Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

>Child leave in the gig economy

Nah man, just quit your job.  Enjoy that work-life balance and those flexible hours everyone who isn't a temp or a contractor keeps talking about.  /s

[Frumple]

Wait a tick, people are saying temp workers have flexible hours and work/life balance? Like, I've not been either of those but I'm still acutely aware that, uh. No.

[MrRoboto75]

Wait a tick, people are saying temp workers have flexible hours and work/life balance? Like, I've not been either of those but I'm still acutely aware that, uh. No.

BuT YoU GeT tO bE Ur OwN BoSS

[wierd]

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

[smjjames]

The heck are skeleton anarchists? lol...

[wierd]

(see prior page. lol)

[thompson]

Could someone explain to me why Nuclear families are so controversial? I can remember there being a bit of a taboo about comparing them with single parent families a couple decades ago (presumably to stop the usual finger waggling suspects from passing endless moral judgements on them), but I just assumed everyone had worked out by now that denying the legitimate challenges people face only hurts those people.

Or is it the word "Nuclear"?

On a more serious note, I think the real problem here is that we're trying to lump families into arbitrary categories and use that as a basis to make sweep generalizations about those categories. It makes much more sense to think in terms of protective factors (number of adult carers, parental education, household income) and risk factors (substance abuse, violence) and look at how these factors contribute to child rearing outcomes.

[George_Chickens]

They're nuclear. They're wild. They're breaking up, inside.

[EnigmaticHat]

Wait a tick, people are saying temp workers have flexible hours and work/life balance? Like, I've not been either of those but I'm still acutely aware that, uh. No.

Temp was probably a bad example, but, eh.  Temp, contractor, freelance, part time.  All the same, in that you don't know what your paycheck is going to be week to week, and your employment can end very quickly.

As for "everyone else", I was mainly referring to people who write for news websites, mainly for the business part of the internet.  But yeah, people are absolutely saying that.  The general spin seems to be that low paying jobs in the US are a trade off where you get less money but in return you face less responsibility and have more flexibility.  Whereas in reality your employer has flexibility at your expense and you're far more likely to be held responsible for your actions than a full time worker would be.  Its a downside + a downside.  Average business major doesn't want to admit that to themselves because then they'd have to admit that most companies treat their employees like shit, and the future managers/executives among us just don't want to think about that.

Its the same kind of thinking that leads to the logic of "things should be priced as high as they feasible can be, because that way they'll go to the people who wanted them the most."  I don't think like that, you don't think like that, but some rather powerful people do think like that.  Basically taking economic pragmatism and twisting it into a moral imperative.

Edit: I believe the discussion here is nuclear families vs extended families.  The average age on this forum is somewhere between 20-30 (IIRC) and that general age group grew up watching their parents divorce, or seeing the effects of divorce on their childhood friends.  I suppose there's also the non-traditional family, like why can't 3 lesbians raise a kid?  But I don't think that's what we're talking about right now

[scriver]

I think the discussion here is nuclear families vs broken up nuclear families (families gone nuclear?), not nuclear families vs extended families

[MrRoboto75]

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.

[Kagus]

"Nuclear Family" is kind of a loaded term in that it got tossed around quite a bit by the kind of "family-focused" politicians who knew exactly what the right way to raise a child was; and if you didn't go to their church then you were doing it wrong. Lots of angry eyebrows pointed at gays and single parents.

Like, I don't think anyone is going to argue that having two parents is better than having just one (or none, for that matter), but there's a difference between saying "this is generally better" and saying "you need to get married ,(and stay married) or else you're what's wrong with society".


So, is there a problem with the "Nuclear Family"? In the sense of two parents plus their kids, no, not really (one could make the argument about generational living, and keeping the entire village necessary to raise your child in one house, but eh). Is there a problem in the way the term occasionally gets used? Yeah.

[wierd]

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.

SPEAKING of the above shit about wage and benefit shenanigans...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-raises-20170427-story.html

"Employees get raises instead of giving investors more free money. AGAIN. BOO HOO HOOO HOO."  --Citi Group

[RadtheCad]

So, is there a problem with the "Nuclear Family"? In the sense of two parents plus their kids, no, not really (one could make the argument about generational living, and keeping the entire village necessary to raise your child in one house, but eh). Is there a problem in the way the term occasionally gets used? Yeah.

I don't think that handing over elements of your conceptual universe to your enemies so readily is a good idea.  A reason you might is political instincts:  if your enemy is in favour of something, it's expedient to attack it and distance yourself from assent to its family of ideas in order to differentiate yourself from the enemy.  If, however, the enemy claims a particularly good idea, and you discard it, you still lose.

[wierd]

There is much hulabaloo about "The Nuclear Family", and its decline.

A nuclear family is one that has a central set of dedicated caregivers that are able to provide both financially, as well as mentally/emotionally for their children.  The ability to PRODUCE children is not required. (If it were, then sterile cis-hetero couples would not be "nuclear" either!)

As such, gay people, sterile people, polygamous people, poly-amorous people, et al, can all be parts of a nuclear family, as long as those individuals are actively involved and dedicated to the upbringing of their children.


The concept of it has just been coopted by people with a "Heterosexuality is THE NORMAL THING-- Do you HEAR me!? THE NORMAL THING! EVERYTHING ELSE IS ABNORMAL, AND WE CANT ALLOW THAT FOR OUR CHILDREN!!!" agenda, so that everything except "A man and a woman, who are attracted to each other, and married to each other, who are sexually exclusive to each other, and who have had children together" is systemically excluded from the concept of a "nuclear family."


Just ignore those idiots. They persist on the continued coverage of their wailings.