7 ms·

> Maybe I am making assumptions here on the general political leanings of those here, but if you are talking about supporting anything like Medicare for all, UB

> Maybe I am making assumptions here on the general political leanings of those here, but if you are talking about supporting anything like Medicare for all, UBI, BLM, PPP or even just support the Democratic party in general, pulling a little extra weight for those in a time of need is IMHO a relatively small ask that you as an individual can implement compared to those agendas. I suspect a fair number of the complainers are people with Democratic leanings, and I think I can describe their thought process to you. I think their problem is that a private company is doing this, not the Government. Suppose someone has to be a caregiver for an elderly relative during COVID. Facebook probably won't offer them 10 weeks for paid leave for doing this, because Facebook's internal cost-benefit metrics tell them that it's not useful. That's why people are resentful – a private company should not be in charge of deciding who gets time to deal with changes as fundamental as this in society. Policies like Medicare for all, compulsory maternity and paternity leave, or caregiver leave implemented by the Government (ideally) take into account the wishes of society as a whole, not a large private company like Facebook. For example, I think caregiver leave would be very popular due to the aging population of the US being a large section of voters, there are already tax credits starting for the same thing. I am personally fine with giving as much time as is needed for people with families as well as people in a bunch of other situations. Life is complex and we need to help out each other as much as possible. But I fear that the ruthless utilitarianism of most American corporations doesn't play well with this worldview, leading to resentments like the article describes.

zarkov99 6y ago
I think you are on to something. Many people are happy to be generous with others time and money but less so with their own.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  That's not it exactly. It's more about everyone pulling equal weight, not about getting freebies at others' expense. It's also about the correct realization that some problems can only be solved by the actions of society as a whole, that individual choices alone cannot sufficiently solve the problem. E.g. I alone can't solve the problem of catastrophic climate change no matter how green I live in my own life.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    To be clear, what I am referring to are people who would want someone other than themselves to be more generous to someone other than themselves. This a very common pathology in well-off, educated people. You get the virtue points without the actual sacrifice.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Can you give some examples of what you're referring to? Generally what is wanted is for problems to be solved by the government providing services that we all pay for through tax revenue, not for problems to be solved through private donation. I legitimately can't think of examples of what you're referring to.
      - zarkov99 6y ago
        An example would be attitudes towards immigration. The people arguing for taking in more poor immigrants or refugees typically do not live in the communities most impacted by their influx.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        I dunno ... I'm pretty pro-immigration, and I live in NYC, which has one of (if not the) highest immigrant populations in the entire country. The same is generally true of large cosmopolitan cities. And the "impact of their influx" is actually net positive. It turns out that having more people, yes, even immigrants, has a net positive impact on the local economy, because more people means more consumers (not just more labor market competition), and you realize greater efficiencies of scale. So I don't actually think this is a good example. I think the hypocrisy you're alluding to here is that coastal liberals are often NIMBYist, which has the direct effect of making housing expensive, which affects most people negatively, immigrants included. I'll agree with you on that one as being a problem, but I don't think it exactly fits into the class of issues you're talking about.
        6y ago
mrburkins 6y ago
I’m curious if people with other legitimate obligations asked and received push back. I’ve seen employers make accommodations for religious, dietary, various family drama (sick parents/partners, death etc), working moms etc - you just have to ask.
- quadrifoliate 6y ago
  The point is that now it's up to the employer to decide what's a work-acceptable thing to ask for; at which point they are kind of affecting your life choices. At that point, people without kids start thinking “Wait, why is my employer peeking inside my home to decide what I can take time off for? This is a capitalist society, right?”.
rayiner 6y ago
> I suspect a fair number of the complainers are people with Democratic leanings, and I think I can describe their thought process to you. > I think their problem is that a private company is doing this, not the Government. Is that a Democratic take? I think it's a liberaltarian take on it. Here's the conservative libertarian response: raising children is one of the primary functions of society, and social norms that govern private actors make a certain amount of deference to that. Replacing those norms and kicking everything up to the government is a very statist solution, inviting the government into large swaths of human activity where it wasn't present before.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  What's the conservative libertarian take on what to do when those norms are gone and haven't been replaced?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Reinstate the norm because we haven’t come up with a better idea and are unlikely to do so.
    - betenoire 6y ago
      I assume you'd want to reinstate the norm with the same spirit wrt government involvement... How does that work?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Sure, the abstract answer is obvious. I meant the concrete answer, how do you reinstate a norm that people have stopped caring about, or that has been eroded by some policy (in the worst case, a policy championed by those that claim the norm)?
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    Probably involves market solutions... "Sister for sale! One sister for sale! One crying and spying young sister for sale!"
maxerickson 6y ago
FMLA covers caregiver leave. The law is fine with it being unpaid though. It's weird that companies are looking inside people's homes to decide how to treat them. People should get the same flexibility, for whatever reason. If people want reduced hours to deal with other things, give it to them, and so on.

zarkov99 6y ago

I think you are on to something. Many people are happy to be generous with others time and money but less so with their own.

CydeWeys 6y ago
That's not it exactly. It's more about everyone pulling equal weight, not about getting freebies at others' expense. It's also about the correct realization that some problems can only be solved by the actions of society as a whole, that individual choices alone cannot sufficiently solve the problem. E.g. I alone can't solve the problem of catastrophic climate change no matter how green I live in my own life.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  To be clear, what I am referring to are people who would want someone other than themselves to be more generous to someone other than themselves. This a very common pathology in well-off, educated people. You get the virtue points without the actual sacrifice.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Can you give some examples of what you're referring to? Generally what is wanted is for problems to be solved by the government providing services that we all pay for through tax revenue, not for problems to be solved through private donation. I legitimately can't think of examples of what you're referring to.
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      An example would be attitudes towards immigration. The people arguing for taking in more poor immigrants or refugees typically do not live in the communities most impacted by their influx.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        I dunno ... I'm pretty pro-immigration, and I live in NYC, which has one of (if not the) highest immigrant populations in the entire country. The same is generally true of large cosmopolitan cities. And the "impact of their influx" is actually net positive. It turns out that having more people, yes, even immigrants, has a net positive impact on the local economy, because more people means more consumers (not just more labor market competition), and you realize greater efficiencies of scale. So I don't actually think this is a good example. I think the hypocrisy you're alluding to here is that coastal liberals are often NIMBYist, which has the direct effect of making housing expensive, which affects most people negatively, immigrants included. I'll agree with you on that one as being a problem, but I don't think it exactly fits into the class of issues you're talking about.
        6y ago

mrburkins 6y ago

I’m curious if people with other legitimate obligations asked and received push back. I’ve seen employers make accommodations for religious, dietary, various family drama (sick parents/partners, death etc), working moms etc - you just have to ask.

quadrifoliate 6y ago
The point is that now it's up to the employer to decide what's a work-acceptable thing to ask for; at which point they are kind of affecting your life choices. At that point, people without kids start thinking “Wait, why is my employer peeking inside my home to decide what I can take time off for? This is a capitalist society, right?”.

rayiner 6y ago

> I suspect a fair number of the complainers are people with Democratic leanings, and I think I can describe their thought process to you. > I think their problem is that a private company is doing this, not the Government. Is that a Democratic take? I think it's a liberaltarian take on it. Here's the conservative libertarian response: raising children is one of the primary functions of society, and social norms that govern private actors make a certain amount of deference to that. Replacing those norms and kicking everything up to the government is a very statist solution, inviting the government into large swaths of human activity where it wasn't present before.

maxerickson 6y ago
What's the conservative libertarian take on what to do when those norms are gone and haven't been replaced?
- rayiner 6y ago
  Reinstate the norm because we haven’t come up with a better idea and are unlikely to do so.
  - betenoire 6y ago
    I assume you'd want to reinstate the norm with the same spirit wrt government involvement... How does that work?
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Sure, the abstract answer is obvious. I meant the concrete answer, how do you reinstate a norm that people have stopped caring about, or that has been eroded by some policy (in the worst case, a policy championed by those that claim the norm)?
- sdenton4 6y ago
  Probably involves market solutions... "Sister for sale! One sister for sale! One crying and spying young sister for sale!"

maxerickson 6y ago

FMLA covers caregiver leave. The law is fine with it being unpaid though. It's weird that companies are looking inside people's homes to decide how to treat them. People should get the same flexibility, for whatever reason. If people want reduced hours to deal with other things, give it to them, and so on.