Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos • Hacker News Board

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#141

Post by PhantomGremlin » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 4:32 AM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #57

_delirium wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole thing is completely self-inflicted. No, it's inflicted by a broken society. In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living. This allows both a flexible economic system (entrepreneurship, job-changing, etc.) and family life to coexist: your company going bankrupt does not mean your kid can't attend school or eat. The American solution seems to…

"No, it's inflicted by a broken society." No, it's not. The broken society didn't make the woman pregnant and give birth. Also, 'broken' sounds really melodramatic. "In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living." Is having and maintaining a Ferrari a basic standard of living? No? Well, that's how expensive kids are, no, they're even more expensive. Tha…

Thanks for sticking to your guns.

I didn't have children until my 40's (admittedly, that's probably kind of too late). Why? Because I wanted to have a stable marital and financial situation in place for them. If you have no husband and no job, you shouldn't be having children just barely out of your teenage years. Children don't happen by "accident".

And you're very right, nowadays people feel that they're entitled to a Ferrari just for being alive. Our society sure has changed in recent decades.

Bah. Watch me get voted down along with you. I don't care. It needs to be said.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#142

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 4:32 AM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #57

_delirium wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole thing is completely self-inflicted. No, it's inflicted by a broken society. In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living. This allows both a flexible economic system (entrepreneurship, job-changing, etc.) and family life to coexist: your company going bankrupt does not mean your kid can't attend school or eat. The American solution seems to…

"No, it's inflicted by a broken society." No, it's not. The broken society didn't make the woman pregnant and give birth. Also, 'broken' sounds really melodramatic. "In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living." Is having and maintaining a Ferrari a basic standard of living? No? Well, that's how expensive kids are, no, they're even more expensive. Tha…

[deleted]

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#143

Post by PhantomGremlin » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 4:39 AM UTC

apalmer wrote: post #23

Kenji wrote: post #12

Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't have a child if you haven't yet set up a stable environment for them? That includes sorting out your education and jobs.

Yes, this is a true statement. It is also pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand.

How is it irrelevant? Most of the lady's problems were because of her being a young single mother with a very young child. I didn't see the word "rape" in the article, and I assume the pregnancy wasn't an immaculate conception.

Most of her problems are due to this very bad decision on her part.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#144

Post by Maxious » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 6:14 AM UTC

TwiztidK wrote: post #32

fixedd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not.

Or at least compensate employees somehow if their shifts are cut short. Something like a flat-rate $10-20 inconvenience fee for cancelling hours and any additional commute costs (if they have to take the bus instead of getting a ride).

In Australia a casual fast food/takeaway employee gets paid a minimum of 3 hours per shift, even if the shift is cut short. http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-wo...

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#145

Post by normloman » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 3:30 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #86

normloman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you blame minimum wage for this problem if you weren't implying we should reform or abolish it? Also, the process of proposal and rebuttal you describe has another name: Debate. And the constant rebutting is why it works so well. You attack the other side's idea while defending your own and the best ideas survive the process.

"Why would you blame minimum wage for this problem if you weren't implying we should reform or abolish it?" Seriously? It's possible to think that something causes a problem while still thinking that it's a net gain. Is that concept actually foreign to you? Do you truly think that you must either see no faults in something or you must think it should be changed? Debate involves a mutual discussion. The process I desc…

Yeah, I the fact that you could support it as a necessary evil (benefits outweigh the costs) slipped my mind. My bad. I still thought the post heavily implied something needed to be changed about minimum wage.

Debate and argumentation are essentially the same. Debate can imply something formal, and argument can carry a negative connotation. But both are, by definition, adversarial methods of arriving at the truth. They require people to take sides, if just for the sake of argument.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#146

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 4:00 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #119

smtddr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a bunch of people on HN who would say "Yes, people without X amount of money shouldn't be allowed to have children." And I think that's a sad world to be in where income dictates your ability to have kids. I think having kids is a right that one should be able to exercise regardless of income and it is a problem with our society that we cannot support low-income families, not a problem with the low-income p…

It's really complex, and I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call it a right. I also agree that society should be better structured to accomodate and support parenthood. Many European countries are doing it right. What I'm personally ambivalent about is people forcing me to support other peoples' children, when I have delayed having my own children (and I'm in a stable relationship and we both want chi…

It's a right because people can do it, and they would also kill or die to keep doing it. It's that simple. If you tell someone they cannot reproduce, or forcibly sterilize them, they might try to escape your control or kill you.

If you say it is not a right, you are also saying that someone may prevent another from doing it, by force, and en masse. On a large scale, this is a time-shifted equivalent of genocide. So I say procreation is a right, and if you want to limit the exercise of it, you must provide sufficient incentives for that to be done voluntarily.

But while procreation itself is a right, you and your brood of snot-nosed brats shouldn't get automatic additional support from society when you exercise that right irresponsibly. My support has strings attached. Mostly, they are all variants of the "don't be a dick" rule.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#147

Post by zo1 » Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

crpatino wrote: post #133

ars wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his proposal for a company town is that all that stuff is free. Daycare, longings, travel, food, medical care, all free (or more accurately included in your paycheck). The only things that cost are luxuries. Seems to me that would solve the problem you outline.

It sound pretty Utopian to me. The problem with giving full control of the means needed for your own existence to some external entity (even a "Benevolent Tyrant"), is that when that entity begins making unreasonable demands you will be compelled to say "yes" under duress.

Individuals here make it seem as if the inhabitants of this town will be given the choice "work here and take what we give or die/starve/be broke"...as if it's a bad thing. Now, fine, sure, we all want to live in a nice world where people don't need to make such a choice. But we do it all the time when we live life.

Every thing I do, and every choice I make, has an implicit "do this, or you will suffer" rationality behind it. I choose (and other things) to work so I will not suffer, so I can provide for my loved ones and have them not suffer. But you don't see me complaining about being held captive, or being forced to agree to work under duress. Of course not.

"Sometimes I do what I want to. The rest of the time, I do what I have to."

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#148

Post by cmdrfred » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 3:22 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #84

analyst74 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has little to do with minimum wage, it's purely driven by profit incentive. Assume there is no minimum wage, or a really low one, what's to stop them from both paying less, and aggressively trimming the hours?

With no minimum wage, an employer who offers the absolute worst in predictability would have to offer a higher wage than the same sort of work with predictability-as-a-benefit. Similarly, an employer who offers lots of employee-friendly flexibility – you can always leave early, no penalties for refusing an offered shift, etc – could pay less. People then get compensated for what they care most about, not what a legis…

I don't believe there is any job in the united states that should pay less than 8.25 an hour. If it has to do so in order to provide reasonable conditions to employees than that business should not exist.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#149

Post by aianus » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 4:33 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #136

aianus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure men can have children into their 70s. And with $1 million I don't have to raise the kid by myself like normal people. I can use nannies and boarding schools. My parents already gave a standard middle-class upbringing. If I can't do better by my children, what's the point?

> I'm pretty sure men can have children into their 70s. Sometimes, but sperm quality declines, leading to more birth defects and it takes longer to succeed. And a 70 year old is simply not a suitable father. I assume you were planning a may/cecember marriage? Which is pretty cruel to the wife, and to the kids who will loose their father MUCH too early. Kids need their father very much in their 30's. If you are waitin…

I wish I had had money and rich friends as a child instead of love, attention, and approval. YMMV.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#150

Post by aianus » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 4:47 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #137

aianus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they didn't choose to be born so leaving them with the option of killing themselves or spending most of their lives doing things they don't enjoy just to stay alive seems cruel to me. I would hope I could teach them all of those things you outlined and have them be happy and productive on their own terms, not some other rich guy's.

> or spending most of their lives doing things they don't enjoy just to stay alive seems cruel to me. I assume you mean poverty? The parent having money is associated with kids having less money later in life, but it's not the cause of it. If you want them to do things they enjoy give them skills and confidence. If you give them money instead you do them harm. > I would hope I could teach them all of those things you…

You can work hard and be successful at something that's not particularly economically valuable. I happen to enjoy writing software and people happen to want to pay for it but most people's lives (see TFA) consist of doing boring bullshit they hate 40h+ out of the week just to put food on the table. It's an awful waste of human life.

When you have money, you can pursue anything you want indefinitely. Even if it takes you 20 years to become a great painter or writer or bass guitarist, there's no pressure along the way to quit and get a job as a barrista to pay rent.

>I'm very tempted to advise you not to have kids because of your weird views, but I won't, because I suspect you are actually just testing out your views to see what other people think of them.

You have good perception, that's definitely part of it :)

Honestly, I never remember caring whatsoever as a child whether or not my parents spent time with me. I didn't have anything in common with them anyways. A credit card and a new Benz on my 16th birthday, however, would have completely changed my memories of what could have been the best years of my life but which were instead wasted indoors on the internet because I couldn't afford to do anything else.