7 ms·

> Maybe I'm coming from a place of privilege but that point of view makes me incredibly sad. Why? It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to

> Maybe I'm coming from a place of privilege but that point of view makes me incredibly sad. Why? It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to take on risk that it wouldn't otherwise in the name of "equality". Choices have consequences, if you choose to stay out of work for a year to raise your child then you will be less employable.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Frondo 8y ago
Businesses exist at our leisure -- not the other way around. As we build and refine our society, it's entirely up to us to determine how best we want to put businesses to work, to improve society. Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules can go solo or work for someone who does.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Oh, those benefits of running a business. You know, like working more hours than everyone else, putting your own money on the line, being the last to get paid. Here's some hard facts: 1. Most businesses are small businesses 2. Most people are employed in small to medium businesses 3. Most businesses fail because they lose money If you push for more and more requirements of businesses to fulfill, only the biggest corporations will be able to survive, because those are the companies that can deal with all the regulation, all the legal risk, who figure out all the tax loopholes, who have the best standing with banks, etc. You'll eventually kill all the competition from the bottom. There won't be any more artisan bakeries or coffee shops, there will be McDonalds and Starbucks. Everywhere. No more innovative software startups, only Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM and Apple. > Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules can go solo or work for someone who does. Good jobs don't fall from the sky. Big corporations also happen to be really good at making people redundant.
  - coredog64 8y ago
    McDonalds is primarily a franchise operation, with the actual restaurants being owned by what could (if you squint) be considered "small businesses". The financial resources required to buy and run an McD franchise are pretty hefty, so it's not exactly going to first timers, or people who don't already know how to run a franchise.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      I'm aware of that, though not so much of the details. I'm trying to make a point of the blandness of the food. In a way, it's the worst of both worlds.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Many small businesses I've seen are also incredibly exploitative. I don't believe we should be defending these practices; if a small business really can't afford basic human decency, maybe it should not exist? And maybe the effort should be refocused on asking how to allow small businesses to afford being humane while not losing ground to large corporations.
  - specialist 8y ago
    What are the biggest hurdles (challenges) to starting and running a small business? What would you change to encourage, empower small businesses?
illumin8 8y ago
I find this response, and the downvotes on the parent comment, incredibly sad. If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. Even in prehistoric times, it was generally understood that there was societal benefit to letting women take care of children when they were extremely young and that perhaps letting a new mother skip some of her normal chores so she could breastfeed would be better for the tribe as her baby could grow up to be a hunter and help bring in more food and resources.
- illumin8 8y ago
  HN moderators, you should check the biases of the mod brigade. I'm out of this conversation. Immediate downvotes because I don't agree with the toxic alt-right views that seem to dominate conversations like these. I'm done with this discussion; seems we can't have a meaningful one.
  - wyoh 8y ago
    "people disagree with me so they must be alt-right" Please.
  - jki275 8y ago
    "toxic alt right"? I express anything not patently left and i'm instantly vote brigaded into oblivion. You're living in a fantasy world if you think anything here is "alt right".
  - dpark 8y ago
    Boo for whining about downvotes and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being alt-right. You're being intellectually dishonest here. You expect to be able to share your point of view without critical response but you insult others for expressing theirs.
    - illumin8 8y ago
      You shouldn't express points of view through moderation. Replying to the comment is the appropriate way to express differing points of view.
BeetleB 8y ago
>It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to take on risk that it wouldn't otherwise I think the conflict is between those who value people more or businesses more. In the US, businesses are often seen as a core and fundamental part of a society. In many other countries, it is not. That's why you get responses like "Businesses exist to serve people, not the other way round". >Choices have consequences, if you choose to stay out of work for a year to raise your child then you will be less employable. There really are not many jobs where things change fast enough in one year that your ability to do the job is adversely affected. Including SW. I've looked, and it's hard to find a SW job that involves cutting edge technology (AI may be the exception these days). I get the sense a number of people feel that the person who worked instead of taking the time off should be given extra credit for that work, but I do not find the argument compelling. At least where I work, he does get something extra for it - a higher pay. People who go on parental leave in my company do not get the same income while they are off as they did at work - they get a percentage of their salary (I think it is tax free so it's "about the same" as their salary). But everything extra (i.e. bonuses) is prorated - they get nothing for the time they are off.
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
1. Have you ever wondered whether there's other human values - perhaps kinder and more loving values - than venal self-interest and capital accumulation? 2. The word 'choice' is not really apposite here, given that one sex, by the mere lottery of birth, carries the burden of pregnancy (and, culturally - with a similar determinacy - women are expected to rear their children in their early years).
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
  > 2. The word 'choice' is not really apposite here, given that one sex, by the mere lottery of birth, carries the burden of pregnancy Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be. Maybe we should stop trying to make the playing field level and just appreciate and celebrate the differences.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    'Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be.' Right, that is 'life' in the sense that it is, to some partial extent - and I say partial because women regularly successfully reintegrate back into the work force, and many employers don't have your dim view of things - the existing state of things. But humans, if you had not noticed from the ideological and political revolutions of the last three-hundred years, can change and improve society. It is simply factually and politically absurd to say that X is reality at the moment, so X should or must always be reality. You would not say that of the various inequalities - of sex, race and class - of the past, so why say it now? 'Maybe we should stop trying to make the playing field level and just appreciate and celebrate the differences.' There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference', e.g. a master is different from his slave, but that hardly justifies the difference. So no, I don't think we should bathe in the glory of our inequalities, and chastise people who think we could do better.
    - jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
      >There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference' There is nothing intrinsically valuable in equality. FTFY
TeMPOraL 8y ago
This is probably a point in which state should step in, at least if private greed starts getting out of hand. Sure, businesses in principle don't value employees that are parents, it's a pure cost for them. But from a higher vantage point, life is not just about commerce. Parenthood may be a problem for business, but it is a critical function for both nations and societies. Unless you propose that the primary driver for society should be accumulation of wealth by whatever means necessary, this is one aspect where capitalism should not be allowed to reach its natural endgame.
cmiles74 8y ago
I do not believe there is any data to back up this assertion. Indeed, it's exactly this kind of discrimination that people are looking to combat. Looking around my office there is a person here who's about a year younger than me but I don't think it's a given that this one year difference makes them somehow less experienced than myself. We're both adults in our forties with many years of experience each, quibbling over a year hear and there strikes me as pointless and counter productive. There are other, more important, differences between us.
C1sc0cat 8y ago
You could argue that women are less like to die young from risky activities and should be preferred. I know a director level guy who had to agree to give up his sports bike as a condition of promotion to director level. Even having less time off from sports activities - broken legs from five a side foot ball cost a surprising number of days off.
- gspetr 8y ago
  The risk of dying in your 30s in an accident is minuscule, while IIRC 87% of women have kids. Also, companies can get insurance on an employee death (although limited to X% of highest paid employees): https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/an-employee-dies-and-the-company-collects-the-insurance/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/an-employee-dies-and... I might be wrong, but I don't think a company can get insurance on an employee getting pregnant.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    But it is on an actuarial basis
AngryData 8y ago
It makes me sad to think that business is put above human needs. Overall business will thrive no matter what kind of rule set you impose. If you or another individual stops doing a specific business because you don't know how to deal with new rules, the whole point of capitalism is that somebody better than you would take your place and do what you cannot. Trying to protect business, to me, has always seemed like a problem of personal greed being leveraged over the community's interests. Those who are individually benefiting by the current systems don't want to change it because they could potentially lose their current advantages or be superseded by others who are more willing to do more.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Frondo 8y ago

Businesses exist at our leisure -- not the other way around. As we build and refine our society, it's entirely up to us to determine how best we want to put businesses to work, to improve society. Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules can go solo or work for someone who does.

zeroname 8y ago
> Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Oh, those benefits of running a business. You know, like working more hours than everyone else, putting your own money on the line, being the last to get paid. Here's some hard facts: 1. Most businesses are small businesses 2. Most people are employed in small to medium businesses 3. Most businesses fail because they lose money If you push for more and more requirements of businesses to fulfill, only the biggest corporations will be able to survive, because those are the companies that can deal with all the regulation, all the legal risk, who figure out all the tax loopholes, who have the best standing with banks, etc. You'll eventually kill all the competition from the bottom. There won't be any more artisan bakeries or coffee shops, there will be McDonalds and Starbucks. Everywhere. No more innovative software startups, only Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM and Apple. > Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules can go solo or work for someone who does. Good jobs don't fall from the sky. Big corporations also happen to be really good at making people redundant.
- coredog64 8y ago
  McDonalds is primarily a franchise operation, with the actual restaurants being owned by what could (if you squint) be considered "small businesses". The financial resources required to buy and run an McD franchise are pretty hefty, so it's not exactly going to first timers, or people who don't already know how to run a franchise.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    I'm aware of that, though not so much of the details. I'm trying to make a point of the blandness of the food. In a way, it's the worst of both worlds.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Many small businesses I've seen are also incredibly exploitative. I don't believe we should be defending these practices; if a small business really can't afford basic human decency, maybe it should not exist? And maybe the effort should be refocused on asking how to allow small businesses to afford being humane while not losing ground to large corporations.
- specialist 8y ago
  What are the biggest hurdles (challenges) to starting and running a small business? What would you change to encourage, empower small businesses?

illumin8 8y ago

I find this response, and the downvotes on the parent comment, incredibly sad. If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. Even in prehistoric times, it was generally understood that there was societal benefit to letting women take care of children when they were extremely young and that perhaps letting a new mother skip some of her normal chores so she could breastfeed would be better for the tribe as her baby could grow up to be a hunter and help bring in more food and resources.

illumin8 8y ago
HN moderators, you should check the biases of the mod brigade. I'm out of this conversation. Immediate downvotes because I don't agree with the toxic alt-right views that seem to dominate conversations like these. I'm done with this discussion; seems we can't have a meaningful one.
- wyoh 8y ago
  "people disagree with me so they must be alt-right" Please.
- jki275 8y ago
  "toxic alt right"? I express anything not patently left and i'm instantly vote brigaded into oblivion. You're living in a fantasy world if you think anything here is "alt right".
- dpark 8y ago
  Boo for whining about downvotes and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being alt-right. You're being intellectually dishonest here. You expect to be able to share your point of view without critical response but you insult others for expressing theirs.
  - illumin8 8y ago
    You shouldn't express points of view through moderation. Replying to the comment is the appropriate way to express differing points of view.

BeetleB 8y ago

>It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to take on risk that it wouldn't otherwise I think the conflict is between those who value people more or businesses more. In the US, businesses are often seen as a core and fundamental part of a society. In many other countries, it is not. That's why you get responses like "Businesses exist to serve people, not the other way round". >Choices have consequences, if you choose to stay out of work for a year to raise your child then you will be less employable. There really are not many jobs where things change fast enough in one year that your ability to do the job is adversely affected. Including SW. I've looked, and it's hard to find a SW job that involves cutting edge technology (AI may be the exception these days). I get the sense a number of people feel that the person who worked instead of taking the time off should be given extra credit for that work, but I do not find the argument compelling. At least where I work, he does get something extra for it - a higher pay. People who go on parental leave in my company do not get the same income while they are off as they did at work - they get a percentage of their salary (I think it is tax free so it's "about the same" as their salary). But everything extra (i.e. bonuses) is prorated - they get nothing for the time they are off.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

1. Have you ever wondered whether there's other human values - perhaps kinder and more loving values - than venal self-interest and capital accumulation? 2. The word 'choice' is not really apposite here, given that one sex, by the mere lottery of birth, carries the burden of pregnancy (and, culturally - with a similar determinacy - women are expected to rear their children in their early years).

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
> 2. The word 'choice' is not really apposite here, given that one sex, by the mere lottery of birth, carries the burden of pregnancy Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be. Maybe we should stop trying to make the playing field level and just appreciate and celebrate the differences.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  'Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be.' Right, that is 'life' in the sense that it is, to some partial extent - and I say partial because women regularly successfully reintegrate back into the work force, and many employers don't have your dim view of things - the existing state of things. But humans, if you had not noticed from the ideological and political revolutions of the last three-hundred years, can change and improve society. It is simply factually and politically absurd to say that X is reality at the moment, so X should or must always be reality. You would not say that of the various inequalities - of sex, race and class - of the past, so why say it now? 'Maybe we should stop trying to make the playing field level and just appreciate and celebrate the differences.' There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference', e.g. a master is different from his slave, but that hardly justifies the difference. So no, I don't think we should bathe in the glory of our inequalities, and chastise people who think we could do better.
  - jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
    >There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference' There is nothing intrinsically valuable in equality. FTFY

TeMPOraL 8y ago

This is probably a point in which state should step in, at least if private greed starts getting out of hand. Sure, businesses in principle don't value employees that are parents, it's a pure cost for them. But from a higher vantage point, life is not just about commerce. Parenthood may be a problem for business, but it is a critical function for both nations and societies. Unless you propose that the primary driver for society should be accumulation of wealth by whatever means necessary, this is one aspect where capitalism should not be allowed to reach its natural endgame.

cmiles74 8y ago

I do not believe there is any data to back up this assertion. Indeed, it's exactly this kind of discrimination that people are looking to combat. Looking around my office there is a person here who's about a year younger than me but I don't think it's a given that this one year difference makes them somehow less experienced than myself. We're both adults in our forties with many years of experience each, quibbling over a year hear and there strikes me as pointless and counter productive. There are other, more important, differences between us.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

You could argue that women are less like to die young from risky activities and should be preferred. I know a director level guy who had to agree to give up his sports bike as a condition of promotion to director level. Even having less time off from sports activities - broken legs from five a side foot ball cost a surprising number of days off.

gspetr 8y ago
The risk of dying in your 30s in an accident is minuscule, while IIRC 87% of women have kids. Also, companies can get insurance on an employee death (although limited to X% of highest paid employees): https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/an-employee-dies-and-the-company-collects-the-insurance/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/an-employee-dies-and... I might be wrong, but I don't think a company can get insurance on an employee getting pregnant.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  But it is on an actuarial basis

AngryData 8y ago

It makes me sad to think that business is put above human needs. Overall business will thrive no matter what kind of rule set you impose. If you or another individual stops doing a specific business because you don't know how to deal with new rules, the whole point of capitalism is that somebody better than you would take your place and do what you cannot. Trying to protect business, to me, has always seemed like a problem of personal greed being leveraged over the community's interests. Those who are individually benefiting by the current systems don't want to change it because they could potentially lose their current advantages or be superseded by others who are more willing to do more.