Without parental leave I might be dead

Post by Viliam1234 » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #59

KaiserPro wrote: post #28

I really cant understand the logic of forcing women back into work after 2-4 weeks. Its just not beneficial for anyone. The mum is utterly frazzled. The employer gets half an employee back Society is conditioned to think that the only practical way to raise a baby is to give up on work/get live in care. now, to look at it from a "my mum managed, I don't want to undermine the american nuclear family" point of view: Ye…

> Given that _every_ other "civilised" country has some sort of rudimentary care for new parents, which doesn't acutally cost that much, I can't see any reasonable objection to not having it. Giving a special benefit that will for the most part only be exercised by women discourages hiring women. You can still think its worth it, but don't pretend like you're baffled by anyone who would object or question how this im…

Post by germinalphrase » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #139

KaiserPro wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not using their time well for making money. you've not worked in retail have you?

I have never worked in retail. I have only made money from programming.

Post by kristjansson » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #130

nucleardog wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any indication it actually requires continued growth to break even? Given average salary where I am and roughly average tax rate, a typical household with two working adults is going to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2m in tax over their working life. Paying 3% of that back to them is not going to break the bank. There are other programs vying for their tax dollars, but I can't see any inherent reaso…

I see what you're saying, but parental leave is a direct cost, but there are subsidiary costs, such as the lost productivity as well as the lifetime resources to raise the newly born child that require more people to subsidize. If a child were something that required no ongoing resources to provide for, then yeah I'd agree with you. That being said I didn't really properly articulate that, so the way I described it I…

Post by germinalphrase » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #133

ajuc wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to [1] USA is 86th in the world according to unemployment. Most of the countries with lower unemployment than USA have paid paternity leave. Please stop cherry-picking, you're not fooling anyone. 120 counties in the world have paid maternity leave, often about a year or more of it. That includes countries with higher standards of living than USA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unempl…

Everything is on the margin. All else being equal, providing a large benefit that's most likely to be exercised by one type of worker will discourage employers from hiring that type of worker. This shouldn't be complicated or controversial. It's basic incentives.

Post by wbsss4412 » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

comeonseriously wrote: post #96

endisneigh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t have to have children. And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels.

> People don’t have to have children. Ah, here we go. This is a veiled "only people who have enough money should have children" argument. > And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels. I am sure that disproportionately favors certain income levels.