People with kids getting perks at work

[Combat Ingrid]

Az

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Men with kids tend to be
1. More productive.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Why should you be treated equally? You are doing a whole lot less for society.
JM

This kind of discriminatory and highly obnoxious thinking should be treated the same way as racism or sexism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
This kind of discriminatory and highly obnoxious thinking should be treated the same way as racism or sexism.

QFT

This idea that married men are more loyal to their companies or more productive is a bit of BS. These days, with women having jobs as well, a married man may just as easily leave if his wife gets a good job in another city.

And just because you decide to spawn doesn't mean you are doing better for society. Plenty of bad kids out there who turn into bad adults. You MAY be doing better for society. Then again, a single guy who is dedicated to his work may be the one who is doing better for society. For example, I doubt it would have mattered much if Einstein didn't have any kids.

Single and married should be treated equally. That doesn't mean that a company shouldn't offer day care and whatnot, but it should not assume that single people can work longer hours because they don't have a family. That type of thinking is highly obnoxious and what single people are railing against.

[Pekka]

I don't get the equality thing either. We should be equal when it comes to rating our performance. Performance counts, not what attributes you have or don't have.

That is, this directly would imply, that someone is worth less. I don't agree with it. Should we also not hire women because they are likely to become pregnant, and that's just not going to profit the business as much a man who can't become pregnant?

Then again, I don't think child care benefits etc are tools to deprive the other man from his salary, so no, I don't think this is an issue of equality. But generally, yes, Oerdin is equal to the man with a kid in the working place.

It's not even true that married men are more trustworthy or what ever productive. There are bunch of dads who are *******s. Even cockroaches have kids. Most people over 40 are parents. There are lots of stupid ****ing idiots aged 40 or more.

Plus, some jobs and companies would consider family as something that is hindering the employee. If you have to move a lot, if you have to put in a lot of hours. If you need to be ambitious and go crack those skulls.. a family man will have other things to do. Where's the production in that? There is none. It's the guys who stay and do the extra hours because others couldn't get in. They are the ones sacrificing, becuase family guys have 'more valuable free time'.

So no, I disagree with the whole notion of it. Everyone should be treated equally. I think this should be trivial in the 21st century.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, but the issue is that there aren't enough good parents out there. And generally, the kids of professional parents are 'better' kids, as far as productivity, then the kids of the ghettos.

By the professionals refusing to have kids, we have the issues that we are seeing now, where we see the demographics shift we see now.

Kids provide a lot of benefits for the future, having no kids limits you to just your own accomplishments. And then you have to consider that your kids can have kids, and the effect of having productive, 'good' children just explodes.

People who don't have kids, if they don't have a good reason, are being selfish and will effect the world a lot less than their breeding peers.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

People who don't have kids, if they don't have a good reason, are being selfish

Oh, look, now we are required to have kids or else we are "selfish".

Please.... can you Christians at least TRY to stop yourself from telling people what to do with their bodies?

[Pekka]

"And generally, the kids of professional parents are 'better' kids, as far as productivity, then the kids of the ghettos."

Invalid comparison. A bit disgusting though.

"Kids provide a lot of benefits for the future, having no kids limits you to just your own accomplishments. And then you have to consider that your kids can have kids, and the effect of having productive, 'good' children just explodes."

So kids are like live stock? Is this honestly your world view? Isn't a BIT simplistic?

Professionals, good kids and bad kids. Why don't you just spell out poor kids as bad. That's what you are implying with the ghetto talk. Yes, poverty. And the problem is that... how does this relate to anything anymore?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I would have thought that the military used a standard Grade/Step pay system, just like the rest of the government. How did married guys get paid more?

Married guys got to live off post even if they weren't an E-5 or E-6 so they got money for housing plus the military pays you extra for every dependent you have. It's an incentive for family guys to stay in the service. BAH/BAQ can be quite large in some areas and in San Diego it was around an extra $1450 for a single guy like me when I was in the service and I didn't even have any dependents.

[Cort Haus]

Fundamentalists.

[Dinner]

I suppose when I have kids I'll like that I don't have to work evenings or weekends but it is a bit of a drag being told that so and so didn't complete their report that absolutely must go out before Monday but he's going camping with his family so I have to work on a Saturday to finish it for him. I was more pissed when I was salaried and didn't get over time but at least now I get paid extra for my extra work so there is progress. I'd say most people can't negotiate such a sweet heart deal as I did though.

[Pekka]

It's not a problem that we shouldn't appreciate and support good parenting. Of course we should. Kids deserve the best possible.

However, this generalization that has been made is quite disturbing. Like I said, most people are parents at some point, and most people I know are idiots. So we are saying that they are of more value, because they have a kid? We are also then saying, that hey you Mr. no family, you are less worth in the WORK place. You can work all you want, but we will never appreciate your efforts as much.

All I know is if this is the way, then we should measure how good parents they really are. I wouldn't want to give someone more time off just because they can then get drunk and beat their wives and kids. I mean that's not productive. Maybe the guy or woman who doesn't have family, maybe they could have one if they had more time. Maybe they work all the hours because there's a priority list, and they can't get out and date and get their families. Maybe a lot of things.

Listen, if it's about production and the general good, I don't think we should make the cut like this. I think we should just ban stupid people from good jobs. We can be way more productive to just give the menial jobs to average people who can't be bothered to have a brain. Let's just cut off stupid people. This is way more productive and it's also more fair. It also makes sense. Shouldnt' the smartest people get the best jobs? Why should stupid ones get a better job? Aren't smart people more value to the business? They at least can make decisions and moves that actually profits the business now and in the future as well, while that daddy just ... well we can't see his 'priceless' contribution.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Pekka
Professionals, good kids and bad kids. Why don't you just spell out poor kids as bad. That's what you are implying with the ghetto talk. Yes, poverty. And the problem is that... how does this relate to anything anymore?

I am thinking as a Civ leader...

Think about, whose kids go on to be successful later in life... Yes, many professionals kids are bad, but that is reasonably related to the lack of time that many professionals have for their kids. And in a capitalist society, where the value is on material wealth, and kids are just a sap to that, kids are a liability.

Parents who are 'ghetto' often have kids who aren't driven/etc. This isn't because they are genetically bad, rather it is because they don't value the things that make people successful in today's society.

I view the lack of emphasis on children as a sickness in today's society. The demographics is that it is the poor and religious who are breeding. Now I obviously think that is a good thing, but the wealthy/successful should be breeding also, so that wealth doesn't continue to be given into the hands of a few.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

The farming life supported having kids, as they helped you on the farm. With today's specialization, kids are just a drain on resources. It is no longer as valuable, in a capitalistic society, and so people don't hjave kids.

In most western countries the wealthy produce at below replacement.

Jon Miller

[Pekka]

"I am thinking as a Civ leader..."

I'd hate to bring out the H card

"Parents who are 'ghetto' often have kids who aren't driven/etc. This isn't because they are genetically bad, rather it is because they don't value the things that make people successful in today's society."

You mean they don't value material stuff like the professional's kids, what ever that means? This makes no comparison at all, everything is flawed. Like the fact that these 'ghetto kids' also have parents, many who work. So they would be 'professional's kids' as well. You are either saying poor people can't raise their kids and that's why they are poor (or their kids won't be a success) or you're saying that rich kids are more likely to succeed in life in becoming better people.

"The demographics is that it is the poor and religious who are breeding. Now I obviously think that is a good thing, but the wealthy/successful should be breeding also, so that wealth doesn't continue to be given into the hands of a few."

And this money will just magically drop into the hands of the poor? No it won't. It will just be inherited by few more Paris Hilton's, just what the world needs.

I simply do not understand the logic of your whole statement at all. Not a drop of it. Shouldn't we be catering to the parents of the poor, so they might have a chance?

[Pekka]

"The farming life supported having kids, as they helped you on the farm. With today's specialization, kids are just a drain on resources. It is no longer as valuable, in a capitalistic society, and so people don't hjave kids."

Yeah and in toda'ys society the farmers kids aren't the backbone of the economy. Family business is a minority thing, not the main stream.

This is exactly what will bring the third world down, people breeding because they need their kids to be their insurance. But it's poverty and illness ridden, so it'll just make it worse for everyone in there. Would you go to a third world country and say breed more, that's the solution?

There are other measures to be taken to help children have more opportunities, this is a question of economy. You are directly putting rich kids and poor kids against each other, where rich kids should be valued more, because they have more opportunities and therefor have bigger chances to 'become good people'.

That's ****ed up JM.