Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone enumerate "good CEO" examples? Specific CEOs of specific companies.

I'd argue what will get it to happen is upping the workplace quality.

The push to get people back to work is inevitable. Of course they could do what economics says to do: provide incentives to enhance the utility to the worker of going into work vs staying home.

Food. Workout. Food. Commuter perks (free bus card, free bikeshare, free scootershare). Food. CHILDCARE (a whole new can of beans, who with kids does not recognize the paramount need for nationalized child care now).

Did I mention food?

View on HN

Agree 100% What about clothing? Why doesn't the office have a nice clothing store so I can properly dress for the office?

What if I need to get my car repaired? You are telling me the office can't have an on site mechanic? Oil change while I work would be a nice perk. Email me when it is done.

I don't need Home Depot but what about some packages of mulch for the lawn at a reasonable price?

I am so sick of this.

You joke, but free clothes (swag) is a pretty common thing in startup culture.

> You are telling me the office can't have an on site mechanic?

I worked in an office with an on-site bike mechanic. His job wasn't to specifically serve the staff but he would help us often, at a company where most people biked to work.

Well-maintained vehicles break down less, and the mechanic would often make people let him change their bald tires or lube their rusty chains. No doubt it kept people from being late to work, or having to take time out of their work day to bring their bikes to a shop.

Really, slippery slope fallacy over employers providing food to workers?

The free food does a good job of keeping me in the building. I honestly can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to office perks.

Isn’t public schooling sufficient childcare? Not too sure how I feel about my tax dollars going toward superfluous childcare for other people’s kids. Especially when I’ve made the conscious decision to not have a child myself due to the environmental impact.

Echo everything else you said, though.

I don't have kids either and i want my tax money to pay for pre-k and quality childcare for other people's kids. They are children now but they will be our future colleagues, caretakers, and fellow citizens. We all have a personal stake in the fate of the next generation.

I think the onus of childcare is on the parents, not society. If one is relying on family, friends, and society at large to raise their kids, I don’t think they should have had them in the first place.

I have two young boys. The older one is autistic. I earn a decent amount per year working as a computer programmer just as I did when they were born.

If I were to survive a stroke tomorrow, would you tell me that I shouldn't have had them in the first place since I'd require all kinds of assistance to care for them?

Would you support legislation to ensure that I don't get help?

This is an exceptional edge case and I absolutely think that additional assistance would be in order. But generally, emergency funds, health insurance, disability assistance, and welfare are all able to alleviate this type of situation.

If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.

> This is an exceptional edge case

It is, but it wouldn't be challenging to construct far less exceptional cases to consider.

* workers of dangerous jobs e.g. oil rigs and mining

* workers in seemingly-stable jobs that are suddenly outsourced e.g. GMC factory workers in Flint, MI

* workers in industries on the verge of collapse e.g. milkmen and telephone switchboard operators

* lost income after the birth of a disabled child forcing one parent to stay home full-time

> If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.

By shifting 100% of the responsibility to the parents, you're ignoring the issue of far greater importance: the wellbeing of the children.

Telling parents that they should have planned better and saved more does nothing for their children, but those children WILL have an impact on the future society you inhabit.

It's the responsibility of every driver to yield to pedestrians. That doesn't mean we should all just walk into the street without looking.

Parenthood is a choice. One who chooses to have kids is also choosing the consequences and financial burdens that it may have. It is not okay to shift that burden to other people, especially those who made a different choice.

So only the rich should have children? Who is going to do all the manual labour once the lower classes go extinct?

> So only the rich should have children?

If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them.

But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you?

If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion?

> Who is going to do all the manual labour

if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.

Children aren't remotely comparable to yaughts.

Being a child is the way every single citizen starts life, and how they do in that period has dramatic influence on the rest of their lives. Society can't afford to leave all that only up to parents.

You made a choice to not have kids, did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? Because those people are only there because their parents chose to have kids, and you have an interest in how they turned out.

> did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again?

interaction with other people are governed by law, and to some extend, cultural norms. Whether i choose to interact with people makes no difference to whether society has to bear the burden of the kids that the parents choose not to bear when they choose to have them. You're making an assumption that a poor parent will raise a bad kid, unless society will chip in. I don't believe that. A smart parent will raise a good kid, whether they are poor or not.

And society _already_ bear some burden, since k-12 education is free.

Childcare at an even earlier age than k-12 is expensive because it is not scalable, and i'm questioning whether it is worth the cost. If the parent doesn't make enough to cover the childcare cost in their job, they can and should perform their own childcare duty. Parents that make more than their childcare cost would make the rational choice of paying for childcare, since they will still have excess money after paying. Or they can choose to do childcare themselves - as is their freedom and right.

What i don't believe in is to have tax payers pay for the childcare. The high earning parent don't need it, and the low income earner is getting a huge benefit for little to no reward for the tax payer - and childcare doesnt get cheaper the more it is collectively paid.

I take it you’re a libertarian?

There's rarely room for doubt.

We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/

I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)

If everyone followed that principle, humanity would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Historically the "emergency fund" was multiple generations living under one roof.

Is your sole reasoning for not having kids because of the environmental impact or is there another reason?

If everyone that cared for the environment took this stance - the only people alive in 100 years would be those that care nothing for the environment.

Environmental impact is probably the biggest factor. I also just don’t have any motivation or desire to have children.

Parenting is a lifelong commitment and requires responsibilities beyond that which I am willing to commit. I think bringing new carbon generators, who are capable of profound suffering, into the world would be doing a disservice to the environment, everyone around me, myself, and most importantly the child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com