3 ms·
> maybe because the society literally can't go forward without babies? Technically true, but practically nonsense. We're at no danger of under-population. An
by anon9001 6y ago
> maybe because the society literally can't go forward without babies?
Technically true, but practically nonsense. We're at no danger of under-population. And if we were, it would be the government's job to subsidize having children, not Facebook's.
People who work in tech and choose to have babies are doing it as a luxury, not to push society forward.
- znpy 6y ago> People who work in tech and choose to have babies are doing it as a luxury, not to push society forward. So now having babies is a luxury. Jesus christ this is so wrong on so many levels.
- anon9001 6y agoYou don't think wealthy professionals choosing to have 1 or 2 kids is a luxury? Saying FB employees need to have babies to keep society going makes as much sense as saying the family shih tzu is necessary as a guard dog. Sure, maybe technically in some way, but absolutely not in any meaningful sense.
- znpy 6y agoOne or two kids is not luxury. Having 16 kids, that's luxury. I'm not saying that FB employees need to have babies to keep society going, I said that everybody needs to have babies to keep society going.
- em-bee 6y agoand governments do their job by taxing people and businesses to pay for it. requiring companies to offer maternity leave is a "tax" on companies.