4 ms·

"Social responsibility" is a scam to part productive people from their hard-earned money and give it to the leeches of society who sit on their asses waiting fo

by kfcm 15y ago

"Social responsibility" is a scam to part productive people from their hard-earned money and give it to the leeches of society who sit on their asses waiting for the next reality tv episode. If a woman wants to have kids, that's fine. Don't ask me to pay for her decision; that's her husband's responsibility. Oh wait. She's an unwed mother, and the father can't be found? Then she made a piss-poor decision in not keeping the proverbial "gate closed", and should be the one dealing with the repercussions of it. Not me, my business, my employees, or my customers. As for long maternity/paternity leaves being good for children...in what way? Does it teach children a solid work ethic? Or does it teach them they are entitled to copious amounts of time off at other people's expense? "Social responsibility" is just another term for theft, pure and simple.

brown9-2 15y ago
The point is that the "social responsibility" produces a better overall society in the cases of the poor unwed mother you describe. The idea is that we all benefit. Those kids don't grow up in isolation and if they turn out to be bad/uneducated/criminal people, everyone else in society is affected. You say it's a scam, but if so, who manufactured the scam? Are you telling me that those in power got together and decided to build a system which punishes the hardworking and rewards the lazy? Since when do people join a conspiracy to help others and hurt themselves? You also make gross generalizations in describing the people that benefit from social programs. It's repulsive.
- amorphid 15y ago
  Being an mother (or father?) is not traditionally a career choice. If the state wants to set up a formal program for people to get paid to have children, it should do that. A system that gives a financial incentive to having children can and will be abused.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    What incentive is given in systems like Hungary's? Are you saying that such lengthy parental leave is an incentive to produce babies? This would seem to ignore all of the other impacts of having a child on your money and time.
  - georgefox 15y ago
    Do you have any numbers that actually suggest poor parents are profiting off of such programs? Children are, strictly financially speaking, a huge expense.
    - uiri 15y ago
      Look into the marginal cost of raising a child. Children are a bigger expense for upper-middle class people who expect to send their children to a private school, pay for them to go to an expensive college, want each kid to have their own room, etc. For poorer families the main expense of a child is food. The younger ones can wear hand me downs, it is possible to shove two or three children in one room, etc. The poorer the family is, the less having another kid costs until it is actually a negative cost because each additional child actually brings in income by working.
- kfcm 15y ago
  "Social responsibility" produces a better overall society? How? By encouraging a lack of personal/moral responsibility? By legitimizing theft? By acclimating people to expect copious benefits without having to pay for or otherwise earn them? As for who manufactured the scam, you hit the nail on the head. There are those who are in power and wish to remain so, and the best way to do it is through bribery by theft, aka welfare/"social responsibility". It's not a conspiracy to hurt themselves (laws are for others, not them), but to gain control over others. It's just like giving wild animals food; soon they lose the desire and incentive to hunt/forage for themselves, and you've gained control over them. Before you accuse me of "gross generalizations", you should know I was born into a dirt poor family. But we had pride, morals and a strong work ethic, and my parents were proud to have never taken welfare. We knew the welfare people and wanted nothing to do with them. Many had kids just so they could collect more welfare per child and proceeded to spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling. Essentially whatever the parent(s) wanted, the kids be damned with most of them turning out bad--prison, murdered, or a second generation on welfare. The theme has continued throughout my adult life, only it's now extending into the middle class as well. Finally, if you think my "gross generalizations" from personal experience and observations are repulsive, I know people who have a much harder stance on this topic than I do. They're a friend of mine and her colleagues--who are social workers in a major US city. She (and perhaps the others) got into the field to help others get back on their feet--only to find not apathy but hostility towards any attempt to get them off "social responsibility" programs, sometimes to the point where she's felt her life in danger. A better overall society indeed.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    "Social responsibility" produces a better overall society? How? By (hopefully) raising the lowest members of society out of poverty and poor education. Society here meaning "the group", not touching on any sense of morals. Assuming that your "social responsibility" taxes are only intended for poor unwed mothers is a gross generalization regardless of your personal background.
georgefox 15y ago
I can't tell whether or not you're serious. What if the woman was not poor or not unwed at the time of conception? What if her husband lost his job? Do you think having children should be a privilege limited only to married couples with at least a quarter million dollars in savings? And if so, do you at least support the state giving out free contraceptives to the "leeches" who aren't in such a financial position? If a person can't afford their child, what do you recommend? Leave the kid near the dumpster to fend for him/herself? That'll teach a strong work ethic, right? Because we all know maternity leave is just a euphemism for vacation.
rjbond3rd 15y ago
You've just summarized the philosophy of Ayn Rand, yet you would not have hired her.
guga31bb 15y ago
There is plenty of evidence that maternal leave is beneficial for children. Go to Google Scholar and search "maternal leave child outcomes". A sampling from one paper: >We find considerable associations between early returns to work and many of the outcome measures [regular medical checkups and breastfeeding in the first year of life, the receipt of all DPT (diptheria, pertussis, and tetanus)/Oral Polio immunisations (in approximately the first 18 months of life) and cognitive and behavioural assessment scores at age 3 or 4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00971.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005....
zhemao 15y ago
@georgefox, I do think that you shouldn't have children if you can't support them, but that is their decision to make, and they should bear the responsibility for their decision. @brown9-2 In theory it does, but if businesses don't hire said unwed mothers because government policies make it too expensive, it doesn't benefit anyone.
- georgefox 15y ago
  If someone cannot afford to feed his or her child and the child starves--literally or metaphorically--who's bearing the responsibility? Edit: To be clear, I agree that you shouldn't have a child you can't afford, but mistakes happen, situations change, etc. It's a lot more complicated than the commonly portrayed notion of welfare mothers defrauding the government.

by kfcm 15y ago

brown9-2 15y ago

The point is that the "social responsibility" produces a better overall society in the cases of the poor unwed mother you describe. The idea is that we all benefit. Those kids don't grow up in isolation and if they turn out to be bad/uneducated/criminal people, everyone else in society is affected. You say it's a scam, but if so, who manufactured the scam? Are you telling me that those in power got together and decided to build a system which punishes the hardworking and rewards the lazy? Since when do people join a conspiracy to help others and hurt themselves? You also make gross generalizations in describing the people that benefit from social programs. It's repulsive.

amorphid 15y ago
Being an mother (or father?) is not traditionally a career choice. If the state wants to set up a formal program for people to get paid to have children, it should do that. A system that gives a financial incentive to having children can and will be abused.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  What incentive is given in systems like Hungary's? Are you saying that such lengthy parental leave is an incentive to produce babies? This would seem to ignore all of the other impacts of having a child on your money and time.
- georgefox 15y ago
  Do you have any numbers that actually suggest poor parents are profiting off of such programs? Children are, strictly financially speaking, a huge expense.
  - uiri 15y ago
    Look into the marginal cost of raising a child. Children are a bigger expense for upper-middle class people who expect to send their children to a private school, pay for them to go to an expensive college, want each kid to have their own room, etc. For poorer families the main expense of a child is food. The younger ones can wear hand me downs, it is possible to shove two or three children in one room, etc. The poorer the family is, the less having another kid costs until it is actually a negative cost because each additional child actually brings in income by working.
kfcm 15y ago
"Social responsibility" produces a better overall society? How? By encouraging a lack of personal/moral responsibility? By legitimizing theft? By acclimating people to expect copious benefits without having to pay for or otherwise earn them? As for who manufactured the scam, you hit the nail on the head. There are those who are in power and wish to remain so, and the best way to do it is through bribery by theft, aka welfare/"social responsibility". It's not a conspiracy to hurt themselves (laws are for others, not them), but to gain control over others. It's just like giving wild animals food; soon they lose the desire and incentive to hunt/forage for themselves, and you've gained control over them. Before you accuse me of "gross generalizations", you should know I was born into a dirt poor family. But we had pride, morals and a strong work ethic, and my parents were proud to have never taken welfare. We knew the welfare people and wanted nothing to do with them. Many had kids just so they could collect more welfare per child and proceeded to spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling. Essentially whatever the parent(s) wanted, the kids be damned with most of them turning out bad--prison, murdered, or a second generation on welfare. The theme has continued throughout my adult life, only it's now extending into the middle class as well. Finally, if you think my "gross generalizations" from personal experience and observations are repulsive, I know people who have a much harder stance on this topic than I do. They're a friend of mine and her colleagues--who are social workers in a major US city. She (and perhaps the others) got into the field to help others get back on their feet--only to find not apathy but hostility towards any attempt to get them off "social responsibility" programs, sometimes to the point where she's felt her life in danger. A better overall society indeed.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  "Social responsibility" produces a better overall society? How? By (hopefully) raising the lowest members of society out of poverty and poor education. Society here meaning "the group", not touching on any sense of morals. Assuming that your "social responsibility" taxes are only intended for poor unwed mothers is a gross generalization regardless of your personal background.

georgefox 15y ago

I can't tell whether or not you're serious. What if the woman was not poor or not unwed at the time of conception? What if her husband lost his job? Do you think having children should be a privilege limited only to married couples with at least a quarter million dollars in savings? And if so, do you at least support the state giving out free contraceptives to the "leeches" who aren't in such a financial position? If a person can't afford their child, what do you recommend? Leave the kid near the dumpster to fend for him/herself? That'll teach a strong work ethic, right? Because we all know maternity leave is just a euphemism for vacation.

rjbond3rd 15y ago

You've just summarized the philosophy of Ayn Rand, yet you would not have hired her.

guga31bb 15y ago

There is plenty of evidence that maternal leave is beneficial for children. Go to Google Scholar and search "maternal leave child outcomes". A sampling from one paper: >We find considerable associations between early returns to work and many of the outcome measures [regular medical checkups and breastfeeding in the first year of life, the receipt of all DPT (diptheria, pertussis, and tetanus)/Oral Polio immunisations (in approximately the first 18 months of life) and cognitive and behavioural assessment scores at age 3 or 4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00971.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005....

zhemao 15y ago

@georgefox, I do think that you shouldn't have children if you can't support them, but that is their decision to make, and they should bear the responsibility for their decision. @brown9-2 In theory it does, but if businesses don't hire said unwed mothers because government policies make it too expensive, it doesn't benefit anyone.

georgefox 15y ago
If someone cannot afford to feed his or her child and the child starves--literally or metaphorically--who's bearing the responsibility? Edit: To be clear, I agree that you shouldn't have a child you can't afford, but mistakes happen, situations change, etc. It's a lot more complicated than the commonly portrayed notion of welfare mothers defrauding the government.