Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.
However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....
> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable?
My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count on as much as folks who don't.
Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who was on leave then.
> Again, a distinct lack of details
Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who makes less money without being given "details".
> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article
Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going with "any criticism implies ...."?
> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.
As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other people.
For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit and less with cost. With (4) ....
Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.
However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....
> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable?
My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count on as much as folks who don't.
Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who was on leave then.
> Again, a distinct lack of details
Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who makes less money without being given "details".
> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article
Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going with "any criticism implies ...."?
> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.
As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other people.
For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit and less with cost. With (4) ....