Backroads

We all need to have some sort of standards and its up to each of us to decide what our standards are and if or when we will make exceptions. 

Years ago, shortly into my career as a teacher, I made a decision to not tie kids' shoelaces. Why? Someone mentioned loose laces in the bathroom and I have since been permanently disgusted.
Today, one of my wigglier CTR 5-year-olds inexplicably untied his shoes to show his friend, started licking the shoelaces, and then asked me to tie them. This was all during the scripture and talk in sharing tie them.
My refusal to tie shoes came into play, especially with the licking. 
Finally, one of the presidency comes over to tie his shoes. I don't know if she noticed me refusing. I also did not inform her of the shoelace licking.
No one said anything to me or even looked at me like I failed, but I kind of feel like a heel.
Yet I stand by this kid gross shoelace boundary.
 

Years ago, shortly into my career as a teacher, I made a decision to not tie kids' shoelaces. Why? Someone mentioned loose laces in the bathroom and I have since been permanently disgusted.
Today, one of my wigglier CTR 5-year-olds inexplicably untied his shoes to show his friend, started licking the shoelaces, and then asked me to tie them. This was all during the scripture and talk in sharing tie them.
My refusal to tie shoes came into play, especially with the licking. 
Finally, one of the presidency comes over to tie his shoes. I don't know if she noticed me refusing. I also did not inform her of the shoelace licking.
No one said anything to me or even looked at me like I failed, but I kind of feel like a heel.
Yet I stand by this kid gross shoelace boundary.
 

Years ago, shortly into my career as a teacher, I made a decision to not tie kids' shoelaces. Why? Someone mentioned loose laces in the bathroom and I have since been permanently disgusted.
Today, one of my wigglier CTR 5-year-olds inexplicably untied his shoes to show his friend, started licking the shoelaces, and then asked me to tie them. This was all during the scripture and talk in sharing tie them.
My refusal to tie shoes came into play, especially with the licking. 
Finally, one of the presidency comes over to tie his shoes. I don't know if she noticed me refusing. I also did not inform her of the shoelace licking.
No one said anything to me or even looked at me like I failed, but I kind of feel like a heel.
Yet I stand by this kid gross shoelace boundary.
 

I tried to make a cheesecake for Husband. The cream cheese I bought yesterday was spoiled. Didn't notice until I was pouring it over the crust.
He gets just a t-shirt and a cake IOU.

I tried to make a cheesecake for Husband. The cream cheese I bought yesterday was spoiled. Didn't notice until I was pouring it over the crust.
He gets just a t-shirt and a cake IOU.

Relief society gave us edible flower arrangements with dad jokes attached!

I woke up today and the wife put on the song by Carly Simon - Baby you’re the best.  I thanked her and told her that it was very thoughtful.  And then I asked, isn’t she the one who also sings, you’re so vain?
She nodded yes, and stated, that’s why it’s perfect for you. 😁

I would purport that overpopulation has to do with how the earth is populated.  Obviously, if every adult has an automobile and visits national parks (or Disneyland or other amusement parks) we will quickly discover that the line to visit, see and experience things will be quite prohibitive. 
That there is “enough and plenty for all” is not an expression that mankind can be selfish, wasteful and extravagant.   How we treat and use our resources does limit how many can access the resources at that same level.
 
The Traveler

I find the overpopulation myth absolutely ridiculous. It takes thirty seconds of Google to see it’s complete garbage. 

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One of the most popular,human action and economic progress.
 
@Grunt or anyone else into the myth of overpopulation (and yes, overpopulation is a myth) -Cato has some good resources. In this piece they even talk about a BYU professor who did research on the topic. 

https://adfmedia.org/press-release/pitt-officials-violate-first-amendment-rights-conservative-student-groups
Summary:
Conservative students who arranged a debate between two guest speakers.
University officials encouraged liberal protests/riots against having the debate.
The university is now demanding that the conservative club that arranged the debate to pay for the damage done by the rioters.
 

As tongue-in-cheek as this response is, I believe it only addresses one half of the equation.  Poorer families may find the additional help worth the cost of food/clothing/shelter.
But the other part of the equation... why don't more wealthy families have many children.  And really,  an intact first-marriage couple actually had at least three children, that would at least be something.  But the more the merrier, really.
If poor people can afford many children, why can't wealthy people afford many children?  Even Trump has 5 children (albeit from three wives).  The answer is that they can.  But they choose to limit their children because of ... whatever.
I know people have to limit because of health and many other reasons that are really out of our control.  But so many are self-limiting to 2 or fewer children for a variety of reasons.  And one of those is the belief that the earth is over-populated.

My time is limited to give much of a response, but I think there’s a broader malaise in much of the first world beyond the simple aggregation of wealth:  speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future (both collectively and individually) and have decided to cash out whatever spiritual, moral, and (yes) material inheritances left for them by their ancestors are available for liquidation in the here-and-now.

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at).
It is too expensive to live in Europe.  What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe.  Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. 
The United States is quickly following that path.  Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly.  My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago.  No one's wage goes up that quickly on average).  Food costs are rising rapidly. 
Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration.  More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family.
Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish.  Houses should be a place to live...not an investment.  That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO).  
Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here.  The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being.  We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead.  They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society.  We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. 
I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view.  As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics.  It was far more restrained.  Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back.  Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago.  We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition.  Competition is good.  I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families.  Capitalism actually worked well then.  We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home.
When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary.  Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live.  It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into. 

I have been a DM because no one else wanted to take the job.  It was ok.  I could run the campaign well.  But I couldn't really come up with an engaging storyline.
I can't think of any time I was a player with an engineer DM.

And now I'm fascinated and want to know more.

This sounds like every engineer I know.
Ever played DnD with an engineer DM?! This is my life to deal with.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/02/04/397369.htm
There is a difference between a busy surgeon and an 'burntout' surgeon.
Shift change is the most likely time when errors occur.  
You want a surgeon that is well practiced and comfortable doing complex cases.  
Surgeons who need everything just so and need to have their me time are dangerous.
I can perform pretty impressive work with a spork.
I have seen some surgeons throw a hissy fit and cancel a whole day of surgery because thier favorite scrub was not available or a special tool was on backorder.  
 

And now I'm fascinated and want to know more.

I really don't intend this as whining, just more musing on the nature of PTO and what JaG was saying about what employers can even offer on PTO. 
But also on the balance of types of work and employment and any need for time off.
As a teacher I work on a contract with a system number of days for which I am paid. I roll my eyes at being accused of my paid summers and holidays because while you can say whatever you want about my salary and equal comparisons and whatnot, at the end of the day my contract doesn't say a word about paid summer vacation. If you want to get technical, I am unemployed as of Monday. I just happen to anticipate a new contract coming up one of these days.
Okay, I'm descending into potential whining, but it's hard to be expected to feel superior about my technically unpaid summer break when I know a lot of people who are in fact getting a similar amount of time in actual paid vacation.
For what it's worth, I would rather trust a well-rested surgeon with my body parts and I love my summer and winter breaks and figure every job has it trade-offs.

Gorillas don't use ordinance, but...

But statistically, women use PTO (and sick days) far more than men do.  Which means that statistically, @mikbone only benefits from such an arrangement if the staff he hires are overwhelmingly male (because for any woman he hires, he’ll wind up covering for her much more often then she covers for him).  But of course, by law he’s not allowed to discriminate in that way.
”Equal pay for equal work” is an important concept.  But the asterisk to it is that in most fields, we’ve got to overcome a lot of culture—and a *huge* amount of evolutionary psychology and physiology—before we even get to truly “equal work”.  (I suspect that recent talk of the “emotional work” done by women, especially in the domestic sphere, is at least in part a reaction to the dawning realization that generally speaking there is in fact not an equality of material productivity between the sexes—at least, not as “productivity” has been traditionally understood.)

There is a lot of give and take.  My situation is a bit different. I'm an independent contractor.  It's different being the only employee than it is to "run your own business" with employees.  In that way, it is something between the employee/boss dichotomy.
As a contractor, there are different pros and cons.
PROS
I make more per hour than if I were directly employed. My schedule is much more flexible. I don't have to pay nearly as much in FICA.  I pay about $1,000/yr instead of around $10,000/yr. I get paid time-and-a-half for overtime.  This is common for drafters.  But engineers usually get either nothing, or straight time. I can work with more than one client at a time.  This ups the total income, but it takes some juggling. I don't have to do those stupid yearly evaluations. (Think of De Niro's character in The Intern.) CONS
No benefits.  For now that's fine by me.  We're healthy.  We pay for our own services as we need them.  And it is WAY less than insurance + deductibles+copays. No 401(k).  While I can still contribute to my IRA, I don't have the company match.  And the contribution limit is lower for IRAs. If the market goes down, I'm one of the first to get cut.  This doesn't really happen to me.  I'm not only a multi-faceted engineer, I'm also a specialist in several areas that... well, there aren't too many of my kind around.  I was once laid off from one company, and they called me back in about a month. There is an interesting psychological twist to the pay gap.  I get paid more per hour which usually more-than-makes-up-for a lack of PTO.  But I still feel the psychological loss of income for those weeks I'm on vacation.  Telling myself that I've worked enough hours to make up for it doesn't help.  So, I have difficulty fully enjoying my vacations.  I keep thinking about the money I could be making.

I generally only have a mild interest and small amount of curiousity about woke-related issues, but this one caught my eye and I thought it was worth sharing. It's Rowan Atkinson talking about a planned change to section 5 of the English Public Order Act. I think he makes some good points, eloquently expressed. 
"For me, the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed." (9 minutes)