Ship of Fools: What things should be free as in beer?

Thread: What things should be free as in beer? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029149

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I nominate university and tech college tuition. 25 countries do it for free of for nominal fees: university and technical college tuition, including Germany, France, Ireland, Norway...

Funding? In Canada a couple of years ago it was shown that all tuition could be paid by cancelling tax breaks and exploration breaks to just oil companies alone. Sounds simple to me.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Not free, but health care should be accessible to all. If it were free, it would rapidly consume the entire GDP of a country.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I nominate university and tech college tuition. 25 countries do it for free of for nominal fees

I'm still looking for a satisfactory explanation for why universities are so expensive in the US these days. It's not because of a reduction in government subsidy (yes, that happened, but can't come close to explaining the increase) and it's not because professors are making enormous salaries (they aren't - in fact, given the increasing use of adjuncts, perhaps the opposite has happened).

"Where has the money gone" is a simple enough question, but finding the answer seems complicated.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There are several arguments offered for why tuition in US colleges has soared.

One reason is the Student Loan program. A university can raise tuition and know that the students can simply take out larger loans.
Given the cheap credit, the schools build luxurious dorms and expensive athletic facilities.

The second reason is the "buy your way up" approach, where a mediocre school builds research facilities, pays top dollar for superior faculty and achieves a reputation as a high end educational institution. Unfortunately, this comes by not only grant but by raising tuition. The high end faculty don't teach the students that much but that doesn't stop the students from paying for it and the adjuncts teaching them from getting paid poverty level wages.

Those who benefit from all of this are the administrators who now run modern universities.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Not free, but health care should be accessible to all. If it were free, it would rapidly consume the entire GDP of a country.

It's (as close as makes no difference) to free in Scotland, and it barely consumes 10% of GDP.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

--Basic Internet access (pref. at least low-level broadband).

--Everyone gets at least 4 wks. of paid vacation every year. (Lots of American workers don't get *any*.) Plus a way for the poor, elderly, disabled, veterans, anyone on any kind of benefits to get an all-expenses paid vacation (at least 2 wks. each year), even if it's at a very simple place. I heard that France has places where the poor can vacation very cheaply.

--I rather like the idea in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing", by Starhawk. Everyone gets a basic income (and housing, too, I think). So no poverty. But most people want more than the basics, so they work.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Where can I get free beer please?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

The First Book of Discipline (1560) the document which set out the vision of a post-Reformation Scotland, states:

If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they (we mean neither the sons of the rich, nor yet the sons of the poor) not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them.

I.e. clever boys, rich or poor, owed a duty to the state to continue their education, because their brains were regarded as a national asset to be used for the good of the state. And the state had to pay for the education of the intelligent poor boy, for the ultimate benefit of the state.

It's still a good argument for free tuition.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

(missed edit window - obviously, the "boys only" aspect should be left behind in the C16th.)

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Nothing is costless to produce. Anything that is free at point of use is being paid for by those who choose not to use it.

So "free broadband" means that those who have no interest in finding out about computers and Internet and all that modern technology stuff, or who believe that this is the death of Society As We Know It, are compelled to subsidise other people's computer gaming, twittering, rock video collecting etc.

Similarly, "free housing" means that those who are by choice tramps and travellers are compelled to pay towards the bricks-and-mortar for everybody else.

"Free university tuition" means those who choose to leave school at 16 (or whatever is the minimum age in your country) have to pay for those who choose to put off getting a job as long as possible.

Seems to me that the things that should qualify for being free at point of use are those things that no reasonable person could not want. Drinking water and basic health care (painkillers, antibiotics, access to medical knowledge) would qualify.

But I'd argue that an Amish person (as an example of a world-rejecting point of view) should be allowed to opt out of paying for anything they could reasonably want to have nothing to do with.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

An interesting point on water: since 2010 there has been a Human Right to Water and Sanitation agreed by the UN.

But it is emphatically not about a service which is free for users. Safe water and sanitation costs money. The idea that it can be done without payment is a fallacy. Someone always pays.

Thus the HRWS talks about equitable access and affordability of the service.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I tend to agree with Russ. There is a lot of junk talked about human rights - like access to internet and TV is a human right... and lots of things should be free - but someone has to pay for them. Maybe beer should be free? Generally, people value things by their financial cost, and a recurring problem with provision of "free" this and that via a state-organised subscription scheme (taxation followed by redistribution) is that the attitude to this thing then subtly (and not so subtly) shifts to it being a "right" an then to it being taken for granted and not really valued as much as it could/should be. This is a parallel process to the state taking responsibility for things that were communal responsibility - the function becomes largely separated from community consciousness, and there is an immediate loss of communal glue. I'm not a radical right wing (what would be in the US) anti-federal member of the NRA - I agree that there should be communal provision for people who cannot afford things. I cannot honestly say that that across the board "free-ness" (whilst appealing to some parts of my nature) is the bearer of all things good.

e.g. adult education. In the UK this was provided from the late 1800's by the WEA - where people who had a lot of knowledge in various subjects shared that for a nominal fee with largely people who had very little. The nominal fee was peanuts, but the fact that it had to be paid and the people coming were very poor meant that they really really wanted to learn. The system worked very well, until the State decided it was a good idea and offered to fund it. Since then there have been booms and busts and distortions for political ends, and we are just now entering another bust phase. Before this bust began, the fee charged by Adult Ed was way more than the WEA used to charge, because of the vast administrative overhead. And the courses were increasingly geared towards NVQs by a government that cannot understand that education for its own sake is far more nutritious to society than a workforce with lowest common denominator qualification certificates.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Education - up to first degree level.

Health care at the point of use.

Basic gas and electricity provision, and minimal usage. This should be paid for by increasing the costs over a basic minimal level.

Basic internet access I would also support, as it has become a crucial part of out society.

And yes, these would have to be paid for by everyone. But education benefits the society as a whole. Everyone uses the health care services at some point. They are about improving society, so that everyone benefits.

I would add that museums should be free, but as they are, I can just say excellent. The government - that is everyone - should pay for those things that enhance society, and which all benefit from, even if only a few benefit directly.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Transport, for everyone on minimum wage or less.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where can I get free beer please?

Come round here, I have some fabulous dunkel hefeweizen and a nice garden to drink it in.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

As far as the rising US university tuition is concerned, one factor is the great increase in the numbers of university administrators. AIUI many of these administrative posts have been added to insure compliance with various government regulations.

One problem with free university tuition is that very few people who go to university are from poor families. Free tuition would subsidize those who are better off.

Moo

[ 26. April 2015, 11:39: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One problem with free university tuition is that very few people who go to university are from poor families. Free tuition would subsidize those who are better off.

Is this cause and effect? Because tuition costs a lot, only those from wealthy families can afford it. If it was free, maybe more people from poorer families would be able to consider it.

Of course, it may be that the actual cost is not the only issue - the not earning for 3 years might also be an issue. But it might start to open up possibilities for people less well off.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Not free, but health care should be accessible to all. If it were free, it would rapidly consume the entire GDP of a country.
It's (as close as makes no difference) to free in Scotland, and it barely consumes 10% of GDP.

How can it be free if it's paid for out of taxation?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Not free, but health care should be accessible to all. If it were free, it would rapidly consume the entire GDP of a country.
It's (as close as makes no difference) to free in Scotland, and it barely consumes 10% of GDP.
How can it be free if it's paid for out of taxation?

Well if it were free (as in not paid for by anybody) then obviously it wouldn't claim any GDP...
And while there is of course a difference between (by some means fixed a fixed fee) then free at the time of use and some magic fairy supplier. In terms of effect "as close as makes no difference" seems pretty fair. Optional, then Insurance based systems would then come next, then pay at site.

I think (OU style) adult education has the potential to scale so nicely that it ought to be mostly prepaid and permanently available. (The opposite approach seems to have been taken, which is not fair on future gens [Frown]

)

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

And another vote for OU; it does have the problem, though, of soaking up free time; and if employment and family responsibilities leave no free time, what then?

Another education pathway; apprenticeship - we used to have a really good system available locally, highly regarded by all including employers; it got Thatchered of course. Apprenticeships seem to be coming back into favour, slowly.

And - this may be where I make myself unpopular - University full-time education. It seems to happen too often that the new graduate cannot find a job, and after a spell of unemployment takes a relatively unskilled and low-paid job in which his/her skills and knowledge are not used. This after 3 or 4 years' University education, and a mountain of debt ... The only solution I can think of is making Uni entry much more selective (based on A level results, presumably), resulting in fewer students and maybe a generally higher level of achievement. With fewer students to fund it might then be possible to fully fund Uni education. Is this being elitist?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Free public wifi is everywhere here. I tend to encounter it most places in North America. Five years ago in Europe we were finding pay walls for it, but one year ago more often free. In remote areas in the north, cell phone towers which provide data charge for service but not the actual cost of service.

It seems to that free things engineer social policy. Car parking on streets or in our city run parking lots is very cheap or free. Bus fare is the same cost as 2 hours of parking in the downtown. So people drive.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think the problem with some or all of these ideas is that someone has to pay for someone else to have a free service.

Why should the poorest (who proportionally pay the most tax) support the upwardly mobile to get better jobs via their taxes paying for free education? Why should the binman be paying for the education of the barrister?

I propose that there is no such thing as free, and that trying to share things in common only leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where can I get free beer please?

I was pleasantly surprised yesterday at the grocery store. A local brewery was giving out free samples. [Smile]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the problem with some or all of these ideas is that someone has to pay for someone else to have a free service.

Why should the poorest (who proportionally pay the most tax) support the upwardly mobile to get better jobs via their taxes paying for free education? Why should the binman be paying for the education of the barrister?

I propose that there is no such thing as free, and that trying to share things in common only leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation.

Data? Here's data against your speculation. Saskatchewan community pastures.

quote:
sixty federal and fifty-six provincial community pastures in Saskatchewan. They occupied 2.57 million acres (1.04 million hectares) of land, most of which is under native pastures. These lands are used primarily for grazing cattle. In fact, federal community pastures have served 2,540 producers with 73,000 cattle and 72,000 calves, per annum, on average. Similarly, on provincial community pastures 2,500 producers had 68,000 cattle and 53,000 calves

The "tragedy of the commons" occurs when it is mismanaged, not because it exists. I;ve also heard nothing but positive about the free transit (light rail system) in the downtown of the city of Calgary. No tragedy there.

So I call B.S. on the tragedy idea.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Nothing is costless to produce. Anything that is free at point of use is being paid for by those who choose not to use it.

Or else some people who do use it are paying double. Which if they can afford to do so, and the people they're paying for cannot, may well be equitable.
Restricting access only to people who have paid costs time and money in any case. If you have a toll road, it costs money to operate the toll booth. You need cashiers (or automatic cash points and assistants) in supermarkets.
In many cases the benefits of making something freely available to everyone outweighs the costs. While not everyone will use every road in a particular town, the overall benefit to everyone in the town of having good quality roads for everyone may be greater than the cost to the people paying. In those cases, the distinction between using / not using breaks down.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the problem with some or all of these ideas is that someone has to pay for someone else to have a free service.

Why should the poorest (who proportionally pay the most tax) support the upwardly mobile to get better jobs via their taxes paying for free education? Why should the binman be paying for the education of the barrister?

I propose that there is no such thing as free, and that trying to share things in common only leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation.

It seems to me that the solution is to change the tax system, not cut public services. Additionally, while the poorest often do pay more as a proportion of their income, even if all the tax they pay disappeared they still wouldn't be able to afford to pay for education or healthcare themselves. The notion that the bin man pays for the education of the barrister is a false one, even under the current tax system.

I should also point out that we still have common grazing here, and it is reasonably well managed by a grazing committee in each township.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
It seems to happen too often that the new graduate cannot find a job, and after a spell of unemployment takes a relatively unskilled and low-paid job in which his/her skills and knowledge are not used.

As opposed to the prospective university student not taking a degree, but going straight in to a relatively unskilled and low-paid job?

Or is this going to turn into the "we should encourage more people to train as plumbers" argument?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I rather like the idea in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing", by Starhawk. Everyone gets a basic income (and housing, too, I think). So no poverty.

Article on a small city that is providing simple but decent housing to the most hardcore of homeless because it's cheaper to provide an apartment than keep throwing the guys in jail. And then the surprise of finding some of the men got off drink and got jobs because they had a stable place to live. The housing came first, not first a demand to clean up your life then we might get you housing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As opposed to the prospective university student not taking a degree, but going straight in to a relatively unskilled and low-paid job?

Or is this going to turn into the "we should encourage more people to train as plumbers" argument?

Yes but ...

I can't count how many young people I know who got a first degree then went on to train in a completely different field. My two sons included.

Most of those went on to vocational degrees which had jobs as the end objective/result.

Could youngsters not be encouraged to think much more carefully about what they want to do with their hard won educations? I know that if my two had we'd have saved a small fortune, and so would the taxpayer.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I think that might be a topic for a separate thread, Boogie.

My first degree was in law and I qualified as a solicitor, without ever having any great interest or passion for it. It was one of those careers that everybody thought was a safe, wise choice and I was strongly encouraged to choose it.

I chucked my legal career aged 29, and spent 6 years paying myself through an Open University degree in a subject I was actually interested in, while sprogging.

If I could advise my 18 year old self, I'd say - follow your heart, don't think in terms of a career. But equally well, someone else might want to advise their 18 year old self to get a grip and choose something with a clear career path at the end of it.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A generation or so ago a college degree was somewhat rare and all but guaranteed a job, so more people wanted a university degree for the guarantee of being wanted on the job market. The flood of new degrees meant they no longer made you stand out, so the normal for a "guaranteed job" became a masters then a PhD. Now even PhDs can't find job, there are more PhDs that the market needs.

I have lots of friends who got a teacher's degree because we were told (back in the 60s) get a teachers degree you'll always find a job. Not true anymore.

Convince society a plumbing license is a lifetime guarantee of a good job and you'll flood the plumber job market with more applicants than jobs.

Trouble is, employers now require degrees for jobs that don't need degrees, just because they can. The market value of the degree is low, but it's become the "entry level" requirement the way high school graduation was several decades ago.

I remember as a kid meeting adults who had a 5th grade or 8th grade education and supported their families just fine, today you wouldn't get hired to sweep the floor on a 5th grade education much less become branch manager of a local business.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

If I could advise my 18 year old self, I'd say - follow your heart, don't think in terms of a career. But equally well, someone else might want to advise their 18 year old self to get a grip and choose something with a clear career path at the end of it.

Yes, it probably should be a whole separate thread.

My eldest son followed his passion (Ecology) and got first and Masters degrees in it. Then he found that all the jobs involved sitting tapping in someone else's data while they were swinging through the trees doing the stuff he really wanted to do. So, aged 28 he began a nursing degree.

The other did first and Masters degrees in engineering, then could only get shop floor jobs which he could have done straight from school. He is now an airline pilot for Easyjet - but he could mend the plane if needed [Biased]

I know too many who did similar - maybe good, properly informed (free, to get back to the OP!) careers advice would save taxpayers a fortune?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

It took me 20 years after leaving school to find what I wanted to do - a degree should firstly be about learning how to think, and the vocational bit should be second. Also, most people on my first degree course (mining engineering) ended up elsewhere - finance, research, education, sales, etc - the initial degree and experience were typical of any degree in geological sciences - you learn how to think in 3D and how to juggle lots of factors and minimal information to come up with a sensible answer... this skills are useful almost anywhere - well maybe not serving Big Macs.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This is a tangent I suppose, but I must strongly disagree with the idea that young people should form their life work direction at an early age. Frankly, work cuts into the day, and may be the author of much unhappiness if the choice is foreclosed on due to the ideas that a decision must be made and lived with. I have known far too many people who make good wages but are unfulfilled, unhappy, and as a consequence make others unhappy with them.

Why should libraries lend books for free, supported by a taxation system, and why primary and secondary education, but not the higher levels? I don't understand why the line is where it is.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I can't count how many young people I know who got a first degree then went on to train in a completely different field. My two sons included.

A classic liberal arts education is not a vocational qualification. The reason to study Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens or whoever is not to become qualified to teach English in schools.

(We could have a discussion about how many universities have become degree mills, and are all about qualifications rather than education, but I think that really is a separate thread.)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Transport, for everyone on minimum wage or less.

Some years ago Mark Steel proposed that public transport should be paid for by those who do not use it.

btw, if you make your own beer it's very, very cheap.

[ 26. April 2015, 19:36: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One problem with free university tuition is that very few people who go to university are from poor families. Free tuition would subsidize those who are better off.

No longer true-- although that's a very recent shift. When I first started teaching in US univ. only 11 years ago, the vast majority of my students were from suburban middle- or high- income families. Today well over 2/3 of my students are the first college student in their family, many from immigrant families, most from lower income families. Many are receiving no financial assistance from families at all, almost all are heavily in debt-- with all that implies for future.

[ 26. April 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I rather like the idea in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing", by Starhawk. Everyone gets a basic income (and housing, too, I think). So no poverty.
Article on a small city that is providing simple but decent housing to the most hardcore of homeless because it's cheaper to provide an apartment than keep throwing the guys in jail. And then the surprise of finding some of the men got off drink and got jobs because they had a stable place to live. The housing came first, not first a demand to clean up your life then we might get you housing.

This has now been documented to the extent there are now in the US federal grants to assist cities in setting up permanent housing. I work with the homeless in one of the very few cities that has taken advantage of this. It is very tough going for all the predictable reasons-- bureaucracy on all levels, compassion fatigue, competing interests, budgeting whims, etc. And yet, it has been a slow-moving success. Each year we are moving more and more of our homeless into permanent houses. 5 years ago the emergency shelter I'm responsible for had to turn people (including families with children) away each night. This last season we were only 3/4 full most nights. I'm cautiously looking forward to the day we can have a party for the volunteers, eat up all the frozen lasagnes we've got stashed in the freezer, turn out the lights, shut the door and go home.

So yes, guaranteed housing should be high on our list.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How can it be free if it's paid for out of taxation?

That's what "free as in beer" means.

It means that at the point where you are handed the thing, you do not have to give some money for it.

It doesn't mean it doesn't cost anyone any money ever. It means it doesn't cost the person benefitting from it any additional money compared to if they hadn't received the benefit.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Quite right Amorya.

From Gratis versus libre, wikipedia

quote:
Like "free beer", positive liberty promises equal access by all without cost or regard to income, of a given good (assuming the good exists).

Here's some things I think are not supportable as good and shouldn't be supported:

The Canadian gov't has decided as a run up to an election to subsidize children's activities with a tax break if you register the kiddies in sports, music and the like. It's not free, but the decision certainly would seem to engineer a social policy.

Likewise, corporations have tax breaks available to subsidize their taxes by pretending income is from another year in time. Neither of these are totally free, but they are in the direction of "free as in beer".

[ 27. April 2015, 18:27: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The tax system has always been used for social manipulation in support of government policy. Want to reduce the number of people smoking? Increase tax on tobacco. Want to encourage charitable giving? Introduce Gift Aid (or some equivalent form of tax break). Want to encourage children to be involved in sports? Offer tax subsidies to sports clubs (or some equivalent form of tax break).

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
That's what "free as in beer" means.

It means that at the point where you are handed the thing, you do not have to give some money for it.

It doesn't mean it doesn't cost anyone any money ever. It means it doesn't cost the person benefitting from it any additional money compared to if they hadn't received the benefit.

Seems to me there are at least four types of "free beer":

- beer made by fairies, or by robots, or by slaves or other non-persons, that is totally free to people. Or that is produced naturally in the pitcher plants that grow wild by the roadside (harmless fantasy ? or not so harmless ? )

- beer home-made by friends and offered as an act of friendship, for which no money has changed hands

- a beer garden where you pay to go in but once in the beer is free, financed by the entry charge (lots of things work on this principle - you pay motor tax and can drive on any public road, pay a TV licence and watch individual programmes at no cost)

- beer paid for from general taxation (from teetotallers and drunkards alike. Probably as part of the usual thing - politicians spending people's money to buy their votes...)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I still don't get the phrase 'free beer'. Beer isn't free. You have to pay for it. It isn't even freely available. If you're under 18 you can't buy it. Until well into my adult life, you couldn't buy it in a glass during the afternoon. You still can't buy it late at night or at breakfast time.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't get the phrase 'free beer'. Beer isn't free. You have to pay for it. It isn't even freely available. If you're under 18 you can't buy it. Until well into my adult life, you couldn't buy it in a glass during the afternoon. You still can't buy it late at night or at breakfast time.

Yes, exactly. That's the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech.

It's a quote from an RMS essay that you can find here. You're right, of course - beer usually isn't free, but when someone is giving away free beer, it means that you get a beer and it doesn't cost you any money.

It doesn't mean that the beer spontaneously sprung into existence, or that the brewer didn't need to spend money to make it or anything else - just that the owner of the beer is giving you some. It also doesn't mean Russ's beer-at-no-marginal-cost, where you pay an entrance fee and then drink as much as you want.

Free-as-in-speech, by contrast, is about liberty rather than price. There's a lot of lack of liberty surrounding beer - even zero cost beer. You can't buy beer if you're underage. In many places, you can't be given beer (even by your parents) if you're underage. You can't drink beer in many streets or parks. You can't have open beer containers in your car in case the driver might drink some. You can brew your own beer - but not distill your own spirits.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Governments should tax all citizens to provide those services for some that benefit all.

Education (at least to some level) - we all benefit from living in a society with an educated workforce, so businesses have workers available who can do the jobs that help create the economic environment we want; and more generally so we can all communicate easily, I can write a note to my yard man because he was sent to school at taxpayer expense.

If some kind of education does not benefit society, but benefits only the individual student, then governments usually don't pay for it. That can differ by culture, where I live people are on their own to pay for music or art education, these have been cut from the schools.

Where I grew up a requirement of high school was to swim the length of a pool, tax money was used to teach minimal swimming skills because there are so many lakes and people are less likely to drown if they have been taught how to float and dog paddle. Drowning people cost the state money to try to rescue and provide emergency medical care. In a society where drowning people don't trigger use of expensive state resources, learning elementary water survival may be seen as an individual benefit not a societal one.

Public transportation helps reduce air pollution which keeps us all healthier, so providing and encouraging its use, perhaps by reduced or free fares, benefits all of society. That air pollution reduction means figuring out what routes and timings people will use if encouraged.

In the free housing for hard core homeless article I linked above, benefit to society was the goal, not supporting a few individuals at taxpayer expense. Hard core homeless get arrested a lot (loitering, illegal sleeping, theft of food or cigarettes), and they use emergency medical services a lot because of their exposure to elements and unsafe people. The free housing for a few at taxpayer expense saves the taxpayers money, a small apartment is a lot cheaper than a jail and a safe shelter reduces medical needs.

The problem is identifying which people helped in which ways benefit the whole community, so the help is justified by the benefit to the whole rather than being an unfair taxing of some solely for the benefit of others.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
where I live people are on their own to pay for music or art education, these have been cut from the schools.

Music and art (and, other cultural activities such as poetry) are expressions of society, they are the most powerful means we have of expressing who we are. They are the life blood of social interaction and identity. The best answer to a question like "what does it mean to be British?" is to point to our cultural products - our music, theatre, poetry, sculpture etc.

It is of vital importance that schooling provides a foundation in arts, just as it provides a foundation in sciences and other subjects. What is more, there should be an equal emphasis on funding the devleopment of professional artists as there is in the development of professional scientists, engineers or politicians. If you provide scholarships for talented scientists, engineers and footballers to attend college, then you should provide them for artists (perhaps you do, I admit to not quite understanding the US education system - all we hear about are scholarships for footballers).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

During the 1950s, university education here became almost entirely free - at least in practice - a now long-forgotten reform introduced by Robert Menzies. Those who obtained a sufficient mark in their final high school exams were awarded a scholarship, funded by the Commonwealth govt, and without any means test. My sisters and I obtained them. A means test was in place for those seeking a living allowance. In effect the scholarship worked to place a limit on the numbers obtaining a tertiary education, but I suspect that the bar was very low. I can recall only 1 person I knew at university who did not have one. She was a daughter of a wealthy family whose parents considered that they had the money to pay and that it would be wrong for their daughter to take a scholarship which could have benefitted someone in a less favoured financial position.

When Gough Whitlam came to power, his government abolished fees completely. Numbers attending university rose dramatically and the financial burden on Commonwealth funds rose to an unsustainable level. Subsequent governments re-imposed fees and have introduced a system whereby the government lends money to students to pay their fees with repayment being made via the taxation system once incomes have reached an indexed level. A side effect of both the Whitlam scheme and the present one has been the introduction of quotas for various subjects, with exceptionally high exam marks required to enter faculties such as medicine and law.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
where I live people are on their own to pay for music or art education, these have been cut from the schools.
Music and art (and, other cultural activities such as poetry) are ... the life blood of social interaction and identity... there should be an equal emphasis on funding the devleopment of professional artists as there is in the development of professional scientists, engineers or politicians.

Many agree with you, but the people in a "what tangible thing have you done for me lately" government think of the arts as self-indulgence.

Each culture expresses its identified social values. Some cultures believe if one person goes hungry we the group suffer. They may well be right, but most of those cultures have been wiped out by aggressively individualist commercial industries (logging, mining). Expressing that value is left to charities in our culture.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Basic Internet access (pref. at least low-level broadband).

--Everyone gets at least 4 wks. of paid vacation every year. (Lots of American workers don't get *any*.) Plus a way for the poor, elderly, disabled, veterans, anyone on any kind of benefits to get an all-expenses paid vacation (at least 2 wks. each year), even if it's at a very simple place. I heard that France has places where the poor can vacation very cheaply.

--I rather like the idea in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing", by Starhawk. Everyone gets a basic income (and housing, too, I think). So no poverty. But most people want more than the basics, so they work.

Everybody gets 4 weeks paid vacation? How about the government passes a law mandating that everybody purchase a time share? Of course, not everybody can afford a time share so time share subsidies would be required. Thing about time shares is you can always swap them out.

You already have the government providing everybody with a house, basic income, and four weeks of vacation. What doesn't count as basic? As I suggested on the Money Does Buy Happiness thread, why shouldn't the government just print enough money to insure that everybody gets $75,000 a year?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Provincial legislation is 2 weeks of vacation here. It be paid out and not taken, but this cannot be coercive.

I am aware that military in the USA get subsidized vacations, noticing this in Hawaii and Florida. Very cheap hotels. I recall talking to one family which was paying about 25% of the going rate. How might this be justifiable?

I also wonder about the free as in beer natural resources that companies exploit, like oil, minerals, trees, and most particularly water we're hearing about lately. Let alone use of highways for minimal fees which citizens pay for out of taxation. The royalties don't sound sensible at all, except we're hearing that they are in Norway, which has a sovereign wealth fund on behalf of their people.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Here's an interesting link to an experiment conducted in the 1970s in Dauphin, Manitoba: A Town Without Poverty.

quote:
Under the guaranteed annual income program, every resident of Dauphin was ensured a minimum income ranging from about $11,000 to $17,000 in today's dollars, depending on family size....
There was a certain amount of fear...that very generous social programs might encourage people not to work. Researchers found that that was not, in fact, the case....The only people who tended not to work quite so hard were students in high school.

So maybe Beeswax's suggestion is a reasonable one, with the amount of minimum income being the point of discussion, not the principle.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

The legal minimum here (UK) is 28 days paid leave, although that includes 8 bank holidays.

Most people I know get more (including me).

M.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My son works in the theatre, with irregular and odd hours. This includes a lot of Bank Holiday and Sunday work.

When he's on longer-term contracts (as opposed to brief casual jobs) he seems to get extra days of holiday pay added on "pro-rata" throughout the year, without necessarily getting the days off.

Of course there are often gaps between contracts; for instance he finishes one job this Sunday as the tour is finishing. Then I think he has an (unpaid) week before rehearsals for the next one, with the same management, starts.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
The legal minimum here (UK) is 28 days paid leave, although that includes 8 bank holidays.

Most people I know get more (including me).

Yep. Including bank holidays I get 40 days off in total each year. The standard for most of my friends is 25 days plus bank holidays.

Given that UK companies don't seem to have any more crippling productivity issues than their counterparts elsewhere in the world, I don't know why BA seems to think that's a bad thing.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
The legal minimum here (UK) is 28 days paid leave, although that includes 8 bank holidays.

Most people I know get more (including me).

M.

And who pays for all that leave if you're self-employed? If I don't work, I don't get paid. Bank holiday or no bank holiday, there's no money coming in unless I have worked and received payment of my account.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

GeeD, perhaps you should take it up with your employer?

Sorry, a bit sarky, but the 28 days is under the Employment Rights Act; you are not employed.

Disclaimer: IAALBNAEO*

M.

*I am a lawyer but not an employment one.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There are very weird things about being self employed. In Canada, we pay both the employer and employee assessment for (un)employment insurance but will never, ever collect.

28 days is 4 weeks, thus twice the allotment here. Nice.

I was listening in my insomnia about 'zero hour' contracts. It sounded like this is an abusive idea to me. The person is sort of employed, and some days unemployed and it is never known by them when they might actually work or not. It reminds me of the day employment idea where workers line up at 6 a.m. and people who have between ½ and 2 days work show up and contract for the jobs at employment centres. The only difference is the zero hour people don't actually line up in person.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
28 days is 4 weeks, thus twice the allotment here. Nice.

Actually, a bit under 6 weeks (5 days to the working week).

I'm not self employed, and don't know how that works out. But, everyone needs a certain amount of holiday. Most people end up with somewhere between what we need and what we can afford. I know I've virtually never taken all the holiday I could have, because there was always too much work that needed to be done. That would probably be even more likely for someone who is self-employed when their "paid holiday" is something that is paid for by having done enough work to provide a surplus income to cover it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
The legal minimum here (UK) is 28 days paid leave, although that includes 8 bank holidays.

Most people I know get more (including me).

M.
And who pays for all that leave if you're self-employed? If I don't work, I don't get paid. Bank holiday or no bank holiday, there's no money coming in unless I have worked and received payment of my account.

This is purely my take on things but if there's a lot more work to be done I prioritise it, doing the better paying and more interesting work first. Strangely (or maybe not) that enables me to work faster, so that I get through the work in front of me almost irrespective of how much work there is to do.

At the moment I get 40 days paid holiday, and if I build up flexi-time credits I can take another 26 days a year, although I have never managed that.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Self employment tends to be associated with limited or no holidays/vacation for the years of time it takes to get established and to build up sufficient savings to carry you through.

It goes like this: You want to be always available for work because next week or month there might not be any. Thus holidays mean answering calls, answering queries and anxiety about getting back to the office, shop or lab. You also must have enough money in the bank to pay for the holiday and then to carry you through the inevitable slow-down that will occur because you took a holiday. People who need something will have gone elsewhere and you will have damaged your business by not being available. This is one good reason to want a business to grow and to sock away money. For the first 10 years of being self employed I took only the statutory days off in the rest of the year, maximally 8 days off yearly, but usually worked some stat holidays too. Answering calls, faxes, emails every day is the routine whether on hols or not.

The experience has made me want easier times for others, hence part of my motivation to want to see more fairness and more free beer. When I started out post-PhD, I either became self employed or didn't work in my field due to economic times. No university, institutional or corp jobs possible. When the economy improved and I could have a job, I lacked the markers employers look for and would have had to start at the bottom. There's a taint if you haven't been in the employed world, proved yourself and risen through the ranks over time. High priced consultant isn't a bad gig, but it comes with rather significant personal and lifestyle costs.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Personally, as someone who has been self-employed, I think a basic number of days off a year for the self-employed would be a good idea. They can choose to take them as the days between contracts or not, but it would mean that in long-term contracts, they would be guaranteed some time off.

I am aware that this is difficult to impose or monitor, but for some people, it would be helpful. For others I have known, getting them out of the office for a few days a year would be positive for all concerned.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I never got more than 10 days vacation (2 weeks) plus 7 holidays (Christmas day etc), because in USA you usually start over at the lowest level when you change jobs, it's takes several years to move up to 3 weeks.

A younger friend started his first full time job with 5 days (one week) of vacation per year.

Many jobs these days are technically part time or piecework, and offer no paid days off; even Christmas is not a paid holiday, just a day of no work and no pay.

Sick leave is greatly diminished, used to be common to have 10 days a year and be able to "save" them so after several years on one job if you got whacked with a big health issue you'd have a bank of a month or two to use - now sick days are commonly merged with vacation days and the total reduced - instead of 2 weeks vacation 2 weeks sick you get 3 weeks total. At any age.

Many jobs discouraged taking any vacation. It's on your record that you have a set number of days to use or lose by year end, but the boss won't authorize you to be gone because he has projects he needs you doing at work.

Most of the next generation in my family have moved to Europe, and can't imagine working in USA again, the demands are so much less in Europe - shorter work days more one day holidays and more vacation and sick time off. Just as productive. Wearing out workers doesn't increase their productivity. Refreshed workers do better work.

But USA business bought into the "time and motion study" approach to making everything possible into routine assembly lines and treating employees like disposable replaceable cogs. One oil exploration company I know even laid off it's engineers because it wasn't going to need them for a few months so why pay them to stick around? A few months later they hired replacement engineers. All levels of employee are considered faceless replaceable machine parts.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
The legal minimum here (UK) is 28 days paid leave, although that includes 8 bank holidays.

Most people I know get more (including me).
Yep. Including bank holidays I get 40 days off in total each year. The standard for most of my friends is 25 days plus bank holidays.

Given that UK companies don't seem to have any more crippling productivity issues than their counterparts elsewhere in the world, I don't know why BA seems to think that's a bad thing.

Depends on what is meant by free vacation. A mandatory amount of time off is one thing. Government funded trips is another.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

A mandatory amount of paid time off. I still get the same monthly salary if I take a fortnight off in the middle of the month as if I work every day.

I'll grant you that paying for someone to actually go on holiday is a different thing. But that didn't seem to be what you were objecting to before.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It might also be useful to consider sick leave and other basic employee benefits as things that should be free, but they aren't. The law here is that an employee is allowed to take 1.25 days per month as sick time, but the employer has no obligation to pay the employee for the sick time.

I like to think I'm a responsible employer. We (I have taken on some partners now, as transition planning) calculate wages based on a 40 hour work week (which is the standard duration here) and don't penalize workers for being sick. I expect and get a wee bit of info about why the person is absent just to keep things proper, and only had one situation of abuse in 3 decades. I've also bought insurance plans for employees that we fully fund for short term and long disability, dental care, eye care, prescription drugs, retirement. It is costly as a small business, but it seems simply the right thing to do. None of which is required nor provided in our jurisdiction. I'd like to have a daycare in the building for employees but can't afford it.

I think all of these things should be free as in beer, so they are to my employees. But as I noted previously, Canadian free beer priorities are subsidies for pipelines, oil exploration, building factories, pretending that large corporations are such wonderful citizens by letting them put their names on unneeded hospitals etc.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
GeeD, perhaps you should take it up with your employer?

Sorry, a bit sarky, but the 28 days is under the Employment Rights Act; you are not employed.

Disclaimer: IAALBNAEO*

M.

*I am a lawyer but not an employment one.

And I am not an employment lawyer either. But being self-employed, it strikes me as a bit rich when people argue for more and more paid leave - including stress leave! Who is not stressed in their employment from time to time!

As to Spike's comments. I don't have that total luxury of organising my time. A lot of that is done by the nature of the work itself. Nor do I have much control on when my fee notes are paid. My fees do incorporate an amount that (after taxes are paid) goes into a jar on the sideboard to enable a holiday from time to time. The fees also cover other sums for retirement, health care, and such like.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Basic Internet access (pref. at least low-level broadband).

--Everyone gets at least 4 wks. of paid vacation every year. (Lots of American workers don't get *any*.) Plus a way for the poor, elderly, disabled, veterans, anyone on any kind of benefits to get an all-expenses paid vacation (at least 2 wks. each year), even if it's at a very simple place. I heard that France has places where the poor can vacation very cheaply.

--I rather like the idea in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing", by Starhawk. Everyone gets a basic income (and housing, too, I think). So no poverty. But most people want more than the basics, so they work.
Everybody gets 4 weeks paid vacation? How about the government passes a law mandating that everybody purchase a time share? Of course, not everybody can afford a time share so time share subsidies would be required. Thing about time shares is you can always swap them out.

You already have the government providing everybody with a house, basic income, and four weeks of vacation. What doesn't count as basic? As I suggested on the Money Does Buy Happiness thread, why shouldn't the government just print enough money to insure that everybody gets $75,000 a year?

Well, AIUI, Americans get far less paid vacation and paid public holidays time than anywhere else in the industrialized world. They're not legally mandated at all. See USA Today and Forbes.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Nothing is costless to produce. Anything that is free at point of use is being paid for by those who choose not to use it.

So "free broadband" means that those who have no interest in finding out about computers and Internet and all that modern technology stuff, or who believe that this is the death of Society As We Know It, are compelled to subsidise other people's computer gaming, twittering, rock video collecting etc.

Similarly, "free housing" means that those who are by choice tramps and travellers are compelled to pay towards the bricks-and-mortar for everybody else.

"Free university tuition" means those who choose to leave school at 16 (or whatever is the minimum age in your country) have to pay for those who choose to put off getting a job as long as possible.

Seems to me that the things that should qualify for being free at point of use are those things that no reasonable person could not want. Drinking water and basic health care (painkillers, antibiotics, access to medical knowledge) would qualify.

But I'd argue that an Amish person (as an example of a world-rejecting point of view) should be allowed to opt out of paying for anything they could reasonably want to have nothing to do with.

Best wishes,

Russ

There's a difference and it's a big difference between publicly funded and free. it's also ridiculous to suggest that public services are paid for by those who don't use them. My tax $s have been used to pay for public hospitals, schools, universities, roads etc etc. Some of my university education was 100% publicly funded-but that doesn't mean that my tax $s over a lifetime haven't supported that same opportunity for others. I'd hazard a guess I've contributed more to public tertiary education than many who left school at 15.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And I am not an employment lawyer either. But being self-employed, it strikes me as a bit rich when people argue for more and more paid leave - including stress leave! Who is not stressed in their employment from time to time!

Excess stress is a form of illness, and people have every right to expect to expect paid leave when they're too ill to work. If you can't tell the difference between ordinary stress and the sort of stress that gets people ordered to take time off by a doctor then that's your problem, not theirs.

Adequate holidays make employees happier and more productive, and less likely to have stress related illnesses, and ultimately benefit businesses. The fact that some businesses are too stupid to realise this means legislating a minimum is necessary, just as it is with the minimum wage.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
There's a difference and it's a big difference between publicly funded and free.

As has been said, because everything costs something, someone is going to pay. So, either it's provided as an act of charity, or it's funded indirectly. In the case of things which are publically funded, that's "free at the point of use" - so, you don't pay each time you borrow a book from the library, drive your car onto the public road etc. The costs for this are paid for from the public purse, which is filled by tax money.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Excess stress is a form of illness, and people have every right to expect to expect paid leave when they're too ill to work. If you can't tell the difference between ordinary stress and the sort of stress that gets people ordered to take time off by a doctor then that's your problem, not theirs.

Adequate holidays make employees happier and more productive, and less likely to have stress related illnesses, and ultimately benefit businesses. The fact that some businesses are too stupid to realise this means legislating a minimum is necessary, just as it is with the minimum wage.

Very nice indeed. They go on leave - thereby assuming that they have a job to come back to - and throw the burden of covering their absence on their fellow employees, and on the employer who has to make arrangements for their absence. As to the doctor’s ordering time off: I’ve seen enough doctor’s certificates over the last year saying that a court hearing must be adjourned because the case is causing stress to a party to be more than a bit sceptical about them.

A tangent to the thread perhaps, but it bears remembering that a benefit to one is at a cost to others.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

So, you're advocating that if someone has to take time off work for illness then their boss has the right to employ someone else and they don't have a job to come back to? Effectively no regulation of employment at all.

I'm sure everyone who has worked for someone has had times when they needed to take up the job of someone off sick. It might mean cutting lunch or adding another hour at the end of the day, it'll certainly mean a prioritising of tasks - what of their job can wait 'til they're back, what of mine can I let wait a while. But, we cope. It's unusual for a company to fold simply because someone is off sick for more than a couple of days. I hope I won't put my colleagues in that situation, but if it happens I certainly expect that they'll make sure enough is done to keep the job going and I'll go back to it when I'm over whatever has taken me off.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you're advocating that if someone has to take time off work for illness then their boss has the right to employ someone else and they don't have a job to come back to? Effectively no regulation of employment at all.
.

No, I am most certainly not advocating that at all, and there's nothing in my posts which could suggest it. What I am very sceptical about are the claims for stress leave (i) because we all have lots of stress from time to time in our work, but continue on; (ii) the medical certificates I've seen over the last year or so are extremely flimsy, frequently not mentioning any examination or testing; and (iii) it does put demands on others who go to work.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You seem to be advocating that sick leave should only be allowed for some sort of illnesses, but not others. In particular you seem to be dismissing mental illness as not being a reason for needing sick leave.

And, your point (iii) is true regardless of the nature of the illness.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to be advocating that sick leave should only be allowed for some sort of illnesses, but not others. In particular you seem to be dismissing mental illness as not being a reason for needing sick leave.

And, your point (iii) is true regardless of the nature of the illness.

Again, not at all. What I don't accept is that the stress claimed is in fact a mental or other illness. All of us work under stress, at time more severe than others. We don't run off and claim stress leave, nor compensation from any employer for causing stress. We get on with our job. Those of us who are self-employed can't do it at all. If we don't work, we don't get paid.

A recently retired Justice of the High Court, a brilliant common lawyer, used frequently say that he always slept badly the night before a difficult cross-examination. But he would get up in the morning and do his job.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Gee D; the difference between long term stress necessitating sick leave and "getting a bit stressed" is much the same as the difference between being "a bit sad" and having clinical depression.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gee D; the difference between long term stress necessitating sick leave and "getting a bit stressed" is much the same as the difference between being "a bit sad" and having clinical depression.

Perhaps so, perhaps so. I'm not convinced, but rather keep to what I've said. It may be that I'm jaundiced by the use attempted to be made of it in courts here over the last year or so; also by some references to it on other threads. It seems the latest version of the oh-so-prevalent bad back 40 years ago.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gee D; the difference between long term stress necessitating sick leave and "getting a bit stressed" is much the same as the difference between being "a bit sad" and having clinical depression.
Perhaps so, perhaps so. I'm not convinced, but rather keep to what I've said. It may be that I'm jaundiced by the use attempted to be made of it in courts here over the last year or so; also by some references to it on other threads. It seems the latest version of the oh-so-prevalent bad back 40 years ago.

Trust me. It's very real, and suggesting that people claiming to be suffering from it are malingering is likely to get you called to the Hot Place.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Gee D - is the fact that workplace stress can lead to suicide evidence enough for you?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/01/headteacher-kills-herself

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

That article's far from persuasive - it's a real piece of special pleading. Just read the last 3 paragraphs. Perhaps there was some decent evidence before the coroner. Do you know what it's like to get up on your feet every day of a week before a bullying judge? It's stressful, but you do it because it's what you're retained to do. A surgeon is under constant stress, even in what is normally a straightforward operation. Life is like that.

All this arises from a thread on what should be free. Those who have the very great luxury of sick leave, holiday leave and the like can take it - and seem to on the basis of pretty flimsy evidence. Those of us who are self-employed and who owe duties to others seem to manage better.

[ 30. April 2015, 12:03: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Some people deal with stress better than others. Some it makes ill; some it doesn't. I'm very glad for you that you are in the latter group, but it's rather galling to hear that you don't believe anyone's in the former.

Why do you think that headteacher killed herself then?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

All this arises from a thread on what should be free. Those who have the very great luxury of sick leave, holiday leave and the like can take it - and seem to on the basis of pretty flimsy evidence. Those of us who are self-employed and who owe duties to others seem to manage better.

Yes - being self employed brings many choices which being employed (especially in the public sector) does not.

My husband left work as a Headteacher due to stress. He chose to leave. He became the international director of a well known charity. He often travelled to places like Kenya and Uganda for weeks at a time, working in the poorest districts - never did he encounter such stressful demands as he did as a headteacher.

Since he retired from the charity job he has been self employed, which = no stress at all. Why? Because being self employed brings choice. You don't get paid on days off, of course, but that's the only downside imo.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

ISTM that your main issue with sick leave, etc. is that you don't have it, and you have to work anyway and do, so most people who take leave are fakers or wimps. Is that about right?

I know very well what it's like to force yourself to work, for years on end, despite how you feel. I also know how it can wreck a person. That's integral to the health problems and disabilities that finally forced me to quit working. Nearly destroyed me.

And it's classic for someone to work so hard and so much that they become sick--or even work themself to death.

Perhaps, in our imagining a more perfect world, we can also imagine benefits for the self-employed, temps, contractors, day laborers, domestic workers, etc.?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Gee D if you doubt the health effects of stress come over here. They even have a word for it - 過労死 (Karōshi), literally "death from overwork". Heart attacks and strokes caused by stress and poor diet from working very long hours. Or, do you put that down to Darwinian selection in action, thinning out those unable to work 100 hour weeks for 52 weeks a year from the population.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, not at all. What I don't accept is that the stress claimed is in fact a mental or other illness. All of us work under stress, at time more severe than others. We don't run off and claim stress leave, nor compensation from any employer for causing stress. We get on with our job. Those of us who are self-employed can't do it at all. If we don't work, we don't get paid.

A recently retired Justice of the High Court, a brilliant common lawyer, used frequently say that he always slept badly the night before a difficult cross-examination. But he would get up in the morning and do his job.

That's profoundly ignorant of what constitutes mental illness, among other things. This is an example, I think, of by grace of God it hasn't happened to you so you don't understand, and thus empathy failure.

Stress, according to first university psych textbooks for at least the last 40 years refers to an inverted U-shaped curve (that's a graph, along the lines of a bell curve), where performance is on the y axis and amount of stress is on the x axis. The stress until the peak of the curve is "eustress" and increases performance. After the peak, the benefits of the stress plummet. (You may web search if you never took first year psych, never heard of Hans Selye, and I think I'd still pass the exam.)

Suppose Gee D., that you have been threatened by irate customers at work, your personal life also contains significant stress, say from caring for family members who are ill some of whom die, random accident to others, you don't sleep, you're losing weight because your appetite has faltered, you cannot focus, among other things. Might the stress be troublesome? As a self employed person, the above has happened to me, and I went off work to recover. We all have our breaking points, I think you've simply either been lucky so far, or you're young enough that it has yet to occur for you. There's an ethical aspect as well if you're billing people for substandard work due to your mental condition.

I think there is veiled insult toward people who have had stress related illnesses by such statements, that they are weak or malingering.

Finally, there is insurance for such things that responsible self-employed people arrange to buy, and they also have some savings to tide them through.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That article's far from persuasive - it's a real piece of special pleading. Just read the last 3 paragraphs. Perhaps there was some decent evidence before the coroner. Do you know what it's like to get up on your feet every day of a week before a bullying judge? It's stressful, but you do it because it's what you're retained to do. A surgeon is under constant stress, even in what is normally a straightforward operation. Life is like that.

Given the high rates of alcoholism among surgeons, I'm not inclined to blithely wave away their stress levels as being ok. I've also seen too many colleagues driven to the brink by stress. I work in a fairly small school, but the number of colleagues I have who are suffering the effects of excess stress is worrying. Most manage to stagger on but some do end up breaking and needing time off; others scrape by with medication and counselling. Those who dismiss mental illness clearly haven't had anyone close to them go through it. If you don't want people having to take time off with stress you need to manage the working environment better.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Yep, I think all the top 4 or 5 jobs in terms of suicide are in the medical field (including veterinarians). Stress is a legitimate killer.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Perhaps so, perhaps so. I'm not convinced, but rather keep to what I've said. It may be that I'm jaundiced by the use attempted to be made of it in courts here over the last year or so; also by some references to it on other threads. It seems the latest version of the oh-so-prevalent bad back 40 years ago.
Trust me. It's very real, and suggesting that people claiming to be suffering from it are malingering is likely to get you called to the Hot Place.

And Karl will have company. [Mad]

It's difficult to deal with any illness if one is still trying to work and fulfil other responsibilities, but a mental illness can completely wipe out one's ability to do something as small as brushing one's teeth.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I cannot reply to all the posts that came in overnight. On the basis if that newspaper article, I have no idea why the schoolteacher took her life. There may well have been some proper evidence before the coroner, but there's none in the paper.

Yes, I did do Psychology 1, over 50 years ago. Stress did not feature in the course (one would not expect it to) and I have not heard of Hans Selye. If I get some time this evening, I shall look him up.

People can die from overwork, but that is quite different to dying from stress as being talked about here.

And finally, stress is being used here (ie where I live) as an excuse, as the modern equivalent of the bad back. Take this example from my recent life. X, without a lawyer, took proceedings against my client. Come the day of the hearing, X is not at court. Rather a letter from a GP saying that he's writing for X who's been under a lot of stress from the court case, is flying out that morning and will let everyone know what day to relist the hearing before he returns. I don't know how you would classify that. I do know how the judge did.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Take this example from my recent life. X, without a lawyer, took proceedings against my client. Come the day of the hearing, X is not at court. Rather a letter from a GP saying that he's writing for X who's been under a lot of stress from the court case, is flying out that morning and will let everyone know what day to relist the hearing before he returns. I don't know how you would classify that. I do know how the judge did.

I would say that there is a medical condition that a professional medical practitioner has diagnosed and live with it. I would also comment that it must have been clear for some time that the stress of the court case was causing issues and steps should have been taken earlier to alleviate that, including hiring a lawyer rather than taking on the case without legal support. In this instance*, it appears that the stress and resulting medical conditions could have been reduced by the simple step of taking on legal advice. And, that it is extremely inconsiderate to inform the court of the diagnosis on the day of the hearing.

* which is to say that it isn't always as easy to reduce the amount of stress people are under.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Just getting away from the stress topic

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
There's a difference and it's a big difference between publicly funded and free.
As has been said, because everything costs something, someone is going to pay. So, either it's provided as an act of charity, or it's funded indirectly. In the case of things which are publically funded, that's "free at the point of use" - so, you don't pay each time you borrow a book from the library, drive your car onto the public road etc. The costs for this are paid for from the public purse, which is filled by tax money.

I'm not arguing against that-I was just taking issue-as I indicated by quoting, with Russ's argument that any public good is being funded by compelling those who don't use it to pay for it. Even if you don't use free university education you do benefit from using the services of those who have had that education e.g. drs, lawyers and school teachers, even if you're a lifestyle tramp you benefit from public housing because it frees up bus shelters and alleyways for your use, even though you might not use free health services you benefit from the fact that it exists otherwise the great unwashed would be spewing their bacteria and viruses all over you and even dying in the street and it's awfully inconvenient to have to step over them as one used to have to do in India.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm certainly not going to argue about that.

What I was questioning was the distinction between "publically funded" and "free", especially in the context of this thread where it's "free as in beer". I certainly don't understand the origin of the "free beer" part, but ISTM what we are discussing is what should be funded entirely from the public purse such that it's free at point of use. Basically, I wasn't seeing the distinction.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

What I was questioning was the distinction between "publically funded" and "free", especially in the context of this thread where it's "free as in beer".

Clearly the discussion framed by no prophet is about things that should be paid for out of the public purse.

There is a narrow distinction to be drawn between "free" and "publicly-funded" though, I think. Suppose a manufacturer is giving away free samples of its new product. Clearly they cost money to produce, and the manufacturer will pay for them out of its profits in the hope of generating a new market and so higher future profits, but there's no real sense in which the absence of the free detergent (or whatever) would put money back into the shopper's pocket.

On the other hand, suppose a government decided to offer free massages to the people. This will increase everyone's tax bill. Some people don't like massages, so won't use the service, and others will spend all their time getting free rubdowns.

Is there a benefit to providing massages? Maybe. It's possible that the provision of massages would reduce the expenditure on stress-related illnesses and leave the public purse quids in. It's possible that the massages would have no effect at all on other public expenditure, but most people consider that everyone should be able to get a massage at any time without worrying about the cost. Or maybe it's just silly.

But in the case of tax-funded massage, we have to worry about this, because (collective) we are paying for it, and we need to be convinced that it's worthwhile to do. If Microsoft was giving away a free massage with every copy of Windows 8, the only people who need to worry about the cost-benefit ratio are Microsoft shareholders (and they'd probably decide that a free massage wasn't enough to make Windows 8 desirable.)

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

To me "free" means paid for by somebody else, publicly funded means that it's paid for by all of us. Pretty much what Leoning explains above.

[ 01. May 2015, 02:42: Message edited by: Evangeline ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I would say that there is a medical condition that a professional medical practitioner has diagnosed and live with it. I would also comment that it must have been clear for some time that the stress of the court case was causing issues and steps should have been taken earlier to alleviate that, including hiring a lawyer rather than taking on the case without legal support. In this instance*, it appears that the stress and resulting medical conditions could have been reduced by the simple step of taking on legal advice. And, that it is extremely inconsiderate to inform the court of the diagnosis on the day of the hearing.

* which is to say that it isn't always as easy to reduce the amount of stress people are under.

Juts to deal briefly with the last of this tangent.

More than extremely inconsiderate, X's actions were almost contumelious. X will return to Aust to find that his claim has been dismissed. Why should my client wait further to have the claim against it determined, when there was absolutely no indication of the length of time X would want before feeling ready to proceed to a hearing?

The letter from the doctor did not indicate what qualifications the doctor may have held to enable the diagnosis, what tests had been carried out on X, any other relevant factors, how the conclusion had been reached, nor how long the condition diagnosed may last and why it prevented X's attendance. Finally, the doctor was acting as X's advocate and not as an independent expert. In other words, it totally failed to comply with any of the standard criteria required for the reception of expert evidence. Finally, there was no explanation directly from X to explain the overseas flight, when medical attention was first sought, or why the request came through from the doctor at the last minute. The judge refused the request for an adjournment, heard my brief submissions and dismissed the action.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Since he retired from the charity job he has been self employed, which = no stress at all. Why? Because being self employed brings choice. You don't get paid on days off, of course, but that's the only downside imo.

I'm intrigued at self-employed = no stress, that's not my experience!

Probably depends on the kind of self employment. People think self-employed, boy are you lucky, you can work when you want. But if you are providing a good or service in competition with larger companies, you have to match their hours of availability. Try being a health food store open only the days you feel like working, you'll quickly have no customers. They shop at their convenience, not yours.

Self employment requires a large range of skills - planning and marketing and bookkeeping and web page updating and figuring out why the computer glitched and keeping up with (finding out about!) changes in the law - can consume a lot of your "off duty" time. In a bigger employer other people take care of these for you.

My Air Conditioner repairman neighbor lost customers when he took a week to go hunting. People who need repair won't wait a week in 100 degrees instead of calling someone else, and then they usually stay with that someone else. People in jobs can schedule a week of vacation and others in the same office cover the work for him and give it back to him on return, giving the customer a seamless experience.

There's good and bad in both but self-employment is usually not all roses any more than working for a boss is.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
I'm intrigued at self-employed = no stress, that's not my experience!

Probably depends on the kind of self employment. People think self-employed, boy are you lucky, you can work when you want. But if you are providing a good or service in competition with larger companies, you have to match their hours of availability. Try being a health food store open only the days you feel like working, you'll quickly have no customers. They shop at their convenience, not yours.

There's good and bad in both but self-employment is usually not all roses any more than working for a boss is.

Or if you're but one of a couple of thousand individuals seeking the work - the life of a surgeon or a barrister for example - rather than being in competition with a larger company. You simply have to be available to take the work, otherwise it will go to someone else. At least at the bar there is some control, in that you can tell a solicitor what days you will be free for a hearing before a date is fixed, but there's no such let-out for chamber work. Surgeons can plan some operations into the future, but must still be available to cover emergencies.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... And finally, stress is being used here (ie where I live) as an excuse, as the modern equivalent of the bad back. Take this example from my recent life. ...

Juts to deal briefly with the last of this tangent.

More than extremely inconsiderate, X's actions were almost contumelious. ...

Whatever. It's still a vast (and insulting) generalization about a lot of people supported by an extreme case from one location. Perhaps X just has contempt for the justice system, something to be expected in a nation descended from exported criminals. How's that for a vast (and insulting) generalization?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0