11–20 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling out the company by name is the first step to effecting change. Nothing scares a brand like bad PR.
And nothing scares me more than them sending their goons (lawyers). I'm still looking for a job 8 months later, so I don't want to deal with that.
Much of the gains of two-income parents goes into house prices to be closer to good schools - i.e. zero sum competition, while company incentives are to encourage people not to have children, or defer children until too late to maintain population, and essentially stopping the next generation of employees from being born.
And then you mix migration driven by climate change into the mix, and it's very easy for populist politicians to whip up narratives of being overrun, not least because on a historical scale it's true (and of course it's always been true, everywhere has always been in the state of being overrun, with ebbs and flows).
The dynamics here aren't good and it's hard to see how they're going to change any time soon, short of a crisis.
I've discussed this in the past. My company started offering 5 month paternity leave at the end of 2016. For a credit card company, this was huge. There had to have been a catch. I took the chance anyway, and got laid off. This isn't uncommon at the company either. I've heard of 3 females so far who also shared the same fate. All of thought it was illegal, but our individual lawyers pretty much summed it up in one se…
It's not mandated (yet) by law, so why bother to set-up bad goodwill? Just to bait people into joining?
It seems a very poisonous scheme with little benefit for anyone.
One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers, further decreasing the birth rate which is already quite low in many advanced economies.
Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact, further disadvantaging couples from having children.
Overall, it's an interesting idea, and definitely worth discussing.
Why do we want equality if it means pushing women away from the motherhood they choose?
How would this push any woman away from the choice to be a mother? And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist? And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do?
For the same reason that men do. After all, society as a whole has decided for some reason that children are a good thing, and that the cost of having them should be born by all, even those without.
We western economies have to figure this out or we'll gradually depopulate, or live under fascist governments, or worse. Much of the gains of two-income parents goes into house prices to be closer to good schools - i.e. zero sum competition, while company incentives are to encourage people not to have children, or defer children until too late to maintain population, and essentially stopping the next generation of em…
Except for Japan (probably China when it comes to it), most will import labor. Globalization (in terms of corporations) isn't just about taking jobs overseas it's also about brining people from overseas in (in the US H1Bs for professionals, for example).
This seems really heavy handed. In my experience what’s valuable for men is flexibility, not some set number of weeks you have 100% off. I (as a father) went back to work at Fivetran 4 weeks after my son was born, but at 20 hours a week. That allowed me to help my partner during the initial recovery, but also be the primary parent (with daycare) from ~4-9 months when she returned to traveling for work in consulting.…
It begins with “Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap”. Not, what would be valuable for men.
A woman who just gave birth just spent an increasingly personally costly, and completely requisite (so long as the pregnancy is wanted), nine months simply getting to the maternity leave portion of the process. I can’t immagi how a woman would perceive for men to gawk at it even being suggested they be forced to take maternity leave. If a man won’t take maternity leave the woman must and that is after the pregnancy they just sacrificed during.
Given the SCOTUS hearing at the moment, for such a tone deaf comment to be on HN says all you need to know.