5 ms·

> This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the mo

> This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job. First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them? But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme. Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home. The lost value to society is in the literal millions. This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care. And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen. The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed. Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true. And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.

petra 7y ago
I'm not sure . In a very large share of people work either in bullshit jobs or unnecessary jobs or are replacablable. On the other hand, if children would get more love,maybe more of them would grow to be exceptional?
- com2kid 7y ago
  The problem is there is no easy way to know in large swaths what jobs are BS or unnecessary. And of course someone could have a BS job and then later move on to a job that does have an impact! Trying to evaluate the worth of people is pretty much futile, and whenever it has been attempted there have been huge negative outcomes. And even during less extreme historical circumstances, it is just expensive to do, the recent example being drug testing for welfare recipients. The cost to do the drug testing far exceeded the money the government saved denying benefits. In the end being non-judgemental and treating people equally turns out to be a rather economically efficient solution.
  - petra 7y ago
    My view is that 99% of jobs are either unnecessary or replacable. Heck, even when we talk about Newton's discoveries , other people on similar stuff at the time and would have gotten there. And if it's 99%, why not let the family choose which parent stays with the kid ? Combine that with paying really well to trully important jobs. You'll get reasonably good results with that.
    - com2kid 7y ago
      > My view is that 99% of jobs are either unnecessary or replacable. I think this is a very upper middle class white collar view. Over 2.1% of Americans work as cooks (!!)[1] and another 3.6% work as grounds cleaning. Just keeping buildings somewhat functional is a lot of work. Then you have all the people working on sales floors, not everyone wants to buy from Amazon! 3.5% in construction. 7.8% spread across all maintenance occupations just keeping everything glued together. Another 5.9% in production (manufacturing), even with the incredible amount of automation that has taken place there. So we're well above 10%, and that is just taking a look at hard to automate categories that have more than 1% of people in them! https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.ht...
      - petra 7y ago
        Some of those jobs are important(1), but most replacable - many people can do that job. And I'm not saying thry don't carry done value , just that raising your kids well, in my view, is much more important. (1)are all cooks and restaurant that necessary ?
        com2kid 7y ago
        > (1)are all cooks and restaurant that necessary ? The idea seems pretty ubiquitous, as soon as a society gets any amount of wealth you'll find people being paid to cook food at scale. And cooking is one of those things that scales up very well, it doesn't have to mean fancy sit down restaurants. There are still a few places I can grab food for cheaper than what I'd be able to prepare it myself at that quality level, though sadly those types of venues have seemingly been on a decline for decades.
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme. >Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home. This sounds like a fun game. Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child. The child consequently develops antisocial behavior disorders and shoots up a classroom full of children, one of which would otherwise have gone on to make breakthroughs in medical science.
- com2kid 7y ago
  > Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child. You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence. At scale of course saving lives will result in the life of a future criminal being saved, but on the whole the # of good people outweighs the number of bad people, thus why society continues to, however slowly, lurch forwards. In comparison to unknown potential future murders, there are known numbers for how many woman leave the workforce after having kids, 30% of women with bachelors degrees, and 19% with a Masters or PhD. [1] 19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society. [1]https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/09/the-number-of-women-opting-out-of-the-workforce-hasnt-changed-over-the-past-30-years.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/09/the-number-of-women...
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence. The fact that they earn minimum wage is evidence of their collective incompetence. The fact that they would not be emotionally destroyed by never seeing the child again when either they leave their job or the child moves on is evidence of their indifference. >19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society. Should we not first ask why they thought it was a good idea to get an advanced degree?

petra 7y ago

I'm not sure . In a very large share of people work either in bullshit jobs or unnecessary jobs or are replacablable. On the other hand, if children would get more love,maybe more of them would grow to be exceptional?

com2kid 7y ago
The problem is there is no easy way to know in large swaths what jobs are BS or unnecessary. And of course someone could have a BS job and then later move on to a job that does have an impact! Trying to evaluate the worth of people is pretty much futile, and whenever it has been attempted there have been huge negative outcomes. And even during less extreme historical circumstances, it is just expensive to do, the recent example being drug testing for welfare recipients. The cost to do the drug testing far exceeded the money the government saved denying benefits. In the end being non-judgemental and treating people equally turns out to be a rather economically efficient solution.
- petra 7y ago
  My view is that 99% of jobs are either unnecessary or replacable. Heck, even when we talk about Newton's discoveries , other people on similar stuff at the time and would have gotten there. And if it's 99%, why not let the family choose which parent stays with the kid ? Combine that with paying really well to trully important jobs. You'll get reasonably good results with that.
  - com2kid 7y ago
    > My view is that 99% of jobs are either unnecessary or replacable. I think this is a very upper middle class white collar view. Over 2.1% of Americans work as cooks (!!)[1] and another 3.6% work as grounds cleaning. Just keeping buildings somewhat functional is a lot of work. Then you have all the people working on sales floors, not everyone wants to buy from Amazon! 3.5% in construction. 7.8% spread across all maintenance occupations just keeping everything glued together. Another 5.9% in production (manufacturing), even with the incredible amount of automation that has taken place there. So we're well above 10%, and that is just taking a look at hard to automate categories that have more than 1% of people in them! https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.ht...
    - petra 7y ago
      Some of those jobs are important(1), but most replacable - many people can do that job. And I'm not saying thry don't carry done value , just that raising your kids well, in my view, is much more important. (1)are all cooks and restaurant that necessary ?
      - com2kid 7y ago
        > (1)are all cooks and restaurant that necessary ? The idea seems pretty ubiquitous, as soon as a society gets any amount of wealth you'll find people being paid to cook food at scale. And cooking is one of those things that scales up very well, it doesn't have to mean fancy sit down restaurants. There are still a few places I can grab food for cheaper than what I'd be able to prepare it myself at that quality level, though sadly those types of venues have seemingly been on a decline for decades.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme. >Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home. This sounds like a fun game. Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child. The child consequently develops antisocial behavior disorders and shoots up a classroom full of children, one of which would otherwise have gone on to make breakthroughs in medical science.

com2kid 7y ago
> Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child. You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence. At scale of course saving lives will result in the life of a future criminal being saved, but on the whole the # of good people outweighs the number of bad people, thus why society continues to, however slowly, lurch forwards. In comparison to unknown potential future murders, there are known numbers for how many woman leave the workforce after having kids, 30% of women with bachelors degrees, and 19% with a Masters or PhD. [1] 19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society. [1]https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/09/the-number-of-women-opting-out-of-the-workforce-hasnt-changed-over-the-past-30-years.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/09/the-number-of-women...
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence. The fact that they earn minimum wage is evidence of their collective incompetence. The fact that they would not be emotionally destroyed by never seeing the child again when either they leave their job or the child moves on is evidence of their indifference. >19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society. Should we not first ask why they thought it was a good idea to get an advanced degree?