>> This is the lament of the older worker, tired of the demands being placed on him. <<I'm 34. Don't know if that's "older" in your world...>> But I don't see why your desires should be accomodated unless it by mutual agreement with your employer. <<Where have I said otherwise? I said (a) IF I could get my employer to go along, and (b) without government coercion. That would seem to imply "mutual agreement" to me. I don't know what you're arguing, or why you're arguing it, or why you're trying to invent an opposing position to attack.>> I would expect that there are younger employees who might like to have your pay and benefits, and still have the energy and desire to work long hours to achieve that position. <<You are of the mistaken impression that I'm getting ready to collect Social Security. To repeat -- I'm 34, hardly ready to spend every day golfing in Florida or Arizona.>> You are arguing that the old should be accomodated at the expense of the young. <<And *you* are creating a straw man. I'm "arguing" no such thing. Nowhere have I advocated coercion on *anyone*, just that it would be nice if it were more readily available. Using market forces, not government forces. If you've read otherwise in what I wrote, then you have an overactive imagination.>> What about the employee who is older than you, who would like to work twenty hours per week or ten hours per week? <<If it worked for the employer and the employee, that's their business. If I didn't like it, I could find a new job. You *are* advocating letting the market work, aren't you? Why the change in tune here?>> Why should employees be able to use government to dictate to employers the terms of employment? <<Seems strange that you argue this, especially given one piece of my original quote (which you included): "While I don't support it as government mandates..."The idea being that it would be nice if the job market evolved to a point where there was more flexibility among employees as to whether they worked 70 hours and earned tons of money, or 20 hours and earned much less. There's no sinister agenda for imposing more government rules here -- just saying what my ideal working world would be like. By the way -- to some degree, employees and government DO dictate the terms already -- in laws establishing the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, health and safety regulations, discrimination and harassment policies, et cetera.>> Give people who want to work hard and earn a lot the chance to do so, that's my view! <<Again -- tell me where I've advocated otherwise, where I've suggested that "young" workers (since you seem fixated on the age of workers) NOT be allowed to work 90 hours a week so they can save, invest and retire at 40? And frankly, if I were the older worker you seem convinced I am, your rhetoric would scare the hell out of me if you were a manager.Windmills ahead, Mr. Quixote...#29
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra