?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

OK, Somewhat Childfree Rant


MoveOn has spawned "Moms Rising", and it is truly gag worthy, and embodies the entitlement culture that the baby-boom generation is bringing into politics both on the left and the right. Great, just what we needed, another "pro-family" campaign. Let's dance to the right wing tune and make it our own.

Why do only "moms" count? Why are they the only females that should have a voice as they follow the standard life script of reproducing? What about those of us who chose not to be parents, what about those of us who are done raising kids, and don't want to give up the lives that have been (re)gained just so mommies can have more entitlements?

Having kids is a choice, and a significant responsibility, both emotionally and financially. Those who make this choice have no call to demand that those of us who haven't should surrender the fruits of our judgement to "help" them get a bigger piece of the pie. When will these mommies realize that no, you can't have it all - it's a myth - being a parent means less discretionary income, less free time, and slower advancement at work because of needing to divide focus.

When these Motherhood Manifesto idiots realize that feminism is about equality between the genders, including the equal responsibility in raising kids, not about special rights "for mothers only".

See momsrising.org - see what they "demand":
1) Maternity/Paternity leave (have kid, get extra paid time off, screw everyone else)
2) Open flexible work (let the parents skive out early for those ball games, while the rest of us stay and work)
3) TV and after school programs (because "somebody" must entertain the kids when parents don't want to)
4) Healthcare for All Kids (but when they turn 18, tough luck. adults don't count except if they're active parents)
5) Excellent childcare (because unstructured, latchkey kids turn out too damned independent)
6) Realistic and fair wages (parents need more money, because kids are expensive, so pay them better in spite of increased absences)

Ugh. Let's take this one at a time:

M: Maternity/Paternity Leave: Paid family leave for parents after a new child comes into the family.

What about people who have their own illnesses, or a spouse, or domestic partner, or and aging parent, or a disabled sibling?? Do only kids count in their world? This is wrong, and favors parents over others who have similar needs.

O: Open, Flexible Work: Work that allows for both work and family needs. Give parents the ability to structure their work hours and careers in a way that allows them to meet both business and family needs.

Uh, huh. The rest of us can't possibly have non-work needs that count. Only parents need the ability to balance work and family, the rest of us are just here to take up the slack, our lives on hold until we have the sacred children. Never mind we might need to take parents, spouses, partners to the doctor or even pets to the vet. It all must be sacrificed for the children.

T: TV We Choose & Other After-School Programs: Clear and independent universal television rating system that allows for choice in the home. Safe, educational opportunities for children after the school doors close.

Because parents these days can't be bothered to monitor or teach their own get, we have to rate it for them. The children must have "programs" for every single waking moment, lest they be forced to use their creativity and come up with their own entertainment. We must make everything safe and sanitized for the most innocent of children, lest they become corrupted by reality.

H: Healthcare for All Kids: Healthcare for all kids. Provide quality, universal healthcare to all children--and ultimately to all citizens.

Take care of the kids first, and the rest of us as an afterthought. In reality, the most time I've spent uninsured has been as an adult, not as kid. If the kid isn't insured, the parent isn't either, and a medical catastrophe to the parent actually screws them both. Yet another backward priority.

E: Excellent Childcare: Childcare for all kids. Provide quality, affordable childcare to all parents who need it.

Out of whose pocket?? Why, those who don't have kids of course, or have already raised their kids without huge handouts from the government. What happened to the vaunted "extended family"? Are they only good for their tax paying ability? Also, what about government funded elder care, and disability care? Don't adults count, or is it just another boon to those who have *chosen* to reproduce? Why do only parents deserve help?

R: Realistic & Fair Wages: Living wages for mothers and equal pay for equal work.

Another backwards priority. "Living wages" for mothers (only?), but equal pay for equal work? Hey, how about living wages for everyone, and equal pay for equal work? Now, most mothers with their dual responsibilities will still get paid less, because they do paying work less, but that's only fair. Raising children involves sacrifice *by the parents* who chose to have them, not by every Tom, Dick and Harriet that has the misfortune to work with them.

If I work 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, plus come in on weekends and on-call hours, and "mommy" works only 7.5 hours a day and "doesn't do" weekends, then I better get a fatter raise than she does, or I will be looking for another job. Seriously, equal pay for equal work is just that.

Yeah, I get ticked if some guy is doing the same thing I do, and has the same experience level, but gets more money, but that isn't because I'm a mommy, it's because I'm a woman, and there is a difference.

So there we have it, the entire backwards, kid-centered steaming pile of BS. These idiots want me to support this shit, because I know and have a "mother".

Sorry, you just leave too much out, too many out, and demand that everyone else dance to the mommy tune.

Tags:

Comments

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
maida_mac
Oct. 16th, 2006 11:49 pm (UTC)
I just knew that I shouldn't have clicked on that link.

Can't deal with the anger or frustration of disagreeing with you and not being able to word the arguments correctly.
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:00 am (UTC)
Dang, I put in the cut with a description so you could skip it.

The thing is, you are one of the parents who I respect.

It's not that I oppose stuff for parents and kids, but I oppose stuff *only* or even *primarily* for parents and kids.
maida_mac
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:40 am (UTC)
That's my fault, not yours. I was distracted by something else and clicked without reading the description.

I believe that everyone should have healthcare and ability to take care of their needs, etc., but I have a different understanding and belief in the social contract than you do. I often feel that you aren't willing to look past your pocketbook to the future, often because of your generalized dislike of children and the hassle you get about being childfree. I've been dead broke with no look out for better, both with and without children, and I've still always held the views that I do.

Anyways, I'm going to go shut up and crawl in my hole now, as I'm really not in any condition for a debate, let alone an internet one where we both already know where the other person stands and we'll only bash heads together.
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 01:00 am (UTC)
Part of the social contract is to look after older people too, and that is totally absent is this Motherhood Manifesto BS.

People chose to have kids, they don't chose to become disabled, unemployed due to outsourcing, or on the hook for eldercare. Take care of the involuntary stuff first. As long as I have disabled friends who are unchilded and unable to get medical care or subsidized housing because they don't have kids, I'm not going to put the kids first.

I've been dirt broke, and without kids. There is no safety net out there unless you have kids. I'm not going to work toward *more* benefits for having kids, and I'm not willing to pay more than my fair share for someone to chose to reproduce.

I already pay more in taxes than parents, get less paid leave, and then get hit up "for the children" every time I turn sround.
germankitty
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:20 am (UTC)
Despite being a mother (of a now adult, if still dependent son), I can't disagree with most of your points. However, #1 and #2 seem to be somewhat debateable, IMO.

Okay, I chose to procreate. I'm aware and accept the obligations and responsibilities coming with that. And it wasn't because I wouldn't have found other rewards and/or fulfillment -- when I set out to get pregnant, I had no idea whether I could conceive, if I'd have a healthy child etc. I did, and now have to deal with my situation.

#1: P/maternity leave is essential for the development of a child -- if for no other reason than form bonds, socialization as well as the mental and physical wellbeing of that new life who hasn't asked to be brought into the world and who is not only physically and psychologically unable to see to their own needs and can't even communicate those needs. Finances aside (that's a whole 'nother can o' worms), an adult in need of constant care is often not quite as dependent as a newborn/small child.

Someone who has trained long and hard and up until the birth of their child was working, being a productive member of society and then chooses to nurture for a period of time is giving up career advancement, salary increases and whatnot, so why not keep at least their job open for them and compensate them to a degree for the time and care (one can hope!) they're spending on looking after their children? Especially if my earnings aren't big enough to pay someone else to do my job for me? (More worms ...)

Same argument, more or less, for #2: An adult needing to see a doctor can at least communicate that need; a small child can't. An adult can also understand why a paid companion can see to their needs; a child who has formed healthy, necessary bonds with mother or father is often inconsolable (and unmanageable!) when the person they've bonded with is absent in times of physical and/or emotional need. (I'm deliberately leaving out pets; quite honestly, I like animals, but to me human needs will ALWAYS supersede an animal's. Sorry.)


Society wants us to have children; why shouldn't society give us at least some encouragement and the possibility to do so? I don't think that's entitlement.

fiona64
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:33 am (UTC)
Someone who has trained long and hard and up until the birth of their child was working, being a productive member of society and then chooses to nurture for a period of time is giving up career advancement, salary increases and whatnot, so why not keep at least their job open for them and compensate them to a degree for the time and care (one can hope!) they're spending on looking after their children? Especially if my earnings aren't big enough to pay someone else to do my job for me? (More worms ...)


You just really pushed a button for me. I have a CF on-line friend in the Netherlands who was dismissed from her job because of what you are positing above. You see, the Netherlands allow for three *years* of paid maternity leave per child, and the job has to be kept open for the woman. If she has another child during that time, the three-year clock re-sets. Well, the CF friend was doing a high-tech job for 9 *years* while a woman was on maternity leave (three kids, carefully spaced). When they had to let someone from the department go, it had to be the CF person actually doing the *work,* because it's against the law to dismiss someone on maternity leave.

Why should someone expect to be compensated for work they are NOT doing? Really, that's what paid maternity leave amounts to; you are being paid for work you are NOT doing while the company simultaneously pays someone else to do it. Most often, it's an empty-nester/childfree person who is taking care of Mommy's duties on *top* of his or her own, in my experience.

The State of California provides for six weeks' unpaid paternity/maternity leave under its Family Medical Leave Act. Any other leave can be accomplished via leave of absence or use of accrued vacation time. Again, you are asking that other people pay for the choices folks make in terms of breeding. No one denies that bonding, etc., is important; I just don't think I should have to pay for it when I don't get a paid leave to ... travel to Europe and write a book, for instance. It's an equally valid lifestyle choice to parenting, but you don't see me asking someone else to subsidize my ability to do it.
fiona64
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:34 am (UTC)
When they had to let someone from the department go, it had to be the CF person actually doing the *work,* because it's against the law to dismiss someone on maternity leave.

Forgot to indicate that the dismissal was for budgetary reasons and not for performance issues. In fact, if it wasn't for the Netherlands law against dismissing someone on maternity leave, guess who would have been gone?

And, of course, she hadn't been keep up with technology in the near-decade that she was being paid to raise kids, so there was a steep learning curve when she finally went back. She was always calling on my on-line friend to ask her "how to" questions.
germankitty
Oct. 17th, 2006 06:18 am (UTC)
Here in Germany, we have two years' maternity leave, but I'm not sure whether ALL that time is being paid for. I went out of the job market with my pregnancy, and IIRC I got some money -- NOT a full salary, though -- for 10 or 12 months; it's been almost 20 years, I forget. :) (Incidentally, men get LESS time for paternity leave than women, here. I think it's 10 months as opposed to the 2 years. Hmmm.)

I think I may have overlooked that "paid" maternity leave; it was 2am last night sorry.

There's no doubt that some people take advantage of the system, like you described above. It's ... deplorable, to say the least. (Same goes for Welfare etc)
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:34 am (UTC)
Finances aside (that's a whole 'nother can o' worms), an adult in need of constant care is often not quite as dependent as a newborn/small child.

Want to bet? When the dependent adult can't talk, or toilet themselves? Sorry, but dependent is dependent. Kids aren't a greater need.

compensate them to a degree for the time and care (one can hope!) they're spending on looking after their children?

Who pays for this? Why should I, and the rest of society, *pay* you for making a certain choice?? Why should I *pay you* to procreate? Pay to educate, yes. Its called paying my own schooling forward. But paying you to do something that is voluntary, that you chose?? Hell no!

If Jane and Jean are both 35, and both have put 5 years into their current career, should Jane get more money because her prior career was as a mommy?

An adult needing to see a doctor can at least communicate that need; a small child can't.

You apparently haven't had to deal with truly dependent adults. Kids can often communicate their needs better than highly disabled adults.

Society wants us to have children; why shouldn't society give us at least some encouragement and the possibility to do so? I don't think that's entitlement.

Why does "society" have the right to "want" us to have children? I don't say that people should, and I for sure am not willing to compensate and give my hard earned cash to those who have chosen to produce more consumers at the planet's expense.

That is the essence of entitlement: to claim that society asked you to make a choice that is expensive, and then expect society to give you money and benefits for a making that expensive, and completely voluntary, choice.
germankitty
Oct. 17th, 2006 02:47 pm (UTC)
Want to bet? When the dependent adult can't talk, or toilet themselves? Sorry, but dependent is dependent. Kids aren't a greater need.
At least you can reason with an adult, explain why they might have to wait 20 minutes (or however long it takes) until you've done whatever else needs doing. Impossible with a baby.

If Jane and Jean are both 35, and both have put 5 years into their current career, should Jane get more money because her prior career was as a mommy?
That's not what I meant. Of course not; neither should there be automatic promotions etc when someone chooses to go on parental leave.

You apparently haven't had to deal with truly dependent adults. Kids can often communicate their needs better than highly disabled adults.
My father-in-law needed at-home care 24/7 for three years after a stroke on top of Parkinson's. He was partially paralyzed, incontinent and during the last year of his life unable to talk. I wasn't much involved in his daily care -- my mother-in-law and a night nurse we paid for mainly out of our own pocket saw to that -- but living next door we often had to help out during daytime. For those three years, every activity was scheduled around dad-in-law's needs, as he was liable to injure himself if left alone for longer than 10 minutes. I've experienced the differences between a baby and a truly dependent adult; each has its own set of sometimes similar, sometimes different challenges. So please don't tell me what I do or don't know?

Why does "society" have the right to "want" us to have children? I don't say that people should, and I for sure am not willing to compensate and give my hard earned cash to those who have chosen to produce more consumers at the planet's expense.

That is the essence of entitlement: to claim that society asked you to make a choice that is expensive, and then expect society to give you money and benefits for a making that expensive, and completely voluntary, choice.


*sigh* This is something I should've considered before replying at 2am last night. You see, for us it's different -- benefits like pensions, health care and so on are NOT all tied to an individual or specific job; by law, we have pretty much universal coverage and insurance. Everybody puts part of their earnings (matched by the employer) into one big pot out of which comes health insurance and the like. As we've had negative population growth for several decades now and people get older, naturally that big common pot gets depleted much faster. Less people born = less money in old age for everybody. So, for me as a German, society does indeed encourage me to have more children, and is using parental leave etc. as an incentive. (It's not working terribly well, as child care facilities aren't up to scratch, there's often inadequate housing for larger families ... )

But yeah, coming from MY background, I say to society "you want me to breed, you better make it worth my while, especially if I've trained long and hard to get where I am". I can't have children if I can't afford to have them in the first place, because I don't have child care or even just enough room to raise them ... or if I'm out of a job once I've raised them to the point where I can leave them safely in the care of others.

I'm not asking for stuff I haven't earned through my own efforts, but I do ask that having children not just for my personal fulfillment but also to meet the need for future generations to keep living in relatively comfortable circumstances is at least made feasible. After all, even the childless benefit from the contributions every working person puts into that big pot called social security.

If that's entitlement, so be it.
fiona64
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:35 am (UTC)
I don't think that's entitlement.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
wulfmann
Oct. 23rd, 2006 12:41 am (UTC)
Finances aside (that's a whole 'nother can o' worms), an adult in need of constant care is often not quite as dependent as a newborn/small child.

For the last six months of my father's illness (Alzheimer's) he was bed-bound and doubly incontinent (yes diapers/nappies that had to be changed because he couldn't walk to get to the toilet). We had to feed him because he couldn't coordinate getting a spoon to his mouth. He lost speech completely, too. He was as totally dependent on my mother and me as a newborn baby would be. When he finally died, we were relieved... it was a blessing for him and us...
germankitty
Oct. 23rd, 2006 08:58 am (UTC)
Try 3 years of that - we had that wıth my father-in-law. (Several strokes, dıabetes and Parkinson's.) Luckily we could afford a night nurse (with about 1/3 of the cost carried by insurance), but yeah -- been there, done that. But even if he could'nt really speak for the last year of his life, he was still able to communicate better than my son at 6-12 months -- AND he understood when we had to tell him he;d have to wait a little until we could see to his needs. Unless age-related dementia has gotten so bad that all reason is gone, I still think that in some ways it's easier to care for an adult. Especially since adults usually don't fixate as much on a single person as a very young child will on a parent.

I guess we can argue this since we're blue in the face and not come to a full consensus; so why not agree to disagree?

(Sorry if this double-posts; I wasn't logged in before)
spaghettisquash
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:46 am (UTC)
I'm also childfree, but:
1. the right wing does not have a monopoly on parenting
2. healthcare for children sounds like a great pilot program for universal health care
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:50 am (UTC)
1. the right wing does not have a monopoly on parenting

No, but they are the ones with the "everybody must have kids" mentality.

2. healthcare for children sounds like a great pilot program for universal health care

Health care for all working adults would have the greater impact on the economy.
fiona64
Oct. 17th, 2006 12:54 am (UTC)
Health care for all working adults would have the greater impact on the economy.

I wholeheartedly concur.

As I mentioned earlier, I used to work for Kaiser Permanente. They did all manner of "community outreach" things, providing free health care for kids, free school vaccines, etc.

They do not do any such thing for underemployed adults, or the elderly.

There are a zillion programs out there to help kids get health care ... and I'm not saying the kids don't need it. I am, however, saying that adults also have a place in society and it's time to stop acting like the kiddies are the only ones who matter.
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 01:01 am (UTC)
There are a zillion programs out there to help kids get health care ... and I'm not saying the kids don't need it. I am, however, saying that adults also have a place in society and it's time to stop acting like the kiddies are the only ones who matter.

Exactly!!!
heethen_crone
Oct. 17th, 2006 01:22 am (UTC)
I've got kids and I'd have to say I agree with most of what you've said. Although I think there should be some type of maternity leave, and most companies give at least some time off, paid or otherwise. The practice mentioned in the Netherlands is just ...... insane. I think the most time I had off was 3 weeks. I didn't even get off when my middle one came home from the hospital after being in for 2 months. Fortunately her dad wasn't working and could stay with her as I could _not_ find a sitter for a premie with very minor health problems.
And health care.... gods, everyone should have at least some kind of access. Day care can be a real nightmare, as well as care for seriously dependent adults. My cousin took off work for 2 months to care for my gran as she was the only one with no dependants at the time. Cost her her job. Just not right. And why the hel not flex time for everyone? My friend works splits so she can spend the afternoon caring for her sick sister's farm animals 'cause it's too dark after work for her to do so. And face it, shit happens to all of us and we need time off to deal.
ravan
Oct. 17th, 2006 02:30 am (UTC)
Exactly. Health care, dependent care, family leave and flex time should be for *everyone*, not only people with small children.

I'm fortunate in that my (unpaid) medical leave was also covered by CA short term disability. I could also take it to care for a sick relative, but that wouldn't be covered by short term disability. But at least I wouldn't lose my job.

If there was a medical emergency in my family, I'd probably be the one to go handle it, because I *don't* have kids.

My mom had very little support from the government when she was czring for *both* her disabled husband and my elderly grandmother. The idea that someone with kids should get help and support, but someone in her situation doesn't, just burns me up. It's easier to find an inexpensive babysitter than it is to find *any* respite care and help for the elderly and disabled. The elderly have already paid extensively into the tax system (and are still paying in most cases), so it's not like they're asking something for nothing.
furzecat
Oct. 17th, 2006 08:57 am (UTC)
*bangs head on desk*

All this _movement_ is doing is trying to shunt their responsibility for raising their kids onto others. Childcare, healthcare, afterschool programmes, screening what they are exposed to on TV becomes the responsibility of "society".

Far from being concerned about their kids, I suspect these moos are only concerned about themselves.
heethen_crone
Oct. 17th, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC)
Exactly, and they make it just gods aweful for those of us working parents who are not seeking special priviledges. Hel, whatever happened to the "off" button on the tv? Although childcare is a must if you're gonna work and we all have to.
raindrops
Oct. 18th, 2006 03:01 am (UTC)
because unstructured, latchkey kids turn out too damned independent

Guess I'm a case in point on that one.

Raised my 3 younger siblings, essentially, until I had to leave and made it clear to dear ol' Dad that if he ever did to them what he did to me, I'd hear about it and he would end up in the ground.

Children are great; I've worked as a nanny before, actually. But preferential treatment for parents when 37 million people live in poverty in this country? Naw. Not even an option.

Personal responsibility? Great concept. But when it's metered out according to who is or is not providing more future labour and soldiers... not so cool.
weofodthignen
Oct. 23rd, 2006 12:44 pm (UTC)
Responding way late as usual . . . and kinda hoping not to revive the bad blood
I think a lot of this child-focusedness is explained by the human tendency to focus on nice things--kiddywinkies, hope for the future--rather than the nasty and cruel things--old age, irreversible decline that will only continue or become worse, bad parents and their effect on society, and death itself. People even try to aim their radar over disabled children. And teenagers--those horrid things that cute kiddywinkies turn into.

I would hate to be a social engineer. I want everybody to have their own family life behind closed doors, free to let their kids drink and to raise them in a less than germ-free environment with the religion and the level of acceptance of violence and sex that they personally prefer.

But it's both criminal and horribly destructive of the economy for people not to earn a living wage (and I do mean a living wage: I am not crying for Bay Area teachers who make $60K) for full-time work, and for people not to be able to access healthcare. This country pays far more sustaining the whole apparatus of health insurance paper-pushers and big pharma bloodsuckers than it would providing a Medicare level of service to everyone, and as results with further massive spcial and financial costs, slowly but surely the number of working poor/lower middle-class people making it to 65 without serious impairment is falling, and AIDS and TB are claiming hugely disproportionate--and expensive--numbers of victims (and just wait for the flu pandemic).

Anyway . . . yes, there are real differences between kids and impaired adults, but they include messy things like prognoses for the future and whether people are willing to help. FWIW my position in next comment (darn that length limit . . .

weofodthignen
Oct. 23rd, 2006 12:45 pm (UTC)
specifics
Mollycoddling censorship--no. For one thing, where are the teenagers these kiddies will eventually become supposed to develop acceptance of sexuality, and meet partners? Don't tell me their parents all met at church socials.

Childcare--yes. As a source of jobs, as well as support for parents! Let's make it a whole lot easier for people to work looking after others' kids (and provide it for longer hours and in a wider variety of settings and in every neighborhood), and subsidize it enough so they can live, too. There are several jobs like this that barely pay but for which there is a huge market. Surely this is the kind of 2-ended problem policymakers are supposed to fix?

Parental leave--yes. But for a limited time and at part pay. Otherwise it becomes a gravy train, and the US does not have an interest in raising the birthrate. (Actually I think the European countries are being myopic on this--fix other problems and most people will quite willingly have kids, and it won't be mostly those who like the smell of the money.) It's hard to decide whether to go back to work after having a kid--often the parents find their attitudes change when the kid arrives. Push them to make a decision after a certain time. It's not as if opting out of the workforce to raise a kid is permanent; this country already vdoes better than most at facilitating older people returning to the workforce, and policy should emphasize that. But it is blatant discrimination to jerk around the other workers.

Change the "All jobs require overtime and filling in for absent colleagues and you had better not take your vacation or sick days" culture in the workplace in the US. Those who want to work overtime should be the ones to do it. People with excessive absences should not get raises, and should be laid off first, rather than going by seniority. The actual pay should be adequate so that overtime is not an economic necessity. Paid time should be devoted to work--not to personal business and not to team-building exercises, meetings that should have been a memo, and sensitivity training. If there aren't enough workers to do the job, someone should be hired, rather than running the existing workers into the ground.

Healthcare for all, regardless of age and employment status, from our taxes. At a minimal level--Viagra, breast augmentation, facelifts, and gender reassignment surgery at the patient's cost; the alcoholics and smokers at the end of the queue for transplants unless they pay. But mental health on the same basis as physical, and preventive measures available to all. If the adults in the family get the flu, who's going to care for the kids or the disabled adults? Neither Grandma nor little Tommy should be able to elbow you or me out of line--the government should want us all to get poked. And to get AIDS tests. And PAP smears. And antidepressants if we need them to study or work. That alone would give the economy a tremendous boost--and give employers enough leeway to pay adequate and fair wages and quit essentially working everybody to death.

The marketplace should deal with the flexible hours issue. There are undoubtedly people who would like to split a job between them; there's definitely an untapped market for late-night and weekend services. The US has been going backwards in providing services when customers need them. So many people are scared to death of losing their health insurance, however, that the entire labor market is warped. One would have to see what would emerge with that load removed and with the culture of "Do as much of your personal stuff at the employer's expense as you can because you can't afford and may not even get time off" changed to "Here's an adequate wage, now do the work efficiently or we'll hire someone else." I suspect we'd see more niche businesses and more people changing jobs to work as they would prefer. I think it would even out.

M
( 24 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2017
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner