida offer this to employees who, in many cases, don't have high school educations or speak English but want to work--our crew tell us what's going on in the community, and it's amazing what heartless cheapskates some of these Ag barons are.

The benefits of having long-term, reliable, loyal employees are many. You don't have to train new people every three weeks (as some farms do). Your crew enjoy a nice esprit de corps and look out for each other, as well as their employer's interests. People are happy (hey, it's nice to come to work when people are happy). People can afford to go to the doctor when they're sick, so they don't wait until they're catastrophically sick--that's good for everyone.

In this capitalist country, surely even conservatives can appreciate the benefit side of a cost/benefit analysis.

Fred, isn't there cake somewhere that you should be letting someone eat?

Posted by: litbrit | May 16, 2007 7:00:57 PM

What Fred's saying is spot on... there's no free lunch here. More vacation comes at a cost. My standard offering for fairly senior consultants is 3 weeks vacation. If a guy come to me and says he wants 4 weeks, where do you think I’m taking that from? My customer’s not going to suddenly pay $25 more an hour. That’s right, it’s coming from somewhere else in his benefit package, or it’s coming out of my margin. And guess what, it’s not coming out of my margin for long, so I’m either lowering a wage, or raising my bill rate, which reduces my billable hours, reducing my bench. Again, there’s no free lunch.

If the gov’t wants to mandate more vacation, then it coming from someplace and that place isn’t from Corporate America’s margins. This is a choice; as others have pointed out, placed like Australia and others have chosen a path different than America.

Frankly, I’m fine with it and there are a lot of people like me. I think this is more cultural than anything else. We tend to place more importance on work than our friends across the pond.

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 7:05:54 PM

DM, this relates to a lot of earlier discussions of GDP. We've justified free trade agreements by pointing out that the benefits to the GDP, which went to a small group of people at the top, outweighed the costs to some workers, which were distributed over many hundreds of thousands of workers.

It's not unreasonable to argue in favor of policies that might result in costs to some people but provide benefits to many hundreds of thousands of others. Some may argue that even if the aggregate costs exceeded the aggregate benefits, it would still be worth it, because more individuals would reap the benefits.

Posted by: Tyro | May 16, 2007 7:15:05 PM

Tyro,

In this case, the person gaining the benefit is also taking on the cost. It's just a trade-off.

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 7:23:46 PM

DM, hard to say when it comes to many people's professions. Some white-collar professionals I know can negotiate compensation packages that offer more vacation in exchange for a lower salary (or what-have-you). I suspect that someone asking for more vacation days in less professional, lower-paid workplaces is generally met with responses of, "if that's what you want, find another job." (recall the nursing home example)

Posted by: Tyro | May 16, 2007 7:28:40 PM

Again- the point that seems to be missed here is that there isn't a choice for most workers. They are told take this or else. And 3 weeks is more than most people see. Like I said the studies are out there that show that most people don't take their vacation time because of fear of losing their job. Is that you DM as an employer? Most people even when they do take vacations have cell numbers or blackberries from which the boss can contact them. Again, is that you DM? I think it is very simplistic to conclude that your circumstance reflects how most employers treat their workers. Most are trying especially after the bubble burst in 2000/2001 to get a lot for giving very little, and even then expecting more. The middle class squeeze exists. It's not people not wanting to work, but a question of working even in your downtime. There is something perverse about any system that pushes all the cost on to the individual while claiming to do it to prevent cost to the individual. There are, as other people have stated better, things in life that people want that are not just about making your business run. Do you respect that? Even if you, more than enough do not to make the system bad for most people. One good apple or two does not a good system make. I don't know if the studies are right - I can't even remember exactly where I read or saw all the info, but certainly a couple employers coming on here to say, but Iam not like this does not change the fact that not all are doing this.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 7:54:22 PM

By the way, I forgot to mention. People's definition of choice seems quite odd even on an strickly economic level. I offer up the example of choosing between various cell phone companies as your choice of plans. But, there are aspects for which you have no choice. They all recently, as far as I can tell, have went to two year contract plans. Everyone has to choose that plan, not matter what. This is the same question being raised here. Is there choice if everyone is requiring an employee who will work above and beyond when the employees alternative is no real ability in our society to survive at all. The question as I keep posing it- is what do you mean by choice? Because what you describe isn't choice- its coercion by another name.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 7:57:50 PM

Akaison,

I think you missed the point I’m trying to make – evidently not so well. My point is that more vacation time is not free. The employer will recoup the cost somewhere else, most likely at the expense of the person getting more vacation. That’s all I’m trying to get across.

And yes, I ask all my employees to take all their vacation time. And yes, I bring my blackberry out to the cabana. And yes, I realize my environment, where most everyone is high-skilled, is different than a lower skilled one.

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 8:07:09 PM

Let's take KTLN's 10 days' paid vacation and 7 days' sick leave annually, which is pretty much what I've been arguing for since about 1997 and wondering why the hell a Dem didn't make an issue of it.

The vacation time wouldn't cost that much, overall. Why? Because most employers are already offering the 2 weeks' vacation. The sick leave would cost more, but the fact is people get sick, and need a sick day once in awhile. The cost is already there, but it's being absorbed by people who can't afford to miss a day of work, no matter how crappy they're feeling.

There's a lot of money sloshing around at the top in this society. That used to be a dirty secret, but this and other blogs have made it abundantly clear where the productivity gains of the past third of a century have gone: to the wealthiest 1%.

For any redistributionary measures, there will be costs. But just as this society can mandate that nobody gets paid less than $5.15/hour, it can mandate that everybody gets two weeks' vacation and 7 days' sick leave each year, just because they should and we as a society can easily afford it.

Yes, some small business somewhere will go bust on account of it. But the jobs lost weren't that worth having, were they? We won't miss them, just the way when the minimum wage went to $5.15/hour, we didn't miss any of the jobs that couldn't afford to pay even that much.

Posted by: RT | May 16, 2007 8:25:53 PM

How did I miss your point DM? I simply responded to it in a way that fits this diary rather than your spin. Significant to the discussion that you are atypical. Why bring it up if you understood that? To tell a great story about an employer who doesn't treat his employees bad? We knew these employers existed before you bothered to tell us your annecdote. That's not the question being raised. Nor is the question whether there will be costs. There are costs in overworking workers too. And beyond fairness, as some have raised, I raise the question of choice. Do they get to make that choice? See, I am asking a bargaining power question. Who has the power to bargain our economy- you or your employees? Not whether your workers alone get to make that choice, but in general do most workers- including those high end workers not working for you get to make that choice? Or, are they like the customer choosing plans with cell phone companies who must all choose the two year plan even if they may only want a one year plan. It's good you decided you wanted to bring your blackberry with you vacation to which I respond- so what? Good for you. Working hard is certainly as American as apple pie and taboos on sex. What about the other guy next door- does he have that choice to do the opposite? So when you say I am not concerned with costs- a) that's wrong I am - but I'm concerned with cost not just to you or risk to you - but the risk to the employee as well and b) I'm raising the additional concern of not only fairness, but questions of choice because the assumption in a market that's working I would think is that there is choice or else how is there a market? These are the things I discussed.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 8:28:17 PM

I take it that these are national figures, which is all that really applies in most cases. Do any of the states legislate on the matter? Truth be told, I'd rather leave the matter to them to decide in accordance with their peculiarities than mandate vacations bluntly from on high.

Posted by: Paludicola | May 16, 2007 8:52:04 PM

Wow, that's almost as awsome as the law of diminishing marginal utility. Nobody needs vacation time or time to release stress because stress has no negative affects on the human body, and in the end, it can only cause good things.

Posted by: Eliyahu | May 16, 2007 9:03:49 PM

Akaison,

I not try trying to spin anything. I’m only stating the cost of additional vacation, above and beyond what’s somewhat “standard” today, will be borne by the employee. That’s it. Not very interesting, but I was getting the feeling that the “pro-mandated vacation” crowd was missing it. Evidently, you have not.

Cheers!

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 9:33:16 PM

Akiason -

I don't see DM as speaking from personal experience there at all. I will, then, arrogate to myself the duty to restate his point only better and with less personal baggage:

Assume that the current sum of wages and benefits and priveleges is n. Regulating x more priveledges into the system will likely give you not n+x, but rather n+x-y, where x and y are very close to equal in value.

The stickiness of wages will probably keep y at least a little less than x, but still, you ain't getting the whole hoagie. The market interprets regulation as damage and routes around it.

Posted by: Senescent | May 16, 2007 9:47:12 PM

Paludicola,

As far as I know there are no states that mandate paid vacation leave. But I think there is a good argument against state based rather than federal mandates. When these things are done on the state level there results the inevitable battle between those that opt to adopt progressive policies and those who are tempted to bottom feed and take the beggar thy neighbor approach. Businesses then use the threat of relocation to these friendlier climes to beat back the cause of workers in the progressive states. (See southern states and so-called right to work laws.)

Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | May 16, 2007 9:48:21 PM

How can you say we were missing it when the premise of the diary was that economics such as GDP and costs shouldn't be the only concern in terms of people's well being and happiness. That maybe they want the additional cost if it will lead to better value such ie more vacation time. If cost were the only thing that drove people, you wouldn't seem many people buying luxury cars. And your points certainly do not answer my concerns over choice or fairness. You respond to those concerns by repeating the party line so excuse me for assuming you are repeating the party line to deflect talking about other issues but where I'm from when a guy goes off subject to talk about something other than what you ask him - the assumption is he's trying to not talk about what you brought up.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 10:25:06 PM

Sens:

I'll be honest. I have no idea what you are talking about. This diary was posted about concerns in addition to economic factors such as GDP. Apparently the response to other concerns other than just GDP by some of you is to repeatedly point out the obvious that economics and cost do matter. No, really? We hadn't figure that out until you did that niffty little equation- which I don't understand. I still don't see how any of that answers even remotely the questions about for the maximum number of people or fairness other than to try to collapse all concerns into something that you quantify in a psedo scientific way. This reminds me of law school when the law professor asked the value of a hand in Torts because some guy had gotten his cut off by a machine at work that the employer should have put safeguards on the machine to prevent. One dude raised his hand sounding very serious, and he thought reasonable about how he could see the value of the hand at being $100,000. Afterwards, I asked the guy if that's true then I guess he doesn't mind me cutting his hand off for a million since he was perfectly willing to cut off another guy's hand for 100k. As you may suspect he didn't want to cut off hand even for a million. If all pain is acceptable for the sake of economics, markets and costs why not?

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 10:32:36 PM

PS- what is being stated here is really an unremarkable idea- that we value multiple things- not just costs and not just GDP. Why aren't we figuring that into our public policies? That's it. Some of you seem so wedded to just the one thing being considered that you seem to repeat the script even when it's not the question being asked. The answer to what color is the moon is not blue just because the sky during the day is blue.

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 10:34:47 PM

But akaison, these aren't the droids you're looking for, honest!
(Those droids got to go to the beach . . .)

I'm thinking maybe Grubisich has a point about the pseudonym-thing. After all, it would be useful to know that weboy is really Edmund Burke posting under a internet "handle" (and probably using a "keyboard" and "mouse" . . .)

"So do I think we can mandate vacations by government fiat? I don't think it's in our nature or our work ethic to accept such a plan."

I agree that American workers wouldn't stand for such a thing.

They'd sit down, stretch out, relax, get to spend some time with the kids/spouse/pets/friends . . .

But I don't entirely disagree here, to be honest - while we need a more balanced and reasonable system, I don't think it has to look just like Finland's or France's, something which probably isn't especially likely. I do think it probably should look more like them than the idea weboy's sketching out, which ends up sounding to me like 'sure, you can get some time off, when it's convenient for us (if not for you . . )

And yes, there are some people would want to work pretty much all the time, because they're very ambitious/have a very strong work ethic/deeply love what they're doing (iirc, scientists, for example, tend to have job satisfaction levels that are quite high) - often, though not always, highly skilled and (at least relatively highly paid) professionals. That's great. However, the majority of folks either a) find at least some value in their jobs, but would be happier (and more productive, since that is All) with a saner, more balanced workplace, or b) are in dull to actively unpleasant jobs and would be immensely happier if they had some time to recover, to actually live. It seems entirely reasonable that policy be slanted towards these folks - who would seem to be very much in the majority - although accommodations for the first group wouldn't be a bad thing.

A 40-hour week was barely imaginable before people insisted on it.

Posted by: Dan S. | May 16, 2007 10:49:23 PM

My comment was sitting around for a while before I could wrest the internet connection away from Mrs. S. - she had discovered YouTube clips of a BBC crime drama/surreal, vaguely bollywoodesque musical extravaganza called Blackpool - so perhaps I should add that the first sentence was a response to " I mean it's a choice, but who is playing jedi mind tricks on whom?" . . .

Posted by: Dan S. | May 16, 2007 11:00:07 PM

akaison,

I see where the disagreement lies.. I was not chaining together the many posts today, as you were.

Chaining those together: I think this really becomes a value judgement. The Euro's get more vacation by gov't mandate. That fits with there model for society; IMHO, I don't think this fits with ours, but you obviously believe otherwise.

As far as the party line part goes... what party? And when?

Posted by: DM | May 16, 2007 11:07:30 PM

Ditto on the last part of what Dan S said. A system of choice would allow for mulitiple types of workers rather than pretending one has choice by forcing everyone to be a workaholic. Let's face it - as was said in Office Space- most people hate their jobs. Why do we force them to pretend otherwise?

Posted by: akaison | May 16, 2007 11:09:46 PM

emjaybe:

"We don't value time off because we think productivity=virtue"

Well, that lie has worked for several centuries over here... I am sure we can squeeze a few more generations out of it. Also, by and large, we should be by rights the most productive work force, but we are not.

Posted by: benmerc | May 16, 2007 11:11:36 PM

The party line is to do as you did DM and unfortunately as most of my fellow Americans do- to tell me things we already know without questioning whether doing the same thing over and over again maybe more a sign of insanity than work ethic. What I mean is not just about this conversation- it's whenever other values are brought up the response is always the same. My problem with the response is that we are getting ourselves into some deep shit by not thinking through whether what we do make sense. Really makes sense. Does it make sense that our educational system is so expense, or our healthcare? I'll be honest- I don't know what the solutions are- but I do know saying we have choices (as others have stated) is bizzare when I look at our system. I'm like in what fairytale version of reality are you living where people have to keep doing more and more just to stay at relatively the same level as prior generation does that equal choice? Exactly how valuable to our society is it to require everyone to work at the same pace? Are we really achieving higher productivity or is it that we just think we are because that's the party line? Some of these things are measurable, and some are not, but it's a lot more complicated than saying it will cost because the truth it- what we have now is already costing us, and not necessarily in the most effiicent and best way.

Posted by: akaison | May 17, 2007 12:08:11 AM

The government should mandate paid sick and vacation time for public health reasons. If you live in an urban area, some time in the not so distant future, the government or your employer will mandate you stay home because there is a SARS/bird flu outbreak. It would appear to be a good idea that people continue to get paid during this time or the economic effects of the outbreak would be much much worse. If everyone received a mandated 15 days of vacation/sick time there would be no need to implement some type of special "flu pay." Of course all you shirkers who hit the beach as soon as you have accrued a vacation day would have to borrow against your future allotment.

Posted by: crisis | May 17, 2007 3:49:15 AM

If you follow the links, you see that 1 in 4 Americans get NO paid holidays. The survival of democracy is at stake.
1. Democracy is dependent on good information: the stupidity of our broadcast news and the monopolistic quality of our press makes us less informed than we need for a functioning democracy.
2. Democracy is dependent on our having a sense of community: for rich and poor to know each other well enough to have mutual respect, not in a master-slave relationship. With white flight, gated communities, private schools and private clubs or public schools which require the purchase of a half-million dollar house to attend, we stratify and don't know anyone out of our "class."
3. Democracy is dependent on people having time to be social, meet each other, work on common problems, both local and issue-oriented.

If you had wanted to kill democracy, taking away our time would be the quickest way to do it. Is there an agenda here? Is this to keep us from getting uppity?

Posted by: Paula | May 17, 2007 7:09:38 AM

It's not unreasonable to worry about unintended consequences and perverse incentives, but perhaps as things to be worked out, not immovable obstacles?

Anybody seen good polls on on this issue? So far (ie, over the last minute of goggling) I'm just finding small online ones . .

The whole presenteeism problem is the most obvious example of how this sorta thing doesn't even make sense on its own grounds. Sick people drag themselves to work (hopefully not with bird flu!) - having no other option, afraid of the consequences, or feeling bound by necessity - and, according to one 2004 Cornell study, end up constituting "up to 60 percent of the total cost of employee illnesses". But really, it doesn't take an MBA or Ph.D. economist to figure this kind of thing out . Y'know, because the face of productivity probably doesn't have a runny nose and bleary eyes, nor is launching germs over cubicles with every sneeze like some sort of medieval siege weapon as it stares listlessly at the screen . . .

But beyond that (and on any grounds), from a 2001 Career Journal (WSJ) column on the costs of canceling vacations:

"A growing body of research links long-term vacation habits and health. A 14-year study of 12,866 men, published last year in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, found annual vacations sharply reduced the risk of death among middle-aged men. Similarly, a 20-year study of 749 middle-aged women by the Centers for Disease Control found a link between a lack of vacations and higher risk of heart attack and death. "Vacationing may be good for your health," concludes the first study.

. . . A study last fall for Oxford Health Plans, of Trumbull, Conn., of 632 workers nationwide found one in six were too burdened at work to take all their vacation time. For employers, that's a short-sighted stance. A study of 46,026 employees found those who report depression, heavy stress or other risk factors are far more likely to have extremely high health-care costs, says the Health Enhancement Research Organization, Birmingham, Ala., an employer and health-care coalition. . . .

Posted by: Dan S. | May 17, 2007 7:42:28 AM

And Paula, if one has little or no time to become involved in/informed about politics (or other varieties of collective effort), there's even less chance of being able to push change on this issue. : (

Posted by: Dan S. | May 17, 2007 7:48:28 AM

Akaison,

OK, I see what you mean. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. Frankly, I've not the energy to argue the larger point of the 'system' and its 'perversions'. Obviously, I don't see the world your way nor do I see our lack of paid vacation as a sign that democracy's at risk (what????). Good discourse though.

Posted by: DM | May 17, 2007 9:08:55 AM

It's all about "The Man" and how he's holding you down and taking away your democracy!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 17, 2007 9:16:05 AM

Litbrit: Our schools' schedules are also premised around long vacations.

Duh.

Posted by: jimmmm | May 17, 2007 9:27:32 AM

Fred Jones NEVER takes a vacation from being stupid.

Posted by: jimmmm | May 17, 2007 9:31:46 AM

Must be hard work . . .

Posted by: Dan S. | May 17, 2007 9:39:33 AM

I always find it fascinating and dishonest when people say they don't have time to argue questions about the points a counter argument is making, but they do have time to make multiple posts. Like I said the bullshit that is the American way of thinking.

Posted by: akaison | May 17, 2007 10:31:13 AM

So how come we get vacation days even though the government isn't there to protect us from big-bad-corporations?

Labor unions. When they demanded and received sick days and vacation, companies had to, of course, offer those to management as well.

Besides which, "we" don't necessarily get vacation days. You get vacation days.

Posted by: Magenta | May 17, 2007 10:37:06 AM

Litbrit: Our schools' schedules are also premised around long vacations. Duh.

And the reason for that, jimmmm? So that they, too, could work--in the fields:

The traditional school-year calendar with early morning start times and two or three month summer breaks was designed when many Americans lived on a farm.
At the time, school calendars revolved around the harvesting and planting of crops so that children could be home to help during the busiest summer months.

But of course, kids aren't working in the fields now. Three month vacations for kids when parents work and are not given (or are afraid to take) a few weeks off themselves are a huge burden on families. And as a result of this disparity, kids will either go to various camps and recreational activities (if their parents can afford it); attend summer school or enrichment/test-score-boosting sessions
(again, if their parents can afford it, or, in the case of public schools, if summer programs are offered); or sit around the house for three months, forgetting some of what they learned (necessitating weeks of review work by teachers come fall.) Google long school summer vacations if you want links; there are plenty.

I hate to keep bringing up other countries, but Latin America and Europe do not close schools for three entire months in the summer. And many, many educators and child advocates have been proposing shorter school vacations so American students can catch up to their foreign counterparts. In Europe, the length of school holidays generally meshes well with the length of vacation time their parents are afforded, around six weeks, give or take (see Ezra's chart above).

Posted by: litbrit | May 17, 2007 10:41:27 AM

Magenta,

Exactly. And what too many management types and their acolytes don't understand is that the decline of unions actually has an impact on them. When corporations don't have to give these benefits to the rank-and-file via collective bargaining, they also may well conclude there is no need to give them to anyone else.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 17, 2007 10:42:30 AM

Litbrit,

I have to say as the parent of a middle schooler, its we parents who need the summers off. A small break from overseeing homework is not a luxury, it's a necessaity.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 17, 2007 10:45:41 AM

I should clarify--the six weeks is for the children's vacations (at schools in Europe, etc.); adults get three or four weeks of paid leave.

Posted by: litbrit | May 17, 2007 10:46:07 AM

KTLN, I've got three sons myself (7, 11, and 15), the eldest two in a homework-obsessed prep school, so I can relate. But I'd rather they were in school than here all summer, and their grades would be better come fall if they hadn't had so many months of non-academia.

Posted by: litbrit | May 17, 2007 10:48:38 AM

Akaison,

Social hint: I was trying to elegantly end the conversation by acknowledging that we were really interested in different topics and that I did enjoy your point of view (hence the “good discource…”). Again, I’m not being dishonest here, and your accusation of such is more a reflection on you.

I was interested more in the narrow interpretation of who “pays” for the cost of additional vacation, not the trade off. Ezra used the verb “give”, (ex: “Austria gives workers 4 weeks paid…”). I just wanted to debunk the theory that anyone’s getting anything for free.

Posted by: DM | May 17, 2007 11:16:56 AM

Litbrit,

I wish I could simply blame mine's performance on the summer vacation. Actually, on a serious note, I do think the kids need a break of some duration and that the oppressive homework regimens of today really detract from the ability of kids to be kids. But they refelct this social anxiety that we are all falling behind somehow. Which I think in some respects brings us full circle on this topic. What are we trying to accomplish as a society? Maximum GDP and maximum insecurity for people or something a little more humane.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 17, 2007 11:39:46 AM

So why don't New York, California, Oregon, and Vermont and other "progessive" states pass these laws at the state level?

Posted by: Alex | May 17, 2007 1:09:19 PM

What about Mexico? It's an OECD country.

Posted by: neil | May 17, 2007 1:11:29 PM

Alex, because as others pointed out, I believe, companies in those states would then relocate to non-vacation-mandating states, or dangle the threat of relocation over their employees in order to get them to accept stagnant salaries, fewer benefits, etc. in order to offset the cost of now-mandated vacations.

It really needs to be federal law, like the minimum wage. Government should require that companies provide a reasonable, nominal amount of vacation time--without connectivity or take-home work or coercion to remain in touch, please--for all employees, toward the interest of greater national health (physical, emotional, and social). States could augment that, if they wanted.

KTLN--excellent points, all (and yeah, my three have screwups aplenty and summer vacation can't be blamed for everything, definitely).

I helped my eldest do a report on family life in Italy not too long ago (more homework). I'd heard from the husband how different things were there, but when I read extensively about the Italians' pace of life (much slower and more digressive), the closeness of families (very), and the general happiness and sense of well-being enjoyed (due in no small part, I'm sure, to a near-complete absence of that insecurity to which you refer, that sense of always waiting for the other shoe to drop), certain things stood out to me as worth emulating. Elderly parents live with their children, for example. Nursing homes are not popular. People love to own, yes, but it's a culture that values lasting things, not given to putting themselves in debt to own the latest and greatest every time something new hits the shelf. Sports stadiums are around forever, unlike here in Florida, where they get torn down every decade and replaced with newer, fancier, shinier--but equally disposable--shrines to [insert favorite overpaid team name here] that taxpayers inevitably foot the bill for. Italians, especially those in the South, go to work later and take longer lunches (with time for naps even!) but they work later into the evening and eat dinner later, too. They have many of the same problems we have--gridlock, crime, political corruption--but on the whole, it seems to this subjective observer that families--particularly mothers--are revered and individuals are, on the whole, more relaxed and happy than they are here.

And you know, that nation has been around for a while. I don't think it's anti-American to point out that older, more experienced cultures might--just might--have one or two things going for them from which we can learn. But we've got to first do away with this notion that America Is Always Best, Always Right, Always First and if you criticize anything about her it means you don't love her so you can just get out. That strikes me as terribly infantile and Bushian.

Posted by: litbrit | May 17, 2007 1:43:55 PM

Litbrit,

And of course our politicians and elite pundits can cooly and calmly discuss who we should bomb and when we should bomb them, like the people in said countries don't exist, but let one of their politicians engage in similar demagoguery and its time to break out the fainting couches. And if you have bad manners enough to point this out, you hate America and all that it stands for.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 17, 2007 2:15:29 PM

Methinks the majority of the respondent's gibber on this issue illustrates the wisdom of keeping the status quo: we already have too much time on our hands.

Posted by: murgott | May 17, 2007 3:01:14 PM

Pardon or ignore this dredging up of the distant past in this thread, but I'm still trying to figure out how a fourth week of vacation for DM's "fairly senior consultants" would require a customer offset of $25/hour. Using an admittedly naive calculation (1960 hours @ x$/hour) = (1920hr @ x$+25/hour) I get x=1200.

All other things being equal, and we all know they are not, the difference between three and four weeks of vacation is a hair over 2% of the working year. Anyone who has actually taken a vacation in a white collar environment knows that you typically work harder just before and after. The productivity loss is quite a bit less than 2%.

Posted by: jackd | May 17, 2007 3:24:12 PM

Alex, because as others pointed out, I believe, companies in those states would then relocate to non-vacation-mandating states, or dangle the threat of relocation over their employees in order to get them to accept stagnant salaries, fewer benefits, etc. in order to offset the cost of now-mandated vacations.
It really needs to be federal law, like the minimum wage.

But this just boots the problem up a level, to competition between nations which looks pretty much the same as you describe for competition between states. (Incidentally, how has Finland, and Europe in general, avoided losing this competition?)

The obvious rejoinder, "then it needs to be *global* law", has some difficulties in practice: how do you convince all the countries of the world to adopt such a global set of uniform labor standards? Leading by example probably couldn't hurt, but it's not going to get the job done by itself.

P.S. In case it wasn't sufficiently obvious already: White-collar workers are not the problem here. Their working conditions are pretty decent already and they can negotiate without being laughed at. It's food service and other employer's markets where people commonly get 0 paid holidays, 0 paid leave, 0 paid sick days, 0 health benefits - on top of their lousy wage for the days they do work.

Posted by: Chris | May 17, 2007 4:39:12 PM

DM I don't need padding. just end a conversation. I find indirectness considering my profession annoying because I deal with it all day. Lawyers give new meaning to passive aggressive.

Posted by: akaison | May 17, 2007 4:41:07 PM

In most of the country... Employees don't have any paid time off.

And a good employer is one that actually doesn't fire you for requesting time off. You know, unpaid time off. To have that weekend or get to a class on time or maybe you had the flu...

Posted by: Crissa | May 17, 2007 5:06:19 PM

Incidentally, how has Finland, and Europe in general, avoided losing this competition?

Now you're asking me to risk having my head handed to me, but right off the top of same, as to why people there wouldn't move to the States en masse:

-Universal healthcare in those countries

- and better public schools

- safer food courtesy of stricter food-labeling, marketing, and agriculture laws (last time I checked, no GM crops could be grown in the UK, for one example)

- draconian immigration laws in the US that require joining a lottery for a chance to move here

- family ties

- language

- an overall climate in which people consider--because they are able to--things other than money when making life decisions (see KTLN's comments about institutionalized insecurity above)

And as for why those countries don't wind up competing against each other for workers, what's to say they don't, to some extent? Though many of the same factors would apply (family, language, ties to the community, etc.)

Posted by: litbrit | May 17, 2007 5:16:30 PM

"Alex, because as others pointed out, I believe, companies in those states would then relocate to non-vacation-mandating states, or dangle the threat of relocation over their employees in order to get them to accept stagnant salaries, fewer benefits, etc. in order to offset the cost of now-mandated vacations."

Let them. Many companies in CA or NY deal with far more onerous tax and regulatory provisions than they do in TX. They remain in CA for any number of reasons. If they want to leave over it, let em leave. Beauty of having 50 states.

"But we've got to first do away with this notion that America Is Always Best, Always Right, Always First and if you criticize anything about her it means you don't love her so you can just get out."

I agree, but you can say that about the people in every country in the world. Having lived there, it is certainly true of Italians.

Posted by: Alex | May 17, 2007 6:44:29 PM

I’m only stating the cost of additional vacation, above and beyond what’s somewhat “standard” today, will be borne by the employee.

DM is correct. Maybe they want to bear these costs, who knows? But this is the point that the Pollyanna left never considers. It's always "Think of the Children!!!"

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 18, 2007 9:03:11 AM

San Francisco apparently mandates 9.something days of sick time for... well at least all full time employees, I'm not sure if absolutely everyone gets it. An HR person just mentioned it to me when explaining why I was getting that strange fractional sick day.

Posted by: jefff | May 18, 2007 1:09:45 PM

Some employers grant vacation time to workers voluntarily. I submit that employers will grant vacation time when they perceive it to be in their interests to do so.

The argument is not whether it is or is not, in general, in an employer's intersts to do so. The argument is:

(1) If it is not in the employer's interest to do so, should the employer be coerced into doing so anyway?

(2) If it is in the employer's interest to do so, but the employer (irrationally) refuses, should the employer be coerced into doing so anyway?

The answer to both questions is no. If Americans deserve vacations, levying a tax on their employers to fund it is unfair; the tax should be levied more broadly (e.g., income tax, VAT). And if business owners cannot assess their own interests accurately, other business owners will, in time, supplant them.

Posted by: Rich | May 18, 2007 1:37:15 PM

We are in a historical period in which employees' bargaining power is relatively weak, and that of the owners of capital is relatively strong. If employees' bargaining power is strengthened, they can fight for their own time off without any other government intervention. Most US employees would be quite happy with the vacation-holiday-sick leave regime the UAW, for example, had in its heyday (and may still have for all I know), but since the US automakers have to compete against non-union shops, they are at a disadvantage.

Strengthen protection for union activity (and enforce it globally through trade agreements) and let the chips fall where they may. Beyond that, as many posters above have suggested, judging the well-being of a society by its per-capita GDP is (a) pretty nonsensical and (b) what we in the US usually do nevertheless when setting policy.

Posted by: applecor | May 18, 2007 2:59:23 PM

Scenario 1: You earn $36,500 and get no paid vacation days, but can take up to 15 days off at a salary deduction of $100 per day.
Scenario 2: You get 15 paid vacation days and earn $35,000.

You are better off in scenario 1, because you can make your own marginal substitution of income for leisure.

And those are roughly the options you'll be facing -- when the government forces a labor expense on employers, they will economize some other way.

Posted by: Nick Danger | May 20, 2007 3:51:16 AM

To clarify: People will be better off in scenario 1 unless there is some reason to think they systematically make a mistake about the substitution.

Posted by: Nick Danger | May 20, 2007 4:02:42 AM

To murgott: We cannot spend too much time discussing this important issue. Someday, perhaps 200 years from now, a modern society made up of people who prioritize their lives over work will look back at this time period and wonder why people like you supported the status quo over quality of life.

Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2007 1:52:30 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour