Has Google Lost Its Mojo? 560
CWmike writes "Google looks as if it's on top of the world right now, holding an ever-increasing lion's share of the search market. So why do I think it's lost its mojo? Let's start with the way it treats its employees, writes Preston Gralla. Another example: Google employees, such as Sergey Solyanik, have started deserting the company. And its share price is down double that of the Dow or Nasdaq since November 2007. Even if Google has lost its mojo, why should you care? It won't make your searches any less effective, will it? Nope. But Google has its eyes on bigger things than search, notably your IT department. It's looking to displace Microsoft with hosted services like Google Apps, Gmail and Google Docs. Solyanik warns that Google's engineers care more about the 'coolness' of a service than about the service's effectiveness." Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next.
simple answer... (Score:1, Insightful)
When they decided to abuse people's right to privacy & do evil things...
Yes
No Worry (Score:1, Insightful)
Media Darling (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has been a media darling for a long time. Now that they are finally out of the whiz-bang stage, you're ready to say they're going downhill? No, they've just gotten just about all of the internet that they can, and they are now waiting (and actively pushing) for mobile internet so they can do it all over again.
I'm personally all for trying to expand the economy itself instead of making a complete monopoly (and Google can't get much stronger without becoming a monopoly).
Now we all just get to sit and wait until wireless matures and Google takes over it. I'm speculating they'll start pushing platform-neutral stuff big-time after that (which may mean overt Linux pushing). They can't compete well with MS's enterprise dominance until they've dislodged Windows, but the wireless apple is much riper at the moment.
Migrating flock (Score:5, Insightful)
So all this article has to go on... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
I don't think that's enough to declare that Google has lost its mojo. Think of how many times Apple was "dying" according to the press. I think this author is just bored with Google and wants to cause a stir.
This guy is impressed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait a minute (Score:1, Insightful)
Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?
And a reduction in this silly benefit that you shouldn't have in the first place is age discrimination against you?
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Subsidized child care and similar benefits reward parents at the expense of other employees. It's hardly "age discrimination" to do less of it.
Re:Mistreated? You want mistreated? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a great write up man. BTW, you will find that this is the norm. You, as a software engineer, have to learn to manage your manager. You need to correct their expectations by giving them constant feedback. You need to say to them that you're having trouble and won't be achieving the timeline they have proscribed.. and if they casually don't proscribe a timeline, you have to make one up yourself.
Good luck in the future.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them
Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.
Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
infant care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite obviously not many of Google's employees were using the service anyway (1% daycare spots based on the number of employees, that number should be around 10% realistically), and they still needed to heavily subsidize it. Someone can't do their math, what's bad for business in any case.
Re:Migrating flock (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived this cycle, having worked for Yahoo!, then Google, then back to Yahoo!, and now PayPal. Personally, I don't think my migrations and wanting to change things up every now and then particularly makes me fickle. I'd rather be engaged in my work than eternally loyal to my employer. Too much loyalty isn't a good thing anyway.
Mistreatment (Score:2, Insightful)
"Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next."
Surely you're not suggesting that benefits listed on Google's website is proof that their employees couldn't possibly have any legitimate complaints? After all, even if Google does pamper its employees, unless you can point to an actual example of a "laughable" claim of mistreatment all you have is a list of perks that in no way support your statement that "Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable".
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them
Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.
Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.
Yeah, technically all of you are right. What has been found is that having childcare greatly reduces the stress of workers: they don't have to worry about working late, they can visit their kid on lunch breaks if the daycare is on site, company care is just one trip, it's usually cheaper, etc...
Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?
As for me, I like in house childcare because you don't get the BS (most of the time) of folks with kids having to run home every time their kid is sick; which makes my life less stressful because then I don't have to make up for them.
Why pick on one benefit? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about their laundry service? Why should they provide that? What about the people who have their own washers at home?
What about the car servicing thing? What about the people that don't have cars?
What about the bus service with Wifi? What about people who live close and don't need the bus?
By your logic all these are discrimination against people who don't need these services.
Re:Migrating flock (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy needs to learn how to ask for a raise, apparently. Moving from job to job is such a hassle.
Normal Evolution of a Publicly-Traded Company (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand the fuss. Like it or not, this seems to be the normal evolution of any "startup company" that becomes a publicly-traded company. Often, when any type of economic difficulties hit, benefits can be lost or reduced, and -- surprise, surprise -- they don't often come back. One big issue is that the investors have, of course, a lot of control, and investors want profit (think Carl Icahn, people). Management doesn't look good if they can't deliver sufficient profit, and so there's incentive to not increase benefits.
I'm not even going to touch the google services issue. Let's just say that some google services appear to be stagnating (minor tweaks don't cut it), and google is opening itself up to a competitor leapfrogging them. (Yeah, with Yahoo in not-so-good shape, Microsoft is probably the only company that could do that .... Bleah.)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well as Google matures so do its employees. As they get older they find the Google culture no longer fits their needs. The projects get boring, working long hours on projects that may or may not give any fruit gets redundant and unappealing. Having to prove to the new Whippersnappers that that crazy way of doing things will not work just as they didn't work when you started working a decade ago. Things like code purity, open source, trying a new windows manager every week... start to see more trivial and has lost its spark or interest, you are happy to use a Mac, even if you are running windows your cool with that to. You focus on your job and doing a good job, but at the end of the day you want to go home with your family.
Over the years you got a lot better at your job you are 3 times more productive then those whippersnappers and when you were a whippersnapper, but the company culture reprimands you for leaving work on time. Younger managers come in straight out of business school trying to prove themselves by trying to change everything even what currently works, just because it worked for FedEx, or SAS.
Re:Food (Score:5, Insightful)
"What went wrong? ..."
Share holders are penny wise and pound foolish. It isn't about the longterm investment but the quarterly or annual review. Eventually, when the stock starts to lose value, you simply have to make changes (drop operating costs) to make revenues reflect a larger profit.
The good news is most companies just fire a bunch of people. Google just happens to be taking away free dinner.
Re:infant care (Score:5, Insightful)
There are good and bad aspects to both. Choose your poison.
Re:infant care (Score:1, Insightful)
that is what infant care costs....and why many families have two people working.
There's something wrong with this picture.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're quiet and polite, then yes, I have no problem with them being in the office. If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children then that is not appropriate to an office setting.. people are trying to work.
As for spending time in the office.. no.. I'm not a big fan. I don't expect people to stay late just because everyone else is. But, in modern software engineering, its a team effort. If someone goes home because they need to pick up their kids or whatever, then either someone else is going to have to do their work - and that means it won't get done to the same level of quality - or it means that everyone will be stalled until that person is available again to work. I believe it is a failure of management to require people to work late but, frankly, it does happen and if people are not available to work when it does, then it happens more and more.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?
Because life isn't fair.
Because our society has determined that providing child care to working mothers benefits society as a whole and Google is simply conforming to social pressure.
Because Google wishes to attract working mothers as employees and are offering child care as an incentive. Young single workers are attracted by Google's "coolness" and don't need additional incentives.
BTW, Using child care provided by your employer is "make[ing] arrangements for [children] to be cared for".
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then by that logic it is a form of discrimination to have those benefits, like child care, that are unusable by employees who choose to not have children. But really it isn't discrimination at all in either case. For it to be discrimination the motivation would have to be centered around age, but really age is just a correlation. I realize that's it's popular to cry "it's discrimination" whenever you want the world to conform to your needs, but really the change is just about money. Sure it might cost a parent more money for daycare, but every dollar my employer spends on daycare is a loss to my stock value or equipment quality or potential for a raise. If anything the subsidizing of child care, family insurance, and other family-centric benefits is discrimination in favor of parents. So please, don't cry about discrimination when the favors done to you are scaled back. Add the difference in market value of the insurance package a family gets to your annual income and see if you still have a net loss vs the "no dependents" employees. You should come out even. The same job deserves the same annual salary + benefits total, anything else would be favoritism.
Re:infant care (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster has said, that's a GROSS underestimation.
In Mountain View you would really expect to pay between $650,000 to $850,000 for such a home, depending on the square footage and whether it was a standalone home or townhouse. You might be able to get something cheaper if it were literally falling down.
Re:infant care (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way, these are the numbers you have to start crunching when you live in the bay area.
Hmmmm:
2 engineers make 120,000.00 together
7,500.00 Net
-1,425.00 day care for 1 kid
-2,500.00 Mortgage
-1,000.00 food
- 500.00 heath insurance
- 250.00 car insurance
- 400.00 gas
- 400.00 misc utilities
- 350.00 misc baby items (diapers, clothes, etc)
_________
675.00 Net a month
Woohoo livin the high life in the bay area
Livin in the Bay Area = Priceless oops I mean Bankruptcy.
Re:That's a bullshit story, Sergey! (Score:2, Insightful)
But.... Who the heck is he? I wikipedia'd him, and found nothing. Reading his blog, he seemed like the main reason he left was because Google was giving stuff away for free. And that annoyed him. Made him feel incompetent.
When you're on the top of the hill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can pinpoint the exact day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
That's only true if everyone is being paid the same salary. I assure you - when hiring, a company considers the entire package, not just the base salary. If you're not good value for money (say, you have 5 kids in subsidised care and don't work any harder than anyone else) you'll miss out on a pay rise when everyone else gets it.
What's wrong with charging for day care? (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize this is an unpopular view with some, but if you can't afford to have kids (and raise them, and school them) then you shouldn't be having kids. And if I worked at Google, I would be damned if I would want to pay for YOUR kids, so you can have a job at Google. That is not the way life works.
What ever happened to those particular values of the 50s, when one parent would say to the other, "Well, Johnny is 3 now, and you just got a raise... maybe we can afford to have another kid!"
I am with Sergey... I am not very sympathetic. They want the very best day care -- to the tune of $37,000 a year! -- then they can pay for it.
Day care is NOT like public education, in which everybody has a stake. It is the duty of the parents to care for their kids until they get to school age. If they cannot, they should put the kids up for adoption. It is not ethical to expect the public (or their co-workers) to subsidize their children.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them)
Because having Mom stay at home is the "responsible" thing to do? So the choice for women is motherhood XOR employment? I won't deny that having someone at home fulltime is the optimal situation (definitely not always possible), but maybe *Dad* could stay home...?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? "Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?
If you really need an answer to your stupid rhetorical question:
1. The vast majority of women in the US have little interest in permanently abandoning their careers.
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
3. On-site daycare is a good way to attract employees, because it provides a benefit (having your kids in the same building) that is worth a lot more to the employees than it costs to the company.
4. If you lure those employees in with this benefit, thus potentially drawing them away from another job with a better salary, and then ditch the benefit, you're screwing them. I dunno if it's "age discrimination," but it's at least somewhat a dick move.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children
You have an odd idea what "being children" means.
As far as the rest, it sounds like we agree that people not being team players is bad, and sometimes management does not properly handle this. However, many people come into a job with constraints (not just family -- how about someone on dialysis?), and sometimes those constraints are not negotiable. If those constraints are not appropriately discussed beforehand, then that is a failure of another kind. If someone is going home to pick up kids frequently, then that needs to be taken into account to prevent barriers to progress. I do not agree that the consequence must be that someone else has to do the work or others will be stalled -- people leave for home and come into work every day at different times and things manage to work just fine. But, sometimes constraints impact work; children are not a special case. Flexibility is necessary for a good work environment. However, I do agree with what seems implied in your statements -- people taking advantage of a situation for selfish gain is generally detrimental to team health.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah! And while we're at it, why should I have to pay taxes that go to old, sick and young people I don't even know! It's unjust!
Even though you're being sarcastic, I agree with you. Why should I have to involuntarily pay for things other people take advantage of and I don't? E.g. welfare, medicare, social security, and the list goes on and on. I pay way more into the system than I get back.
Re:simple answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
Flamebait?
So it seems Google has their own astroturfing team. Now we know what all those PhDs do when they're not sitting on exercise balls, eating sushi and being "creative".
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm.. no dude. The company is a-ok with people running off to pick up their kids and so am I. The problem is people who saying "I have to pick up my kids" even though they have been given weeks notice that they are going to have work late on night X. They use their kids as an excuse to break their agreement that they will work whatever hours are necessary to get the job done.
And, frankly, I'm speaking in the past tense because I hardly ever go to the office these days.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
5. Some women just aren't cut out to be stay at home moms
I've done stints as a nanny and day care assistant so I guess I like kids, but I'd lose it if I had to stay home with my potential rugrats full time. It takes a lot of energy and skill and a personality that can handle it, and some mothers and children would be far better off if the mom worked and her kids were in day care. (Or if the dad stayed home, but of course the op didn't mention that.)
I'm just looking at the prices though and thinking google's getting ripped off. The NYT article mentioned that the average cost is a fraction of what google is paying, so if the company wanted to they could easily switch to someone else and not lose much (if anything) in competency.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a cliche, but children are the future. Call them tax-sucking, or whatever you like. They'll be paying for you ass to get wiped in 50 years time.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google has an open cafeteria, and tons of free junk food in the hallways, which people who have a life do not need.
Gratuitous insult aside, employees with families still need to eat, and their spouses are probably not delivering meals to their offices. Free food is a far more egalitarian benefit than subsidized daycare.
But it's a reasonable observation to make or question to ask, given that the set of people who don't mind this kind of lifestyle is probably unevenly distributed agewise.
The set of IT workers in general is unevenly distributed agewise (and gender-wise). That doesn't make every tech company guilty of discrimination.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies aren't obligated to compensate workers who have to take on additional responsibilities to cover for the workers who chose to have children and then feel entitled.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as I agree with you, reality intrudes on my peaceful utopia of eternal life and a ban on breeding.
The USA has 300 million people. That's basically nothing. Australia has a measly 20 million. I don't live in Africa. I don't live in China. I might have a different opinion if I did, but I don't.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for... have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?
You think you don't benefit from civilization? From law, order, a structured society? From the strong caring for the weak? Compassion, sympathy, friendship, co-operation? An educational system? Hospitals, doctors, nurses? The elimination of smallpox? The defeat of people who were gassing Jews? Protection from discrimination against your idiosyncrasies? The remission of the Law of the Jungle? The spare time to do something other than digging dirt for mere subsistence? The technology and luxury for you to post to Slashdot instead of being out hunting and gathering tonight's meal?
Society is a complex web of interdependent relationships and compromises from which you too benefit.
That's why.
Re:What's wrong with charging for day care? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not ethical to expect the public (or their co-workers) to subsidize their children.
18 years from now, do you want there to be a civilization, or not?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay way more into the system than I get back.
...for now.
This is it?? (Score:3, Insightful)
A disgruntled employee and stock price? Tell me again how stock price is correlated with performance? Ditto for disgruntled employee?
I'm not arguing that Google hasn't turned evil/lost its mojo/whatever - I'm willing to consider it. But are you serious these are the "arguments agaist"???
And for the last time: Benefits are a luxury. Your pay is your pay. Duh...don't let em sell you the sizzle!
Heh...on that note I'm not mad I RTFA'd, but I will say they poured more thought into the headline than the article. Sizzle in deed.
-Matt
Housewives (Score:5, Insightful)
"Seriously? "Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?"
Well, obviously we'll have to do something about that "differing opinions" stuff here. Can't have any of that. Thanks for pointing it out; the management will take care of it.
And now a question for you; what do you think about the legions of women that have decided that, well, yes they'd prefer to give up their careers because they consider raising their children job Numero Uno? Since we've been 3 decades into the sexual revolution now, many women have decided that they can't have it all, at least not in any meaningful sense. Is there something wrong with them?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:1, Insightful)
Think about this in Kantian terms. If everyone was to not have any children, our country would cease to exist and we would be overrun by our enemies. Therefore, the childless route can only be an exceptional choice made by a minority of people.
IMHO such people are shirking an important responsibility to society; especially the smart ones. The Bible writers had it right-- go forth and multiply!
Re:Wait a minute (Score:1, Insightful)
And there speaks the authentic voice of the neo-con, with the emphasis on 'con'.
No wonder your country is in such dire straits.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
5. Some women just aren't cut out to be stay at home moms
I consider this an excuse and a cop-out, sure being a STHM is hard work but requiring special skills and personality? Please. Working is the easy way out. The families I know where the mom works because she is not "cut out" to be a stay at home mom results in very little profit or even a net loss and is generally in a menial job.
FWIW disclaimer: I am not sexist and have offer to stay at home with the children regularly.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
I'm sure what you meant was a lot of households NEED two incomes to maintain their HIGHER standards of living.
Btw, its been this way since the dawn of time when Urgg or Blaggah had more children cramming up their cave they were faced with a few difficult decisions, namely hunt and gather more, eat less, or well..infanticide.
Depending on their circumstances and their environment this was difficult to varying degrees.
At least we no longer have to resort to infanticide with birth control, family planning and more education, what's the excuse for having a family larger than you can afford to feed in the USA?
Having Children is a conscious choice and responsibility for the majority in this day and age, one you should not enter lightly into without being prepared to make sacrifices financially, temporally, in your career or otherwise.
Yes I do know I am making gross generalizations, but am not doing so with the express intent of trolling. I'm just trying to illustrate a point of view.
I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction at present, and in fact we could probably do with everyone taking it easy for the next millennium or three.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
Ahh, we are in "America", land of needless consumption.
The VAST majority of my coworkers who think/thought they NEEDED a second income, really did not. They CHOOSE the lifestyle.
I am not criticizing the choice, it is not my business, BUT, We really need to learn the difference between the words NEED and WANT.
Full disclosure, my wife has "halted" her career to raise our kids.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?
Because the kids that aren't raised properly are the kids that grow up to teenagers who would knife you in the chest for $5.
Why should you pay for roads? Or health care? Or emergency services? Or education? Because without these things society turns to shite. Because you indirectly use them even if you think you don't (Try living in a place without roads)
It's called living as part of a community. Any community that isn't friendly to parenthood by definition will die out.
Little boys in a mans world (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, to all you childless bachelors out there, but my loyalty lies 110% to my son and family not to you or anybody else outside my family, I already have precious little time with him as is, I don't care if you or management or *anyone else* thinks I'm a team player or not, truly. I do my contracted work, take my pay then I'm outta there.
It does go both ways as well. People without kids bitch that people with kids leave when their child is sick (you know, to be *parents*) or whatever, but then people without kids want to work their lives away, then expect us to as well? Sorry if your to spineless to stand up to your boss that's YOUR problem, no one elses. Otherwise you enjoy doing it, and well if you expect me to work late and have my boy miss out on seeing his old man before bed because you have nothing better to do than work for an extra few hours you can fuck right off.
The worst thing here, is that the 90% of people complaining about "people with kids" statistically, in a a few years when they grow up will BE "people with kids". Then will understand, not through a selfish hypocritical flip-flop, but because when that little tacker comes along you have *no choice* as your brain changes and with it your priorities, whether you like it or not.
And we *people with kids* were all just like you once, I even used to bitch about *people with kids*, just like you.
Ironically all the people without kids bitching here will then bitch about how people don't, you know, "be a parent" to their kids in the multitude of other stories regarding kids. Well I'll tell ya it's a little hard when you all expect us to forget about them for 8-12 hours a day and see them awake for twenty minutes, because we know how much your going to cry because you choose to marry your job/company and we treat it like a means to an end and leave on time.
So much juvenile idiocy in this thread.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
"Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?
Actually he says, "such as". it is one of a range of alternative solutions. I would certainly advocate both parents spending more time with children, and it is just as good for fathers to stay at home to look after children as for mothers to do so.
1. The vast majority of women in the US have little interest in permanently abandoning their careers.
It would be better for the children if parents worked less and spent more time with them
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
Even though, in the vast majority of cases, each parent by themselves earns a lot more in real terms than households with a single earner typically did, say, fifty years ago? It would be more accurate to say they need to incomes to keep up with the lifestyle of other people with two incomes.
3. On-site daycare is a good way to attract employees, because it provides a benefit (having your kids in the same building) that is worth a lot more to the employees than it costs to the company.
True, it is attractive to employees, cut it can be very expensive to provide- as it was in this case. You might be better off just paying people more.
4. If you lure those employees in with this benefit, thus potentially drawing them away from another job with a better salary, and then ditch the benefit, you're screwing them. I dunno if it's "age discrimination," but it's at least somewhat a dick move.
Of course it is not age discrimination. Google's mistake was subsidising it too much, or providing too high a level of childcare, and landing themselves with an unsustainable cost.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
The intelligent and wealthy argue for welfare, medicare and social security because they know that a tolerable sinecure for the poor makes it very unlikely that they will have to deal with significant social unrest and the possibility of a revolution.
You're getting a return on your money, it's in the increased stability of the society around you that makes continued economic development possible. A part of India's current development problems are rooted in the growing disparities between the new wealthy and those in grinding poverty.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you live in a society, not a deserted island, so you can't always have your way.
On the other hand, by providing a basic living to the poor, you keep them from getting desperate enough to decide that they have nothing to lose since they're going to die of hunger anyway and can thus as well kill you and loot your corpse for spare change.
Social welfare keeps financial inequality from destroying the society. Humans are beasts, and starving beasts are dangerous. It's much more practical and cheaper too to simply feed them rather than trying to control them by force of arms.
Besides, all the rights you have are ultimately based on your perceived value as a human being. A society which doesn't value humans is unlikely to respect their rights either, and a society which lets its members starve to death obviously doesn't value them much. So, to answer your question: you have to pay taxes that support the weak because you live in a nice, touchy-feely bleeding-heart near-utopia rather than the hellpits of ancient Rome or modern-day third-world nations. You poor bastard.
Oh, sorry: even the Roman emperors provided bread to the poor, so they wouldn't riot and kill them. I guess modern-day libertarians can't quite live up to Caligula's or Nero's standards of morality and statesmanship skills.
And yes, that last bit was pure flamebait, triggered after reading one too many "My taxes support the poor ! Waaah !" post.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing I hate is people who use their children as an excuse to leave work early or stay back late when everyone else is. It completely undermines team dynamics.
Fuck the "team" kids come first. Try having some if you ever escape the basement.
Re:What's wrong with charging for day care? (Score:3, Insightful)
>I am with Sergey... I am not very sympathetic. They want the very best day care -- to the tune of $37,000 a year! -- then they can pay for it.
"They", being Googlers, do not want they very best daycare at $37,000/year. That was some recent Ivy league MBA graduate, newly into management that organized that catastrophe, not the employees. Googlers would be very happy with 'decent' daycare at a reasonable rate.
I do agree with Sergey that an ill-conceived sense of 'entitlement' exists, I have complained about it growing steadily over the past 4 year and its steadily getting worse. Its not enough to have bottled water, some employees demand a particular brand, 'Smart Water'. WTF. Google even tried to limit the bottled water usage by providing filtered water dispenser and giving out cool reusable bottles, but the complaints persist to this day.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet. Even though, in the vast majority of cases, each parent by themselves earns a lot more in real terms than households with a single earner typically did, say, fifty years ago? It would be more accurate to say they need to incomes to keep up with the lifestyle of other people with two incomes.
Ok, I live in england, and I'm pretty sure our house prices are way higher than the states, but here's my two cents...
I'm 22, and I work full time in banking in london. Its a long commute, a long day and often means working late and at weekends. I have a girlfriend and an 18mo boy. She stays at home because a) she hated her job and didn't want to go back after maternity, and b) we decided that having a parent around all day was better than daycare.
These are our lifestyle choices, and I accept that. HOWEVER, because of the number of two income families, if you want to buy a house you need two incomes. I have a pretty well paid job and live in a pretty cheap area, and I'm still forced to rent the scummy flat I live in now. If we were to say... double my salary, we could afford to BUY a small nice house. The Problem is that because the MAJORITY of families are dual income, people can afford to buy nicer houses, until it gets to a point where you NEED two incomes to buy ANY house.
The "sexual revolution" has been the best thing for the economy and "growth" since the industrial revolution. I'm happy with the choices our family have made, but we are very poor, financially because of it. The trade off is a happy healthy son and home life. I'd rather my son had a parent all day than we had a nicer house that none of us ever saw because of work/daycare.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Being good value for money for an employer has often little to do with how "hard" people work. I'd take a happy, efficient, clear thinking dad over any youngster with no perspective and who think they are smarter than everybody else. Besides, over about 45h a week for long periods, productivity goes way down.
But that's just me and my business.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?
For employees without children it certainly does mean they get paid less unless the company puts that added compensation/benefit it costs them for providing that care for people with children directly onto their salary in cold hard cash.
so, if I don't wear glasses, no one should have eye care?
If I don't have any health problems, no one should get a medical plan?
If my parents are rich, no one should get social security?
Christ, do you people have any concept of what "society" actually is? Maybe we should all go back to living in caves, and the person with the best spear aim gets all the meat, and everyone else starves. And yes, in most companies I've worked in, you get a certain amount of benefit dollars, to use as you see fit, and if you don't use them all, you get a credit on your pay. But it still doesn't subsidize the entire cost.
The whole point of shared benefits, or car insurance for that matter, is that you average out the cost for some peoples care amongst the whole pool, resulting in lower average costs for everyone. The "value added" is that these people don't go bankrupt, default on their mortgages, clog up emergency rooms for minor illnesses, become criminals and rob others to support themselves, or otherwise become a burden on society. (and by "burden" I mean "cost". You're either going to pay up front to help them, or pay at the end to deal with them.)
That's a concept you either believe in, or you don't. If you don't, then go ahead and opt out. If you ever find yourself or your children with cancer or a serious illness, well you can just take a couple aspirin and go to bed until you feel better.
What's that? You don't have any paid sick days? Aww, that's too bad. Maybe we should have forced euthanasia for people who can't take care of themselves? Fuck 'em if they can't make it on their own.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
No you dont.
You pay almost nothing to the system in regards to what you recieve. I'm guessing you're in the US or some other developed country. So your taxes not only pay for mundane stuff like law enforcement and roads that allow you to travel to almost anywhere in the country. They also pay for the military that , no matter what you think of the government, has on at least 4 occasions stopped this country from being destroyed in one way or another. Your taxes paid to educate the majority of the citizens so that eventhough we all cant compile a Linux kernal, we can read, write, and do fairly high level math. Your taxes paid for a system, while flawed, tries to keep harmful drugs and fake medicine out of a young mother's child's mouth (that would be you). Your taxes make sure that people can't put up 'Whites Only' signs anymore.
All of this may not seem like a lot to you, but trust me, it adds up to a hell of a lot more than the check you dole out every year.
D
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
So they can have a standard of living that isn't hand-to-mouth? It's really fucking hard to make ends meet at a level that doesn't feel suspiciously like poverty or society-dropout-cult-membership without both spouses working.
There's also both spouses who have paid dearly for post-secondary education and want to put it to use so that they add some meaning and value to their life outside of childcare and homemaking.
I know a lot of people, usually women but some men too, who would love a part-time job that would enable them to do a lot more childcare, but we have a labor market that is quite hostile to part-time employment at meaningful wages.
I don't know where the idea came from that having children was some bad economic choice made by self-absorbed assholes who want to suck up more resources at the expense of all the "smart" people who decided that children were a bad idea. But clearly its seen that way by many people, and the labor market largely reinforces this.