Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cdc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

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

#161

Post by crankylinuxuser »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #158
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you missed the part that I said I was working at Walmart and got fired. This is your typical grunt job, not an IT position with respect and dignity. I wasn't rolling in dough prior to it, and had even less afterward. The thought that I'd be able to shop around with lawyers and schedule a consultation, and all that while I'm scrambling for looking for another job... Well, it speaks to many people here that do ha…

I am sorry that you had this experience. But manual labour is dangerous and unfair. It’s worse in Ag field and even children and families who live near large farming communities are affected by drift and the spraying and watershed poisoning and general environmental degradation. This is why we must automate and get machines to do the dangerous jobs. Yes, that will be a post labour world but that’s easier to figure ou…

I thank you for your sympathy. But in a way, I'm glad I was able to experience this. I wouldn't have gained the perspective of this had I not experienced it for myself. I know many here on HN certainly haven't.

I've lived involuntarily homeless for a time. I've been on food stamps. I've been injured and fired on a job. I've had dozens of crummy bad jobs; no benefits, don't care if youre sick, dangerous. You're a "piece" of work, and treated as such. You're a less-than-nothing, because you are who you are.

And then there's IT work. I've finally been able to claw up in the IT world as a systems admin. And the treatment I 'suffer' (laugh) are things like good insurance, PTO, actual honest to goodness sick days - and I'm actually believed, free coffee/espresso/lacrois, snack plates during lunch. And we have at least 2 catered lunches a month. Recently, my employer also sent me to DerbyCon. $1200 right there. Covered.

IT is radically different compared to what most employees go through. We are treated with respect and dignity, and compensated fairly with our salary and perks. Those who serve us when we go into bookstores, supermarkets, restaurants, and more are kept at the basic maintenance level of living - and that is if everything goes right. It usually doesn't. Cars break down; bodies break down; emergencies occur; accidental pregnancies happen; life happens.

Yes, I am a socialist, and also see automation as a solution. And also, unlike the propaganda, there's enough resources that we all can live decently compensated and respected lives. We're not quite there with 100% automation, and still need human labor for a bit... But there's no reason (other than greed) for barely-but-not-quite maintenance wages.

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

#162

Post by NoRagrets »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #161
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry that you had this experience. But manual labour is dangerous and unfair. It’s worse in Ag field and even children and families who live near large farming communities are affected by drift and the spraying and watershed poisoning and general environmental degradation. This is why we must automate and get machines to do the dangerous jobs. Yes, that will be a post labour world but that’s easier to figure ou…

I thank you for your sympathy. But in a way, I'm glad I was able to experience this. I wouldn't have gained the perspective of this had I not experienced it for myself. I know many here on HN certainly haven't. I've lived involuntarily homeless for a time. I've been on food stamps. I've been injured and fired on a job. I've had dozens of crummy bad jobs; no benefits, don't care if youre sick, dangerous. You're a "pie…

I am not a socialist. I believe that our lives are better because of capitalism and there is a space where there is a third system..that is neither pure capitalism or pure socialism. I also don’t beleive that resources are unlimited or that everyone has an equal claim to it. Unless we drastically curtail human population numbers. We do live upon a resource constrained rock. All ‘groups’ must have equal claim..which means non human species and nature and habitat have equal claim to natural resources that we monopolise and appropriate. I also believe that some jobs shouldn’t be done by human beings at all. Freedom is foremost. Dignity is next but if we give people true freedom, everything else will follow. That is freedom from exploitation and also freedom from coercion. I detest poor people exploited just as much as rich people being shamed. One day, jobs will disappear as will wages. What then? We have to plan for such a future. We have to create new models of relationships and how we interact with others.

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

#164

Post by dang »

StreamBright wrote: post #36
eecc wrote: post #6

What sort of failed state does not mobilize to support and ease the pain of fellow humans living through such hardship. By the way, “poor life choices” is not a valid argument. Edit: ok, in view of the objections regarding the technical definiton of “failed state” let me reword it to “failed society”. It is closer to my own objection anyway

Thanks but I do not need any support from any state. I can manage my and my children's life just fine without them.

Would you please not take HN threads further into flamewar? This is the kind of generic, ideological, inflammatory subthread we're trying most to avoid here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#165

Post by dsfyu404ed »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #86
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The second amendment is not protection from crime If you are made a victim of property crime (i.e. most nonviolent crime) there is no good solution if the property can't easily be returned. Social standards and possible punishment is what prevents that kind of crime and even it doesn't do a very good job. > at best it’s protection from crime that presents an active danger to your safety. Well that's more than you ca…

> If you are made a victim of property crime (i.e. most nonviolent crime) there is no good solution if the property can't easily be returned. Do you not have home & contents insurance in the US?

We do but generally speaking it's not worth it.

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

#166

Post by grigjd3 »

rayiner wrote: post #149
grigjd3 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very fortunate that your parents could help you raise your first kid. That is not something universally available and my first year as a parent was very rough.

It was fortunate, but I don’t think it was particularly fortunate. The average American lives 18 miles from their mother: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f... . The reason I bring up grandparents is because OP’s post struck me as pretty ignorant of the circumstances of the people (disproportionately lower income), who are actually having kids in this country: > The data reveal a country of…

I'm not saying having kids is unnatural or anything, but I'd have been damned grateful to have a single night off every eight weeks after my child was born. Having capable grandparents around is a terrific benefit. You're right that even just a little help would have made a world of difference, but my wife and I didn't have that.

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

#167

Post by allannienhuis »

kortilla wrote: post #98
allannienhuis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

1) There are many very stable nations that have had long-term policies of treating their disadvantaged much better than you seem to be proposing, so this point is demonstratively false. Why do you believe it's true?

2) There are many people in every country that aren't economically productive - the elderly, the very young, the chronically ill, etc. Most countries manage to afford to take care of these people in some manner without collapse. It's possible because technology has driven our average productivity extremely high in historical terms, and there are more than enough resources available to take care of them. Doing so doesn't cause those societies to collapse. I'd suggest it makes them more stable when fewer people are desperately poor.

I'm not saying you're arguing that those example groups of people don't deserve assistance. But you do seem to be saying that _some_ economically unproductive people shouldn't be helped to survive. What is special about the second group of people? Why does helping them somehow lead to an unsustainable society when supporting other groups doesn't?

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

#168

Post by allannienhuis »

mruts wrote: post #148
allannienhuis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe my free-market opinions are in the best interest of the people. Of course, it’s in some people’s interests (those who produce significant real value) more than others (those who produce little value) but I still think it’s in the best interest of everyone Also, I would rather keep my money and not redistribute it to the bottomfeeders.

> Also, I would rather keep my money and not redistribute it to the bottomfeeders.

That's such an horrible, ugly, selfish way of thinking. How can you sleep at night?

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

#169

Post by allannienhuis »

School-Cotton wrote: post #152
allannienhuis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So it's ok with you if companies treat people like crap This is a severe misstatement of that person’s argument. Believing that there is no better alternative isn’t the same as believing something is good.

I didn't say he thought it was 'good'. I restated his rhetorical question as a statement: that he was ok with the tradeoff ( poor working conditions for more jobs ). I think it's pretty clear that's what he was saying and I doubt he'd disagree. I am trying to point out that there ARE better alternatives. We've been making a lot of progress in that direction for years, so it's clear that it's an option if we choose it.

I'm honestly trying to understand why people would suggest that its ok to accept that tradeoff. I get why in any individual case someone might choose to make that decision - they may truly have no other options available to them, and the alternatives are much worse (real hunger, homelessness). I just don't understand why people seem to promote that situation as a political position - that somehow as a society that's the best we can do, or it's the best policy to allow it.

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

#170

Post by jelliclesfarm »

grigjd3 wrote: post #166
rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was fortunate, but I don’t think it was particularly fortunate. The average American lives 18 miles from their mother: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f... . The reason I bring up grandparents is because OP’s post struck me as pretty ignorant of the circumstances of the people (disproportionately lower income), who are actually having kids in this country: > The data reveal a country of…

I'm not saying having kids is unnatural or anything, but I'd have been damned grateful to have a single night off every eight weeks after my child was born. Having capable grandparents around is a terrific benefit. You're right that even just a little help would have made a world of difference, but my wife and I didn't have that.

I was raised by my grandmother with a brood of cousins and all her children lived under the same roof. I did not know that nuclear families were the norm and that not every family was as large as ours until I was well into my teens. I think that being raised the way I was had a very positive impact on me. It wasn’t just having so many adults around but also having cousins who were sibling like and of various ages as peers to learn from and also to teach... Plus there was the ‘grandmother effect’.

I had always considered myself as a rather staid somewhat conservative person with orthodox views of my own volition. Until I realized that ‘feminists’ considered my views as fringe. That’s the ‘grandmother effect’..a matriarchal upbringing is entirely different from a feminist upbringing. The former is about freedom/owning power and the latter is about competition/struggle(in my understanding)

Every family needs a support system. And every human person does NOT have to be a parent. Parenting is a big scary and A Very Important Job.

I am reminded of Robert Wright’s Moral Animal where he beckons altruism and the chapter on kinship. That’s the ‘grandmother effect’.

It’s a topic worthy of a proper thesis.

Post reply on HN