I hate questions like this because to me there is no right answer.
I want economic egalitarianism for as many as possable without a entitlement society but I also want negative stimulus for having any children at all because the population needs to be drasticly reduced but with the highest quality of life per individual.
Only when a high ratio of wilderness and then rural area to surburban then urban hub is achieved can a biowaste/passive renewable localized energy/infrastructure happen.
There is no such responsibility, either to breed or to do something in its stead just because others made a different choice. A benefit of not breeding is having more time to work. Facts aren't always fair. People have to choose between kids or more money, which would make them happier?
I find that even though I've chosen not to breed genetically, I'd hope that I sometimes influence the world a bit memetically instead, sharing/spreading what I feel are good ideas, and speaking against bad ones.
As a childfree person, I think one of the nice things to have would be an amount of personal time you could take off the job that was equivalent to maternity/paternity leave. It'd kick in after, say, maybe a year on the job or something, long when you're past that point of 'nah, this isn't for me - I think I'm gonna go do something else'. BUT, anyone who takes even part of the paternity/maternity leave can't have the personal leave, too, on top of it - make sure it's not stackable.
@thecryptqueen Non-stacking leave. I like a lot. We would need to get employers to look past their bottom line. I assume many would rather have you get what you get now for personal leave and not give you more.
If we could be more like France in this matter it would work in the US. Other countries try hard to make sure you take your leave. that might deal with the employer issue I just brought up.
@alowlyapprentice Well, you have to figure, if I know I've got a good break coming to me and I'm not being (essentially) discriminating against because I prefer my womb to be unoccupied, then I'll be happy to work my ass off. As it stands, somehow it seems like those with kids are more important in the pecking order, even if they do the exact same job as me, just because they've sprogged, which isn't cool.
@thecryptqueen I've seen varying types of desire expressed by employers when it comes to spawning humans. One where having a family is desired and one where it isn't. You can be beholden to an employer and might be considered stable if you have children. Or you when you don;t have children you are considered flexible with no ties or commitments that might prevent you from going the extra mile.
One of the issues with taking up slack when someone goes on leave is the fact that employers keep the bare minimum number of people to run the business so as to maximize profits. It's much harder to take up someone else's slack when you're already doing your original job and those of other people who'd been downsized. Parents have extra expenses, and someone has to do it, so I don't think I'd mind the extra burden if it's bearable and they don't overdo it. Overpopulation is a problem.
@thethegreenmachine There's also retirement to think about. All other things being equal, I think someone with children and grandchildren is better cared for, so the one without kids needs more money or outside help.
@alowlyapprentice Your parents' income determines how much financial aid you get for college. Maybe your childrens' income should determine how much social security (or any other governmental old age benifits) you receive.
It is a complex question, and I can guarantee there will be an ugly response that grows along with the conversation. For some, the idea of giving money to people not to procreate conjures up all sorts of NWO genocide/satanistic rebellion against the will of god type things. @.x;
@stealthbadger Oh Gee! I wasn't even going there(besides you know I don't trust the government. It's run by humans and humans will fuck you every time). What if you take, satan,the NWO, eugenics, god, and current population size out of the question?
If the wage gap persist through the future but is not based on gender, does that make it ok?
Btw, it's not pay to not procreate, but the idea was paying those that spend more time in the work environment.
@alowlyapprentice I wouldn't say anything makes it ok, it's just interesting that these questions usually get raised in the societies least able to handle them. :D
The issue isn't a wage gap, the issue is equal working hours despite demands of family life. The solutions are many and the most striking thing is why some solutions are rejected, not why others are pursued.
@AussieGriffin If it is a job with a salary there may be a gap. There might not be. I was trying to get people to discuss what hey think our obligations are and aren't. Any existing gaps are changing.
Yes, the solutions are many and varied. I would like to here of some new ones.
@alowlyapprentice Only one solution I rely on isn't new: "Don't to others what you would NEVER have done to yourself." it's just that easy. Do you want to earn less and have a working situation that sees the people you care about as a penalty to others?
@baghead777 No this isn't Russia. Do you think communal values such as looking after the neighbors kids and what not can be extended to the workplace in some way?
Considering your statement, I've been in some work situations where an extended leave might prevent someone from advancing or having a particular type of client. As things stand today many would complain that they deserve the same opportunity in spite of not having a persistent presence.
I think you are making a great video and discussion, and I think it should remain progressive, not continue to keep these stereotypes or to see women as baby factories or "breeders" that is a term used for breeding animals.
@rosskay Thanks. I just wanted to see what people thought. Maybe somebody has something new to share or an insight many don't think of.
But what I was putting forth was that in the future I don't see it being a gender issue. The focus of who does what and earns how much in the work place will shift from gendered perspectives. From this I wanted to touch on a broader topic of obligation to humanity with respect to a more personal form of support in the workplace.
Without socialized childcare and having more maternity/paternity leave in it's place will reinforce the idea and notion that women are expected to have children, (all of them at all times) or that care and rearing would rest entirely on them. This is where much of this sexism towards women and those who "choose to breed or not to breed" face. Socialized childcare would respect both people's life choices. Calling it "breeding" is very dehumanizing and sexist, btw.
@rosskay Sorry that the word breeding has a negative connotation. Like we re animals or something. That was not my intent. I specifically mentioned men as well as women because I think it is obvious more and more men are taking paternity leave. There are also single parents out there.
But what is the obligation of those that are not having children? I can make a case for self interest in having well reared and well adjusted youth and eventually adults in our society.
@alowlyapprentice "But what is the obligation of those that are not having children? I can make a case for self interest in having well reared and well adjusted youth and eventually adults in our society." why should those who don't have children have any obligation? socialized childcar would solve that problem, as people who want to take care of children would get involved in that, again, it respects both people's life choices. its pretty simple.
@rosskay In East Germany the wage gap between men and women is almost 0. In West Germany it's almost 20-25% (or more). The difference between them? E. Germany has a large network of affordable childcare centers all over so women don't have to choose between having kids and working. This pretty much proves you are right re: socialized childcare. I had a video about it way back when.
it was held against me in many circumstances with employment because I don't want children. You get stamped for that ... you know, the biological clock thing. there was an interesting survey done on this with employers... I'm going to see if I can find it... I think the people who choose not to have children, specifically women, will suffer consequences in the work force...
@rosskay Yes. I assume those consequences are social in nature. I have seen environments where having a family was used as an indicator of reliability and thought to make an employee beholden to their employer.
@alowlyapprentice there is a significant amount of shaming towards women who say they don't want children, I experienced it in multiple realms, from family, coworkers, colleagues, and even stupid dating websites... guys will flip out over this one a lot, even if they don't want children themselves. I was tempted to make YOUtube videos of these guys too... unebelievable, entertaining too.
I think one would be hard-pressed to argue a moral obligation in this circumstance.
Do you have the right to demand fair pay? Sure, but you don't have the right to GET fair pay. You have the right to quit if you're not happy with the pay that you get.
...interesting point. The issue here is whether or not procreation is a good thing for society. On the one hand, larger populations are harder to sustain, but at the same time, so are older populations, and for retirement systems to function, we need a continuous influx of young workers.
@alowlyapprentice Anarchists still pay taxes. We all pay taxes, if we don't like what they go to, we protest against them. That's all we can do, and still have a society that functions. Otherwise everyone would claim to be anarchist, just to get out of taxes.
I'd have different answers to the question depending on the circumstances. If it's just a matter of picking up the slack and taking on some extra tasks due to the temporary absence of a co-worker I don't think that's a matter of moral responsibility. Depending on your work environment and co-workers, filling in where needed could be part of the job anyway. I've always worked in manufacturing where compensating for the absence of co-workers (for any number of reasons) was routine and expected.
@Robobubbacunta I agree. However, some reasons for leaving work early or not being present have higher priority than others. Even though you and I may agree on supporting those that choose to procreate, is the knowledge of our picking up the slack some form or moral compensation knowing we are doing our part to help?
The word right, in this example, is tricky. I would say you have a valid reason to exercise your rationale, to demand or argue for wages that match your work output. Now the person having children has a right to use their bodies in this way. They have a right to breed, assuming no justification can be provided that would revoke this. They do not have a right to expect that you would not be compensated for their choice. My question is, how does one decide what their time is worth here?
@EuphoricImpact ***Correction** My question is, how does one decide what your time is worth here? Do you just assume that what you would have been paid hourly is appropriate? Good video.
@EuphoricImpact (2) But am I obligated to support my species? And if I am, do I get compensated. Many parents attest to the joy of having a child and raising them successfully. Can we consider that a form of intangible compensation that is to be subsidized. I don't know. It's a complex social structure and set of rules and allowances for procreation. I wonder what the anti-natalists think.
@alowlyapprentice "But am I obligated to support my species?"~alowlyapprentice Imo, it depends on how you define obligation...is this a personal relation to a tie of indebtedness or is this some social contract (force) that you find binding? I would say you are only as obligated as you allow. This is assuming that this expectation was not discussed or implied at the time of hiring. I do not think you are however, assuming no such conversation took place.
@EuphoricImpact If it was a matter of discussion then it depends on the worth you calculate (assuming you would not be penalized for not doing so) on appearance or cost of possible lost of respect from fellow co-workers. It really seems like compensating for peer pressure in this case...so
@alowlyapprentice Sorry I read this question one way, and I think you meant it another. That is tricky apprentice..."obligated to support your species"...what do you mean by that Willis?
@EuphoricImpact The questions ultimately lead one to consider if the very dint of being human contains an inherent obligation to humanity as a species. If this is true or just socially inculcated and accepted, is it ever mitigated by other factors? If you make a contribution large or small or provide support on a more personal level such as in a work environment can you still make claims for compensation when you agree to support procreation of the species?
@alowlyapprentice Thank you for replying. Now that I have clarity...Questions 1 & 2) I do not know. I need to explore my initial thought compared to my value structure, reasoning and belief systems. This is the only way I can be honest. This may take a reasonable chunk of time. I will get back to you. Peace
@alowlyapprentice "contains an inherent obligation to humanity as a species. If this is true or just socially inculcated and accepted (...)" socialised childcare, would solve all these issues. Those who want nothing to do with rearing don't have to suffer for it, and neither do parents who need the support.
@EuphoricImpact (1) Good question. I guess you would first factor in the actual wage or salary. Then what is the time worth for raising a child or procreating. And in that there are two kinds of worth. A tangible economic value and the intangible value of the creation of a life and the value of human potential.
@xxxild I'm not sure what you would do nowadays as say, a waitress. If it is is a PBH environment is the owner of the business picking up the slack or is that owner distributing the cost of the leave amongst the workers given an average rate of people taking leave.
I hate questions like this because to me there is no right answer.
I want economic egalitarianism for as many as possable without a entitlement society but I also want negative stimulus for having any children at all because the population needs to be drasticly reduced but with the highest quality of life per individual.
Only when a high ratio of wilderness and then rural area to surburban then urban hub is achieved can a biowaste/passive renewable localized energy/infrastructure happen.
Curas1 1 month ago
There is no such responsibility, either to breed or to do something in its stead just because others made a different choice. A benefit of not breeding is having more time to work. Facts aren't always fair. People have to choose between kids or more money, which would make them happier?
I find that even though I've chosen not to breed genetically, I'd hope that I sometimes influence the world a bit memetically instead, sharing/spreading what I feel are good ideas, and speaking against bad ones.
ScentedNectar 1 month ago
As a childfree person, I think one of the nice things to have would be an amount of personal time you could take off the job that was equivalent to maternity/paternity leave. It'd kick in after, say, maybe a year on the job or something, long when you're past that point of 'nah, this isn't for me - I think I'm gonna go do something else'. BUT, anyone who takes even part of the paternity/maternity leave can't have the personal leave, too, on top of it - make sure it's not stackable.
thecryptqueen 1 month ago
@thecryptqueen Non-stacking leave. I like a lot. We would need to get employers to look past their bottom line. I assume many would rather have you get what you get now for personal leave and not give you more.
If we could be more like France in this matter it would work in the US. Other countries try hard to make sure you take your leave. that might deal with the employer issue I just brought up.
However, in WoW I dislike non-stacking buffs. XD
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Well, you have to figure, if I know I've got a good break coming to me and I'm not being (essentially) discriminating against because I prefer my womb to be unoccupied, then I'll be happy to work my ass off. As it stands, somehow it seems like those with kids are more important in the pecking order, even if they do the exact same job as me, just because they've sprogged, which isn't cool.
thecryptqueen 1 month ago
@thecryptqueen I've seen varying types of desire expressed by employers when it comes to spawning humans. One where having a family is desired and one where it isn't. You can be beholden to an employer and might be considered stable if you have children. Or you when you don;t have children you are considered flexible with no ties or commitments that might prevent you from going the extra mile.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
If only one parent had to work, I think this would be less of an issue.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
One of the issues with taking up slack when someone goes on leave is the fact that employers keep the bare minimum number of people to run the business so as to maximize profits. It's much harder to take up someone else's slack when you're already doing your original job and those of other people who'd been downsized. Parents have extra expenses, and someone has to do it, so I don't think I'd mind the extra burden if it's bearable and they don't overdo it. Overpopulation is a problem.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@thethegreenmachine There's also retirement to think about. All other things being equal, I think someone with children and grandchildren is better cared for, so the one without kids needs more money or outside help.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@thethegreenmachine That is something I ponder often. I'm an only child with 2 sets of aging parents. O_o
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Wow, that could get tricky.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Your parents' income determines how much financial aid you get for college. Maybe your childrens' income should determine how much social security (or any other governmental old age benifits) you receive.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
A guaranteed annual income would do an awful lot to mitigate the wage gap and the pregnancy tax.
That and we can't really talk about wages without talking about workplace fatalities.
valeriereified 1 month ago
It is a complex question, and I can guarantee there will be an ugly response that grows along with the conversation. For some, the idea of giving money to people not to procreate conjures up all sorts of NWO genocide/satanistic rebellion against the will of god type things. @.x;
Ah, humans are so crazee. :D
stealthbadger 1 month ago
@stealthbadger Oh Gee! I wasn't even going there(besides you know I don't trust the government. It's run by humans and humans will fuck you every time). What if you take, satan,the NWO, eugenics, god, and current population size out of the question?
If the wage gap persist through the future but is not based on gender, does that make it ok?
Btw, it's not pay to not procreate, but the idea was paying those that spend more time in the work environment.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice I wouldn't say anything makes it ok, it's just interesting that these questions usually get raised in the societies least able to handle them. :D
stealthbadger 1 month ago
You should make more videos, I think.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord I plan to. I have ideas.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
The issue isn't a wage gap, the issue is equal working hours despite demands of family life. The solutions are many and the most striking thing is why some solutions are rejected, not why others are pursued.
A.G.
AussieGriffin 1 month ago
@AussieGriffin If it is a job with a salary there may be a gap. There might not be. I was trying to get people to discuss what hey think our obligations are and aren't. Any existing gaps are changing.
Yes, the solutions are many and varied. I would like to here of some new ones.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Only one solution I rely on isn't new: "Don't to others what you would NEVER have done to yourself." it's just that easy. Do you want to earn less and have a working situation that sees the people you care about as a penalty to others?
A.G.
AussieGriffin 1 month ago
Sorry.. I was confused.. I posted three times..
baghead777 1 month ago
@baghead777 That's o.k.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Survival of the fittest. Morality is subjective. I help people I like. Not everybody. You reap what you sow.
baghead777 1 month ago
You should not be paid for work you don't do... My parents had four kids.. They got by..
baghead777 1 month ago
It's okay if you keep your job while you are having a child.... This isn't Russia. You don't get paid. My parents had four kids... They got by..
baghead777 1 month ago
@baghead777 No this isn't Russia. Do you think communal values such as looking after the neighbors kids and what not can be extended to the workplace in some way?
Considering your statement, I've been in some work situations where an extended leave might prevent someone from advancing or having a particular type of client. As things stand today many would complain that they deserve the same opportunity in spite of not having a persistent presence.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
I think you are making a great video and discussion, and I think it should remain progressive, not continue to keep these stereotypes or to see women as baby factories or "breeders" that is a term used for breeding animals.
rosskay 1 month ago
@rosskay Thanks. I just wanted to see what people thought. Maybe somebody has something new to share or an insight many don't think of.
But what I was putting forth was that in the future I don't see it being a gender issue. The focus of who does what and earns how much in the work place will shift from gendered perspectives. From this I wanted to touch on a broader topic of obligation to humanity with respect to a more personal form of support in the workplace.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
Without socialized childcare and having more maternity/paternity leave in it's place will reinforce the idea and notion that women are expected to have children, (all of them at all times) or that care and rearing would rest entirely on them. This is where much of this sexism towards women and those who "choose to breed or not to breed" face. Socialized childcare would respect both people's life choices. Calling it "breeding" is very dehumanizing and sexist, btw.
rosskay 1 month ago
@rosskay Sorry that the word breeding has a negative connotation. Like we re animals or something. That was not my intent. I specifically mentioned men as well as women because I think it is obvious more and more men are taking paternity leave. There are also single parents out there.
But what is the obligation of those that are not having children? I can make a case for self interest in having well reared and well adjusted youth and eventually adults in our society.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice "But what is the obligation of those that are not having children? I can make a case for self interest in having well reared and well adjusted youth and eventually adults in our society." why should those who don't have children have any obligation? socialized childcar would solve that problem, as people who want to take care of children would get involved in that, again, it respects both people's life choices. its pretty simple.
rosskay 1 month ago
@rosskay In East Germany the wage gap between men and women is almost 0. In West Germany it's almost 20-25% (or more). The difference between them? E. Germany has a large network of affordable childcare centers all over so women don't have to choose between having kids and working. This pretty much proves you are right re: socialized childcare. I had a video about it way back when.
binhthanhvo 1 month ago
Comment removed
rosskay 1 month ago
Comment removed
rosskay 1 month ago
Comment removed
rosskay 1 month ago
it was held against me in many circumstances with employment because I don't want children. You get stamped for that ... you know, the biological clock thing. there was an interesting survey done on this with employers... I'm going to see if I can find it... I think the people who choose not to have children, specifically women, will suffer consequences in the work force...
rosskay 1 month ago
@rosskay Yes. I assume those consequences are social in nature. I have seen environments where having a family was used as an indicator of reliability and thought to make an employee beholden to their employer.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice there is a significant amount of shaming towards women who say they don't want children, I experienced it in multiple realms, from family, coworkers, colleagues, and even stupid dating websites... guys will flip out over this one a lot, even if they don't want children themselves. I was tempted to make YOUtube videos of these guys too... unebelievable, entertaining too.
rosskay 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice men and women alike shame ... but those who get it, are often other women who don't want them
rosskay 1 month ago
I think one would be hard-pressed to argue a moral obligation in this circumstance.
Do you have the right to demand fair pay? Sure, but you don't have the right to GET fair pay. You have the right to quit if you're not happy with the pay that you get.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut I hear ya. Some may argue that is a libertarian stance on the topic.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Pfft, labels.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut ®
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
...interesting point. The issue here is whether or not procreation is a good thing for society. On the one hand, larger populations are harder to sustain, but at the same time, so are older populations, and for retirement systems to function, we need a continuous influx of young workers.
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael What if someone doesn't think it is a good thing? Are they obligated? What do you think an antinatalist might say about this?
Even if they do feel obligated, do they get compensated for their contribution, or is knowing you contributed compensation enough?
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Anarchists still pay taxes. We all pay taxes, if we don't like what they go to, we protest against them. That's all we can do, and still have a society that functions. Otherwise everyone would claim to be anarchist, just to get out of taxes.
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
I'd have different answers to the question depending on the circumstances. If it's just a matter of picking up the slack and taking on some extra tasks due to the temporary absence of a co-worker I don't think that's a matter of moral responsibility. Depending on your work environment and co-workers, filling in where needed could be part of the job anyway. I've always worked in manufacturing where compensating for the absence of co-workers (for any number of reasons) was routine and expected.
Robobubbacunta 1 month ago
@Robobubbacunta I agree. However, some reasons for leaving work early or not being present have higher priority than others. Even though you and I may agree on supporting those that choose to procreate, is the knowledge of our picking up the slack some form or moral compensation knowing we are doing our part to help?
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
The word right, in this example, is tricky. I would say you have a valid reason to exercise your rationale, to demand or argue for wages that match your work output. Now the person having children has a right to use their bodies in this way. They have a right to breed, assuming no justification can be provided that would revoke this. They do not have a right to expect that you would not be compensated for their choice. My question is, how does one decide what their time is worth here?
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@EuphoricImpact ***Correction** My question is, how does one decide what your time is worth here? Do you just assume that what you would have been paid hourly is appropriate? Good video.
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@EuphoricImpact (2) But am I obligated to support my species? And if I am, do I get compensated. Many parents attest to the joy of having a child and raising them successfully. Can we consider that a form of intangible compensation that is to be subsidized. I don't know. It's a complex social structure and set of rules and allowances for procreation. I wonder what the anti-natalists think.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice "But am I obligated to support my species?"~alowlyapprentice Imo, it depends on how you define obligation...is this a personal relation to a tie of indebtedness or is this some social contract (force) that you find binding? I would say you are only as obligated as you allow. This is assuming that this expectation was not discussed or implied at the time of hiring. I do not think you are however, assuming no such conversation took place.
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@EuphoricImpact If it was a matter of discussion then it depends on the worth you calculate (assuming you would not be penalized for not doing so) on appearance or cost of possible lost of respect from fellow co-workers. It really seems like compensating for peer pressure in this case...so
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Sorry I read this question one way, and I think you meant it another. That is tricky apprentice..."obligated to support your species"...what do you mean by that Willis?
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@EuphoricImpact The questions ultimately lead one to consider if the very dint of being human contains an inherent obligation to humanity as a species. If this is true or just socially inculcated and accepted, is it ever mitigated by other factors? If you make a contribution large or small or provide support on a more personal level such as in a work environment can you still make claims for compensation when you agree to support procreation of the species?
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Thank you for replying. Now that I have clarity...Questions 1 & 2) I do not know. I need to explore my initial thought compared to my value structure, reasoning and belief systems. This is the only way I can be honest. This may take a reasonable chunk of time. I will get back to you. Peace
EuphoricImpact 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice "contains an inherent obligation to humanity as a species. If this is true or just socially inculcated and accepted (...)" socialised childcare, would solve all these issues. Those who want nothing to do with rearing don't have to suffer for it, and neither do parents who need the support.
rosskay 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice I don't think one should be taxed for enjoying what they do.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@EuphoricImpact (1) Good question. I guess you would first factor in the actual wage or salary. Then what is the time worth for raising a child or procreating. And in that there are two kinds of worth. A tangible economic value and the intangible value of the creation of a life and the value of human potential.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
You know I find this topic interesting. I would only add we'd have to still address the over all wage gap to include non corporate types of work.
xxxild 1 month ago
@xxxild I'm not sure what you would do nowadays as say, a waitress. If it is is a PBH environment is the owner of the business picking up the slack or is that owner distributing the cost of the leave amongst the workers given an average rate of people taking leave.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago