Why do we have to be paid for work?

[SKL]

I might have a different tolerance for trusting others to look after my kids, since they were in foster care in a third world country for most of their first year.  Apparently there's nothing magic about *me* being there to watch over them.  I also believe in gut instincts - if a daycare feels safe to me, then I'm not going to let other people's fears or mommy guilt scare me.

[I.Dup.]

I might have a different tolerance for trusting others to look after my kids, since they were in foster care in a third world country for most of their first year.  Apparently there's nothing magic about *me* being there to watch over them.  I also believe in gut instincts - if a daycare feels safe to me, then I'm not going to let other people's fears or mommy guilt scare me.

 

Yeah, you shouldn't let *other* people's fears or mommy guilt scare you. We all have to make the choice that seems and feels right to us. That is all we can do.

[Aelwydd]

Seeing as public school requires tax dollars anyway, it seems to me that the homeschooling/welfare combo versus the working/public school scenario is sort of a six of one, half dozen of another situation.

 

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

I might have a different tolerance for trusting others to look after my kids, since they were in foster care in a third world country for most of their first year.  Apparently there's nothing magic about *me* being there to watch over them.  I also believe in gut instincts - if a daycare feels safe to me, then I'm not going to let other people's fears or mommy guilt scare me.

  

 

Don't take my opinion for my family personally. I don't care what other people do wtr to this with their kids. For me, I know for a fact that just about any daycare I could afford would not be one anyone with more income would ever want their child in. I have no use for public schools. I know that's rather radical to some, but I have no desire to ever see my children in one. Not because I'm scared of them. But because they suck and I want my kids to have a better education. But again, I don't care if other people use them. Their kids equal their parenting, not mine. :)

 

Seeing as public school requires tax dollars anyway, it seems to me that the homeschooling/welfare combo versus the working/public school scenario is sort of a six of one, half dozen of another situation.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Odd how people only call things welfare when it's things they don't think someone else should have, but not when it's stuff they feel entitled to. (That's not directed at anyone here. Just a general sentiment I've observed over the years.)

[Scarlett]

 

 

Don't take my opinion for my family personally. I don't care what other people do wtr to this with their kids. For me, I know for a fact that just about any daycare I could afford would not be one anyone with more income would ever want their child in. I have no use for public schools. I know that's rather radical to some, but I have no desire to ever see my children in one. Not because I'm scared of them. But because they suck and I want my kids to have a better education. But again, I don't care if other people use them. Their kids equal their parenting, not mine. :)

 

 

That's exactly how I feel about it. Odd how people only call things welfare when it's things they don't think someone else should have, but not when it's stuff they feel entitled to. (That's not directed at anyone here. Just a general sentiment I've observed over the years.)

So well said. We all benefit from tax money in one way or the other.

 

And children being properly cared for benefits society as a whole.

[SKL]

  

 

Don't take my opinion for my family personally. I don't care what other people do wtr to this with their kids. For me, I know for a fact that just about any daycare I could afford would not be one anyone with more income would ever want their child in. I have no use for public schools. I know that's rather radical to some, but I have no desire to ever see my children in one. Not because I'm scared of them. But because they suck and I want my kids to have a better education. But again, I don't care if other people use them. Their kids equal their parenting, not mine. :)

 

 

That's exactly how I feel about it. Odd how people only call things welfare when it's things they don't think someone else should have, but not when it's stuff they feel entitled to. (That's not directed at anyone here. Just a general sentiment I've observed over the years.)

 

Er, my kids have never been in public school, but I have paid tens of thousands of dollars per year (for far longer than my kids have been alive) toward public school education.  Personally I don't consider it an entitlement if I'm paying for it, even if I do use it.  That's a shared expense.  An entitlement is when people are believed to be entitled to something simply by virtue of being alive.  (ETA in the context of government subsidies, entitlements have a narrower meaning since only some people qualify for them.)

[SKL]

So well said. We all benefit from tax money in one way or the other.

 

And children being properly cared for benefits society as a whole.

 

Well sure, but the question is, to what extent is it fair for those who won't work and pay taxes (by choice, for long periods) to benefit at the expense of those who do?

 

I don't expect it to ever be equal, but it disturbs me to see the attitude that I should be able to decide to be a taker instead of a giver.  I think it's better to encourage a strong work ethic while making allowances for special circumstances.  (Having a kid is not a special circumstance.)  Within that framework, how a married couple chooses to break up the work responsibility is their business.

[Scarlett]

Er, my kids have never been in public school, but I have paid tens of thousands of dollars per year (for far longer than my kids have been alive) toward public school education. Personally I don't consider it an entitlement if I'm paying for it, even if I do use it. That's a shared expense. An entitlement is when people are believed to be entitled to something simply by virtue of being alive.

So for you public school is a shared expense, but for a poor person who pays little or no taxes it is an entitlement?

[Scarlett]

Well sure, but the question is, to what extent is it fair for those who won't work and pay taxes (by choice, for long periods) to benefit at the expense of those who do?

 

I don't expect it to ever be equal, but it disturbs me to see the attitude that I should be able to decide to be a taker instead of a giver. I think it's better to encourage a strong work ethic while making allowances for special circumstances. (Having a kid is not a special circumstance.) Within that framework, how a married couple chooses to break up the work responsibility is their business.

And my point is that it is not at your expense. It is for your, society's benefit for children to be properly cared for.

[Scarlett]

This is how I feel. It's hard to give my opinion without insulting anyone who doesn't share it, but that is my opinion. This is what works for me and my comfort level. This is what I want in my life.

Speaking of public schools.....my BIL was here this weekend. He is a sahd, he has a 7 yo boy in public school. He spent hours telling me all about the public school his son attends....he and his wife are very involved and good parents...but they spend so much effort on trying to help a school system that is just broken, IMO. His child will be fine inspite of the school...not because of them.

 

And yet I know he and his wife do not believe in homeschooling. Weird. You would think he would not tell me how bad it is...it is like they just accept it as being the way it is.

[chiguirre]

This. 

 

Worldwide corporations (for some services/products) ruin everything. 

 

If every town had farmers that grew the food, butchers, bakers and such, we could employ SO many more people. Guilds.  And what you would be able to purchase would be of such higher quality--because it had to be.  But you have Cargill and Conagra, and Nestle, and ... 

 

I walk around my old historic towns and look at all of the shops that employed people. The canals that brought stuff in. I don't think they had it so bad.  I would give up my computer and air conditioning to see more people employed at things that truly helped communities. 

 

Sometimes I think we've just rebuilt the Tower of Babel. 

I don't think we could feed everyone in America sufficient calories to stay alive if we did this. I won't even touch on the whole world. The old towns are lovely, but their life expectancy was half of ours.

[Murphy101]

Er, my kids have never been in public school, but I have paid tens of thousands of dollars per year (for far longer than my kids have been alive) toward public school education.  Personally I don't consider it an entitlement if I'm paying for it, even if I do use it.  That's a shared expense.  An entitlement is when people are believed to be entitled to something simply by virtue of being alive.

Um. Yes. I think just being alive entitles a person to lots of things. Freedom. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness. Parental decision making.

 

I don't view it as givers and takers.

 

I think that's a very... Not sure what word to use..

 

Wrong.

 

By that definition old folks and the disabled should be lift in the woods for the wild critters like they were in the old days bc they don't have the right just by virtue of being alive to be "takers".

 

People work so that in a cooperative society, the benefits will also be there for them one day. A woman works and one day, if she has children, maybe she will be a taker. When the kids are grown, maybe she will be a giver again. (Or a man)

 

People work hard and when they are old or injured, it's time for society to step up and give back to them by caring for them properly.

 

Nevermind that I don't think sahp are takers anymore than than people who use headstart daycare. They are both taking from the community. In many ways I think the low income mom on subsidies is taking far more in a futile hamsterwheel cycle, but I still wouldn't call them takers.

[SKL]

So for you public school is a shared expense, but for a poor person who pays little or no taxes it is an entitlement?

 

In the context of government assistance, an entitlement is normally something you have to qualify for based on your inability to provide it for yourself.  Public education is available to everyone at all income levels.  Entitlements such as food stamps and daycare subsidies are not.

 

I realize this is different from what I said before.  I wasn't expecting to be picked apart so I was not very careful about my specific words before.  I guess I should have known better, but I hadn't had my coffee yet.

[SKL]

And I do agree that everyone is entitled to some things just because they are alive.  However, I don't feel that way about everything certain people feel entitled to.

[Arcadia]

It does not encourage me to increase my productivity right into the next tax bracket where yet more can be taken from me.

That is very true though. When my hubby had a pay raise, after tax withholding we see very little increase in take home pay. Then health insurance went up annually for both employer and employee which negate the increase in take home pay.

I ran the numbers on MSN for my family and it would take a decent pay for me to afford to go to work full time. Safeway (supermarket) have staff that works mainly school hours but those positions were filled by mums with school age (K-8) kids.

[SKL]

It could be that an analysis would prove that homeschooling provides the same or more net benefit to the community compared to public schooling.  I have thought that many times, but actually I think it depends on the school district.  That said, if such a thing were proven, why not dismantle the school system, give the money to the families (on a per child basis), and have everyone homeschool or send their kids to private school?  I would not be surprised if we saved money in the long run.  But of course then there would be no safety net for kids whose parents don't give a damn.

[Scarlett]

It could be that an analysis would prove that homeschooling provides the same or more net benefit to the community compared to public schooling. I have thought that many times, but actually I think it depends on the school district. That said, if such a thing were proven, why not dismantle the school system, give the money to the families (on a per child basis), and have everyone homeschool or send their kids to private school? I would not be surprised if we saved money in the long run. But of course then there would be no safety net for kids whose parents don't give a damn.

My mom said almost this exact same thing the other day. And she is a retired public school teacher.

 

As for safety net for parents who don't care.....that doesn't work so well for public school kids so I can't see much change in that.

[DarlaS]

That, and honestly, robots. Once robots are capable of doing the tasks no one wants to do, then it would be much easier to become a classless society that doesn't work for money, but by choice.

Also, there will always be criminals. I'm not opposed to forcing labor on one who has committed certain crimes. (We do it now.)

[Word Nerd]

This.

 

Worldwide corporations (for some services/products) ruin everything.

 

If every town had farmers that grew the food, butchers, bakers and such, we could employ SO many more people. Guilds. And what you would be able to purchase would be of such higher quality--because it had to be. But you have Cargill and Conagra, and Nestle, and ...

 

I walk around my old historic towns and look at all of the shops that employed people. The canals that brought stuff in. I don't think they had it so bad. I would give up my computer and air conditioning to see more people employed at things that truly helped communities.

 

Sometimes I think we've just rebuilt the Tower of Babel.

I live in a rural area where we have a fair number of farmers and local butchers. But they all use modern technology and tools, even when they're not part of a corporation.

 

Cargill and a beef processing plant are the area's largest employers. I find it hard to believe that the 6000+ people who work at those two companies combined would be better off and find their work more meaningful if they eschewed technology and worked like they did in the "good old days."

[Aelwydd]

I don't think we could feed everyone in America sufficient calories to stay alive if we did this. I won't even touch on the whole world. The old towns are lovely, but their life expectancy was half of ours.

Modern life expectancies are due more to advances in modern medicine and prevalence of easy energy (oil, gas, etc). Calories are more easily had and energy output is reduced - but those same conditions have produced their own serious threats to public health.

 

Mass produced food comes at the cost of depleted farmland due to the prevalence of monoculture farming. This leads to a greater susceptibility to disease and pestilence, which in turn lends itself to a huge dependence upon very toxic pesticides, including those with organic carbons. The other solution is to genetically modify foods by introducing other plant and even animal genes into the genome of foods that humans have relied upon for millennia.

 

Once it's harvested, it is subjected to various processes that simultaneously strip it of nutrients and add a host of chemically altered substances like preservatives, ionized salt, artificial sweeteners, aluminum baking powders and so forth.

 

This type of industrialized food production means our food is not as nutritionally dense, stripped of its natural potency (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals), and replaced with empty calories.

 

I don't care how active a person is - if his diet is comprised mostly of foods produced in such a way, he will be at high risk for diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, cancers, neurological disorders, dementia. Basically all the epidemics that are killing us in droves now.

 

This is a large factor in why this generation of children has a lower life expectancy than the last. We are going backwards not forwards. And by the time most communities realize what they must do to restore a healthy food supply, there will be even less arable land, uncontaminated water, and reproducible seed stock than there was a hundred years ago, before there were 7 billion people to feed.

 

So while I would not go back to medieval superstitious beliefs, or romanticize the days before modern medicine, I also do not fool myself as to the social and political implications of living in a society built upon the infantization of its members. We have been raised to be dependent on others to produce our food, make our clothes, create our art and music, rely on others to make and maintain our modes of transport, educate our children, create food for our infants, and so on.

 

In short, we have been designed to consume resources at a voracious rate while simultaneously stripping us of most specialized skills. We are an obese, sick, dependent society reduced to competing for "service jobs" for the wealthy and powerful.

 

I'm not sure if that makes us a cancer or a slave to others' purposes.

[SKL]

Well, isn't this ironic.  I'm arguing on a thread about why people need to be paid for work, in between doing my work that I'm not being paid for!  LOL.  Don't ask me why some of us will work without pay - that would put me in counseling.  :P