2 ms·

It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. With all the

It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. With all the resources and technology we have it's not as if we don't have the ability to find solutions to problems like "How to move a child from point A to point B at time C", so I guess this is more of a lack of will than a lack of capability.

Merad 4y ago
> It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. Why are you blaming the parents? Most people in the world don't have the benefit of flexible tech jobs that allow them to work 10-6 or to come and go as needed during the work day.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Why are you blaming the parents? Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces. They used their collective power to defend their work schedules at the expense of their children. Why not insist on more flexibility in their work schedules, or for additional transportation solutions to assist in getting teens to/from schools? Is this really an insurmountable problem?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces. School officials are locally democratically accountable. Employers generally are not, and are often able to play workers in different localities (and even states and countries, in many cases) against each other to create a race-to-the-bottom effect. Parents directed their force against the movable object, not the immovable one.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      > Parents directed their force against the movable object, not the immovable one. But it was the wrong one, while making victims in the process.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It’s odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. For most parents, the ability to maintain the work schedule demanded by their employer is rather central to, not a separate unrelated interest from, the health and well-being of their children. When we have both the economic structure to support and a government run by a political ideology that will allow a robust UBI that makes this optional (and thereby forces employers to accommodate it if they want to have employees at all), we can discuss the issues as if they were separate. But in the concrete would we live in, they are not.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I agree that UBI would mean a huge amount of leverage for employees, but I get the feeling if we see it at all it'll come after most of us are replaced by AI/automation and will be forced out of work entirely. We shouldn't wait for UBI to draw boundaries around what we'll give up to enrich our employers though, and our children's health seems like a good candidate for a line we could draw and rally behind defending.

Merad 4y ago

> It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. Why are you blaming the parents? Most people in the world don't have the benefit of flexible tech jobs that allow them to work 10-6 or to come and go as needed during the work day.

autoexec 4y ago
> Why are you blaming the parents? Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces. They used their collective power to defend their work schedules at the expense of their children. Why not insist on more flexibility in their work schedules, or for additional transportation solutions to assist in getting teens to/from schools? Is this really an insurmountable problem?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces. School officials are locally democratically accountable. Employers generally are not, and are often able to play workers in different localities (and even states and countries, in many cases) against each other to create a race-to-the-bottom effect. Parents directed their force against the movable object, not the immovable one.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > Parents directed their force against the movable object, not the immovable one. But it was the wrong one, while making victims in the process.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It’s odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. For most parents, the ability to maintain the work schedule demanded by their employer is rather central to, not a separate unrelated interest from, the health and well-being of their children. When we have both the economic structure to support and a government run by a political ideology that will allow a robust UBI that makes this optional (and thereby forces employers to accommodate it if they want to have employees at all), we can discuss the issues as if they were separate. But in the concrete would we live in, they are not.

autoexec 4y ago
I agree that UBI would mean a huge amount of leverage for employees, but I get the feeling if we see it at all it'll come after most of us are replaced by AI/automation and will be forced out of work entirely. We shouldn't wait for UBI to draw boundaries around what we'll give up to enrich our employers though, and our children's health seems like a good candidate for a line we could draw and rally behind defending.