4 ms·

Okay, real talk. My time, according to society, is worth $300ish per hour. Hers is probably worth $10 an hour. I didn't do anything special to earn this and I'm

by cm2012 9y ago

Okay, real talk. My time, according to society, is worth $300ish per hour. Hers is probably worth $10 an hour. I didn't do anything special to earn this and I'm a very lazy person. I would much rather have people like me pay more taxes and this lady not have to spend her whole day cleaning diapers.

FuckOffNeemo 9y ago
You and I both. How many of us would have to chip in another $10-$20 in taxes to cover those without, so a parent and his/her children can take a shit and dispose of it in a way that meats their commitments as appropriate?
- epicureanideal 9y ago
  As others have said, it's not a question of "having diapers" vs "not having diapers". It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers. Also, we already have many assistance programs and I would like to understand the specifics of a situation that leaves someone without enough money to buy even disposable diapers if they're already on assistance. Further, where does it end? "I want a good brand of disposable diapers, not the cheap ones" (Note: a lot of working families are buying those cheap diapers!) "I want a $1000 stroller with an easy-collapse handle and nice tires so my kids don't get jostled as I take them over bumps in the park" "I need a subsidy for a minivan because a small car is very inconvenient with kids" "I need a subsidy for ORGANIC food, not just any food for my babies." etc. The standard could easily become more than the average US household income, without even trying hard to grow the list. Remember, it's not about ability to have any diapers at all, they're arguing that they deserve a higher standard of convenience. Meanwhile, I need to commute to work an obscene distance because NIMBYs won't allow more housing to be built, keeping me away from my children for many more hours than I would otherwise need to. But please, prioritize taxing me even more to pay for conveniences for people who are home with their kids while I work to feed mine.
  - Marazan 9y ago
    It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers Time spent cleaning cloth diapers is time not spent working and earning money. Being poor is expensive. Being poor means you are on an hourly wage in shift work not a salary. That means half an hour late for work means half an hour less money.
  - Nition 9y ago
    > It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers. I wouldn't mind a subsidy on cloth diapers to be honest. The landfill waste from disposables is insane.
    - c22 9y ago
      Or a subsidy on diaper cleaning services. Cloth diapers with a service are price-comparable to disposables currently and otherwise better in several other ways.
      - Nition 9y ago
        That'd be great for anyone who doesn't have access to a washing machine as well.
        hycaria 9y ago
        Isn't it hand washable ?
        Nition 9y ago
        Yes, but time is always a factor. No washing machine makes it harder.
        hycaria 9y ago
        How is time a factor when you don't work ?
- briandear 9y ago
  CHARITY. You can already give money to help the less fortunate. I don’t want to go on your taxation guilt trip.
- adrr 9y ago
  I'd rather my taxes go to fund paid maternity leave, free higher education, and free health care. Those are my priorities not buying someone diapers because they can't be bothered washing cloth diapers.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I strongly disagree. I give the government enough money. If they want to give out free diapers, they should build one less fighter plane a year, or something like that. If I saw this woman, and knew she couldn't get the money to buy diapers, I'd have no problem giving her the money in a transaction that went from me to her and done. Getting the government involved is asking for more trouble. They'd need diaper inspectors, and negotiate a no bid diaper contract. Half the money would be lost, or spent on something other than diapers, and it would probably be inconvenient for her to pick up the government issue diapers.
epicureanideal 9y ago
Some of us whose time is worth a lot per hour may not want to give it to everyone else, because some of us did have to do special things and work very hard to get it. I see very little daylight each day, get very little exercise, and so on because I'm trying to provide for my family. For my sacrifices in many other areas, my time has become valuable. If you feel guilty about earning money easily, feel free to give it away. Personally, after already high taxes (40%+ not counting sales tax) I feel that I would like to give what's left to my own family rather than involuntarily donating it to random people. Are YOU going to send my kids to college? Buy them cars? A house? It's easy for some who may feel they have enough, or "got theirs" to say that people who "earn a lot" (aka still climbing the ladder) need to give more. Nobody is preventing you from donating your money to a nonprofit.
- c22 9y ago
  The problem with this point of view is that there are other people who also work in dark places and make many sacrifices for their families in the $10 an hour group and perhaps the only difference between them and you is their parents weren't able to buy them a car and a college and a house. Considering we live in the present and cannot make people work harder in the past, is it better for us to have a "got mine" attitude in either direction?
- cm2012 9y ago
  That doesn't take into account the hedonic treadmill. The research is pretty clear - the difference in happiness and stress levels between making 300k and 400k as a family is pretty much nothing on average. The difference in happiness and stress levels between a family making 20k-40k is enormous.
  - epicureanideal 9y ago
    Just because someone else would be happier with money currently in my pockets isn't a morally legitimate reason to take my money and give it to them, in my opinion, all else being equal. I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth. Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would advocate taking from those with high net worth either...
hennsen 9y ago
Just because somebody pays you 300 you are not necessarily worth it. And just because someone else doesn’t have the luck to be able to access such a job she’s not automatically worth only a 1/30 of you. The question is not what someone pays you but what worth do you really bring to the society that also feeds and supports you. So while doing your wellpaid job, you probably pay only 5 or 10 an hour to the persons cleaning your toilet so you can do your „human business“ in a conveniently clean place. Don’t you think this person is responsible for a big and relevant part of your life quality?
briandear 9y ago
How about you pay her the $290 per hour excess? Go ahead, send it to her today. You won’t will you? I make a pretty fair amount of money, but unlike you, I am not a lazy person; I worked my ass off to get where I am and I made sacrifices along the way. I strongly object to paying more taxes just so you can assuage your personal guilt. Contact the reporter for the story, explain you are a guilt-ridden rich person who wants to help that woman out. Then send the woman $290 per hour of your money. Do it for a month. Until you do that, then I’ll invite you not to suggest that we should pay more taxes to support someone because you feel guilty. Taxes aren’t for solving your guilt — charity is. Forcing people to help someone because YOU feel that you don’t work hard enough? That’s ridiculous. Charities were invented for exactly that purpose — people can voluntarily give to their heart’s content.
- jm547ster 9y ago
  Oh give it a break you holier than thou fool
  - jgrowl 9y ago
    He might be an asshole, but he's not entirely wrong. I think conservatives tend to be more heartless, but liberals tend to be more apathetic (very generally speaking). Is it worse to not care at all or to care but not enough to actually do anything to change the situation? Just imagine if every liberal person freely donated some amount that would be taken by the government in plans they can't get passed? We have the power as a people to organize, fund, etc. Maybe conservatives would see the good that these donations do and be impressed to contribute in kind. I just think we could all do better as a people collectively in every aspect.
  - dang 9y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment may be. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?
- dang 9y ago
mrarjen 9y ago
Sometimes it's not even about paying more taxes, it's mainly about how the money is distributed back into society. People like this lady are in an awkward spot where opportunities and benefits are rather low. Not saying everything is fixed with tossing more money at it, simply setting priorities and building value for more people without always looking at the short term profits. And in some countries perhaps closing questionable cash flows towards those who clearly are benefiting unnecessarily.
boobsbr 9y ago
> I would much rather have people like me pay more taxes Then pay more taxes if you will, or donate to some charity, just don't force other people to do so.
- dahdum 9y ago
  Taxes are just the minimum required, always free to send the government more if you think that’s the best use of your money.
  - Ndymium 9y ago
    Can you do that? In my country they would send extra tax back to you next year.

by cm2012 9y ago

FuckOffNeemo 9y ago

You and I both. How many of us would have to chip in another $10-$20 in taxes to cover those without, so a parent and his/her children can take a shit and dispose of it in a way that meats their commitments as appropriate?

epicureanideal 9y ago
As others have said, it's not a question of "having diapers" vs "not having diapers". It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers. Also, we already have many assistance programs and I would like to understand the specifics of a situation that leaves someone without enough money to buy even disposable diapers if they're already on assistance. Further, where does it end? "I want a good brand of disposable diapers, not the cheap ones" (Note: a lot of working families are buying those cheap diapers!) "I want a $1000 stroller with an easy-collapse handle and nice tires so my kids don't get jostled as I take them over bumps in the park" "I need a subsidy for a minivan because a small car is very inconvenient with kids" "I need a subsidy for ORGANIC food, not just any food for my babies." etc. The standard could easily become more than the average US household income, without even trying hard to grow the list. Remember, it's not about ability to have any diapers at all, they're arguing that they deserve a higher standard of convenience. Meanwhile, I need to commute to work an obscene distance because NIMBYs won't allow more housing to be built, keeping me away from my children for many more hours than I would otherwise need to. But please, prioritize taxing me even more to pay for conveniences for people who are home with their kids while I work to feed mine.
- Marazan 9y ago
  It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers Time spent cleaning cloth diapers is time not spent working and earning money. Being poor is expensive. Being poor means you are on an hourly wage in shift work not a salary. That means half an hour late for work means half an hour less money.
- Nition 9y ago
  > It's a question of convenience for the parents to not use another cheap alternative -- cloth diapers. I wouldn't mind a subsidy on cloth diapers to be honest. The landfill waste from disposables is insane.
  - c22 9y ago
    Or a subsidy on diaper cleaning services. Cloth diapers with a service are price-comparable to disposables currently and otherwise better in several other ways.
    - Nition 9y ago
      That'd be great for anyone who doesn't have access to a washing machine as well.
      - hycaria 9y ago
        Isn't it hand washable ?
        Nition 9y ago
        Yes, but time is always a factor. No washing machine makes it harder.
        hycaria 9y ago
        How is time a factor when you don't work ?
briandear 9y ago
CHARITY. You can already give money to help the less fortunate. I don’t want to go on your taxation guilt trip.
adrr 9y ago
I'd rather my taxes go to fund paid maternity leave, free higher education, and free health care. Those are my priorities not buying someone diapers because they can't be bothered washing cloth diapers.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I strongly disagree. I give the government enough money. If they want to give out free diapers, they should build one less fighter plane a year, or something like that. If I saw this woman, and knew she couldn't get the money to buy diapers, I'd have no problem giving her the money in a transaction that went from me to her and done. Getting the government involved is asking for more trouble. They'd need diaper inspectors, and negotiate a no bid diaper contract. Half the money would be lost, or spent on something other than diapers, and it would probably be inconvenient for her to pick up the government issue diapers.

epicureanideal 9y ago

Some of us whose time is worth a lot per hour may not want to give it to everyone else, because some of us did have to do special things and work very hard to get it. I see very little daylight each day, get very little exercise, and so on because I'm trying to provide for my family. For my sacrifices in many other areas, my time has become valuable. If you feel guilty about earning money easily, feel free to give it away. Personally, after already high taxes (40%+ not counting sales tax) I feel that I would like to give what's left to my own family rather than involuntarily donating it to random people. Are YOU going to send my kids to college? Buy them cars? A house? It's easy for some who may feel they have enough, or "got theirs" to say that people who "earn a lot" (aka still climbing the ladder) need to give more. Nobody is preventing you from donating your money to a nonprofit.

c22 9y ago
The problem with this point of view is that there are other people who also work in dark places and make many sacrifices for their families in the $10 an hour group and perhaps the only difference between them and you is their parents weren't able to buy them a car and a college and a house. Considering we live in the present and cannot make people work harder in the past, is it better for us to have a "got mine" attitude in either direction?
cm2012 9y ago
That doesn't take into account the hedonic treadmill. The research is pretty clear - the difference in happiness and stress levels between making 300k and 400k as a family is pretty much nothing on average. The difference in happiness and stress levels between a family making 20k-40k is enormous.
- epicureanideal 9y ago
  Just because someone else would be happier with money currently in my pockets isn't a morally legitimate reason to take my money and give it to them, in my opinion, all else being equal. I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth. Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would advocate taking from those with high net worth either...

hennsen 9y ago

Just because somebody pays you 300 you are not necessarily worth it. And just because someone else doesn’t have the luck to be able to access such a job she’s not automatically worth only a 1/30 of you. The question is not what someone pays you but what worth do you really bring to the society that also feeds and supports you. So while doing your wellpaid job, you probably pay only 5 or 10 an hour to the persons cleaning your toilet so you can do your „human business“ in a conveniently clean place. Don’t you think this person is responsible for a big and relevant part of your life quality?

briandear 9y ago

How about you pay her the $290 per hour excess? Go ahead, send it to her today. You won’t will you? I make a pretty fair amount of money, but unlike you, I am not a lazy person; I worked my ass off to get where I am and I made sacrifices along the way. I strongly object to paying more taxes just so you can assuage your personal guilt. Contact the reporter for the story, explain you are a guilt-ridden rich person who wants to help that woman out. Then send the woman $290 per hour of your money. Do it for a month. Until you do that, then I’ll invite you not to suggest that we should pay more taxes to support someone because you feel guilty. Taxes aren’t for solving your guilt — charity is. Forcing people to help someone because YOU feel that you don’t work hard enough? That’s ridiculous. Charities were invented for exactly that purpose — people can voluntarily give to their heart’s content.

jm547ster 9y ago
Oh give it a break you holier than thou fool
- jgrowl 9y ago
  He might be an asshole, but he's not entirely wrong. I think conservatives tend to be more heartless, but liberals tend to be more apathetic (very generally speaking). Is it worse to not care at all or to care but not enough to actually do anything to change the situation? Just imagine if every liberal person freely donated some amount that would be taken by the government in plans they can't get passed? We have the power as a people to organize, fund, etc. Maybe conservatives would see the good that these donations do and be impressed to contribute in kind. I just think we could all do better as a people collectively in every aspect.
- dang 9y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment may be. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?
dang 9y ago

mrarjen 9y ago

Sometimes it's not even about paying more taxes, it's mainly about how the money is distributed back into society. People like this lady are in an awkward spot where opportunities and benefits are rather low. Not saying everything is fixed with tossing more money at it, simply setting priorities and building value for more people without always looking at the short term profits. And in some countries perhaps closing questionable cash flows towards those who clearly are benefiting unnecessarily.

boobsbr 9y ago

> I would much rather have people like me pay more taxes Then pay more taxes if you will, or donate to some charity, just don't force other people to do so.

dahdum 9y ago
Taxes are just the minimum required, always free to send the government more if you think that’s the best use of your money.
- Ndymium 9y ago
  Can you do that? In my country they would send extra tax back to you next year.