Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#91

Post by Tepix » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #78

School-Cotton wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the technology sector in the US and my experience is exactly the same as yours. > However, given the American exceptionalism showing up in the thread, I'm going to wager that this probably going to see some vitriolic response. I actually don't believe in American exceptionalism at all. Nor European exceptionalism. But I am fed up with people from the most developed part of the world acting shocked and moral…

It's not all that comparable. U.S. GDP per capita is $60,000. France is $43,500 (PPP). (In terms of GDP per capita, the U.S. is richer than France by about the same ratio as France is richer than Lithuania or Estonia.) Average net financial wealth per household is almost 3x higher in the U.S. than in France, and 2x higher than the OECD average.

What's net financial wealth? 40% of U.S. adults don't have enough savings to cover a mere $400 emergency.

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#92

Post by Tepix » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #79

renholder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upboat for rationalisation. Also, from the European perspective (and specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with), taking sick leave to take care of a child at home isn't a thing, whatsoever. You would just send an email to your team saying that you're sorry but you're working from home because your kid is sick and that would be the end of it. No compulsion to take…

It seems that your argument directly supports the headline claim. How about European low-income people? Low-income people work mostly in retail, transports and logistics, cleaning, construction, and physical jobs. They can't work from home.

They can stay at home, take care of their kids and receive money from the national health insurance (that's how it's in Germany).

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#93

Post by allannienhuis » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #81

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the converse... I'm an American whom lives in Indiana. Let me share my experiences. I worked at Starbucks for 5 years. When I got sick, I showed up to work. I know I worked while having the flu, and making drinks for people. If we didn't show up, our hours for next week would be messed up badly and intentionally. We would go from 35 hours to 15 hours, or we'd be scheduled "clopens" - close at midnight, and open at…

Well would you prefer to have a crappy job or no job at all? Don’t labor under the assumption that government mandates don’t affect the decisions of businesses.

So it's ok with you if companies treat people like crap, because the alternative is fewer jobs? By that logic, it's ok for companies to kill off a few of their workers through horrible safety practices, than not offering any jobs at all, because ++ jobs is more important than anything. We've spent the last couple of centuries trying to correct that line of thinking, why hang on to it?

The alternative to crappy business practices isn't people starving in the streets because of lack of jobs. The alternative is that the people with excess resources distribute some of those resources to others that would otherwise starve.

There are many nations out there with working systems that don't accept that sort of abuse of it's workers - why do people insist on choosing ideologies that are so obviously not in the interests of the majority of the people?

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#94

Post by nabla9 » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #92

nabla9 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that your argument directly supports the headline claim. How about European low-income people? Low-income people work mostly in retail, transports and logistics, cleaning, construction, and physical jobs. They can't work from home.

They can stay at home, take care of their kids and receive money from the national health insurance (that's how it's in Germany).

aka. take a leave.

In Germany every employee is entitled to leave of absence if their child is ill - up to a maximum of ten working days per child in the calendar year. Many children are sick more than that.

A doctor’s note from the first day is required. Employees typically receive their full income the first few days taken off, but it varies.

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#95

Post by zanny » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

ses1984 wrote: post #77

rayiner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you had an unplanned pregnancy with a one night stand? What if you live hundreds of miles from your parents? What if your parents aren't with you any more? My point is not that everyone has that support system, but that it doesn't take much support to make having kids workable, and the government can gap-fill for people who don't have intact support structures. Almost 40% of births in the U.S. each year are…

>My point is not that everyone has that support system, but that it doesn't take much I vehemently disagree with this. Not sure how we could continue to discuss if we can't see eye to eye on this basic point. >Telling people they shouldn't have kids--which would end up as telling poor people and minorities that they can't afford kids--isn't a replacement for offering support such as childcare. Who said we should be s…

This mindset is crucial. It doesn't make much to meet the bare minimum legal requirements of parenting. It takes a ton to produce thriving minds capable of excelling in the encroaching post-labor reality.

So many people treat parenthood as a checkmark on the mandatory itinerary of life and once they check it off they just "eat the cost" and pay to have the kids taken care of.

Both those parents, and the poor parents who cannot afford the state / capitalist solutions to child rearing, are being negligent. Kids need familial bonds and constant social contact with their kin group to thrive. You don't drop them at random daycares every day for eight hours starting at six months and produce healthy progeny.

Raising kids is at least a part time job for both parents. Not in monetary expenses, in time. Putting in less than that at any point before pubescence can be catastrophic to the growth of the child. But as a society, because that cost is for most people untenable, they still want to "fulfill their obligation" to past generations, and have kids they cannot adequately allocate time for and end up producing descendants who suffer throughout life for it.

It is an absolute real conversation that needs to be had, that the true cost of parenthood is astronomical in todays society, and that almost nobody is in a financial position to fulfill that obligation such that they aren't risking harm to the child. We haven't had an adequate availability of time on the part of both parents to raise their children since 80% of the population were agrarian farmers* and we have seen rampant expanse of mental illness and maladjustment to society for it ever since.

* of course said farmers were very rarely good parents. Using your kids as hard labor from a young age, using violence as a coercion tactic against them, treating them like property and an investment rather than people, not feeding their curiosity or inquisitiveness out of your own ignorance and simple mindedness taught by your parents. It was a real mess that compulsory public education in part did a lot to stop, but that doesn't preclude the availability of parents and family being so critical to the well-being of young minds while also being absent from contemporary society for the vast majority of children.

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#96

Post by dfilppi » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

So high income parents with no sick leave don't send their kids?

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#97

Post by dfilppi » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #80

renholder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upboat for rationalisation. Also, from the European perspective (and specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with), taking sick leave to take care of a child at home isn't a thing, whatsoever. You would just send an email to your team saying that you're sorry but you're working from home because your kid is sick and that would be the end of it. No compulsion to take…

You can't work from home if you work at a gas station, warehouse, hotel security, etc.

Or if you are a doctor, lawyer, politician, etc..

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#98

Post by kortilla » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #93

mruts wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well would you prefer to have a crappy job or no job at all? Don’t labor under the assumption that government mandates don’t affect the decisions of businesses.

So it's ok with you if companies treat people like crap, because the alternative is fewer jobs? By that logic, it's ok for companies to kill off a few of their workers through horrible safety practices, than not offering any jobs at all, because ++ jobs is more important than anything. We've spent the last couple of centuries trying to correct that line of thinking, why hang on to it? The alternative to crappy busine…

>why do people insist on choosing ideologies that are so obviously not in the interests of the majority of the people?

Because policies that depend on taking from the economically productive to prop up the unproductive eventually become unsustainable.

Does it upset you that people work jobs instead of voting to receive a million USD annual stipend? Would you vote for a policy giving that to every person?

Back to the Walmart story. There is more we aren’t being told. There are thousands of lawyers drooling to take a case against a company the size of Walmart firing people for simply getting hurt due to the company’s incompetence. OP more than likely was at fault for the accident, which would be grounds for termination in most European countries as well.

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#99

Post by cimmanom » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

dfilppi wrote: post #96

So high income parents with no sick leave don't send their kids?

High income parents without sick leave may be able to hire a babysitter. And are far more likely have a job that can be done from home (most "knowledge work") than requiring physical presence (food service, retail, labor). And are more likely to simply have more leverage with their employers / more rainy day resources to be able to insist on taking a day off anyway and swallow whatever the consequences are.

Re: Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

#100

Post by kortilla » Sat, Mar 09, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #72

kbutler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have official paperwork showing you were fired for an injury on the job, lawyers would be happy to do the lawsuit on a contingency basis. It would be a foregone conclusion.

You'd think. But there's no governmental agency or office to assist with these illegal actions. I'm depending on the charity and hope of profit of a lawyer. One attorney I talked with didn't do cases on contingency. Another refused because it was against Walmart. And that was that. Sure, I was wronged. Not a damned thing I can do about it.

You needed to talk to more lawyers. If the case is like you said, it’s open and shut. Walmart gets successfully sued all of the time when they are at fault for workplace accidents.

I personally know of two separate acquaintances’ relatives who were hurt at Walmart, fired, sued with no up front legal fees, and won. One got hit by a parking lot shopping cart train and the other got injured in the mechanic shop.