No future workers. No future consumers (including being bent over a barrel for essential goods). No future taxpayers. No future people to fight their wars.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That seems like super lame throwing in the towel.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You (and a great many number of people) disagree with it. I'm simply explaining the concept.

The point for people adopting this mindset isn't to win. It's too avoid losing. It's a risk management strategy.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think you’ve avoided losing if you’ve made major life changes in order to not give some CEO down the line $50,000 in equity.

That sounds like the biggest form of losing I can think of.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not "$50K" of equity, an entire lifetime(s) of equity. A child will have a lot more than $50K of impact of their lifetime if we are talking about first world developed nations.

Obviously it can make life easier on the would-be parents as well, but that isn't really the main focus here.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think you’re really getting the point if the main thing you got hung up on there was “calculating the approximate value of a worker to a CEO during their tenure at a company”

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 points 7 months ago

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just explaining what the position is. You obviously disagree with it, as does the majority of the population. It is an unpopular position.