4 ms·

It's hard to rebut your arguments when you don't really explain them, instead relying on scarewords that don't fit at all. Who are the "additional investors"?

It's hard to rebut your arguments when you don't really explain them, instead relying on scarewords that don't fit at all. Who are the "additional investors"? The children? In what way would parental leave had been a horrible misstep if they do not show up? Seems like a wash. Or are the additional investors individuals and families who won't ever need paid leave, don't care about their neighbors, and don't care about the next generation of residents? If so, Ponzi schemes are when market participants indirectly spend money on things that they don't 100% agree to? So, like, every interaction in life outside of the household that one individual might fully dominate?

yokoprime 5y ago
I think the parent post is a troll, willingly or not. Leave it, he or she has made up their mind that infrastructure and services are a Ponzi schm. Sigh.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t make someone a troll smh.
endisneigh 5y ago
The additional investors are all individuals necessary in taking care of the new children directly or indirectly. You introduce paid leave, which is fine, this creates more demand for children which is also fine. So now you have more children. Who’s going to take care of these people? Presumably child care workers who are disproportionately women. And if those women have children as well? Who replaces them? And who replaces the women who originally were on leave? If you think every industry can absorb 12 weeks (original proposal) of paid leave you’re in for a ride awakening. That’s if everyone only has a single child, by the way. Multiple children only compound the problem. If you believe this problem will sort itself out you should consider that in San Francisco day care can be as high as 3000 a child per month. Keep in mind about 3 years of day care is necessary. So that’s almost 100k after tax. Even someone making 400k a year before tax would notice that. And that’s only daycare. That being said this kind of Ponzi scheme isn’t really a big deal because that’s basically just having kids in a nutshell. However if you’re trying to convince your fellow citizens to pay for it you’re need some luck.

yokoprime 5y ago

I think the parent post is a troll, willingly or not. Leave it, he or she has made up their mind that infrastructure and services are a Ponzi schm. Sigh.

endisneigh 5y ago
Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t make someone a troll smh.

endisneigh 5y ago

The additional investors are all individuals necessary in taking care of the new children directly or indirectly. You introduce paid leave, which is fine, this creates more demand for children which is also fine. So now you have more children. Who’s going to take care of these people? Presumably child care workers who are disproportionately women. And if those women have children as well? Who replaces them? And who replaces the women who originally were on leave? If you think every industry can absorb 12 weeks (original proposal) of paid leave you’re in for a ride awakening. That’s if everyone only has a single child, by the way. Multiple children only compound the problem. If you believe this problem will sort itself out you should consider that in San Francisco day care can be as high as 3000 a child per month. Keep in mind about 3 years of day care is necessary. So that’s almost 100k after tax. Even someone making 400k a year before tax would notice that. And that’s only daycare. That being said this kind of Ponzi scheme isn’t really a big deal because that’s basically just having kids in a nutshell. However if you’re trying to convince your fellow citizens to pay for it you’re need some luck.