Earl

This is an article by a Harvard Economist whose name indicates
he is possibly of European origins.

He gives some comments on European vacations. I should note
that being an academic he gets three months vacation a year,
which outclasses both the American and European workers!
On the other hand, academics are under a "publish or perish"
regime so actually use those three months off to work
on research projects. I say "work" but in fact research is fun,
or at least I found it non-work. I am from this community.

I found some a few factual errors in his comments, surprising for
an academic to make them, but overall his comments are correct.

Earl

*****

OP-ED: Europe on holiday â€

Dominique Foucart

Dans son message précédent, Earl a écrit :
    > This is an article by a Harvard Economist whose name indicates
    > he is possibly of European origins.

    > Alberto Alesina is Professor of Economics at Harvard University

Apparently, HU Professors of economics do not always read OECD
studies...

in http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/43/2380415.pdf

one will see that taking France and Germany as a reference for Europe
is erroneous. There are loads of European countries from the EU with a
HIGHER productivity per employed person than in the US.

Best Regards,

Dominique Foucart
Brussels, Capital City of European Community

Alan Harrison

"Earl" <> wrote in message
news:...

    > He gives some comments on European vacations. I should note
    > that being an academic he gets three months vacation a year,
    > which outclasses both the American and European workers!
    > On the other hand, academics are under a "publish or perish"
    > regime so actually use those three months off to work
    > on research projects.

Does he really get three months' holiday? My holiday is a bit more than I
got when I worked in manufacturing industry, but nothing like three months.
In fact, I'm not sure that I actually take all the holiday that I am
entitled to! (Maybe as a pedantic university lecturer, I should write "to
which I am entitled"!) I agree about the "publish or perish" thing. As a
late entrant to the lecturing game (51 when I got "phudded"), I'm still
under this cosh when I should be easing down towards my pension...

Alan Harrison

Devil

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:28:31 +0000, Alan Harrison wrote:

    >
    > "Earl" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> He gives some comments on European vacations. I should note
    >> that being an academic he gets three months vacation a year,
    >> which outclasses both the American and European workers!
    >> On the other hand, academics are under a "publish or perish"
    >> regime so actually use those three months off to work
    >> on research projects.
    >
    > Does he really get three months' holiday? My holiday is a bit more than I
    > got when I worked in manufacturing industry, but nothing like three months.
    > In fact, I'm not sure that I actually take all the holiday that I am
    > entitled to! (Maybe as a pedantic university lecturer, I should write "to
    > which I am entitled"!) I agree about the "publish or perish" thing. As a
    > late entrant to the lecturing game (51 when I got "phudded"), I'm still
    > under this cosh when I should be easing down towards my pension...

I was going to raise the same issue.

Actually, in the US, they are paid their regular salary on the basis of
nine months/year. So, if they feel so they can take three months of
*unpaid* holiday. Or do some other remunarated stuff. Or as you say just
catch up.

In Canada we are paid *less* but supposedly for 12 months. I suppose on
paper we should be getting some holidays. But it's a bit of an
abstraction. As a practical matter, what happens is that when going here
or there, I take an extra day visiting the place, or if real interesting,
perhaps a week. Usually partly motivated by getting a cheaper plane
ticket. Usually bringing some work too.

Owain

"Earl" wrote (quoting Alberto Alesina)
    | ... Income taxes certainly must affect willingness to work.
    | They may not change by much the number of hours worked by
    | the main breadwinner in a family (typically a man), but
    | they do influence the participation of women in the labour
    | force. After all, why work, when your after-tax salary
    | barely pays for childcare and household help?

OTOH, at least in Britain, a major emphasis of the benefits system is in
encouraging women back in to work by supporting childcare etc. (Whether it
works is another question.)

    | Europeans tend to prefer vacations over growth. Personally,
    | I love taking more and more vacations. But I cannot (and do
    | not) then complain if my income does not grow faster and
    | faster.

Europeans perhaps value 'growth' (financial) less compared to the social,
cultural and medical benefits of a comfortable work-life balance.

Owain

Earl Evleth

On 18/06/04 19:00, in article ,
"Dominique Foucart" <> wrote:



    > one will see that taking France and Germany as a reference for Europe
    > is erroneous. There are loads of European countries from the EU with a
    > HIGHER productivity per employed person than in the US.


Higher hourly productivity, you are right and France is one of those
countries. The total yearly productivity however is lower because
fewer hours are worked per year in Europe, generally. What the author
did not cover is the overworked American.

This issue is analyzed in "The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline
of Leisure" by Juliet B. Schor. She also deals with the work "week" even
before the Industrial age in England during the middle ages. The long work
week was imposed by the modern industrial states, mainly capitalistic
and therefore subject to market labor economics (low wages, long work
week, and a reservoir of unemployed to keep wages low).

The longer work year in the USA is do to the fact that it is more
capitalistic with a very low dose of the ³social². The American
"bosses" have successfully imposed it since it is cheaper for them
to make existing labor work longer than to hire new labor. The
American workers have played a role in not being a countervailing
power in this regard but opted to accept more pay. However, in fact,
income levels for the lower wage earning workers had not improved
over recent years and women have had to join to work force to keep
family incomes from dropping. Only the top 5% of income earners
have profited from economic growth over the last 30 years.

Social factors are more important in Europe. France, for instance has
experienced in increase in incomes for the lowest income groups and at the
same time leisure time has increased and far better social protection than
the USA. All this was imposed on the capitalist system, with some
resistance.

However, an lower overall economic growth has occurred in recent times.
How to finance the growing retirement group and the social protections is,
however, a real problem and has to be faced.

With the lengthening of life expectancies people are entering
retirement too soon in France. The author correctly points this out.
But it is a op-ed piece of writing and certainly generally lacks
the rigor of an academic analysis of a problem.


Earl

Sjoerd

"Owain" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
    > Europeans perhaps value 'growth' (financial) less compared to the social,
    > cultural and medical benefits of a comfortable work-life balance.

My guess is that many Americans also would value a more comfortable
work-life balance. (almost every American I meet would like to have my 11
weeks of annual paid holidays) However, the socio-economic fabric of the US
is such that the rule of unabridged capitalism is almost unopposed in the
USA.

Sjoerd

Earl Evleth

On 18/06/04 19:00, in article ,
"Dominique Foucart" <> wrote:

    > one will see that taking France and Germany as a reference for Europe
    > is erroneous. There are loads of European countries from the EU with a
    > HIGHER productivity per employed person than in the US.


Higher hourly productivity, you are right and France is one of those
countries. The total yearly productivity however is lower because
fewer hours are worked per year in Europe, generally. What the author
did not cover is the overworked American.

This issue is analyzed in "The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline
of Leisure" by Juliet B. Schor. She also deals with the work "week" even
before the Industrial age in England during the middle ages. The long work
week was imposed by the modern industrial states, mainly capitalistic
and therefore subject to market labor economics (low wages, long work
week, and a reservoir of unemployed to keep wages low).

The longer work year in the USA is do to the fact that it is more
capitalistic with a very low dose of the ³social². The American
"bosses" have successfully imposed it since it is cheaper for them
to make existing labor work longer than to hire new labor. The
American workers have played a role in not being a countervailing
power in this regard but opted to accept more pay. However, in fact,
income levels for the lower wage earning workers had not improved
over recent years and women have had to join to work force to keep
family incomes from dropping. Only the top 5% of income earners
have profited from economic growth over the last 30 years.

Social factors are more important in Europe. France, for instance has
experienced in increase in incomes for the lowest income groups and at the
same time leisure time has increased and far better social protection than
the USA. All this was imposed on the capitalist system, with some
resistance.

However, an lower overall economic growth has occurred in recent times.
How to finance the growing retirement group and the social protections is,
however, a real problem and has to be faced.

With the lengthening of life expectancies people are entering
retirement too soon in France. The author correctly points this out.
But it is a op-ed piece of writing and certainly generally lacks
the rigor of an academic analysis of a problem.

Earl

Km

"Sjoerd" <> wrote in message
news:40d421c1$0$65124$...

    > My guess is that many Americans also would value a more comfortable
    > work-life balance. (almost every American I meet would like to have my 11
    > weeks of annual paid holidays)

The same should theoretically apply in Canada, where annual leave starts at
two weeks.

We can afford four weeks as the standard. Some of the costs of additional
holidays could be recovered through the higher productivity that a bit of
regular R & R brings, not to mention higher consumer spending. And of course
there's Parkinson's Law, which suggests that a little more time off needn't
come at the cost of getting less work done.

And four weeks would merely put us on par with Britain, Australia, Ireland
and, after 2007, New Zealand. Hardly anything radical about that.

It's just a problem with downtime being seen as wasteful in this culture,
rather than as a form of preventative maintenance. Also, few of us even
realize that our two weeks is very low by international standards -- we
figure that if it's the norm for us, it's probably the norm everywhere else
in the First World -- so nobody makes a big deal about it. If we knew that
we settle for half of what the British and the Australians get, we'd have a
collective fit.

The same thing probably applies in the U.S.

Earl

"Alan Harrison" <> wrote in message news:<cavfou$97c$>...
    >
    > "Earl" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> He gives some comments on European vacations. I should note
    >> that being an academic he gets three months vacation a year,
    >> which outclasses both the American and European workers!
    >> On the other hand, academics are under a "publish or perish"
    >> regime so actually use those three months off to work
    >> on research projects.
    >
    > Does he really get three months' holiday? My holiday is a bit more than I
    > got when I worked in manufacturing industry, but nothing like three months.
    > In fact, I'm not sure that I actually take all the holiday that I am
    > entitled to! (Maybe as a pedantic university lecturer, I should write "to
    > which I am entitled"!) I agree about the "publish or perish" thing. As a
    > late entrant to the lecturing game (51 when I got "phudded"), I'm still
    > under this cosh when I should be easing down towards my pension...


I am talking about American academics. I was one for years (U of California)
until I took a position in France (CNRS). I know both systems well.

The summer vacation period generally last about three months, all of June
and July, and currently the school year has been move up to starting around
the end of August. Classes ending sometime in late May. So one friend
we have who teaches in a mid-western University generally shows up in Paris
around sometimes in May, leaving mid-August.

Salaries are officially paid on a 9 month bias although one can request
they be paid over 12 months so one has a monthly income. So if your
American academic is being paid $60,000 a year that is for 9
months. In the sciences, if you have a research grant you can put
yourself on "salary" for 2 months in the summer but not 3. This
might amount to an additional $12,000 a year. $60,000 is a middle
level salary in American academic, full professors get maybe
$100,000 in the sciences. Some people teach summer session
which brings in somewhat less per month.

If they are "stars" and have lots of grant money and are Nobel Prize
winners, the University reagents
will go "off scale" and they might get twice that. The sky is the limit
since if the reagents are not generous they can go to another
university and get it. Since the University gets overhead payments
on the grants, paying out good salaries is smart. However, few
stars will have million dollar grants which are bled by the University
via overhead. The more the grants one has, the more the students
and postdocs. Roughly one can plan on one paper per year per worker
and so a research group of on chief and 10 indians will produce
around 10 papers a year. This large a group would have a grant
budget in the million dollar range. So each paper in a journal might
represent $100,000 or much more in public investment. The whole
system is mostly unknowingly financed by the tax payers.

Now in addition to the 3 months vacation there long holiday periods
during the year. A friend (full prof) comes to his apartment in
France for a month in January. American academics also have
golden retirement systems and can retire at nearly full salary.

Now the down side of all this is that a top academic is in a rat
race, one has to put out lots of good papers to get research
grants so all this vacation time is gobbled up in working.
Not only during the "vacation period" but evenings and weekends.
One famous academic, a Nobel Prize winner, was so busy that
he arranged to have regular appointments with his family on
Sunday afternoon from 4-5 PM!

The distinct advantage of being a successful middle level academic
is that one can take the time off. Indeed, half my career was
spent in France where I could take a real one month off
and holidays now and then. I officially got, as all French workers,
5 weeks a year vacation, the extra week was spent in the snow.
However, the American academic, if he/she is clever can have
that 3 months to themselves. Some do. For some it is a soft
berth. Getting tenure in the first place is the problem. Without
that, there are no golden doors to pass through.

Earl