Study Finds That Asians Take Fewest Vacation Days, Europeans Take Most

Marx would probably have agreed with you, but see it as the reason for why a revolution is inevitable, and at the same time the criteria for what would make the success of a socialist revolution possible. From The German Ideology, part I, section A (Marx, 1845):

"This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism."

Basically his assumption was that it will never be possible or politically tenable under capitalism to change the system to channel enough capital back to the general population (e.g. lets say via taxes to fund basic income to a level equivalent to lost incomes) to allow people to continue to consume enough to allow manufacturers to continue to grow, and that the result would be ever greater cycles of economic crashes until the contradiction of capacity to create wealth coupled with unemployment and/or underpayment gets great enough to cause people to rise up against it.

> The whole idea of Rich and Poor is based on Scarcity of goods.

No, actually, it's based on ownership of the means of production.

The importance of that really depends on who observes holidays. There is no legal incentive for US employers to observe any. I don't know where your eleven come from, but that sounds like the Federal Government's number for its employees. Private employers typically observe 4-8, including Christmas.

I disagree.

It's not insufficient data, it's uncharacterized data.

If more-or-less everyone with exposure to both cultures is in broad agreement about the differences, that's not "insufficient". It's probably actually more data than any formal study would generate.

But it's also lower-quality data, with a greater chance of being distorted by various cognitive biases. Which means that it doesn't meet current regulatory standards[1] for use on large protected-class[2] groups of humans.

.

[1] as loosely and collectively defined by the morality police, loudest / most extreme non-ignorable activists, Internet Lynch Mob, etc

[2] which includes pretty much anything these days

So if I understand correctly we should compare:

1. Median household income (which should mostly be wages and not land, financial capital, technology).

2. Divided by purchasing power parity (to normalize for different prices in the country).

3. Divided by average hours worked per week for households with median income.

This is however assuming that if an employee gets paid X (in purchasing power parity) for their work, then their generated value is some linear constant of X. I don't know how to compensate for the scenario where this is false.