>>>You offered this in context of a Harvard fund-raising effort. Since I'm not certain what this had to do with the discussion of mandatory time-off, I decided to toss out a quick rejoinder.
>
>I raised Harvard because of recent assertions that the US has dropped the ball on the innovations that underpinned its dominance in the information age. Numerous commentators say that science is headed for the doldrums in the US, though it still does very well in the patent department. The Harvards and Stanfords may succeed at keeping the US up front but unless it translates to jobs and social benefits, how is that of use to Joe Average American?

Again, I do not see why this was mentioned in response to me.

>>>There's more to "passing us by" than simply mandating more and declaring it better. To focus on Germany and Switzerland would be to improperly assess the effects of mandatory time-off on employment.
>
>Tamar was responding to assertions that US labor rules are advantageous. I understood that you sought to rebut by connecting generous conditions to unemployment rates - but in that case it's improper only to review the basket cases rather than Germany and Switzerland.

I didn't limit my response, quite the opposite, I posted a wiki list of the world just as Tamar had done. I then left it to the reader to have a look. When you responded by focusing on Germany and Switzerland, that was when I chose a more limited list (EU countries) and posted their rates.

>As an exercise, consider that Joe Average American might aspire to a standard of living equivalent to a similar employee in Switzerland. What are the differences? What is comparable?

I'm not certain what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that added mandatory benefits have no effect on employment?
Are you shifting focus to a more elusive "standard of living" comparisson? If the latter then we'll need to define "standard of living". I'll start with wages.