4 ms·

Why "heirs excluded"? I don't understand the logic by which it's only ok to give money to your descendants... wouldn't that hurt them just the same in your wor

Why "heirs excluded"? I don't understand the logic by which it's only ok to give money to your descendants... wouldn't that hurt them just the same in your worldview?

Avshalom 14y ago
It's almost certainly a troll, just downvote it till it gets hellbanned and move on.
- sdfasdfa 14y ago
  I'm not. Just because I do not agree with the masses doesn't mean I'm wrong. You sound more like a troll by your comment. You would probably call Galileo a troll simply by saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. I'm serious, I really do not see the error in my logic. Your ad hominem comment adds nothing to the discussion.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  Yea yea, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt... the last statement in their comment did indicate that they were open to changing their mind.
sdfasdfa 14y ago
No. It should not. What will hurt them is how you raise them (By heirs I'm talking about children). Give them the best education money can buy and beyond the essentials (food, roof, clothes) make them work for whatever else they want. Want a car? Get a summer job. Want a new video game console? Do some extra chores. Want extra money for your date? A job in the weekends would not be bad. Do you get my point? By the time they inherit money they will learn not to depend on it. It all depends on how you raise them. If you do a crappy job to begin with then even with no money they will probably be screw. Tell me I'm wrong.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  I'm coming to agree with part of your point but just for the sake of constructive criticism your tone is off-putting, and probably the source of most of your downvotes. Also, I don't agree that distributing equity of the company that employees have worked for is a hand-out; rather, it IS teaching you to fish: you now have ownership of the company, and are more inclined to learn the implications and your interests are more directly aligned with the company. Rather than being incentivized to do the least work possible without getting fired (not saying that that is what most workers do, just that it is what a no-equity position incentivizes at least in the short-medium term), the interests of the employees are now directly aligned with the company. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Why "heirs excluded"? I don't understand the logic by which it's only ok to give money to your descendants... wouldn't that hurt them just the same in your worldview?

Avshalom 14y ago

It's almost certainly a troll, just downvote it till it gets hellbanned and move on.

sdfasdfa 14y ago
I'm not. Just because I do not agree with the masses doesn't mean I'm wrong. You sound more like a troll by your comment. You would probably call Galileo a troll simply by saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. I'm serious, I really do not see the error in my logic. Your ad hominem comment adds nothing to the discussion.
schrodinger 14y ago
Yea yea, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt... the last statement in their comment did indicate that they were open to changing their mind.

sdfasdfa 14y ago

No. It should not. What will hurt them is how you raise them (By heirs I'm talking about children). Give them the best education money can buy and beyond the essentials (food, roof, clothes) make them work for whatever else they want. Want a car? Get a summer job. Want a new video game console? Do some extra chores. Want extra money for your date? A job in the weekends would not be bad. Do you get my point? By the time they inherit money they will learn not to depend on it. It all depends on how you raise them. If you do a crappy job to begin with then even with no money they will probably be screw. Tell me I'm wrong.

schrodinger 14y ago
I'm coming to agree with part of your point but just for the sake of constructive criticism your tone is off-putting, and probably the source of most of your downvotes. Also, I don't agree that distributing equity of the company that employees have worked for is a hand-out; rather, it IS teaching you to fish: you now have ownership of the company, and are more inclined to learn the implications and your interests are more directly aligned with the company. Rather than being incentivized to do the least work possible without getting fired (not saying that that is what most workers do, just that it is what a no-equity position incentivizes at least in the short-medium term), the interests of the employees are now directly aligned with the company. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.