601–610 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a tech worker in California, your income is triple to that of a Finnish tech worker. You can easily take unpaid time off for your paternity leave, perhaps even quit your job for a year, and still get out ahead.
...and his living costs are probably way higher too, so it's not a fair comparison.
I know I'm going to be downvoted and already regret deciding to share this but... I've never understood parental leave. If I want to go on a vacation, I have to plan for that and save time to use for it. If you want to have a child, you should have to plan to save your time to take and spend with the child or be in a financial place where one parent can quit their job to stay with the child. It's not like you go to s…
Because most people can't go on a 6 month vacation no matter what the circumstance. And this is a much more critical event to another persons development than going to see Macchu Picchu. And I'm saying this as someone with no kids, but I did have the displeasure of growing up with my family overseas at various wars throughout my childhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just employed someone for a full time job because they needed to spend €x on someone to do Y work Now they don't have to pay that money, which is fine, but they then need to find someone on a 14 month contract that will do it for the same salary as the person they just employed. Then at the end of it they are left with paying an overlap from the contractor to someone new
First, a little nitpicking: one of the parents can take at most 12 months off, so there is no "14 month contract". Second, the whole thing can be way more complex. In Germany a mother has her job secured for the moment she announces to be pregnant to until the child is 3 years old. So one could decide that will take the Elterngeld for 12 months but actually just go back to work 18 months, and the employer has no way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, a little nitpicking: one of the parents can take at most 12 months off, so there is no "14 month contract". Second, the whole thing can be way more complex. In Germany a mother has her job secured for the moment she announces to be pregnant to until the child is 3 years old. So one could decide that will take the Elterngeld for 12 months but actually just go back to work 18 months, and the employer has no way…
Sure, and the policy is good, but there is still an impact on the company. Most situations that will be a large company which can easily cope, but in small companies struggling to survive is can have an locally detrimental effect (despite the company benefiting from the policy as a whole)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as we're being perfectly honest, it seems if you had bothered to read at least the next sentence it would have better qualified you for answering the post and spared you from making a snarky but wrong reply. All this besides the obviously wrong equivalence you make between child bearing and breast feeding .
The ability to bear children is pretty closely linked with the ability to feed them. It's interesting you find that (and my pointing out your terrible opening statement) 'obviously wrong'.
Please don't use child bearing (something that happens before) as an excuse to avoid child raising (something that happens after).
Fathers can take care of babies in the absence of mothers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can certainly say that some people benefit more than others from the "redistribution", even if you don't account for every single spending. There are certainly people who pay more than they receive. In the case of family support, it is clear the non-parents receive less than parents. If there are no things (or fewer) things that non-parents benefit from that parents don't benefit from, then it is a net lo…
I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it seems you are either venting your frustration for feeling like you are not getting back what you put in (you probably aren't) or completely missing the point of what I was saying up-thread. So, let me try different words: of course this redistribution is uneven . The point of socio-political programs is never to be "fair", no matter how much they say it is. So stop worryi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how literal your statement was meant, but some parents are non-gendered, non-binary. We shouldn't exclude them either. Every mention needs to include a long list of every possible combination, no matter how rare and edge case. /s
Inclusion is as simple as saying "parents" instead of "mother and father." If you'll read my post again you'll see the wording did include those groups. Maybe examine why you have such a violent knee jerk reaction to these groups being mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it seems you are either venting your frustration for feeling like you are not getting back what you put in (you probably aren't) or completely missing the point of what I was saying up-thread. So, let me try different words: of course this redistribution is uneven . The point of socio-political programs is never to be "fair", no matter how much they say it is. So stop worryi…
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's worth pointing out that in the midst of this brave new world - where every woman is supposedly a kick-ass world-beating entrepreneur if only the damned patriarchy would get off her back - there are plenty of women that have zero interest in having a career, and see the point of their existence as being to have children and be a mother to them; and the erosion of wages as a consequence of womens' entry in…
The erosion of wages has many causes, not just women having more equal opportunity in the workforce. I’d argue wages have been much more affected by the accumulation of wealth into the top of the food chain. And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inclusion is as simple as saying "parents" instead of "mother and father." If you'll read my post again you'll see the wording did include those groups. Maybe examine why you have such a violent knee jerk reaction to these groups being mentioned.
My comment was far from "violent" and knee jerk and had nothing to do with the groups in question. It was a parody of the woke virtue signalling that is trying to shame others for every possible perceived slight no matter the rarity of the edge case.