People with kids getting perks at work

[Az]

I don't know about working harder, but I can often achieve the same amount of results with less assignments accomplished then some of my friends in the branch. I think I work smarter...

[Lord Avalon]

Dilbert

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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

Nope. Almost invariably, meeting deadlines by working late means you were goofing off instead of working at some earlier point in the project. And you don't need the data -- anyone whose ever pulled an all-nighter in college knows that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
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.

Just about all of the people on most school boards are college educated folks. If you are arguing they aren't highly productive because they are on the school boards and running for school boards, what exactly is your solution? Have the most "highly productive people" work less hours so they have time to run and serve on local school boards? BUT if they work less hours aren't they being less productive than others?

What a conundrum!

Or, not elect school boards anymore and make them political appointments? But then how do we decide who are the "highly productive people" who get to sit on these school boards? And how do we entice "highly productive people" to serve on school boards where they aren't being compensated nearly as well for their time?

Do you really think CEOs of companies would even WANT to serve on their local school boards? Really? While not getting compensated that much for the time they put in?

And hell, the MOST highly productive people don't CARE about school boards... they put their kids in private schools.

Wow... some people use a political position to feel powerful?! Stop the Presses!!!

If those people had kids that were directly effected by local policies, they would be more likely to take an interest.

Those kids would most likely be in private school if the public schools weren't performing up to par. I lived in a middle class neighborhood with highly productive people (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) and NO ONE took an interest in the school board politics even though everyone had 2, 3, 4 kids.

[Apocalypse]

The really successful people have their kids in private schools anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
The really successful people have their kids in private schools anyway.

Bingo.

[Pekka]

JM, so why would we take the word of an unemployed person?

I don't think so.

[Jon Miller]

How am I unemployed? I am a physicist working on an experiment.

JM

[Pekka]

What is that experiment about.. eugenics?

[Jon Miller]

Measurement of the electric form factor of the neutron. BTW, I don't just think that professional people need time off for their kids, McD employees do also, but the whole issue of McD employees is another one to address.

Yeah, there will always be less desired jobs, like janitor, but the pay should be associated with the work, not with the status. But that is a whole different issue.

The one I was talking about was the time spent.

And yes, I do beleive that there is no reason for a fully functional adult to be a burgar flipper at McD unless they truly want to.

Jon Miller

[Pekka]

It's not that I would disagree with the importance of kids and taking care of them. It's not that I'd disagree with the notion that it's good if the company has benefits such as child care, because these are not away from others, in other words no one is deprived from the pay of their work.

But this whole thing about some being more valuable than others and what followed from that, that's just horrible.

And unless I get real figures from researches, valid ones, where it is clearly stated, that married people are more productive, well I'd like to see that one. If not, it's just circular logic, something a scientist such as yourself should recognize and be critical about. Performance pays, not status. Note, being a parent is also a type of status and so is married or single.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just about all of the people on most school boards are college educated folks. If you are arguing they aren't highly productive because they are on the school boards and running for school boards, what exactly is your solution? Have the most "highly productive people" work less hours so they have time to run and serve on local school boards? BUT if they work less hours aren't they being less productive than others?

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
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.

I already explained both the basis and limitations for that argument.

Or, not elect school boards anymore and make them political appointments? But then how do we decide who are the "highly productive people" who get to sit on these school boards? And how do we entice "highly productive people" to serve on school boards where they aren't being compensated nearly as well for their time?

Do you really think CEOs of companies would even WANT to serve on their local school boards? Really? While not getting compensated that much for the time they put in?

Oh, well, if you're not getting paid, it must not be worth doing. I think it is a cultural issue, and not one that is easily or quickly changed. If the decisions made by school boards had direct implications for the 'productives' via their kids then they would be more interested.

And I won't get into whether many CEOs should be considered 'highly productive people'...

And hell, the MOST highly productive people don't CARE about school boards... they put their kids in private schools.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled with that concept either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Koyaanisqatsi]if you're not getting paid, it must not be worth doing[/q]

Have you met most people? Especially some "productives" who'd be losing out on a lot of money, depending on the work required for school boards.

If the decisions made by school boards had direct implications for the 'productives' via their kids then they would be more interested.

Well, first, that would require the "productives" to actually put their kids in public schools. Secondly, decisions made by school boards DO have direct implications for the children of "productives" in the public school system. The fact is they really can't be bothered that much. They have to go "be productive" at work. They hardly have time for the kids already. What makes you think they'd make more time for them and serve on school boards if they had more kids?!

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Have you met most people? Especially some "productives" who'd be losing out on a lot of money, depending on the work required for school boards.

I was arguing the reasoning, not the reality.

Well, first, that would require the "productives" to actually put their kids in public schools.

they put their kids in private schools.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
To be honest, I'm not thrilled with that concept either.

Secondly, decisions made by school boards DO have direct implications for the children of "productives" in the public school system. The fact is they really can't be bothered that much. They have to go "be productive" at work. They hardly have time for the kids already. What makes you think they'd make more time for them and serve on school boards if they had more kids?!

I don't think there would be significant immediate effects (except in the case of going from 0 to 1 kids). However, generationally, a higher number of kids from 'productives' will change the idiot/non-idiot ratio. (Not that I think productivity inherits directly, but it does create an environment with more opportunity.) The ratio is what's important, not the number...as I already suggested:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Of course, my preference would be to do that by reducing the number of kids from 'non-highly productive parents'

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Pekka

But this whole thing about some being more valuable than others and what followed from that, that's just horrible.

And unless I get real figures from researches, valid ones, where it is clearly stated, that married people are more productive, well I'd like to see that one. If not, it's just circular logic, something a scientist such as yourself should recognize and be critical about. Performance pays, not status. Note, being a parent is also a type of status and so is married or single.

When did I ever claim that married people were more productive (Work harder), you are getting me and BK confused.

My claim was that children allows for the person who had children to have resulted in more (Been more productive in life) then the person with no children as the children all do stuff, and it is a chain reaction which (Should) just increase.

But I am comparing 1 person (the childless man) and many many people (the man and his progeny).

Jon Miller