4 ms·

Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a seri

Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a serious question?

nradov 1y ago
It's a serious question. I have a family to feed and a 30-year mortgage, and I would much rather live in a place where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job. A dynamic economy benefits everyone.
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  > "A dynamic economy benefits everyone" Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others. It benefits people who are highly skilled, clever, healthy, wealthy, young, with market-desirable skills in a market-desirable area, with no external family or life problems or responsibilities, and those who own and run companies, more than 95% of everyone else. > "where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job." I don't see that follows; jobs can have probationary periods where employers can reject new hires quickly, while still having notice periods.
  - nradov 1y ago
    There's no need for either designated probationary periods or notice periods. Social safety nets are a good thing in general but should be provided directly by governments rather than by private employers obeying government mandates. Imposing any requirements on employers beyond basic health and safety rules slows down economic growth and hurts everyone in the long run.
    - ml-anon 1y ago
      lol
    - yladiz 1y ago
      Define health and safety rules, and then define the basic ones that are a subset of the entire ruleset.
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      Risk of having your life upended by someone else's whim causes stress, chronic stress on a population has a long term health cost. Imposing requirements on employers reduces stress and helps everyone in the long run.
sneak 1y ago
Yes, absolutely. If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly. Nobody should be expecting their employer (or any second party, really) to be their income stream’s low pass filter. That’s what your savings account is for. If you can’t support your family and mortgage through 6-9 months (minimum) out of savings, you shouldn’t have them because you can’t afford them. (Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it. I would venture a guess that most 30 year mortgages end by being paid off at sale in less than 30 years. A 30 year mortgage doesn’t mean 30 years of mandatory payments, you can sell the place and move and pay off the mortgage at any time.)
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  The best part about living under the Sword of Damocles is that when it falls on someone else I can lecture them about how they deserved it. I can't imagine it would ever fall on me, because I don't deserve it. > "you’re acting irresponsibly" If things were arranged so that you didn't need the savings to cover the constant worry of being fired, then not having the savings wouldn't be acting irresponsibly. Americans need health insurance, not having health insurance is irresponsible. In countries where healthcare is free at the point of use, not having health insurance is not irresponsible. You're arguing a logical tautology. > "(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it." As an example illustration that people do not live life in 1-day or 1-week increments, but in decades. People want to - and do - put down roots and settle in for a long time.
  - nradov 1y ago
    So what. People want a lot of things. Employers aren't responsible for providing those things.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Okay. Why not? This isn't an argument. You aren't making any argument. Because, to me, this sounds good. Okay, so let's do it. Seems pretty simple and straightforward. I mean, I want a 401K. Employers should provide that. Okay, then let's do that. They... aren't responsible? Don't we make the laws? Let's just force them to be responsible. Problem solved. I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy. Do you, like, aspire to be exploited? Why are you advocating against your own best interests? Is this selflessness, or some strange form of self-harm I haven't been exposed to?

Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a serious question?

nradov 1y ago

It's a serious question. I have a family to feed and a 30-year mortgage, and I would much rather live in a place where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job. A dynamic economy benefits everyone.

jodrellblank 1y ago
> "A dynamic economy benefits everyone" Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others. It benefits people who are highly skilled, clever, healthy, wealthy, young, with market-desirable skills in a market-desirable area, with no external family or life problems or responsibilities, and those who own and run companies, more than 95% of everyone else. > "where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job." I don't see that follows; jobs can have probationary periods where employers can reject new hires quickly, while still having notice periods.
- nradov 1y ago
  There's no need for either designated probationary periods or notice periods. Social safety nets are a good thing in general but should be provided directly by governments rather than by private employers obeying government mandates. Imposing any requirements on employers beyond basic health and safety rules slows down economic growth and hurts everyone in the long run.
  - ml-anon 1y ago
    lol
  - yladiz 1y ago
    Define health and safety rules, and then define the basic ones that are a subset of the entire ruleset.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    Risk of having your life upended by someone else's whim causes stress, chronic stress on a population has a long term health cost. Imposing requirements on employers reduces stress and helps everyone in the long run.

sneak 1y ago

Yes, absolutely. If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly. Nobody should be expecting their employer (or any second party, really) to be their income stream’s low pass filter. That’s what your savings account is for. If you can’t support your family and mortgage through 6-9 months (minimum) out of savings, you shouldn’t have them because you can’t afford them. (Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it. I would venture a guess that most 30 year mortgages end by being paid off at sale in less than 30 years. A 30 year mortgage doesn’t mean 30 years of mandatory payments, you can sell the place and move and pay off the mortgage at any time.)

jodrellblank 1y ago
The best part about living under the Sword of Damocles is that when it falls on someone else I can lecture them about how they deserved it. I can't imagine it would ever fall on me, because I don't deserve it. > "you’re acting irresponsibly" If things were arranged so that you didn't need the savings to cover the constant worry of being fired, then not having the savings wouldn't be acting irresponsibly. Americans need health insurance, not having health insurance is irresponsible. In countries where healthcare is free at the point of use, not having health insurance is not irresponsible. You're arguing a logical tautology. > "(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it." As an example illustration that people do not live life in 1-day or 1-week increments, but in decades. People want to - and do - put down roots and settle in for a long time.
- nradov 1y ago
  So what. People want a lot of things. Employers aren't responsible for providing those things.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Okay. Why not? This isn't an argument. You aren't making any argument. Because, to me, this sounds good. Okay, so let's do it. Seems pretty simple and straightforward. I mean, I want a 401K. Employers should provide that. Okay, then let's do that. They... aren't responsible? Don't we make the laws? Let's just force them to be responsible. Problem solved. I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy. Do you, like, aspire to be exploited? Why are you advocating against your own best interests? Is this selflessness, or some strange form of self-harm I haven't been exposed to?