
U.S. is the only developed country with no guaranteed paid vacation or holidays - sethbannon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/27/america-is-the-only-rich-country-that-doesnt-guarantee-paid-vacation-or-holidays/
======
tptacek
Time and money are fungible. When you "guarantee" workers 4-5 weeks of
vacation, who's to say your comp isn't being adjusted downwards to compensate?
What's the apples-apples comparison you could do between, say, Germany and the
US to demonstrate how much better a deal the Germans are getting on this?

Meanwhile, if you're making near minimum wage, aren't you more likely to be
fighting for additional hours rather than looking for reasons to give them up?

~~~
bokonist
I used to think that mandatory vacation laws were an undesirable restrictions
on worker freedom. I figured workers should have the freedom to choose their
own balance between compensation and vacation time.

I changed my mind on the issue. For a long version of my new thinking, I have
a blog post: _The Four Economic Classes and Their Respective Plights_
<http://intellectual-detox.com/2013/01/20/economic-classes/> I'll try and give
a shorter version here.

The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are either
zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in nature.
In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a death
sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off.

This is a classic prisoners dilemma problem. As a sales person at a software
company, I might want more vacation time. But if I take off the time, I might
lose the sale to a competing firm, who does not take time off (the I lose,
they win quadrant of the game). So both might work the extra day, and we both
lose because we are working more. But if there is a law mandating a national
holiday, then we both can take the day off, without losing the sale to the
competing firm.

For the minimum wage worker, yes, that particular worker might be fighting for
more hours. But when all the low wage workers fight for more hours and give up
benefits, it just drives down the wages for everyone. The U.S. is rich enough
to both give all workers a living wage and enough vacation, so why not enact
the policies to do so? (Just mandating more vacation alone, might not be a
good idea, but mandating vacation plus giving some sort of wage subsidy either
in the form of cash or in health benefits, might be a quite good idea).

~~~
splintercell
_The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are
either zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in
nature. In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a
death sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better
off._

I wouldn't be. I don't wanna trade money for vacation. I am young, immigrant,
I wanna save up money, I don't wanna trade vacation time for my salary.

You can make your case if you want, but please avoid taking anonymous
authority and say things like "if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be
better off, if we just used the government to force every employer to give
everyone vacation time".

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Note that we are talking about _paid_ vacation. You get both. Your paycheck
still comes, but you don't go to work.

------
ck2
And no guaranteed health care. Makes for a "wonderful mess" where if one
person gets sick, it wipes out the workplace, because they cannot afford to
not be on the job.

But hey they are trying to bring back indentured servitude so these are the
least of the average person's worries.

~~~
oleganza
Another reason to not miss a day on the job: half of your income is
confiscated by your government for the "social good" + massive regulations
prevent a lot of people from getting work, so it's much harder to change
employer or start a business than would otherwise.

And of course, 80 bln dollars printed per month raise prices making every USD
holder poorer everyday.

Definitely, we need more welfare mess on top of it.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Another reason to not miss a day on the job: half of your income is
> confiscated by your government for the "social good""_

Taxation is not spread evenly. The portion of the population most at-risk
(i.e., lowest levels of health insurance, lowest levels of paid leave, etc)
pay little to no taxes. Tax rates only become high in populations that can
afford to take a day off (i.e., good health insurance coverage, paid sick
days, etc).

So no, the people who are afraid of missing a day of work do not have "half
their income" confiscated by the government.

In fact, I'd be interested in seeing _anyone_ in the US who pays an income tax
rate of 50%. This seems like an interesting feat, considering the _highest
marginal rate_ is 40%.

~~~
pandaman
He is not saying "income tax rate is 50%". Please pay attention. The half of
the income comes from the estimates of how much you pay taxes in total.
Including property, sales tax, various fees and tariffs, and, most
importantly, portion of corporate and other taxes that the consumer pays as
part of the prices of goods and services.

------
Irishsteve
And when you are lucky enough to get paid vacation, it is usually 1 - 2 weeks
less than the norm for many european countries.

~~~
sliverstorm
Increasing it may not help that much- don't we have a chronic problem of
people not actually using their vacation?

~~~
ownagefool
We have the problem here in the UK and the likely rest of Europe. Some
employers just aren't interested in treating their staff well, but for those
who are, having a better standard to follow is nice.

------
pionar
It's interesting that most of the countries with the higher levels of paid
vacation and holidays have some of the absolute worst economies. Portugal?
Spain? Italy? France? Greece?

Yeah, how's the guaranteed vacations and holidays working out for them?

~~~
pyre
You're comparing one extreme to another in order to say that your preferred
extreme is better? Based on the logic that you're trying to put forth paid
vacation should be made illegal. Then the economy would increase 10-fold,
right?

------
sethbannon
FYI here's the original report:
[http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/no-vacation-
updat...](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/no-vacation-
update-2013-05.pdf)

------
hexis
"The United States is the only advanced economy in the world that..."

The United States, like the past, is a different country. We do things
differently here.

~~~
MysticFear
The United States didn't become the most powerful country by following others.

------
mtillman
We're also one of only three countries in the world with no mandatory
maternity leave and the only "developed":
[http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/03/08...](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/03/08/55683/the-
united-states-needs-to-guarantee-paid-maternity-leave/)

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting, does China have mandatory paid vacations and holidays?

~~~
st0p
China hasn't got free speech either. What is your point?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well I didn't think China did, and they are certainly a 'developed nation' so
saying the US is the "only" developed nation without it was false on its face.
So that made me wonder what subtext the headline was trying send.

As at last check China was on track to be the #2 economy in the world and
perhaps the #1 economy (replacing the US). If you wrote the article title "All
the top economies of the world don't have mandatory vacation" its a much
different message is it not?

One headline seems to advocate that the US is barbaric for not allowing
vacation, and the other headline seems to advocate that you can't become a top
economy by giving away GDP.

~~~
room271
China is not a developed nation by modern standards. It still has very high
levels of poverty and a low average income compared to what is typically
called 'The West' (Western Europe, North America, Japan, etc.).

~~~
ChuckMcM
Can you say more about why you base the definition of 'developed' on per
capita income rather than economic capability? I ask because my definition is
'capable of providing all needs of the citizens caveat raw materials' so by
that definition China can build pretty much anything it needs if it has the
raw materials to do so, it doesn't depend on any other economy for
transforming or upleveling those materials into economic inputs.

I agree with you that its people do not benefit equally from its economy but I
don't tie that into 'developed' or 'not developed'.

------
bojan
On the other hand, IT salaries are way higher in the US than they are in
Europe. When I see people here talking about $100k a year like it's normal
thing to have I feel that difference.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Those salaries are only common in a few areas with an outrageously high cost
of living. In the rest of the country, the salaries aren't much higher than
the ones in Europe.

------
venomsnake
Austria have 35 days off guaranteed (almost 2 months if you throw a few days
off because of sickness) while the us have 16 on average and the GDP per
capita of the two countries is almost the same.

Ample amounts of rest does not seem to increase productivity in the rest of
the time.

Fun fact - in Boleslaw Prus Pharaoh one of the main economic measures what the
pharaoh declaring every seventh day a rest one instead of every tenth for the
peasants with the argumentation that they will work better the rest of the
times.

~~~
alsocasey

        GDP per capita of the two countries is almost the same.
        Ample amounts of rest does not seem to increase productivity
        in the rest of the time.
    

GDP per capita is a per annum figure - so productivity (economic output per
days of work) would actually be higher for Austria in the above case.

------
tome
My 25 days "paid" vacation a year was no more "paid" (when I had it) than my
52 "paid" weekends a year.

It's simply non-discretionary time available for me to not come into work, the
cost of which has already been deducted from my salary.

That's not to say I didn't value the generous amount of time off, and that's
not to say Americans will find it easy to negotiate such an amount of unpaid
leave. But let's be realistic about what "paid" vacation is.

------
therandomguy
It is best to boil it down to one variable, in this case, money and let the
employee decide.

------
room271
We have a tendency to overwork because relative status matters to our well-
being. In short, it's a massive prisoner's dilemma and income tax can be seen
as a corrective on this.

So mandatory holidays are in fact a great idea because they overcome a
coordination failure.

(Discuss...)

------
kushti
"U.S. is the only developed country not poisoned by socialism"

fixed

~~~
Tomis02
Dog eat dog is so much better, right? I still don't understand how John Rawls
was born in USA, his views were so un-American.

~~~
pyre
Dog eat dog is much better... if you view yourself as the alpha dog. The funny
thing is that were push come to shove, you might find out that your views and
reality differ.

------
michaelochurch
In the 21st century, the U.S. isn't a First World country. That's not a dig.
It's just the new reality.

20th century defintions:

    
    
        First World: liberal, capitalistic democracies
        Second World: totalitarian leftism (Soviet bloc)
        Third World: poorer countries "in play" (Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam).
    

This isn't very useful anymore. S. Korea is _not_ "third world" and
totalitarian leftism died.

21st century definitions:

    
    
        First World: Nations with established social democracies (welfare states). 
        Second World: Nations sacrificing well-being for other motives. 
        Third World: Poor countries that don't get to choose.
    

Most people would think of the BRIC countries as "Second World", then. These
countries are sacrificing equity and, in many cases, democracy in order to
have rapid economic growth. The Arab petrostates are also Second World: rich,
but through social and political sacrifice. But the U.S. is doing the same
thing; it's just that the U.S. isn't seeking rapid growth (difficult when
already in the lead) but the maintenance of military supremacy (hence the
gigantic war budget).

It's not all bad news. Second World countries tend to make it a lot easier to
get individually rich.

~~~
sultezdukes
You don't get to make up the definitions.

~~~
michaelochurch
I didn't; that's how they seem to be used in the 21st-century world. To be
honest, though, the "Nth World" classification is of questionable utility.

~~~
mitchty
Especially since your 20th century definitions aren't correct, it brings into
question that your definitions of the 21st are near correct or widely
accepted.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World>

------
sultezdukes
_The United States is the only advanced economy in the world that does not
guarantee its workers paid vacation._

You can guarantee it yourself when you accept a position somewhere. But once
again we have leftists in the media assuming that everybody is completely
incompetent without the government intervening in every aspect of society. You
can just see those so-called journalists over at the Washington Post looking
at the "social democracies" like a starry-eyed school girl.

~~~
snprbob86
You are being completely ignorant.

My girlfriend, who has a college degree, works for Delta as a flight
attendant. After the North West merger, her colleagues collectively voted
against a union because of perceived corruption and expectedly high union
dues. In the year since the failed vote, there have been substantial adverse
changes to vacation and sick leave rules, increased abuse of duty days by crew
scheduling, and decreased medical benefits.

That's 20,000 people who thought they had guarantees on paid vacation who
suddenly need to spend more of their own money to get a doctors note on
holiday weekends. By the way, if you need a doctors note at 4am before going
to work: You need to go to the ER... which is expensive. Meanwhile, they are
being forced to work longer and longer hours for depreciating pay.

The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not
be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Furthermore, government exists
to provide for the common welfare. That's its role. Those 20,000 people
already pay their taxes, why should they also have to pay union dues to get
basic protections for their working conditions and compensation?

This story happens over and over again in many industries.

These people aren't incompetent, yet you're suggesting that they'd have to be
in order for someone to believe that they need government to protect them. In
the common case, they are hardworking, educated, friendly people who are being
screwed by people like you. Wether you and our elected officials are ignorant
or malicious, I don't know. But what you are saying is bullshit.

~~~
dillona
Wouldn't that indicate that she should find another position?

~~~
snprbob86
Where?

She could go to a totally different industry, but she'd be starting her career
over again at the bottom.

She loves flying & traveling, so she'd probably want to go to another airline.
However, Delta (one of the largest airlines) accepts a only few thousand new
flight attendants per year out of many tens of thousands of applicants.
Smaller airlines would be even more difficult to get a job at. All the
airlines are also seniority based, so she's have to start her career over
again at the bottom. Experience at other airlines wouldn't contribute one iota
to her standing in a new airline.

College put her (and everybody else) in substantial debt, so she can't start a
business or do anything really risky like that.

This is a story you have all heard over and over again...

If you're a well paid engineer, it might be hard for you to understand:
Educated, hard working people, are constantly screwed by the system and
consistently ignored by people who don't understand their plight.

~~~
greenyoda
_"All the airlines are also seniority based..."_

That's probably something that's dictated by the union contract, just as it is
with school teachers and other unionized workers. If it was up to the airline,
they'd probably promote based on how well people did their jobs rather than
seniority. So in this way, the unions are decreasing the ability of employees
to look for jobs elsewhere.

~~~
snprbob86
> If it was up to the airline, they'd probably promote based on how well
> people did their jobs rather than seniority.

How does an airline know how well people do their jobs?

There are thousands of flight attendants based in NYC alone. It's not uncommon
for the flight leader to never lead a particular team member a second time.
How are you going to have peer reviews?

The best they can do is find bad people via complaints and the best people via
complement cards. Finding the best people by process of elimination isn't
really a good strategy. And complement cards are only really provided by
frequent flyers and in first class, which is predominantly staffed by more
senior crew members.

But this generalizes too: What does it mean to be the best factory workers?
For some employers, the definition would be "doesn't get sick and/or
complain".

The best flight attendants are only twice as helpful and friendly as the
pretty good flight attendants. Should they get paid double for something so
subjective as "friendly and helpful?" Meanwhile, the best engineers are (some
say) 10X (or even 100X) more productive. Yet they only make what 3X to 6X the
pay on average, but only if they know how to negotiate... oh and by the way,
they work in the field with the lowest supply and highest demand. Unlike
effectively unskilled labor that most of the world has no choice but to do.

~~~
greenyoda
_"There are thousands of flight attendants based in NYC alone. It's not
uncommon for the flight leader to never lead a particular team member a second
time."_

Just because this is the way that flight crews are scheduled today doesn't
mean that it's the only way it can be done. Why can't the schedule be arranged
so that the same crew and leader stay together (as much as possible) on
subsequent flights? Of course, there's no reason for the airlines to try any
new approaches as long as unions won't budge on seniority.

~~~
snprbob86
We're now way off topic into the details of a particular industry, but I'll
entertain your comment anyway. I just want to stress again: These problems
generalize to many many many other industries.

> Why can't the schedule be arranged so that the same crew and leader stay
> together (as much as possible)

Because...

1) Flights get delayed or canceled

2) Crew member get sick or stuck elsewhere around the world

3) Planes are of varying size with varying size crews

4) Destinations change seasonally

5) Holidays and events alter flight schedules

6) People quit

7) People move and transfer bases

Never mind that flexibility to travel is the #1 job perk that they have to
offer as career bait. Flight attendants trade flights, full trips, and
destinations all the time. They are in that line of work so that they can go
to interesting locations, if only for a short while. You could half their pay
and they would still complain much more loudly if you halved their destination
flexibility.

