|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Only it doesn't Looking at the different employment tables we can see plenty of gaps among the various members where the information should be...thus making the link further invalid for comparison purposes. My link on the other hand which as far as I can tell was translated into Korean as opposed to being written by them. takes into account the entire workforce working hours and yes its shows they have the second longest working paid hours. But when unpaid time is taken into account they match the OECD average. |
The link I shared has almost all the OECD members included - a few gaps are there, but it's still the best information available. Also, do I have to repeat myself - there is no indication that unpaid workplace hours are not being included in the link I posted. That is written nowhere. I think you're just skimming through this without paying attention.
I say that my link is the best information available, because your link is invalid for a reason that I just discovered. Go to the link at the top of it (or just click here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/52/47573400.pdf ). This page discusses the "unpaid work" that is in question. This page leads me to think I was wrong about it being a Korean source, but that doesn't matter anymore because this information is not specific to the workforce. Read what is written there in the bulletted points below the chart: the meaning of "unpaid work" includes cooking and cleaning, shopping, and care for household members. Sorry to break your heart! Your information is 100% invalid for the purposes of this discussion.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Furthermore not only your link is suspect but your motivations are too.
You said quite clearly and several times that you didn't want to get into a battle of the links..yet when you find something that supports you go on for several pages. Someone who truly didn't care wouldn't waste so much time and energy making post after post after post. Seriously do you dislike Korea that much? Because I really see no other motivation. You said yourself that you have no interest in proving anything and no motivation to do so several pages ago.
If it means that much to you...okay then Korea is horrible. |
I'm not sure. It's less about Korea now, and more about helping you with reading comprehension. I think what pulled me into it this far was your inability to grasp what I posting, response after response... should have seen that coming. Also, a certain impatience for the use of stats (which have now been shown to be worthless) to fabricate a representation of reality that I instinctively recognised as false.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| If it means that much to you...okay then Korea is horrible. |
Korea is horrible in many ways, but I wouldn't live there if it was 100% horrible. Still, none of the good things about it are germane to this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| T-J wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
[
Is under reporting of suicide going on in South Korea too? I would say yes.
And overall, the statistics point to proportionally more suicides in Korea than in Japan.
|
Since you are not a reputable source by any definition of the word, it doesn't matter what you say.
And "proportionally" doesn't mean much. Population has to be taken into account. |
Whenever someone brings up the suicide statistics I can't help but think of the quote,"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
I'm not trying to belittle the problem. One suicide is one too many and each is a tragic, needless loss.
However, let's look at the numbers, shall we?
There are a couple links already in this thread let's say that Korea's rate is 30 per 100,000 and the rate in the U.S. is 10 per 100,000. We read this and say OMG! three times as many!
Let's take another look shall we?
In the U.S. (pop 300m) that is 30,000 suicides.
In Korea (pop 50m) that is 15,000 suicides.
But the rate is three times per 100,000 you counter.
Yes, and I can comprehend 30 vs. 10. They are real numbers and the difference seems tangible. But is it? Is it really? Remember those aren't really real numbers they are a fraction of 100,000. We don't usually think in terms of 100,000. In truth it boarders on our ability to perceive what the number actually represents.
Let's put it back in terms that we are more accustomed to a fraction of 100 or a percentage.
In the U.S. the percentage of the population that commits suicide is 0.01%.
In Korea the percentage of the population that commits suicide is 0.03%.
As I stated in the beginning one is too many in either country and yes the rate in Korea is three times as high. However, generally speaking a difference of 0.02% in anything does not set off alarm bells for me.
|
That is a very long way around to say pretty much nothing. Three times as many is still three times as as many, no matter how you slice it. Thirty suicides a day is more than one per hour. Fractionalize that. |
Yes three times as many is still three times as many. But more is still more. According to the link TWICE as many people kill themselves in the U.S as in Korea. Again population difference has to be taken into account. |
Yes, quite.
Country A has a billion people, and ten murders.
Country B has 100 people, and 9 murders.
Clearly, murder is more of an issue in country A. After all, more is still more, right? |
You must be joking, right?
Allow me to explain. In country A, there is a (10/billion)x100% = 0.000001% probability of getting murdered. In contrast, in country B, there is a (9/100)x100% = 9% probability of getting murdered. So, clearly, country A is the best place to live if you want to avoid getting murdered. But don't listen to me. Go ahead and move to country B. After all, more is still more. |
I was being extremely sarcastic. I honestly didn't think I would need to explain that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No idea about the article, but Seoul's air quality sucked. I'm really glad to be back home and breathe fresh air again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Only it doesn't Looking at the different employment tables we can see plenty of gaps among the various members where the information should be...thus making the link further invalid for comparison purposes. My link on the other hand which as far as I can tell was translated into Korean as opposed to being written by them. takes into account the entire workforce working hours and yes its shows they have the second longest working paid hours. But when unpaid time is taken into account they match the OECD average. |
The link I shared has almost all the OECD members included - a few gaps are there, but it's still the best information available. Also, do I have to repeat myself - there is no indication that unpaid workplace hours are not being included in the link I posted. That is written nowhere. I think you're just skimming through this without paying attention.
I say that my link is the best information available, because your link is invalid for a reason that I just discovered. Go to the link at the top of it (or just click here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/52/47573400.pdf ). This page discusses the "unpaid work" that is in question. This page leads me to think I was wrong about it being a Korean source, but that doesn't matter anymore because this information is not specific to the workforce. Read what is written there in the bulletted points below the chart: the meaning of "unpaid work" includes cooking and cleaning, shopping, and care for household members. Sorry to break your heart! Your information is 100% invalid for the purposes of this discussion.
. |
Actually it is your logic that is 100% invalid. It says MOST unpaid work includes cooking and cleaning, shopping and care for household members." Meaning that at least some of that is at the workplace.
It says nothing about Korea SPECIFICALLY (thus making your logic invalid). Moreover this would include ALL unpaid work within the workforce as well.
So without a breakdown for Korea it certainly doesn't prove your point...in fact it seems to add support for mine.
Ultimately as my link shows...REGARDLESS of the type of unpaid work...when paid and UNPAID work are added together Korea is dead on with the average of the OECD countries.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/37/47573221.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually it is your logic that is 100% invalid. It says MOST unpaid work includes cooking and cleaning, shopping and care for household members." Meaning that at least some of that is at the workplace.
It says nothing about Korea SPECIFICALLY (thus making your logic invalid). Moreover this would include ALL unpaid work within the workforce as well.
So without a breakdown for Korea it certainly doesn't prove your point...in fact it seems to add support for mine.
Ultimately as my link shows...REGARDLESS of the type of unpaid work...when paid and UNPAID work are added together Korea is dead on with the average of the OECD countries.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/37/47573221.pdf |
TUM, of course at least some of the unpaid work in your link includes the workplace. The point is (and the failure to recognise this surprises me, even coming from you), without a breakdown of those unpaid hours, specifying exactly how many of them are workplace hours, the information is useless for comparing countries' actual employment habits (which is the only thing we were discussing, not domestic chores).
You very clearly did not post that link realising that it was irrelevant to workplace hours. You really thought it was incisive and relevant to the Korean working culture; you're just making excuses for it after the fact.
How about this: Koreans spend the least amount of time "cooking, cleaning, shopping, and caring for household members" because they have nearly the least amount of free time, away from the office? That's the most plausible explanation, in the absence of any numbers or percentages pertaining specifically to unpaid hours at the workplace.
The Korean workforce is still very predominantly masculine and middle-aged. It doesn't surprise that those legions of adjossis don't spend a lot of time cooking meals and caring for their moms. They're out binge drinking with their work clans and fornicating with whores. I realise that those latter two pursuits would not be counted as working time.
In any event, how they spend their personal time is their business. They shop and cook and clean fast, just like they eat fast; no surprise. Personal time is free time, labour isn't. We were discussing the Korean workplace and your "evidence" just fell flat on its face.
Ever heard this new expression "fail"?
F A I L
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually it is your logic that is 100% invalid. It says MOST unpaid work includes cooking and cleaning, shopping and care for household members." Meaning that at least some of that is at the workplace.
It says nothing about Korea SPECIFICALLY (thus making your logic invalid). Moreover this would include ALL unpaid work within the workforce as well.
So without a breakdown for Korea it certainly doesn't prove your point...in fact it seems to add support for mine.
Ultimately as my link shows...REGARDLESS of the type of unpaid work...when paid and UNPAID work are added together Korea is dead on with the average of the OECD countries.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/37/47573221.pdf |
(1) TUM, of course at least some of the unpaid work in your link includes the workplace. The point is (and the failure to recognise this surprises me, even coming from you), without a breakdown of those unpaid hours, specifying exactly how many of them are workplace hours, the information is useless for comparing countries' actual employment habits (which is the only thing we were discussing, not domestic chores).
(2) You very clearly did not post that link realising that it was irrelevant to workplace hours. You really thought it was incisive and relevant to the Korean working culture; you're just making excuses for it after the fact.
(3) How about this: Koreans spend the least amount of time "cooking, cleaning, shopping, and caring for household members" because they have nearly the least amount of free time, away from the office? That's the most plausible explanation, in the absence of any numbers or percentages pertaining specifically to unpaid hours at the workplace.
(4) The Korean workforce is still very predominantly masculine and middle-aged. It doesn't surprise that those legions of adjossis don't spend a lot of time cooking meals and caring for their moms. They're out binge drinking with their work clans and fornicating with whores. I realise that those latter two pursuits would not be counted as working time.
(5) In any event, how they spend their personal time is their business. They shop and cook and clean fast, just like they eat fast; no surprise. Personal time is free time, labour isn't. We were discussing the Korean workplace and your "evidence" just fell flat on its face.
Ever heard this new expression "fail"?
F A I L
|
(numbers are mine for clarity)
Yes, and your evidence and posts are a clear example of this "fail"
1. This is exactly my point and it is what I just said in my last post. If you had read it you would have seen I said we need a breakdown of these hours and we don't have one so it doesn't prove your point. So you are actually agreeing with me and then turning around and saying I'm failing to recognize this. Now THAT's "fail" to use your term.
2. I posted that link to show total WORKING HOURS both PAID AND UNPAID. Seriously how many times do I have to say this. And yes WORKING HOURS (regardless of whether they are paid or unpaid) are relevant to the Korean WORKING culture. Again a fail.
3. It's an alternative explanation , but it's certainly not the most plausible in the absence of any qualifying information. Yet again another fail.
4. Now you are just being silly and showing your prejudices. Yes some Korean men doubtless engage in that behavior as do some men all over the world. Again this is just a trolling inflammatory statement and once again a fail.
5. In conclusion you claim my evidence and posts fail without providing any backup just because "you said it". I on the other hand provide the reason(s) why your posts are the ones that are failing in logic, evidence and just plain common sense.
Better luck next time. Once again in the total of all working hours unpaid and paid Korea is dead even with the OECD average. Go argue with the OECD and not me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TUM, let me put it as simply as I can so maybe you won't miss the point this time.
1). Your link distinguishes between paid and unpaid hours, but provides specific numbers for the workplace only for paid hours. The "unpaid hours" in your chart are not specific to JOBS and do not tell us anything concrete about employment.
2). My link makes no distinction between paid and unpaid hours: it says "Average usual weekly hours worked on the main job" NOT "average usual weekly PAID hours on the main job".
3). Ergo, for the purpose of comparing nations' time spent at the workplace, my link trumps yours. The only confirmed and concrete information regarding amount of hours on the job indicates that Korea is at the very top of the list.
You see, what might be causing you this difficulty is that even when looking only at your link, you are forgetting that Korea is not the only country in which "unpaid work" includes some time at the office. ALL of those people in OECD nations are "working" some time unpaid both at home and at the office. Thus, without a specific breakdown between home and workplace, the unpaid hours in your link are invalidated for discussion - IF we are talking about jobs and employment, which you know perfectly well that we are.
Don't worry, I'll be here until you figure this out.
(Or maybe not. If you just can't comprehend that your link's language is different than mine and that the simple term "work" means something completely different in yours, then I've reached the limit). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
TUM, let me put it as simply as I can so maybe you won't miss the point this time.
1). Your link distinguishes between paid and unpaid hours, but provides specific numbers for the workplace only for paid hours. The "unpaid hours" in your chart are not specific to JOBS and do not tell us anything concrete about employment.
2). My link makes no distinction between paid and unpaid hours: it says "Average usual weekly hours worked on the main job" NOT "average usual weekly PAID hours on the main job".
3). Ergo, for the purpose of comparing nations' time spent at the workplace, my link trumps yours. The only confirmed and concrete information regarding amount of hours on the job indicates that Korea is at the very top of the list.
You see, what might be causing you this difficulty is that even when looking only at your link, you are forgetting that Korea is not the only country in which "unpaid work" includes some time at the office. ALL of those people in OECD nations are "working" some time unpaid both at home and at the office. Thus, without a specific breakdown between home and workplace, the unpaid hours in your link are invalidated for discussion - IF we are talking about jobs and employment, which you know perfectly well that we are.
Don't worry, I'll be here until you figure this out.
(Or maybe not. If you just can't comprehend that your link's language is different than mine and that the simple term "work" means something completely different in yours, then I've reached the limit). |
We are talking about jobs and employment?
I believe that if you go back to page 4-5 which was when this whole discussion started you will find it was about HOURS worked. Not full time employment, not jobs in the workplace, or anything else.
That is what I am talking about. The link includes both hours paid and unpaid. We see that Korea has the second highest PAID working hours but when unpaid time is factored in, then they fall to the average of the OECD countries.
And if you can't see that then I agree with you on this one point at least namely, that this discussion has run its course as we are just repeating ourselves over and over again...which will eventually lead to getting it locked and nothing solved.
And I'm perfectly aware that Korea is not the only country that does unpaid work. That is what my link is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy. Repeating your invalidated point endlessly in the hopes of drowning out the opponent through dint of sheer white noise.
I'm running out of ways to explain the very simple reason why your information does not establish that Koreans put in the average amount of paid and unpaid hours at the workplace. Still, here goes: That is an unproven contention because your information does not account for the source of "unpaid work". It indiscriminately jumbles domestic chores with overtime hours at work.
This thread has been about two issues from the beginning, suicide rates in Korea and the Korean workforce. I don't remember anyone trying to prove any points about how much time Koreans spend making a pot of kimchi chigae. Put simply, your source does not tell us how much time the citizens of Korea, the OECD, or anyone in the world actually spends on the job. If that doesn't make sense, I will refer you to my previous post. Maybe if you read this slowly and carefully enough times you will get it.
Last edited by cwflaneur on Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
[
Banks? I'm just LMAO at your staggering naivet�. Those bank-workers, as well as plenty of the public school teachers (if they aren't NETs) stay at work for about 3 more hours after closing time. They are not contractually obligated to do so but the peer pressure to work into the evening is immense. The same goes for nearly anyone working in an office. It's unpaid overtime. It's incredibly common for them stay at work to unnecessarily late hours, pointlessly diddling around in an effort to appear busy, for no reason other than that it's frowned upon to leave because the boss. That's Confucianism at work in the modern world for you.
You are hopelessly out of touch with reality in your zeal to whitewash this workhouse of a country. I have had lengthy conversations with literally thousands of adult Koreans (teachers, engineers, accountants, you name it) in my time working and tutoring in Korea. 10 - 14 hour workdays are overwhelmingly prevalent for everyone but manual laborers and shop clerks. |
And it doesn't matter which one of the links you use...neither one supports your claim that nearly everyone in a office works 3 hours or so past closing time. That would put them at 55 hours a week, well past the 49 you say your link states.
Nor do they support your claim about 10-14 hour workdays being overwhelmingly prevalent.
Even a ten hour work day would put them past that limit and that's even only with working 5 days.
Many if not most work six days which would put them even further over the limit. And 14 hours LMAO. That's way way over that 49.
Then again I guess you are free to just ignore anything the OECD says and set yourself up as a superior authority on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
A
I'm running out of ways to explain the very simple reason why your information does not establish that Koreans put in the average amount of paid and unpaid hours at the workplace. S. |
And I'm running out of ways to explain that I neither claimed it did or said they did.
In fact I challenge you to find where I either claimed or said that the link "establishes that Koreans put in the average amount of paid and unpaid hours at the workplace"
Can't find it? That's because I never said that. I said they put in the average amount of hours but I never said where.
So not content with posting stuff that even your own links don't support you are now resorting to putting words in my mouth?
I guess that's one way to admit to losing an argument if you've got to make up stuff to support your position.
Have fun...guess you have to have the last word so go for it. I'm done with this. Don't have the time to deal with fantasy accusations...anyone can scroll through this thread if they are so inclined and see I never said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who speaks of "putting in hours" when talking about washing the dishes or shopping for a fake LV bag? Your face-saving is hilarious! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Ireland
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And the winner for Biggest Apologist Award goes to.... The Urban Myth!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People here kill themselves and get in car accidents. I've known some Koreans who suffered this fate.
On the other hand unlike back home, I haven't had 5 acquaintances die of violent causes , nor do I hear about friends of mine ending up in prison or ODing on drugs.
All of them suck.
But the murders of friends/classmates back home really started to get to me...that's one of the big reasons I came over here.
That and unlike my old job I don't spend every shift in fear of having a gun shoved in my face and being tied up in the back of the store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
