People with kids getting perks at work

[Jon Miller]

In particular, the last sermon had the comment that the black people weren't being successful because they weren't valuing education. Another comment was that the people weren't successful because parents weren't valuing their kids enough.

My church is 99% black, and the sermon was on education/children.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Discriminatory? Most businesses, at least the ones I've applied to pay married men more because they tend to work harder.

I don't see why this is wrong to say as a counter to those who complain about having to work longer hours to pick up for the folks who have families.

I know plenty of married men who work longer hours then the single folks in order to provide for other people. When you have kids at home, then you have to be more stable to keep them fed and whatnot. Marriage is a symbol of that stability.

[Caligastia]

If you feel that your company favors parents over non-parents, and you are a non-parent...

...find another job.

The reason companies favor people with kids is because they realize that there are a helluva lot of parents out there with valuable skills, and if they want to recruit them they will have to entice them through family-related benefits.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Pekka
What's your job JM?

I am a physicist. About 1 year away from completition of my PhD.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Me too.. but I think we'd disagree on the terms, seeing as how I see you as being blind and a bit selfish here .

At least I don't want people to remain poor and unproductive just so I can have my McDs.

And the US has a lack of engineers/etc. The only reason we are keeping up is because of people coming to our schools from asia, once their schools/countries catch up this will no longer be the case and we wont't have enough.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
At least I don't want people to remain poor and unproductive just so I can have my McDs.

And the US has a lack of engineers/etc. The only reason we are keeping up is because of people coming to our schools from asia, once their schools/countries catch up this will no longer be the case and we wont't have enough.

Jon Miller

A) You do realize we live in a GLOBAL economy, right? I'm positive that even foreign companies will have plenty of operations in the US.

B) Some people will have to work in the service sector. Calling them 'unproductive' is highly insulting to people who but their ass to provide great service.

C) There are plenty of Americans who are pursuing higher education (more than ever before). The reason for a lack of engineers isn't because of a "lack of kids from productive parents" (or whatever) but because they don't have as much of an incentive to go into engineering and the high school aren't as good at teaching math. MORE kids from 'highly productive parents' isn't going to do anything for that.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
C) There are plenty of Americans who are pursuing higher education (more than ever before). The reason for a lack of engineers isn't because of a "lack of kids from productive parents" (or whatever) but because they don't have as much of an incentive to go into engineering and the high school aren't as good at teaching math. MORE kids from 'highly productive parents' isn't going to do anything for that.

More kids from 'highly productive parents' = greater involvement of 'highly productive parents' in the school system = less power for the morons who currently have control in many areas. When people who resepect those sorts of subjects have more power on the school boards, the level of education will increase. It also might be a step away from a culture that celebrates ignorance and punishes creativity and intellectualism.

Of course, my preference would be to do that by reducing the number of kids from 'non-highly productive parents', but, hey, whatever works I guess.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
More kids from 'highly productive parents' = greater involvement of 'highly productive parents' in the school system = less power for the morons who currently have control in many areas. When people who resepect those sorts of subjects have more power on the school boards, the level of education will increase. It also might be a step away from a culture that celebrates ignorance and punishes creativity and intellectualism.

Of course, my preference would be to do that by reducing the number of kids from 'non-highly productive parents', but, hey, whatever works I guess.

That's very, very highly optimistic. Who do you think actually has the power in the school boards/school systems now? It wasn't the single mothers. It was the professionals. School board elections were always against two professionals (ie, "highly productive parents") in my neck of the woods.

Who exactly do you think runs for school boards?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Around here? The same people that have been running for them for the last 40 years, in most places. Not, generally, what you'd call 'highly productive' types.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Discriminatory? Most businesses, at least the ones I've applied to pay married men more because they tend to work harder.

I don't see why this is wrong to say as a counter to those who complain about having to work longer hours to pick up for the folks who have families.

Longer hours = working harder, so you're contradicting yourself. Presumably you're in favour of not hiring women without a full compliment of children because they might get pregnant and disappear.

You're telling me I haven't worked as hard as colleagues with kids, but I know that isn't true. What do you think it's like when someone who knows nothing about what you've done starts making baseless assumptions?

Also, if my girlfriend heard what you're saying about her (who works long and hard to compensate for never-there colleagues with kids) she'd be furious at your ridiculous insults.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Around here? The same people that have been running for them for the last 40 years, in most places. Not, generally, what you'd call 'highly productive' types.

Why not? Why can't they be highly productive if they've been on the school board for 40 years. In fact, the experience they've gained may be useful... the voters apparently believe so.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin


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.

I realize this thread has degenerated into a different discussion, but I still want to thank you, Dis, and others for answering my question. Thanks

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why not? Why can't they be highly productive if they've been on the school board for 40 years. In fact, the experience they've gained may be useful... the voters apparently believe so.

No. They're not highly productive because they're not highly productive. The school board is just the petty local politics that they, as people who aren't busy being productive, like to get involved in. If people who were more productive were more involved it could turn into actual useful politics and administration rather than just another way for some people to feel powerful.

Again, though, this is around here. It's so bad around here that I had parents who wanted to put me on the school board. Which would be ok, except that I was still in high school at the time and it wasn't really allowed. Globalization is one factor that has hindered the growth of many small communities because the people who do fall into that 'productive' category see all the bigger issues to go to war on instead of getting involved locally. If those people had kids that were directly effected by local policies, they would be more likely to take an interest.

(* Yes, it is optimistic. I'm too old to be naive about these things, but it still clings to me. Or vice versa.)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Longer hours = working harder

No they don't. Longer hours = more time at work != working harder. We could probably all provide anecdotal evidence to support this, but we don't have to; there are reams of sociological data that support the fact that actual productivity ends long before a regular eight-hour work day does; staying at work longer extends non-producutive hours.

[Cort Haus]

Meeting deadlines by working late = working harder, whatever 'sociological data' purports to show.