4 ms·

this is where people get all confused as to what employment is. Employment is an exchange of labor for money, you are trading your knowledge, time and experie

this is where people get all confused as to what employment is. Employment is an exchange of labor for money, you are trading your knowledge, time and experience to preform work for a company in exchange for money. it is not a family, the company has no obligation to "look out for your" or your actual family if you are not preforming work, you should not be paid. Period, it is as simple as that You "making a new tax payer" or what ever is not relevant to the topic if employment Further I do not expect anyone other than myself to secure my retirement. I will likely not retire, I have no plans to. I plan on working in some form until I die.

darklajid 11y ago
We're living in different worlds. While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Let me state first that I'll be the first to understand that people opt to have no kids - I myself was certain that I'd never have kids, never want kids until I reached 30+ and I still see the trade-offs, the benefits. Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. People having kids isn't a fad or some new fashion, it's basic (human) nature. You wouldn't be able to make your case without people opting to carry that burden (it's also hugely rewarding, but we're discussing time off here and that's explicitly to help parents to manage this .. interesting times). In short, your argument seems rather egocentric and the whole thread is reading like a min-maxing discussion on a RPG online board. But then again, you also claim that taxes are theft and I don't think there's enough (or any?) common ground to argue here. Your expressed opinions are about as anti-social as anything I've ever read on this board and I honestly cannot imagine under which circumstances people could come up with values like these.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >We're living in different worlds. Likely, I am a Geo-Libertarian Agorist that believes in a society free from Statism and Coercion by Government >While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. I believe in voluntary society, and not forces socialization. Which is what a "social country" is, especially a democracy where under ideal conditions 50.1% of the population impose their will on the 49.9%. >Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. I use logic, and reason to define employment, not emotion. Most people are driven by their emotion not by logic. >If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. you have a contract for them to proved the labor you need in your business. Pay, benefits, etc are all designed to attract the best talent to give the business the best value for their labor dollar. As such it seems illogical to me to attract people that desire to get paid to do no labor. Etsy and all of the other companies that have been pressured into offering this policy by the pubic are betting on very few people actually making use of said benefit, and the ones that do not actually taking the full 26 weeks, I can not image a company surviving several employees all at once deciding to take 50% of the year off, paid. This is one of the High PR Value, but in reality will likely be low cost HR benefits to attract people, likely offer them lower base salary so they get the "feel good" benefit of 26 week maternity leave they will likely never use. Further it could limit their talent pool as people like me would not be likely to to accept employment unless there are other benefits that would be applicable to non-child employees. Offering 26 weeks of leave for having a child is meaningless to me, and will not entice me to join Etsy as an employee, and unless there is something to counter balance it will actively deter my willingness to work for them >In short, your argument seems rather egocentric Employment is egocentric, no one works for the "good of humanity" every one works to support themselves. People may find other reasons and motivations with in the employment, but very few would continue working for their employer under a "I won the lottery" situation.
  - lox 11y ago
    Or just a troll :)

darklajid 11y ago

We're living in different worlds. While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Let me state first that I'll be the first to understand that people opt to have no kids - I myself was certain that I'd never have kids, never want kids until I reached 30+ and I still see the trade-offs, the benefits. Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. People having kids isn't a fad or some new fashion, it's basic (human) nature. You wouldn't be able to make your case without people opting to carry that burden (it's also hugely rewarding, but we're discussing time off here and that's explicitly to help parents to manage this .. interesting times). In short, your argument seems rather egocentric and the whole thread is reading like a min-maxing discussion on a RPG online board. But then again, you also claim that taxes are theft and I don't think there's enough (or any?) common ground to argue here. Your expressed opinions are about as anti-social as anything I've ever read on this board and I honestly cannot imagine under which circumstances people could come up with values like these.

the_ancient 11y ago
>We're living in different worlds. Likely, I am a Geo-Libertarian Agorist that believes in a society free from Statism and Coercion by Government >While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. I believe in voluntary society, and not forces socialization. Which is what a "social country" is, especially a democracy where under ideal conditions 50.1% of the population impose their will on the 49.9%. >Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. I use logic, and reason to define employment, not emotion. Most people are driven by their emotion not by logic. >If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. you have a contract for them to proved the labor you need in your business. Pay, benefits, etc are all designed to attract the best talent to give the business the best value for their labor dollar. As such it seems illogical to me to attract people that desire to get paid to do no labor. Etsy and all of the other companies that have been pressured into offering this policy by the pubic are betting on very few people actually making use of said benefit, and the ones that do not actually taking the full 26 weeks, I can not image a company surviving several employees all at once deciding to take 50% of the year off, paid. This is one of the High PR Value, but in reality will likely be low cost HR benefits to attract people, likely offer them lower base salary so they get the "feel good" benefit of 26 week maternity leave they will likely never use. Further it could limit their talent pool as people like me would not be likely to to accept employment unless there are other benefits that would be applicable to non-child employees. Offering 26 weeks of leave for having a child is meaningless to me, and will not entice me to join Etsy as an employee, and unless there is something to counter balance it will actively deter my willingness to work for them >In short, your argument seems rather egocentric Employment is egocentric, no one works for the "good of humanity" every one works to support themselves. People may find other reasons and motivations with in the employment, but very few would continue working for their employer under a "I won the lottery" situation.
- lox 11y ago
  Or just a troll :)