Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Without parental leave I might be dead

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 570 posts

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#481

Post by 1auralynn »

croo wrote: post #388
_bixt wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are asking for an incredibly high amount of welfare, essentially "everyone else in society should pay me for 5 years because I chose to have a kid". I'm choosing to have a kid too, but I'm taking the personal responsibility path of saving and paying for it on my own. Perhaps there is some middleground, but 5 years is absolutely absurd.

Uhh, it's 3 years where I live (though the welfare money for the last one and half year is very low and lots of mother go back to work before that) I would say 3 year is pretty good as kids starts to gain a lot from socializing after that age. Why would this be absurd? It's perfectly normal. Looking after a toddler is hard 7/24 work with little time to spare. Of course you can go to work and instead pay for a house c…

I mean it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. If we decoupled health insurance from FTE, then maybe there would be more part-time options that would allow for some flexibility. Hire a biweekly housekeeper and a nanny for 4 hours a day 4 days a week, still get to spend lots of time with your kid AND have some meaningful engagement with other adults and contribute to society according to your skill level.

That's basically my plan, but running a business/contracting/freelancing is not for everyone. Sooo thankful I have my own insurance though.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#482

Post by dTal »

familyemta123 wrote: post #472
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too think it would be proper to share that information if you feel it would not impact your job search (and let's be frank, if they would do what they did they can't do much worse). Protecting abusers is not a good policy.

Unfortunately, due to a legal agreement I signed to get them to pay for medical benefits for a few additional months and have a small separation payment, I cannot do so. If I did, they could sue me for several times the amount of benefit I gained, and I'm not in a good position for that now.

That's pretty messed up that they were able to use your financial hardship - that they created - to protect their own reputation.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#483

Post by foogazi »

Clubber wrote: post #250
pc86 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a business relationship so I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. Of course that's the case. You'd stopped working in no time if they stopped providing value to you too. As it should be, from both sides. You can have loyalty and still understand that there's a social/informal contract in place (and maybe a formal one in some places).

If you really wanted to treat it like a business relationship, any employee should constantly be looking for higher paying / better job and leave immediately when that job is offered, not even giving 2 weeks, because that's 2 weeks of additional income the employee wouldn't be getting. Are you in agreeable with that as well? Hard, cold business decisions work both ways.

> not even giving 2 weeks,

You give 2 weeks because of the people, not the company

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#484

Post by desmosxxx »

foogazi wrote: post #457
deanCommie wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This expects that the rest of us have to work to subsidize you having children We can obviously unpack all the ways that this is abused, but generally speaking children are necessary for the continuation of the species. Children are also absolutely a burden on the parents, physically, emotionally, and financially. So yes, broadly speaking, I would expect the childfree to disproportionately contribute into a societa…

> people move further from home from work (losing direct family access), Sounds like personal choices to me

This is more than a personal choice, it's a reality of our economy and the social / economic mobility is a net positive. maybe some of this will change with wfh movement

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#485

Post by desmosxxx »

deanCommie wrote: post #432
echelon wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Subsidize me until they are in public school and I’ll high five you. I know this is an exaggeration, but it drew my interest. This expects that the rest of us have to work to subsidize you having children for five to six years . I'm wholly on board with helping parents raise children. Children are our future. But at some threshold of subsidization this equation tips and actively offloads the entire burden onto thos…

> This expects that the rest of us have to work to subsidize you having children We can obviously unpack all the ways that this is abused, but generally speaking children are necessary for the continuation of the species. Children are also absolutely a burden on the parents, physically, emotionally, and financially. So yes, broadly speaking, I would expect the childfree to disproportionately contribute into a societa…

+1 My wife and I both moved away from our families long before we had kids. I think the age of having kids also plays into the moving away for work as it's something that's just not on your mind.

Anyways, the difference between our family unit and our friends who have local family & ties is night and day different.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#486

Post by angelzen »

TuringTest wrote: post #429
angelzen wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question: "Why should mothers take care of infants?" A passing familiarity with mammal biology is required. FYI, babies do not subsist on hamburgers and fries. Admittedly, it is very difficult to have this conversation when some people hold axiomatically that men and women are biologically interchangeable. Unless we can agree to a minimally reasonable set of differences between men and women in the reproductive…

> Your question: "Why should mothers take care of infants?" Admittedly, you can't read properly, because that's not a question I asked. > Admittedly, it is very difficult to have this conversation when some people hold axiomatically that men and women are biologically interchangeable. Speak for yourself if you want to introduce straw men in the discourse; no one else did. Here we adults are talking about participatio…

Let's recap:

1. The proposal is to offer mothers a 12 months leave, at the very least as a social expectation, even better paid by a state run insurance, see e.g. unemployment, to take care of their infant children.

2. Mothers rather than fathers because mammals feed their infants with milk, and milk is produced only by mothers. Human mothers need to feed their infants every 2-3 hours. As long as breastfeeding takes place, simultaneously working a career is pretty much out of the question.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding along with introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer." https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/faq/index.htm

3. This arrangement will create gap years and have a measurable effect on mothers careers. Specifically their wages will be smaller compared to same age fathers.

Working the chain of reasoning backwards, anyone that axiomatically insists no wage gap should ever be measured between men and women, sadly a very popular stance, is (willfully?) ignoring the motherhood aspect. Men and women are not fully interchangeable.

I don't see where the catastrophizing charge "excluding half of the human kind from the social sphere" comes from. As stated above, there is at least one critical area in life, specifically infant care, where men and women are not perfectly equal. Not being perfectly equal does not imply men and women must be maximally different to the point of "exclusion from the social sphere".

Until we drop the pretense that men and women are perfectly equal, we are going to produce inhuman outcomes. This is not even a new observation, the ancients had the story of Procustes holding people equal by the standard of his iron bed and fixing any deviation from his equal norm via blunt force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#487

Post by Domenic_S »

chriselles wrote: post #367
kingsloi wrote: post #217

I literally worked for most of my child's 8 month life, from her ICU room, I worked the morning of her 9 surgeries, I worked through the genetic diagnosis, I worked through being told my child has brain bleeds, neuroblastoma, is deaf, re-intubated, etc... if my insurance wasn't tied to my work, I would've quit in a heartbeat. I'm convinced I'll go to my grave with working that time being my biggest regret in life. I…

I am so very sorry for your loss. As a parent, your post is incredibly impactful. As a company owner(20 FTE), I've had several staff take leave for catastrophic health issues in their immediate family. It's been incredibly costly for my small company to keep paying them indefinitely beyond their accrued and used holiday/sick leave, but it's been worth it in the long run. It has engendered the kind of effort, loyalty,…

> It has engendered the kind of effort, loyalty, and performance that can't be bought, only earned.

Hot take: it can be bought -- you bought it with paid leave!

Ok, I know what you're trying to express. But I don't think it's dirty at all to acknowledge that taking care of your employees generates loyalty. It's a competitive advantage to offer benefits like this -- that's why all the big tech co's do it.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#488

Post by davidhalter »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #437
ThinkBeat wrote: post #294

From the US live in Norway now. In Norway there are a lot of political parties that can matter. All depends on the election. Some grow, some dont, new ones are added, old ones go away. That is a dynamic that is entirely missing in the US. We have parties in the European left and we have parties on the European right, parties in the middle, green party etc etc. I try to get people to understand that we do not have a s…

In terms of abortion rights, immigration, progressive taxation, and a host of other issues the US is to the left of Norway. I think people spend more time consuming the news than becoming familiar with the actual policies and laws of countries. In case you anyone misunderstands my claim, these are the facts: the US has more progressive taxation both on income tax and corporate tax, a minimum wage, and more liberal ab…

While you might be partially right (I highly doubt immigration), there is still a huge difference in how the welfare state functions. Healthcare is paid by the government. Education is almost free. If you're poor, retirement is paid. If you cannot work you will receive some benefits like housing. There is maternity and paternity leave. There is sick leave. You get five weeks of vacation per year (not including sick leave). The prison system is humane and makes more sense, etc. etc. The list is extremely long.

Taxes are in general higher, for example the VAT is 25%.

I'm not particularly an expert on Norway though, I might be off a bit and basing this more on countries like Sweden/Switzerland/Germany, etc.

I don't think it's too far fetched to say that the US does not really have a "left" party, quite a few intellectuals would be saying this as well (e.g. Chomsky or Briahna Joy Gray).

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#489

Post by Aidevah »

DrBazza wrote: post #156
endisneigh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is forcing women back to work?

> Who is forcing women back to work? A modern Western lifestyle. Almost every Western country without fail requires dual incomes to afford a basic lifestyle. The working-dad stay-at-home mum has long gone.

This is correct, and something that needs to be said. Having both parents work is not an inevitable state of affairs. As little as 50 years ago, it was not unusual for one parent to stay at home and raise children. In contrast, the Soviet Union had long since moved to a two working-parents model because of financial pressure, and Soviet women regarded the American housewife with astonishment[1]. Whatever the merits and tradeoffs may be, we need to recognise that significant change has taken place.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-...

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#490

Post by charcircuit »

dang wrote: post #230
charcircuit wrote: post #87

Maybe you should not live somewhere so expensive and stop spending money on unnecessary things. You can switch to eating cheap food and minimize your expenses. If you are just making ends meet you are not financially responsible.

Flamewar comments will get you banned here. Personal attacks also will, and your comment crossed into that. Not cool. If you'd please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Edit: you've posted a bunch of other flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments in this thread as well. Please stop doing that. It's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/news…

I did not intend to personally attack anyone with my comment. I will try and avoid using words like you in the future which can be confused as meaning the parent as opposed to an arbitrary person.
Post reply on HN