NetworkedBlogs
Over The Rainbow
Some ideas are just so outlandish, ridiculous, foolish, and beyond the pale that it is hard to know where to start in criticizing it. Consider this, from Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (courtesy of Politico):
As stated above, it's hard to know exactly where to start with this one, after getting over the initial shock that yes, this guy is serious, and yes, there's really a group called the Center for Economic and Policy Research that really paid someone to write a study on vacation. My first thought on reading this (other than ridicule and scorn for Rep. Grayson) was this: why stop there? If vacation, particularly at Disney, is so gratifying that it should become the government's business, why stop at mandating merely time off... why not take it further and just have the government provide free trips to Disney World for every man, woman, and child in the United States. The general state of happiness would surely shoot through the roof (that is, for everyone except employees of Disney, who themselves would need a vacation after the sudden convergence of millions on their park, expecting entertainment).
Perhaps a better kicking-off point is the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the unemployment rate in the US was 8.9% for April 2009, with 539,000 jobs lost. Government-mandated vacation effectively raises the cost of each employee, providing a disincentive for businesses to hire more workers. It would seem to follow that during a recession characterized by job losses and rising unemployment would be the absolute worst time to increase the cost of hiring workers. Businesses would either find themselves cutting payroll, raising prices, or perhaps taking benefits away from others to make up for the added expenses. The government can't simply create something out of nothing by decree; there are always trade offs.
Of course there's the liberty and freedom of association aspect of this issue as well. Let's say I want a job, and someone agrees to hire me at a price for which I'm willing to work. Do I not have the right to contract out my services at whatever rate I find to be fair? (Of course, this same line of reasoning also refutes the idea of a minimum wage.) What right does the government have to tell me that I can't choose to work for whatever rate and benefits I'm comfortable with? Obviously, everyone would like more vacation (or any vacation at all), but if the choice is a job with no vacation or no job at all, priorities can change.
As to the think tank "study" showing $300 billion in lost productivity due to stress and burnout of workers, that's hard either to refute or corroborate, but certainly workers in the United States aren't lagging those in other countries when it comes to productivity. A UN report showed that American workers are the most productive in the world; when it comes to average vacation, however, the US averages fewer days per year per worker than Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, UK, Korea, Canada, and even Japan. The data don't support the assertion that we'd be more productive with more vacation, which would seem to be common sense — it seems obvious that workers who aren't working will produce less than those who are.
All of these facts would seem to be bad news for Congressman Grayson, but when have politicians ever felt encumbered by facts? Something tells me Mr. Grayson will find a nice campaign contribution from Disney in his inbox soon, if he's not already cashed it. Let's hope his "goofy" idea stays where it belongs: over the rainbow.
Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.The article goes on to quote a think tank that claims that job burnout and stress cost the economy to the tune of $300 billion annually.
So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.
The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.
The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.
As stated above, it's hard to know exactly where to start with this one, after getting over the initial shock that yes, this guy is serious, and yes, there's really a group called the Center for Economic and Policy Research that really paid someone to write a study on vacation. My first thought on reading this (other than ridicule and scorn for Rep. Grayson) was this: why stop there? If vacation, particularly at Disney, is so gratifying that it should become the government's business, why stop at mandating merely time off... why not take it further and just have the government provide free trips to Disney World for every man, woman, and child in the United States. The general state of happiness would surely shoot through the roof (that is, for everyone except employees of Disney, who themselves would need a vacation after the sudden convergence of millions on their park, expecting entertainment).
Perhaps a better kicking-off point is the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the unemployment rate in the US was 8.9% for April 2009, with 539,000 jobs lost. Government-mandated vacation effectively raises the cost of each employee, providing a disincentive for businesses to hire more workers. It would seem to follow that during a recession characterized by job losses and rising unemployment would be the absolute worst time to increase the cost of hiring workers. Businesses would either find themselves cutting payroll, raising prices, or perhaps taking benefits away from others to make up for the added expenses. The government can't simply create something out of nothing by decree; there are always trade offs.
Of course there's the liberty and freedom of association aspect of this issue as well. Let's say I want a job, and someone agrees to hire me at a price for which I'm willing to work. Do I not have the right to contract out my services at whatever rate I find to be fair? (Of course, this same line of reasoning also refutes the idea of a minimum wage.) What right does the government have to tell me that I can't choose to work for whatever rate and benefits I'm comfortable with? Obviously, everyone would like more vacation (or any vacation at all), but if the choice is a job with no vacation or no job at all, priorities can change.
As to the think tank "study" showing $300 billion in lost productivity due to stress and burnout of workers, that's hard either to refute or corroborate, but certainly workers in the United States aren't lagging those in other countries when it comes to productivity. A UN report showed that American workers are the most productive in the world; when it comes to average vacation, however, the US averages fewer days per year per worker than Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, UK, Korea, Canada, and even Japan. The data don't support the assertion that we'd be more productive with more vacation, which would seem to be common sense — it seems obvious that workers who aren't working will produce less than those who are.
All of these facts would seem to be bad news for Congressman Grayson, but when have politicians ever felt encumbered by facts? Something tells me Mr. Grayson will find a nice campaign contribution from Disney in his inbox soon, if he's not already cashed it. Let's hope his "goofy" idea stays where it belongs: over the rainbow.
Comments