I went to my first ever baseball game on Friday night. I didn’t think I’d enjoy it. It seems too similar to cricket, a game so long and boring that it feels like training for life in a nursing home.
But I was pleasantly surprised. Baseball’s a fast moving battle of nerves. When it comes down to three “balls” and two “strikes,” the guy at the bat has the world on his shoulders. If he takes another strike, his head hangs low. If he knocks it out of the park, he stands among the gods. The rules are simple and any confusion is cleared up by more beer. After two hours, I graduated from total novice to seasoned pro – shouting, “You could see the ball better if you got a haircut, hippie!” and “Hit it, don’t swat it, Zimmerman!” [That Zimmerman really bugged me. His whole technique seemed to rely on the pitcher not being able to throw. Is the man allergic to running?]
...Another, more stark, reminder of that truth is the role that military pageantry plays at a baseball game. At the start of the contest, the CIA honour guard trooped the colours and we were all invited to stand and applaud the folks serving in the US military. But nothing prepared me for the moving rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner, as sung by a female soldier in combat fatigues. The stadium stood proudly – hats clasped to chests – as she powerfully, beautifully sang the national anthem. “Does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave/ O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” It sure does.
In contrast, American patriotism is sharper and more certain – and more fixedly about ideas. Its promise is individual freedom. But that freedom is guaranteed – just like victory in a baseball game – by thinking and acting as a team or a nation. One of the reasons why civil society works in the US slightly better than it does in Britain is that they understand the balance of rights and responsibilities between the individual and the group. Without the security of a welfare state, Americans are acculturated to risk and sacrifice, and so (ironically) they can be a little more charitable than us. They are certainly more free.
After the game we moved to a bar and got chatting with some young marines, who were talking excitedly about the fact that they are going to present the flag at one of the ballgames next week. After that, they will fly off to war. We are lucky to share the world with a nation that produces men like these.
Repoz
Posted: April 18, 2012 at 02:23 PM |
773 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
history
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That would have been quite a drive in 1935 when there were no 4-lane highways and most of the roads weren't even paved.
For some perspective, he had quit school after Grade 8 to work on his family farm, and he was 23 at the time of the trip. They would have stayed in hotels (motels didn't yet exist) the whole trip. I can't imagine what a trip like that would cost today, but I'm damn sure two 23-year old farm boys without a high school education couldn't afford it.
Do you live in Asia? Because I live in Europe (jokes about the UK and its occasionally antagonistic relationship with the EU aside, my job exists partially from EU funding and there is a constant flow of trucks and buses from Europe on the road outside my office...so it's Europe to me). I wanted to live there since I was a little kid, so when I got the chance, I did it. And believe me, Europe hasn't made it easy for me.
All the stuff I said above is stuff I love to see, part of the conception of Europe I've had in my head since I was a little kid, with influences ranging all over the shop. But it's also my life, every day. I love it and I love going to Europe and experiencing the differences between living in the UK and living in Ireland, or Belgium, Holland, Germany or France. I love it and I'm not particularly inclined to go back to the US.
You're right, I'm not a traveller. I'm just experiencing different aspects of my home.
I was the first in my family to travel to Europe in 80 years when I first flew over, and I have been to Europe more times than I can count, since I've had, in my various relationships, in-laws in Ireland, England, Germany, and Denmark. I think almost nothing of it, and my son still less, since he started to go to Europe as an infant. Air travel is truly disorienting in ways we don't even notice anymore. And that's true everywhere, I think. Working-class Europeans used to get around the continent, briskly but not hassle-free, by train and boat 30 years ago; cut-rate airlines like RyanAir have meant that the whole continent is basically accessible to everybody, without many barriers of cost (or political borders) anymore. It's been a huge change in my own 53-year lifetime.
I know what you mean, I'm just not sure I agree. Things that blow your mind and will stay with you forever are often experiences, not sights, and I'm pretty sure I've had some of those in Europe, even though it's my 'home continent'. Climbing up a Budapest hill (forget the name) in the pitch black of night to look up at the illuminated Liberty Statue, and gaze out over the city lit up beneath me definitely wrinkled my brain.
I have no idea whether Asia would be "more mind-blowing" or not, as I've not been yet. And I'm certainly a fan of experiencing the truly foreign, rather than the comfortably familiar. But I suspect that if you approach Europe as a set of cultural boxes to tick, you might experience it as a tourist. If you sink deeper into the unique culture of the absurdly rich variety of environments it has to offer, and the history that's associated with them, you may end up with your mind just as blown. But, perhaps, via a different dimension.
The combination of a 1962 VW Beetle and the Appalachian mountain routes of old U.S. 40 (pre-I-70) could shorten your life at the rate of about a day per hour.
And in a rainstorm, two words: Dry gas. If you don't know what that means, consider yourself lucky.
Not what I (nor do I think, others, but I'll let them chime in) was saying, at all. It was the reason given for his preference that is in dispute.
Flynn said distinctively that Europe had those things he was looking for "like no other continent". All the "Grotty little bars, hole in the wall restaurants, old churches, massive train stations, trams, football grounds, gig venues, crumbling little houses that don't sit up straight. Little tiny alleys, rivers and canals, shipyards, and so on," are there in Asia, everywhere and in spades. Now, that they perhaps aren't the European ones that he wants to see means only means that Asia has them like no other continent the same way that Europe has them like no other continent.
It sounds pedantic, but his initial claim started with the fact that European cities were better, and everything coming from that thesis - including what is quoted above - is opinion regarding Asia and not fact.
You don't have to just live in the Northeast to be able to drive around and see sights conveniently. I'd say anywhere East of the Mississippi you have more than sufficient density to hit up several sights, landmarks every hour or two by car. I've driven to nearly every state. The Midwest and southeast are not sparsely populated at all and have plenty of cities that are a million or more, more than the northeast does. East of the Mississippi, is nothing at all like the western half of the US is. In fact, I'd say driving as a tourist in the Northeast can often suck, unless you are talking just New England. When you are driving, you prefer your destinations and time spent in the car to be over open roads, not behind 18 wheelers and congestion. Fresh air is always better than city air.
Shame I missed this. I hate people that recline in such an aggressive manner regardless of what is going on behind them. Did you know, my knee extends outward too? You don't see me kicking their chair just because I can. Or my arms punching the back of their head. I don't know why as a airline ticket holder I don't own the air space 7 inches in front of my face, but instead the guy in front of me does?
There are areas near Cooperstown that are very pretty. In fact Cooperstown itself is nice. But you can get a nice resort type stay on a lake for a good price nearby.
Lassus, you do realize this is the guys opinion? Right? You aren't having a conversation with an Encyclopedia Britannica, or god forbid, Wikipedia. Opinions do not need to be objective.
This might be true.....tourists v travelers. But the tone of this strikes me as a little bit like indie rock vs mainstream rock or craft beer vs non craft beer. It's a little too phony or faux-intellectual to dismiss Europe so easily.
When one says that things don't exist, that's not really an opinion to me, and I admit I find it necessary to point out that they do exist.
I didn't think I was being too pedantic in this case, but perhaps I was. That's what I heard - "Europe has them like no other". Perhaps I added a comma in that sentence that wasn't there, but again, when you start with saying that "European cities are better", not "I like European cities better", it makes a difference. YMMV, and apologies if I'm simply being trouble.
Nice try.
Fair enough. I just think Flynn didn't go into great detail on why Europe is his cup of tea. I assumed there was more to it.....such as Europe is more Europey then Asia.
Nothing wrong with correcting factual errors. I'm sure Asia has just as many gourmet hole in the wall joints as Europe. In fact, from watching Anthony Bourdain globe trot, that seems to be Asia's specialty.
Still, your underlying point is right; I can't imagine taking more than two weeks off in a row.
There's an American border town (maybe Maine?) called Calais, but pronounced as if it rhymes with palace. It's painful every time I hear it.
I worked in Prague for awhile; at least some workers there had to take off at least two consecutive weeks at some point in the year.
It is indeed Maine. They managed to not screw up the pronounciation of Mexico, Peru, and a few others named after other places.
You act as if that's some sort of an advantage. Not everyone would.
Still, your underlying point is right; I can't imagine taking more than two weeks off in a row.
And this is why this is the world's greatest country.
It is indeed Maine. They managed to not screw up the pronounciation of Mexico, Peru, and a few others named after other places.
Interestingly for Calais, "Callis" is how it was pronounced in English for most of the history of Anglo-French relations. It is certainly how Shakespeare pronounced it. No need for the pronunciation to inflict pain. Do you pronounce Paris Par-eee? Of course not!
Now, there is no excuse for the fact that Maine does screw up Vienna (first syllable rhymes with pie) and Madrid (first syllable rhymes with mad).
To make things more confusing Cadiz was "Cales" in 17th century English. What makes it painful for me is that I grew up in the 20th century and knew about the French Calais before the American. It's not that the people in Maine are idiots who don't know how to say their town right, it's that it sounds wrong to me based on my experience. There's a similarly "ugly" sound to me when someone pronounced Toronto "correctly" rather than the actually correct "Terono".
Yeah, that's pretty much what it is.
####### Mainers.
Of course there are probably hundreds of American towns and place names like that.
Go to Albany, Georgia and ask a white person what town he lives in. (All-BENNY)
Go to Cairo, Illinois and you'll think you're in a syrup can. (KAY-ro)
Set Lisa loose on the northern boundary of SoHo, ask her to read the street sign, and watch the fun begin.
And I still can't see any logical distinction between an American saying "France" instead of "Frahnze" and "Chilly" instead of "Chee-LAY". Why the one and not the other?
The "correct" stuff is a bit tongue in cheek, but I spent the first 20 years of my life in Toronto, and no Torontonian I've ever met pronounces the second T in the name, and the first O is pronounced as an E. People who say it as written stand out like a sore thumb to me.
The one that always confuses me (and I've had it explained to me a million times but I always forget) is Ivory Coast and Cote D'Ivoire. If you're going to name your country after an actual thing we should be allowed to translate!
EDIT: I seem to recall there being something about "Coast" not being the only possible translation of "Cote".
The "correct" stuff is a bit tongue in cheek, but I spent the first 20 years of my life in Toronto, and no Torontonian I've ever met pronounces the second T in the name, and the first O is pronounced as an E. People who say it as written stand out like a sore thumb to me.
Fair enough, but when you're south of the Canadian border do you give a person the full Bern-STINE!!! treatment if he doesn't talk like an Ontarian native?
I always hear "Tronno," from Canadians. Is that a regional/class thing?
Well, some folks are more Catholic than the Pope, and some countries are more French than the French. But as Stalin might have said, how many divisions do the Cote d'Ivoriens have?
This is true in many banks, my Dad has always had to take two weeks. It's to uncover fraud. If you're cooking the books, having someone else do your job for two weeks helps uncover it.
Fun with saying odd names.
Another QI tidbit I picked up. The guy Mt. Everest is name after pronounced his name "EVE-erest". Normally I'm for common usage = correct. But when it's been named specifically after a dude I think we ought to say it the way he would have.
EDIT: And to answer the question, not at all. Since the way "outsiders" say Toronto seems technically correct I have a hard time holding it against them. It just marks them as "from away" as a Newfie would say (speaking of people who talk funny)
I think it's pretty much the same thing. It's essentially just laziness. If you say it often enough you don't feel like hitting all the letters. So some people go that extra mile and just take out the first O entirely.
And this is why this is the world's greatest country.
Because we actually take work seriously, instead of acting like a bunch of civil servants counting the days to retirement?
If you get 4 weeks of vacation in a year, it seems mindlessly stupid, and counterproductive, to take them all at once. It's like eating all the ice cream I'm going to eat this year in one week. I'll enjoy it less at the time (by the third week I'm getting really sick of the petty inconveniences of travel), and then have 11 months of work with no breaks.
I wouldn't want to take off more than that. I mean, sure, when I'm ancient and have no work or family responsibilities, fine. I'll happily spend a few months traveling Europe. Or going to every major league park. But with kids that's obviously not an option stupidmegamillionspickingthewrongnumbers, and with a job where you actually have responsibilities it's just not realistic.
I think it's pretty much the same thing. It's essentially just laziness. If you say it often enough you don't feel like hitting all the letters. So some people go that extra mile and just take out the first O entirely.
And then there's the Maryland state bird, the Ballmer Eriel.
And this is why this is the world's greatest country.
Because we actually take work seriously, instead of acting like a bunch of civil servants counting the days to retirement?
Yeah, that's it. Only people who need to work 50 weeks a year in order to stay ahead have got the secret of life figured out. And for someone with your attitude towards work, you sure as hell seem to spend an awful lot of time on BTF avoiding it.
BTW in the 23 years before I went the mail money route, I took two vacations, both honeymoons with the same woman. But if I hadn't had the world's most enjoyable job imaginable, I wouldn't have had the same outlook.
And this is why this is the world's greatest country.
I wouldn't want to take off more than that.
And that's fine, since like me, you obviously enjoy your work.
I mean, sure, when I'm ancient and have no work or family responsibilities, fine. I'll happily spend a few months traveling Europe. Or going to every major league park. But with kids that's obviously not an option stupidmegamillionspickingthewrongnumbers, and with a job where you actually have responsibilities it's just not realistic.
The question is (and I'll back off if it seems too personal), how would your sleep be if you had the same responsibilities but you saw your work as pure drudgery and necessity? I know you'd keep working because of your sense of love and obligation to your family, but would you really want to be put in the position where that was your sole motivation? And from that, do you really think anyone should be put in that position?
Heh... some years back visiting relatives in NY - I got lost for quite a while because I kept arguing with them on my cell "There's a HEW-ston st... is that what you mean?"... No, the response came back - it's definitely "HOW-ston"... Finally, as I neared being an hour late meeting them - they began to realize that the sarcasm wasn't coming through on the phone and I was genuinely looking for a more phonetic match to the street that held the place we were meeting.
I could be wrong, but I think most of northern/western NY says this as well.
You apparently don't understand the nature of modern managerial work. You're on call a lot of hours, but there's plenty of dead time during the day (e.g. conf calls you need to be on, but are peripheral) when you can post on the internet. Likewise, I had to answer several emails yesterday afternoon on a Sunday.
Bottom line, no one cares how many hours you work, or what you do at work, as long as you get done what needs to be done, and are accessible and responsive.
BTW in the 23 years before I went the mail money route, I took two vacations, both honeymoons with the same woman. But if I hadn't had the world's most enjoyable job imaginable, I wouldn't have had the same outlook.
You should have taken more vacations. It's not healthy for anyone to not take vacations.
The Plantagenets spoke French so they probably pronounced it the same as the French.
The Plantagenets spoke French so they probably pronounced it the same as the French.
Yes, and everyone else in England said Callis.
Also, the English nobles spoke in a badly mutated Normandic dialect. Not fashionable Paris French.
You apparently don't understand the nature of modern managerial work. You're on call a lot of hours, but there's plenty of dead time during the day (e.g. conf calls you need to be on, but are peripheral) when you can post on the internet. Likewise, I had to answer several emails yesterday afternoon on a Sunday.
That's great for you, but your continuing problem is your inability to acknowledge and appreciate that not everyone fits into your "modern managerial" mode, or would want to even if they could. I've had many years where I worked 52 weeks and many years where I worked as few as 20, but I've never thought that my particular work habits should be forced on anyone else. And I'd never dream of ragging on European workers who got 4 weeks off out of 52 to do what they please.
BTW in the 23 years before I went the mail money route, I took two vacations, both honeymoons with the same woman. But if I hadn't had the world's most enjoyable job imaginable, I wouldn't have had the same outlook.
You should have taken more vacations. It's not healthy for anyone to not take vacations.
And I guess that working for about six or seven months a year from the age of 24 through 33 made me a bum. I can't win unless I work 50 weeks a year, no more and no less---don't want to be like one of those parasitic European leeches!
This is true in many banks, my Dad has always had to take two weeks. It's to uncover fraud. If you're cooking the books, having someone else do your job for two weeks helps uncover it.
At my job we are required to take off 5 consecutive days a year where we don't log in to the network, for that reason.
We get four weeks of vacation, but the only time I took four weeks was the year I got married. On the other hand, I've managed my time between jobs so that I could fit some other month-long trips in. I can understand the desire to take your vacation all at once -- only doing one round-trip flight being the main one. That's a lot of time and money saved right there if you can do it.
Bottom line, no one cares how many hours you work, or what you do at work, as long as you get done what needs to be done, and are accessible and responsive.
Yeah, this. Although most people are working a lot of hours at these jobs, it's not about the hours.
Or even the location. I can work from home seamlessly with modern technology. I almost never call in sick anymore, I just take a work from home day, and do what needs to be done, and no more.
That's great for you, but your continuing problem is your inability to acknowledge and appreciate that not everyone fits into your "modern managerial" mode, or would want to even if they could. I've had many years where I worked 52 weeks and many years where I worked as few as 20, but I've never thought that my particular work habits should be forced on anyone else. And I'd never dream of ragging on European workers who got 4 weeks off out of 52 to do what they please.
Probably 90% of the workforce fits the 48-50 weeks of work, 2-4 weeks of vacation paradigm. I'm lucky, I get 24 PTO days.
That's the reality for the vast majority of people, so that's the prism rational people should discuss things like the impact of changing travel costs.
You're the one obsessing about the fact that a cross-country trip 90% of people can never take is 25% more expensive than it was in 1969.
I rag on European workers b/c their work habits (more the early retirement than the vacation) are bankrupting their countries. You can't expect to work 35 hours a week, 46 weeks a year from age 25 to 55, and expect to be supported the other 60 years of your life. It makes no sense.
And I guess that working for about six or seven months a year from the age of 24 through 33 made me a bum.
Only if someone else was supporting you. If you made enough in 6-7 months to live, more power to you. If you claimed UE insurance (or any other gov't benefit) in those other 5-6 months, even though you were voluntarily not working, then you were a bum.
Just like JK Rowling was a bum when she voluntarily went on the dole to write Harry Potter. Anyone who has the ability and opportunity to support themselves, but lets others support them is a bum (people supported by their families while pursuing education, or caring for children, obviously excepted).
Only if someone else was supporting you. If you made enough in 6-7 months to live, more power to you. If you claimed UE insurance (or any other gov't benefit) in those other 5-6 months, even though you were voluntarily not working, then you were a bum.
Nobody was supporting me once I left school, I wouldn't know a UE form if it bit me in the face (though I paid into the fund when I had my shop), and the only gov't benefit I've ever had has been Social Security and Medicare. I don't even take senior discounts, as as long as I'm in good physical shape I'd feel embarrassed to do so. It's probably just vanity but I still don't feel comfortable taking them.
- vacation is me and husband taking a short weekend in galveston with phones off. at first it's really weird to be without a phone/internets but then it is like really liberating because you get to be with just each other even if if it is for only 36-40 hours...
it would suck to never ever ever get one day off completely free from work
Why some people don't ever seem to understand that is a mystery.
and the only gov't benefit I've ever had has been Social Security and Medicare.
Well, there is this thing called the internet you are currently using and I'm sure you went to school at some point in your life or at the very least turned on a light bulb, ate a piece of corn or drank a glass of water.
The one thing I miss when I do month-long travels is that I usually go in the summer, so I'm out of the baseball loop for far too long.
So what is everyone's choice for best shift? I used to work as a janitor on the 7-3 shift. That was freakin' awesome. Get home and still have so much of the day ahead of you. Conversely I also worked the janitor 3pm to 11pm shift. Which sucked. Some days it felt as if I only got 3 hours of non-work time.
I'm not sure I could handle a job you couldn't "leave at the office". I think I'm all too aware of how that game, and so I dread it. I guess you could argue thesis-writing has a similar never off the clock aspect to it. No matter where I am or what time it is I always have the feeling that I could (should?) be working on it. But on the other hand there's the nearly infinite flexiblity it offers. Right now my employment situation is probably the best I'll ever have in my life. Though I mostly say that because I'm done marking essays for the year.
It has good sides, and bad sides.
The positive is you can work from home, or come in late, or leave early, if you have nothing pressing, b/c you've got mobile access to email, and can do work from home just as easily as in the office.
Before connectivity, if you had some work that needed to get done that day, and you were sick as a dog, too bad. You dragged your ass to work. Now, you can log in from your bed, do the work, and then go back to sleep.
The negative is equally real; you're never really "off". It can build stress, especially, if you don't like your job.
I remember getting the down-low on the Stanley Cup final when the Oilers made their run a few years ago from a tour guide at the Juno Beach museum in Normandy.
Man, I can't imagine what living in Europe must have been like before mlb.tv. That probably has to go down as a leading cause of WW1 and 2.
My colleagues who have gotten into distance education say the same of online teaching: you're never in the classroom, but you're never out of it either.
I spent two weeks in Germany without a computer last May, and just forgot about baseball for the duration. OTOH, every newspaper I opened up in any city I went to had a detailed story about what the Dallas Mavericks had done the night before ...
Before connectivity, if you had some work that needed to get done that day, and you were sick as a dog, too bad. You dragged your ass to work. Now, you can log in from your bed, do the work, and then go back to sleep.
Yeah. It's also nice that when I want to review a document while I'm traveling (for work or pleasure), I can usually just open it up on my smartphone and read it in realtime. I don't need to make someone fax it to my hotel so that I can read it when I arrive in the evening, and then wait around in the office for my comments so they can send it back to me in the middle of the night.
Yeah, it sucks having to take conference calls on Saturday when you're in Vegas or someplace like that. On the other hand, I've only once had to cancel or postpone a vacation for work, whereas that was a more common occurence back in the day (at least in client service jobs like mine).
As someone said earlier "why let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
I travel nationally, 1 to 4 days a week.
When I am in the office I get in at about 7:30 and leave about 7. After my wife goes to bed, I usually sneak in another hour of reading or writing.
During my commute to work that morning, when traveling or in the office I usually will work. Either reading relevant reports or sending emails. On the commute home I will relax.
Weekends I usually work from 8 to noon on Saturday and 8 to mid-morning on Sunday.
And am generally available 24 hours as needed.
I have no idea how many hours a week that works out to. As a baseline I'd say 75 but that assumes no travel, which cranks up the numbers.
I get tremendous satisfaction from my work and the compensation lets my wife and I live the life we want and gives us a great deal of freedom, and significantly more freedom in the future.
I actually get six weeks(!!!) of PTO a year... last year, I was able to take precisely 7 days (and a couple of those were mental health "I'll be logged on all day and dialing into a couple meetings, but don't bother me inane ####\" days). The whole problem is that this generous "time off" package is being sold as a 'benefit' that's supposedly substituted for a pay schema that has stagnated.
I wouldn't mind so much if the more flexible hours were still predicated on a basic 40 hour model - but they're just not - even, as a salaried employee, that's what my whole pay is predicated on (40 hours x rate for 52 weeks). Even weeks when I've taken time off - I have zero doubt that I'm exceeding 40 hours. A typical week is probably somewhere in the ~50 hour range -- and everyone else I know in my company is in pretty much the same boat... I know all of my direct reports are.
It's almost enough to make me want to take to the streets with the OWS types because really, it's a rather raw deal... either reduce the standard work week back to something more approximating 40 hours, or, adjust the pay scale that my salary (and everyone else's) is calculated against a 50 hour week. The squeezing ever-increasing productivity without appropriate compensation has just gone too far for my tastes.
The only reason I wouldn't want that schedule back in my cooking days was because I'd be coming back to my station on a busy day. I usually did Thursday through Monday. I would have liked to have done Tuesday through Saturday but the chef gets those days.
We stayed in a total of 3 hotels at a total cost of about 180 dollars. We did the trip in my Prius so the gas wasn't too bad. He had to cut the trip short to prepare for moving to his new job in Houston, I stayed in a hotel in Montana and then visited another friend covering the Mariners. Hotel in Eugene after a day of drinking in Portland, law school friend in SF, undergrad friends in LA and SD. Short side trip to Las Vegas, one more hotel in Las Cruces followed by my original driving partner's new place in Houston. Two months of travel, and had I not gone to Las Vegas I would have stayed in a hotel 5 nights total, 3 of those splitting the cost. Trip still cost a good bit of money, obviously, but the lesson to be learned is that college kids can do some good travel when they know people in the right places.
All threads automatically close for comments after 60 days. This was put in 4-5 years ago.
That is outrageous. Everyone who knows you should have their children taken away.
I travel nationally, 1 to 4 days a week.
When I am in the office I get in at about 7:30 and leave about 7. After my wife goes to bed, I usually sneak in another hour of reading or writing.
During my commute to work that morning, when traveling or in the office I usually will work. Either reading relevant reports or sending emails. On the commute home I will relax.
Weekends I usually work from 8 to noon on Saturday and 8 to mid-morning on Sunday.
And am generally available 24 hours as needed.
I have no idea how many hours a week that works out to. As a baseline I'd say 75 but that assumes no travel, which cranks up the numbers.
I get tremendous satisfaction from my work and the compensation lets my wife and I live the life we want and gives us a great deal of freedom, and significantly more freedom in the future.
Man, you'd have to pay me absolutely stupid money to do that. I'm talking several million dollars p.a., 10+ times my current pay.
Even to go from my current ~50 hours (plus emails at home) even to 60-65 someone would have to double my salary.
I take every vacation day given, even if I have to do a random call.
Well, there is this thing called the internet you are currently using and I'm sure you went to school at some point in your life or at the very least turned on a light bulb, ate a piece of corn or drank a glass of water.
Couldn't agree more with all those points. Now try them out on your conservative / libertarian friends and hope that your ducking reflexes are in order.
Really? I mean I do very well, but not several million p.a. The best people in my line of work will bring home a million a year. I'm not one of the best, but I'm real good. In fact thats what drives me.
When you enjoy what you do, and you're self motivated its not that big a deal. Heck, I'd do what I do for less if that is what the market was paying.
EDIT: 77% of Americans have any paid vacation whatsoever.
Also, "Only 57 percent of U.S. workers use up all of the days they’re entitled to, compared with 89 percent of workers in France, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found, according to a CNN story."
Some of that is American work ethic, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of the 43% who passed on those vacation days did it out of concerns for their job security. So, at the absolute most generous reading, 77% of Americans have any paid vacation, and I'm sure a ton of them have only one week per year. Then factor in all the people who leave vacation days on the table because they know they might get canned if they don't.
They have three categories, civilian, private industry, and state and local.
In percentages it goes 67/63/89 in paid sick leave. 74/77/60 in paid vacations. 42/38/59 in paid personal leave.
Now then if we look at just full time workers we get 87/91/67 on paid vacations.
The World Tourism Organization claims that the average American gets 13 days of paid vacation.
A private industry worker working in a company between 1 and 5 years got on average 10 paid days off. After 5 years it is 14 days, after 10 years it is 17 days, after 20 iy is 20 days, But the thing that isn’t tracked by paid vacation time is paid holidays. Private industry got 8 paid holidays while government workers got 11 days.
So over 90% of the people that don't work for the government got paid vacations and they recieved on average a total of 21 days a year in paid days off plus 68% of them also got paid sick leave with the average amount being 8 days of paid sick leave.
I don't understand how that could be true, unless they include unemployed.
Those are payroll hours for all employees. So unless the 50 hours appears on your payroll, you work 40 hours. All temps/part-time employees bring that down.
I don't know if that is it. There are plenty of sectors that don't come up to 40 hours and I think it has largely to do with a lot of the workers being part time workers.
For instance non-supervisory workers work just under 34 hours a week on average. They do a ration for supervisory employees and they do it by sector as well. I'd say the overall average is somewhere between 6 to 10% more hours for supervisory employees.
I read an article about this phenomenon a year or two ago: companies are getting frustrated with my generation because it costs money to train us and then once we're competent we up and skedaddle.
It's the termination contracts that interest me most. In Germany, one middle manager was asked to leave after a disagreement with a superior (she didn't think much of him overall, and had some idea that she would save money through this). He got paid his final salary for a year afterwards as if he was still working, his ex-employer had to help him find a new job, and if he got a new job before the year was up he would receive the balance of the extra year's salary as a lump sum. He had been at the company over 20 years before he was fired, which helped.
He was talking, the week after he left, about how early he could start work again. My reaction was more one of how many hobbies I could pick up, and how much travel I could take, with one year on full pay. Tantalising . . .
His ex-boss, needless to say, didn't save any money. I think that her not being German may have created a blind spot in her thinking.
I find not being German is what holds most people back in life.
I don't think any country in Europe allows its people to receive a state pension at 55. The closest you get are the Italians at 57, but that's a sliding scale up to 65 and Italy's problems are not its massive benefits system (it's pretty modest, IIRC) but rather systemic corruption and unbelievably poor political leadership. Italians are excellent savers, for example, and have much lower personal debt ratios than America. Most countries are somewhere in the 60s.
Further to that, I read that the problems in Greece are based not only on retirement age, but also on the incredibly rampant tax evasion going on. Perhaps they need to try collecting taxes at gunpoint . . .
Indeed, I think knowing the existence of a word like 'backpfeifengesicht' from an earlier age might have increased my total happiness quotient significantly.
Boo ####### hoo.
My response is solely to companies whining, not their actions in response; my sympathy to it is equal to theirs at the complaints of the unemployed workforce.
You may be shocked to hear I don't expect private comanies to have sympathy for people they cannot employ. Likewise, I have no sympathy for them when they cannot manage to keep their employees.
Welcome to the Libertarian horde, Lassus. (Or have you been one all along? I try to forget people's political leanings lest it color my baseball discussions. I know you're diabetic and a browncoat so you can be a Stalinist agent, or even a Mets fan, and be OK in my book).
Even to go from my current ~50 hours (plus emails at home) even to 60-65 someone would have to double my salary.
I think there is definitely a logarithmic relationship. If you offered me double the salary to double my effort, no way in hell. If you offered me an order of magnitude more money to increase my effort 10%, I'd do it. But once you get above about 75% of the effort you can sustain, increasing it needs to see huge jumps in pay. Currently, I work hard, though, obviously (for all us, check post counts) we could work harder. But most likely we've achieved a lifestyle we enjoy. My "dreams" beyond what I have now are second homes on beaches sorts of things, always travelling first class, etc. A few extra dollars isn't getting that done.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main