In the eyes of a child

[Andy Sjostrom]

I am worried. Have we lost sight of what it means when people are laid off? Siemens, Ericsson are two companies that during the last couple of days have announced that more than 10,000, combined, will lose their jobs. These 10,000 are added to the hundreds of thousand people laid off the past 18-24 months. Please note that the remainder of this thought has nothing to do with Siemens or Ericsson specifically, but the entire IT industry as a whole.<br /><br />Even though I understand the hard facts behind the turmoil we've experienced the last two years, I hope we never forget what it really means for the families, moms, dads and children affected. A company that doesn't get income and cost in positive balance has to address the problems. I realize that. However, I am sad to see that not only have we seemingly forgotten the consequences for the ones getting laid off, but some companies, even well-performing market leaders, don't seem to hesitate one second to lay off loyal, talented, moms and dads to make that extra buck "above expecations".<br /><br />I wish we sometimes could see market events in the eyes of our children.<br />"Dad came home early yesterday. He was sad. He told mom he got fired and she started crying. I couldn't sleep very well tonight."<br /><br />"My mom lost her job last week. Her manager said the company can't afford her salary. That is not fair, because now we can't afford to stay in our house or keep our car."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/children_1.jpg" />

[don dre]

It's especially frustrating when the top executives aren;t taking salary cuts on their multi-million dollar paychecks and incentives. I think th emodern executives are too quick to fire rather than look at the problems of why their companies are struggling. That's not to say that sometimes a company has expanded beyond what it is capable of sustaining just that sometimes jobs are lost to pad an executive's numbers. It's also hard to believe that someone so self-centered, like Carly Fiorina (whose previous company is in ruins in no small part to lax credit standards), wil really think twice about firing moms and dads. Some company's make every effort to maintain its workforce, at least those who are good workers. the best example of these that I know is the Vanguard Group. Somebody should tell compaw and HP that their desktops don't sell because they suck.

[mattb]

"My mom lost her job last week. Her manager said the company can't afford her salary. That is not fair, because now we can't afford to stay in our house or keep our car."


Perhaps if mommy and daddy had some cash savings, loosing a job might not be so bad. I can't believe how many parrents I know that run with $0 cash reserves. That is the ultimate in irresponsibility. I see these same parents living in huge homes and driving nice cars. Any financial planner will tell you that everyone (especially people with children) should have 6 months to 1 year of living expenses in cash or cash equivelents. I'll bet the people that lost thier house / car didn't have that. It is not corporate Americas responsibility to take care of you. It is your responsibility. Perhaps if people were more prepaired BEFORE having children this wouldn't be such a problem. We live in a capitalist society, ....deal. Remember your employer is not your parents. Thier ultimate goal is to make money, period.

[Arne Hess]

"Dad came home early yesterday. He was sad. He told mom he got fired and she started crying."

Not only dads and moms are fired - sometimes also just the pure single (with a girlfriend but without children)... :? Even not better for him... 8O
Me and a lot of my friends are the victims of the .COM/IT/Telecommunication mismanagement... :evil:

Anyway - time to access the savings :(, looking for a new job :!: (anyone have one :?: - CV available on request :wink:) and running PPCW.Net...

[Andy Sjostrom]

I agree, Arne. You are right. Tragedy is tradegy.

[ChrisW]

Sorry if my reply is off-topic, but so is the original article.

Why is the point of view of a child more important than someone else's? And in particular, why does my decision not to have children make me less important than people who do have children? It makes no sense that their decision to procreate has the effect of


(a) costing me extra in terms of increased taxes (due to direct costs such as education as well as increased share due to the parents' tax credits)

(b) stripping me of my freedom as increasing regulations are added to "protect the children".


I'm tired of being a third class citizen, ranking below children and parents. In the words of George Carlin, "F*** the children".

That said, executives that aren't able steer their company to compete shouldn't be compensated so well.

[jpzr]

I'm tired of being a thrid class citizen, ranking below children and parents. In the words of George Carlin, "F*** the children".


I agree.

But... every corp is doing so these days...:

Microsoft 4 days ago also had fired people:

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020424/200204240035000022_1.html

so should we be stop using PocketPC?

[marlof]

I'm all for capitalism. And I'm all for getting a chance to profit for capitalism, both for workers and company. And I'm all for seeing your employer only as a employer, not as the institute for social welfare.

This is not about children per se. This is about the social consequences of mismanagement or dot com blowouts. Only people with infinite saving accounts should not worry right now. Anybody else should really worry if they have saved enough.

I like not being blind for the bad things happening when big lay offs take place. Simply stating: bad luck, those people should have had money in the bank, doesn't cut it for me. I know that for some people it simply isn't that easy, no matter how hard they try. Get out. Meet people. Talk to people. Listen to their stories. And then come back.

[Arne Hess]

I'm tired of being a third class citizen, ranking below children and parents. In the words of George Carlin, "F*** the children".
It's not about children only - you've missed the point. It's about the social problems and children really fears that situation that the portents become unemployed!
I remember myself when I was a child I was really feared about this could happens my dad. Thanks god, it never happens.

However, I think the point Andy means is the discrepancy between capitalism and social liability companies also have!

Cheers ~ Arne (Still waiting for cool job offers with less work and huge income ;-)

[dave]

i think most people who are decision-makers in the layoff process are very aware of the consequences to the individuals and their families (if they have them). however, at some point they have to remember that maximizing profit, or at least turning one, is the fuel that keeps the miracle of the capitalist system cranking.

a couple of things many of us need to keep in mind:

1) many of these 'overpaid' executives receive the bulk of their (potential) compensation from stock options or other performance based incentives. i don't know of too many people out there whose options are NOT underwater.

2) these managers that many of you are accusing of mismanaging companies are the same ones that the same many of you were turning your backs on while the bubble was inflating because somebody else offered you $10k/yr more and an office foosball table to come and help them implement their ill-advised business plans.


look... this sucks from any angle that you look at it. i know that on a micro level this doesn't put any groceries on someone's table, but we have to remember that on a macro level the market for human capital is just like any other market: it is governed by the law of supply and demand. ergo, the rules and theories of marketing should and do apply. in other words, if you focus on creating a product (you) that adds real value and you focus on differentiating this product from competing alternatives and positioning this product appropriately, there will be a buyer. you may have to take a pay cut. you may even have to move. but there will be a buyer.

[ChrisW]

However, I think the point Andy means is the discrepancy between capitalism and social liability companies also have!


A company's most important social responsibility is to make money. If they don't, then I and the other stockholders will be in the same position as those whose retirement accounts were invested in Enron. Are you suggesting that I should be willing to forfeit my savings in order to drag along workers who aren't needed in a corporation?

While layoffs happen every day, it's very rare that they're complete surprises. I myself avoided layoffs at 3 employers over my 15-year career, just because I kept track of where the business was going and foresaw the problems. Expecting these things isn't only the job of the executives. As was said above, they aren't our parents.

In the current IT market, knowing the state of your business goes double. So many of the layoffs are the backlash of the Internet boom. Those people who thought they were making easy money have no one to blame but themselves: in finances, income is ALWAYS balanced by risk. I could have been in one of the stratospheric IPOs, but saw the potential problems and felt the need for stability was more significant. Anyone with responsibility for a family should have been MUCH more cautious than I.

The bottom line is that NOBODY is responsible for yourself other than YOU. We might hope for generosity in others, but can't expect it. And while I can empathize with those being laid off, don't expect me to vote at a stockholders meeting that the company should burn away the money I've invested in it.

[don dre]

What exactly is a company's social liability? In my first reply I hadn't meant to say the capitalism was bad. What I am tryingto point out is that there are abuses in corp mgmt. I am a free market person all the way but I still don't support executives increasin their salary while the company's earnign are floundering and they are struggling for survival. My heart doesn't break when i hear that an executive only went home with their halh mil in base pay. The top guys simply reissue their options at lower prices. I think usin options as compensation was a large incentive for what happened at Enron, and more relevant, Global Crossing. In the internet boom cheap capital was used poorly, as cheap things usually are. People were dumping billions into ideas for products that people didn;t want or that had no products at all, only the distant prospect of products. This is a sure sign of a bubble and in no small part due to large increase in the money supply. the Austrian economists would call this a distortion in the time preference of capital (money). I agree that individuals should be socking away money when times are good to be prepared for when times are bad and shouldn't be able to simply take from my paycheck when they get laid off. Maybe governements should let us have more of our incomes so that it is easier to save.
Lucent Leaders Get Bonuses Amid Cuts

Lucent Technologies paid $16.2 million in retention bonuses to senior executives since the beginning of the year, and has promised more if the executives remain at the struggling telecommunications company through November

[Arne Hess]

What exactly is a company's social liability? In my first reply I hadn't meant to say the capitalism was bad. What I am tryingto point out is that there are abuses in corp mgmt. I am a free market person all the way but I still don't support executives increasin their salary while the company's earnign are floundering and they are struggling for survival.
don dre! True words, that's fully covers my opinion! It's a question of balance from my point of view. You can not cut jobs or incomes while the top management salary is still rising up or even stands "still" on that high level!

[dave]

You can not cut jobs or incomes while the top management salary is still rising up or even stands "still" on that high level!

sure you can. executives are players in the labor marketplace also. if the ship is sinking, why wouldn't they bail? if companies don't work to maintain their best strategic talent, you can almost guarantee that those line employees who survive early rounds of layoffs will lose their jobs, too.

[Arne Hess]

sure you can. executives are players in the labor marketplace also. if the ship is sinking, why wouldn't they bail? if companies don't work to maintain their best strategic talent, you can almost guarantee that those line employees who survive early rounds of layoffs will lose their jobs, too.

No you can't! The success of a company is based on all employees - from the top management to the specialist.
I'm working in the middle management but wouldn't never seen myself more important than a regular employee!

One have to make the big decisions (top management)
One have to make the strategies (middle management)
One have to execute the decisions and strategies (specialists)

If you cut one of this, you will cut the future and success of the company! :x

[don dre]

Additionally, it seems it doesn't matter whether or not mgmt is worth keeping. They get the bonus regardless of whether or not they have improved the company. This is best illustrated by Carly Fiorina's decision to "renegotiate" executive compensation to "more accurately reflect their new increased responsibility." One would think that the successful completion of the merger should have little do with compensation and that she should wait to see if the merger was a success. Moreover, whether o rnot it really makes a more competitive company. HP makes great pringint and imaging products but their handhelds, desktops, and notebooks are laggards. Compaq was a leading company in the ppc market but little esle. Executive compensation does not always reflect their ability to perform but their ability to control company purse strings much in the same way congress has given themselves a raise twice despite running a deficit and improving little.

[jwf]

(a) costing me extra in terms of increased taxes (due to direct costs such as education as well as increased share due to the parents' tax credits)

(b) stripping me of my freedom as increasing regulations are added to "protect the children".



At the end of the day the children ARE more important than greedy corporations. Without the children, the human race stops here.

[don dre]

More children are alive today though better healthcare, education, and general comforts of modern living like heating and air conditioning all brought to you buy "greedy corporations." I do think there is a need to differentiate between greedy corp's and just corporations. There is an overwhelming tendency to assume that all corporations are based on greed. Greed is an excess not necessarily the pursuit of profit. At any rate, I think management should somehow be more ocncerned with running a good business than "beating expectations" to excercise more options. I also think a society needs to make it easy for smaller companies to startup, that is the real basis of a free market...participation in the business worl das an owner not an employee. AOf course, the world has never been perfect and never will be. I suppose I will have to stop wasting company time now.

[ChrisW]

At the end of the day the children ARE more important than greedy corporations. Without the children, the human race stops here.


B.S. Without corporations, the children and everyone else (choose your fate): * starve; * freeze; * die from horrible diseases; etc.

You've also skirted my question of whether children are more important than ME. Why must I pay the cost -- financially and with my liberty -- for YOUR children?

From my point of view, while I have some small intellectual preference that your children live rather than die, you can't expect me to put them (and you) ahead of my own interests. Specifically, you can't expect me to sacrifice my savings (in the form of investments in corporations) for your comfort. I NEED that money to pay for my own medical issues, which I've had the foresight to plan for. Will you foot that bill when I'm old and need an operation?

Before you answer yes, go pick up a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You needn't read the whole tome, but find in it the parable of the 20th Century Motor Company.

[JoeThielen]

A company's most important social responsibility is to make money. If they don't, then I and the other stockholders will be in the same position as those whose retirement accounts were invested in Enron. Are you suggesting that I should be willing to forfeit my savings in order to drag along workers who aren't needed in a corporation?


Please excuse my idealism here.

I think the above statement reflects the extreme lower level (especially in this country (America), and the world in general) to which we've dropped.

I mean, you're placing "stockholder value" ABOVE employees AND product!

Am I the only one who is red-faced here after reading this statement?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to forfeit your savings just because I wanted to keep MY job. Sorry buddy! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

"Workers who aren't needed in a corporation?" How many different things can I point out about that statement? If they weren't needed, why were they there in first place (mismanagement... but yet the management isn't getting canned). It's the workers who keep the product going... which in turn keeps the busniess running, which in turns returns your "shareholder-value".

A company's job is to make a product, make a profit, and then pay your EMPLOYEES who helped you achieve the first two goals. I just can't stand the fact that we live in this "get rich quick" atmosphere, and when we shoot money into a company, we expect high returns, or we complain. When we complain, people get canned, just to "improve the bottom line".. But yet, does the product get better?

Does anyone out there care more about product and employees than "shareholder-value"?

I *REALLY* suggest reading this artcle:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/all_wire_stories/101386428029222529.xml

It talks about Microsoft and what their doing to some NorthWest schools. They have 40 billion dollars in the bank. And they're wanting $500,000 dollars from a SCHOOL. A SCHOOL. The article said that would translate into 10 teachers salaries.

Our children our not going to mean much in the working world if they don't have the education to make it. If the children grow up learning about how life through overcrowded classrooms, and having to have explained the dynamics of how the school can't afford more teachers because they have to do an intensive audit regarding the SOFTWARE on their COMPUTERS (make no mistake, it is possible to audit a company to death... ANY non-profit company can tell you this, just the fact that you're non-profit means you're going to be audited, but if you spend more time completing audits then your primary function (in this case, EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN)), then they're going to be given the idea that it's OK to be greedy, and it's OK to piss on other people, as long as you're the one doing the pissing. As long as you're making as much money as possible, then it's OK. That's what they're being taught. They're not learning that if you have an idea, and turn it into a product or service that people want/need, then you'll make money, and at the same time advance the human race. They're learning that the way to happiness is to make as much money for yourself as possible, and screw everyone else.

WHAT? Are we so de-sensitized to this that we don't understand this is going on?

Microsoft (and I'm using them as an example here, there are many other companies just like them) has $40 BILLION DOLLARS in the BANK. Not stock value or anything, just MONEY. And do you think they're going to re-distribute this to the actual EMPLOYEES who make the company run in the first place? WHAT REAL PURPOSE IS THERE FOR HOLDING THIS MUCH MONEY IN THE BANK? My idealism may be showing here, but the last time I looked, it makes good sense that when the company is doing well, then the employee should be doing well. Instead, they have money in the bank, and they're laying off people. I just don't understand at all.

This includes upper management. "Options" and things should be given when things are going well. And they should be reduced when things are not going well. They shouldn't have their base pay upped to make up for lost options when things aren't going well. If things aren't going well, then you need to work even harder (just like the little guy is doing, often working longer hours just to make up for it), not beg "shareholders" for more pay.

You're worried about kids thinking about their parents getting laid off. I'm more worried about when a kid asks how come there aren't enough teachers, and they're told that they can't afford more teachers, because they're spending the money on over-priced software.

(Don't lecture me on the price of software. In every other type of computer product the price of things go DOWN due to mass production. Even while they're getting more features. Why is software so special, mass production certainly does not cost more for software!!!!)



:evil:

:roll:

:x

:!:

[ChrisW]

I think the above statement reflects the extreme lower level (especially in this country (America), and the world in general) to which we've dropped.

So we've dropped to a level where we disapprove of stealing my money to give to someone else's because they've decided their need is greater than mine?


I mean, you're placing "stockholder value" ABOVE employees AND product!

I never mentioned product. Clearly, to be a viable business, you must produce a quality product (where quality = meeting customer expectations, whatever that means. Employees (white- AND blue-collar) must be placed below stockholder value. The latter is a direct representation of the viability and future prospects of a company. Decreasing the company's viability in order to keep "extra" employees is stupid, because sooner or later the company will burn through its capital and not be able to pay ANYONE anymore. Keeping efficient is the only way to ensure that at least SOMEONE stays employed.


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to forfeit your savings just because I wanted to keep MY job. Sorry buddy! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

If you decrease shareholder value, such as by keeping expenses higher than necessary or not allowing the company to charge market rates for its products, you decrease the value of the company. My investments are ownership of the company, so decreasing its value DIRECTLY decreases my savings. As I said in a later post, I need the money myself due to a medical condition. Who will pay for my care otherwise? I have sufficient morals to provide for my future rather than stealing from others.


"Workers who aren't needed in a corporation?" How many different things can I point out about that statement? If they weren't needed, why were they there in first place (mismanagement... but yet the management isn't getting canned). It's the workers who keep the product going... which in turn keeps the busniess running, which in turns returns your "shareholder-value".

Maybe mismanagement. Maybe fickle consumer preferences (should we still be employing the guy that made the buggy whips?). Maybe changing regulatory climate ("sorry, if you want to work here you must belong to the union"; or "regulations now require you to get a license, but you failed the test"). Maybe GOOD management ("we found a more efficient process").

SOME workers are required, but not those that aren't required (duh).


...But yet, does the product get better?

Does anyone out there care more about product and employees than "shareholder-value"?

You can't have the first two without the last, at least not sustainably. If you want to pay people, you've got to make enough money to pay expenses.


They're not learning that if you have an idea, and turn it into a product or service that people want/need, then you'll make money, and at the same time advance the human race. They're learning that the way to happiness is to make as much money for yourself as possible, and screw everyone else.

Maximizing financial return from a business is a tightrope walk. While you're right that we don't want a bunch of little Nietszches running around, we don't want a bunch of little Marxes either. You're teaching them exactly what you're accusing me of: putting their own interest above others. Who are you to say which causes are so important that a person's own interests must be subordinated?


Microsoft (and I'm using them as an example here, there are many other companies just like them) has $40 BILLION DOLLARS in the BANK. Not stock value or anything, just MONEY.

Ummm.... are you stupid? A corporation's money in the bank IS shareholder value. The shareholders OWN that money. Demanding that the company surrender that to charity is literally stealing it from its owners, the shareholders.


And do you think they're going to re-distribute this to the actual EMPLOYEES who make the company run in the first place? WHAT REAL PURPOSE IS THERE FOR HOLDING THIS MUCH MONEY IN THE BANK?

Why would they distribute it to employees? They didn't earn it. While employees doing a good job deserve compensation in kind, they also knew what their compensation was when they signed on. You can't rewrite the contracts retroactively. Similarly, those of us that were smart enough to invest in this company deserve the proceeds of the capital we donated.

In the case of MS, there's plenty of reasons not to touch that cash. (a) would you want to spend your security buffer with the sword of litigation above you (from your other comments, I guess you'd say yes; if there are problems, we'll claim we "need" the money and redistribute it from someone else); (b) SEC requirements dictate certain quite periods, e.g., before or after major acquisitions, during which large financial changes must be avoided.

And who are you to suggest that Microsoft (and its owners) must GIVE their product to some other entity? That's theft. There is no inherent right to own any product, however much you might think you need it. And in this case, you DON'T need it. There are plenty of cheaper, and even FREE, products you could be using instead. Forget MS Office -- use Star Office or something. Don't have the money for Windows? Use Linux or BSD.


This includes upper management. "Options" and things should be given when things are going well. And they should be reduced when things are not going well. They shouldn't have their base pay upped to make up for lost options when things aren't going well. If things aren't going well, then you need to work even harder (just like the little guy is doing, often working longer hours just to make up for it), not beg "shareholders" for more pay.

Finally something we agree on. You should get rewarded for doing a good job, but not for failure. But layoffs aren't NECESSARILY a failure; as I noted above, there's plenty of legit reasons not related to bad management.


You're worried about kids thinking about their parents getting laid off. I'm more worried about when a kid asks how come there aren't enough teachers, and they're told that they can't afford more teachers, because they're spending the money on over-priced software.

We've all got priorities. I want a pony, but some things are more important. No one has answered me who will pay for my future medical needs if you devalue my investments.

[KLM568]

"My mom lost her job last week. Her manager said the company can't afford her salary. That is not fair, because now we can't afford to stay in our house or keep our car."


Perhaps if mommy and daddy had some cash savings, loosing a job might not be so bad. I can't believe how many parrents I know that run with $0 cash reserves. That is the ultimate in irresponsibility. I see these same parents living in huge homes and driving nice cars. Any financial planner will tell you that everyone (especially people with children) should have 6 months to 1 year of living expenses in cash or cash equivelents. I'll bet the people that lost thier house / car didn't have that. It is not corporate Americas responsibility to take care of you. It is your responsibility. Perhaps if people were more prepaired BEFORE having children this wouldn't be such a problem. We live in a capitalist society, ....deal. Remember your employer is not your parents. Thier ultimate goal is to make money, period.


And I thought there was only ONE perfect being (JC), I guess we have found another.

[dave]

a few pointers for JoeThielen:

re: a corporation keeping money in the bank
-- having money in the bank facilitates a concept that finance types refer to as working capital. working capital is for such things as, oh i don't know, plant and equipment, meeting payroll, r&d, etc., etc. many companies find having cash in the bank really assists them in executing their business plans.

re: the price of software (or any product for that matter)
-- you must recognize that a product's price has nothing to do with what it costs to produce, well at least the relationship doesn't go beyond the fact that most prudent companies will not produce a product that sells for less than it costs to produce. a product's price does, however, have everything to do with what people are willing to pay for it. this is a little concept that the aforementioned finance types and most economists would generically refer to as supply and demand. most of these economists would recommend that companies price their products at what they call the market clearing price. i would argue that companies that sells a quantity of a product for less than the same number of people are willing to pay for it is managed by chumps, or at least by overly-idealistic pinkos who are destined to get the business crap kicked out of them by freedom-loving capitalists like bill gates.

re: microsoft sharing its money with employees
-- dunno if you have noticed, but many microsoft employees are very rich individuals. at one point in the mid-90s, half of the payroll was comprised of millionaires. wealth creation is not going on in redmond at the same break-neck pace as it once was, but the concept of motivating employees with equity is alive and well.



i know sometimes capitalism feels wrong, but trust me, it works.

[Rob Alexander]

You've also skirted my question of whether children are more important than ME. Why must I pay the cost -- financially and with my liberty -- for YOUR children?


You may think of yourself as an island unto yourself, but you are part of a society. That society protects you, shelters you, provides you with employment, health care and numerous other services, and that society paid the same costs you are complaining about for your own childhood.

These children are a part of that society and will eventually inherit and run it. You may ask why you should pay taxes for them, but I imagine in a few decades, they could be wondering why they should pay their tax money to support you in your old age. After all, they might think, what did he ever do for us?

Perhaps if that time comes, it would be good to have an answer to that question. Or perhaps, putting aside all thoughts of quid pro quo, you might just decide that you should support the social costs of other people's children because it is your responsibility to do so as well as the moral thing to do. I also have no children, but do not resent my contribution to the future of my society.

In fairness to your original point, however, I do agree with you that children really have nothing to do with the topic of the responsibility of corporations to their employees. I also agree that the loss of job by a childless person is no less significant that the same loss by a parent. Using children in a discussion like this one is just a cheap ploy to misdirect the debate so that disagreeing with the original thesis makes it seem as if you're anti-children... something that won't win you any sympathy. (No offense, Andy. I think you were sincere, but it's still completely irrelevant.) Of course, you've really shot down that plan, since no one expects you to come along and actually be anti-children.

[hollis_f]

It's the sheer two-facedness of most of these companies that really gets my goat. They'll spend a few years spouting managment shullbit - "Our greatest asset is our employees", "Work for us - we really care" and demanding unquestioning loyalty from their staff. Then, when they realise the shareholders dividend might drop a few percent, they show how much they really care by dumping their most valuable asset. For these people company loyalty is obviously a one-way street.

[Rirath]

As MattB said so simply... "Deal". What on earth is up with the sappy quotes and the lame pictures? Don't make this a trend, please.

[bchristian]

Why is the point of view of a child more important than someone else's? And in particular, why does my decision not to have children make me less important than people who do have children? It makes no sense that their decision to procreate has the effect of

(a) costing me extra in terms of increased taxes (due to direct costs such as education as well as increased share due to the parents' tax credits)
(b) stripping me of my freedom as increasing regulations are added to "protect the children".

I'm tired of being a third class citizen, ranking below children and parents. In the words of George Carlin, "F*** the children".


I think your post tells us a lot about you. I could be wrong, but it seems you are an angry young man or woman in want of heart. Somebody needs to procreate so the human race will go on. Because you don't choose to do it doesn't make you a third class citizen, it just means you will probably contribute less to humanity in the long run. That said, there are exceptional people that through their work in discoveries, inventions, charity and so forth who have contributed greatly to society without having children. Their work greatly helped the cause of humanity. Jesus Christ certainly comes to mind as a good example of this. Mother Theresa also devoted her life to the helping of others. I am also sure there were some great inventors who had no children. However, these kinds of people are few and far between. Most of us just do our jobs and die mostly unremembered by history with the exception of a few friends and maybe some family. Having children is one way our memory and humanity can live on. Maybe we will not accomplish much in our lives, but perhaps one of our descendants will.

Remember, all people who were married and/or have children were single once too and also at one time did not have children. Some people choose not to have children because they are stiving for some great contribution to humanity that would preclude them having children because of how taxing it would be on their time and/or budget and how unfair this would be to their children.

When your tax dollars go toward education it improves all of society. You benefit by having less dependant people on welfare roles when children are educated. You benefit when children educated with your tax dollars do good things with that education. To focus on yourself and your own selfish feelings and wants does nothing for society. This is the reason some people stay single or childless. ie. they want to be their own child or their spouse's child. They want to spoil themselves with everything they ever wanted in the way of material things. Unlike the ones who remain childless for selfless reasons to further humanity or help people or support some worthy cause. These people are the ones whom I consider third class citizens. They do very little to contribute to the betterment of mankind and the earth. Perhaps if they work at a job they may help in some small way, but they are paid for this and that is their full reward. They don't deserve any praise for that.

That said, there are also parents who have children because they are too stupid or irresponsible to use birth control and they also can't control their libido. To them, their own children are a nuisance and a bother. They spend as little time with them as they can get away with and let them raise themselves or they let television do the job. We as a society suffer because of them and their lack of discipline. These people are less than third class citizens. It is too bad we can't seem to find a way to help these people become better parents or at least get them to stop procreating. I am sure that some of them can be turned around, but it is probably rare.

If you one day have children or maybe even if you don't, when you are approaching the end of your life you may change your mind about things like this and see why children are important.

People who have children ARE serving humanity. They are striving to bring a good person into the world. They are trying to make a difference. You have no idea how difficult and taxing it is on a person to be a good parent. It is a sacrifice made willingly by parents all over the Earth. It is not for pay or a tax credit. No amount of pay could get people to do the job. Only love can make it happen. I hope you understand that someday. Until then, I wish you well.