>>No, I knew they had four to begin with. You assumed.

Then you misused the example. The Swiss voted *for* 4 weeks' leave so should not be expressed as an argument against it.

>>If a company/institution wants to offer 4 weeks, even to new employees, plus 10 days of holiday, plus sick days, that's fine. It should be their choice. A company needs to define what model works best for them, and where they'd want to offer exceptions to get/retain specific talent...

A wonderful picture you paint, and I agree wholeheartedly with the principle... except that in the real world, this translates to Americans getting less leave than anybody else in the free world. If this had left the affected Americans at the top of the quality of life totem pole and/or if Americans are happy with the status quo, there's no need for change. Otherwise it used to be the Socalists accused of believing dogma rather than the results before their eyes.

>>I would rather see the market work that out than have government bureaucrats (who usually don't understand the specifics) dictate. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises shattered the concept of "economic calculation" in a bureaucratic environment, and history has proven him to be right.

Actually he decried the absence of economic calculation in a 1920's style managed economy. But if you want to believe that a 93-year-old essay about Socialist manifesto that already was obsolete in our lifetimes, is more relevant than recent market destruction of the economic system that survived only because of massive US government intervention that did not include firesale acquisition of all of the distressed banking assets as should have occurred during a "free market" rescue, then good for you. My version would be that simple answers to complex questions rarely are valid, especially 93 years later when the culprits in 1920 now are privateers and capitalist darlings who offer short-term profit in exchange for undermining local labor markets in the West more effectively than they ever could have hoped for in 1920. Talk about "the rope with which we will hang them... "

>>Also - this 40 hour a week thing. It really depends on the industry and the type of work. Certainly working 60 hours consistently will negatively affect most people. It's unrealistic to expect certain positions will only need to work 40 a week at all times - sometimes you have crunch times a company indeed needs "all hands on deck". This IS an area where I wish companies would pay more attention - I see organizations that pay lip service to creeds of "we don't want people to work weekends, we want people to have quality of life" but repeatedly break it. So I understand where Tamar is coming from.

I trained in a profession in which 120-hour weeks were seen as a rite of passage. Still is in some jurisdictions. Solved only by government intervention, fwiw. You can lecture about government intervention, but that's like lecturing somebody whose car just got stolen about the need to sympathize with the thieves. Until you experience it, easy soundbites must feel wonderful.

>>Role of a govt - protect the liberties of its citizens, implement certain public works, manage a reformed welfare system for those who need it, and let the people decide the rest within the framework of a constitution that focuses on individual rights .

What if the result is accumulation of wealth in the hands of very few and an increasing number of disadvantaged? You may be sitting pretty today, but the middle class is in the cross hairs now. Wait and see.