AverageJOE
AverageJOE
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 124
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 2:16:19 AM permalink
How long can a woman stay home when they have a child in United States?
I don't know if this is true - but some one told me three months.

Where i come from a woman can stay home with the child for 12 months and get 80% of salary.

You might wondering why i ask - well you more i hear or read about your country - you more terribly it gets.

Cheers
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28561
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 5:43:41 AM permalink
Quote: AverageJOE

well you more i hear or read about your country - you more terribly it gets.



Great, stay where you are, we don't want you here. We
already have enough foreigners.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
AverageJOE
AverageJOE
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 124
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 5:48:15 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Great, stay where you are, we don't want you here. We
already have enough foreigners.



You are absolutely right - they say there is no better country live in where i come from.
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.
FarFromVegas
FarFromVegas
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 878
Joined: Dec 10, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 5:59:44 AM permalink
Quote: AverageJOE

How long can a woman stay home when they have a child in United States?
I don't know if this is true - but some one told me three months.

Where i come from a woman can stay home with the child for 12 months and get 80% of salary.

You might wondering why i ask - well you more i hear or read about your country - you more terribly it gets.

Cheers



I am very lucky to have been able to be a stay-at-home mom for my 4 kids. I know many women here go back to work when the baby is 6 weeks old, no matter how long the government allows. That's all they can afford.

And I'm talking doctors and teachers. The real estate agent I spoke to left the hospital and headed out to show a house with her sister driving her since she wasn't supposed to drive for 6 weeks.
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 6:22:33 AM permalink
Quote: AverageJOE

How long can a woman stay home when they have a child in United States?
I don't know if this is true - but some one told me three months.



She can stay at home as long as her husband or her savings support her.

We do not want nor do we need any employer mandates or government handouts to let people live off someone else.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 6:43:16 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

She can stay at home as long as her husband or her savings support her.

We do not want nor do we need any employer mandates or government handouts to let people live off someone else.



Yeah, just because it works well for every other first world country on the planet doesn't mean we should consider it. It definitely doesn't mean that:)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 6:58:33 AM permalink
Quote: AverageJOE

Where i come from a woman can stay home with the child for 12 months and get 80% of salary.


Greece by any chance?
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 7:01:27 AM permalink
AZ, I have to respectfully disagree.

The government should be incentivizing people to have children. Especially people with jobs and can afford it more easily. The days of one parent working are over unfortunately.

Imagine if everyone stopped having kids...
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 7:04:02 AM permalink
Quote: AverageJOE

How long can a woman stay home when they have a child in United States?
I don't know if this is true - but some one told me three months.

Where i come from a woman can stay home with the child for 12 months and get 80% of salary.

You might wondering why i ask - well you more i hear or read about your country - you more terribly it gets.

Cheers



Oh, and the answer is 0. There is no paid maternity leave in the US. If you have been working somewhere for a year, and it's not a small business, your job will be held for 3 months. Of course, if a woman is put on bed rest before she delivers, then she is SOL.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 7:10:25 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Imagine if everyone stopped having kids...



Imagine if all protons decayed and atoms became shapeless soups of neutrons and quarks.

At that, the proton may have a half-life....
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 7:12:47 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Imagine if everyone stopped having kids...


Cleaner air and water, less land lost to landfills, homes getting cheaper like computers, steady oil prices (and without accelerating global warming), enough resources to go around?

Well, okay. Realistically, it just means foreign nations grow in size faster, so increased immigration.
But hey - we can't choose how our kids are born (smart, dumb, healthy, sick, eager, lazy, gay, straight), but we can choose who immigrates. That is if we open the gates a little and take, let's say, 10% rather than 0.1% of those who want in.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 7:21:01 AM permalink
Quote: P90

Cleaner air and water, less land lost to landfills, homes getting cheaper like computers, steady oil prices (and without accelerating global warming), enough resources to go around?

Well, okay. Realistically, it just means foreign nations grow in size faster, so increased immigration.
But hey - we can't choose how our kids are born (smart, dumb, healthy, sick, eager, lazy, gay, straight), but we can choose who immigrates. That is if we open the gates a little and take, let's say, 10% rather than 0.1% of those who want in.



Good points, but I sort of also meant, Imagine if EVERYONE stopped having kids.

I mean, if the US way of not providing paid maternity leave is so great, and other countries didn't as well, and EVERYONE decided "Hey, I can't afford to have any children, so I won't have any". Then the human race would just end.

Ok, so people will still have children, so my example is not realistic. BUT, my point is that countries/governments do give incentives (tax breaks) for having children, and it is usually in the best interest of the country for their residents to have some children.

I don't think requiring companies to give parents 6 weeks to be with their newborns is a terrible thing. Or at least require that companies offer an affordable short-term disability policy.
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 7:37:11 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Good points, but I sort of also meant, Imagine if EVERYONE stopped having kids.


Hmm. But then imagine if Sun was made out of cotton candy, could be reached from a ladder on top of very tall buildings, and the speed of light was only 10 fps so you could take advantage of time dilation effects by running reasonably fast.

Quote: FinsRule

I mean, if the US way of not providing paid maternity leave is so great, and other countries didn't as well, and EVERYONE decided "Hey, I can't afford to have any children, so I won't have any". Then the human race would just end.


Then human race has already ended in the times when no countries had maternity leave. Which means we are simply ghosts imagining it going on, the way ghosts do. It also explains why we can't reach the Sun by putting a ladder on top of one of WTC towers - ghosts aren't meant to leave their planet, nor are they meant to gorge themselves incessantly on cotton candy.


Quote: FinsRule

I don't think requiring companies to give parents 6 weeks to be with their newborns is a terrible thing. Or at least require that companies offer an affordable short-term disability policy.


You mean requiring companies who can't afford giving out leaves to refrain from hiring women that are in that stage of life where they might get pregnant and are not likely to abort, or just avoid hiring women except at significant discount.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 7:37:57 AM permalink
I thought the US gave tax breaks based on family size?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 8:05:05 AM permalink
Quote: P90


You mean requiring companies who can't afford giving out leaves to refrain from hiring women that are in that stage of life where they might get pregnant and are not likely to abort, or just avoid hiring women except at significant discount.



Apparently my hypotheticals are crazier than anyone else's on this board.

Anyway, men and women would be given the 6 weeks. So your choice is hire someone who might have kids, or someone who is older and is more likely to get sick.
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 8:28:49 AM permalink
We both know the solution - at-will employment.
"So, pal, it's your 15th week here and you want 6 on the house now? Too bad - you've been made redundant an hour ago."

And I have no experience in the matter, but 6 weeks leave doesn't sound like it's going to be of that much use.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 8:48:10 AM permalink
6 paid weeks might let people actually use the full 12 weeks that's given to them by FMLA. I would extend FMLA to 26 weeks for the cases of a birth of a child.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10898
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 9:00:19 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I thought the US gave tax breaks based on family size?



This is true for average and low income families. The tax break for having kids is eliminated for higher earners.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10898
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 9:01:30 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

6 paid weeks might let people actually use the full 12 weeks that's given to them by FMLA. I would extend FMLA to 26 weeks for the cases of a birth of a child.



FMLA jut requires the company not to fire you. You will not be paid, unless you had a contract that said you would.
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 9:03:52 AM permalink
Yeah, I know.

As you quoted, I wrote that if people were given 6 paid weeks of maternity/paternity leave, then people might actually use the full 12 weeks of FMLA. (6 paid, 6 unpaid)

Also, I think FMLA (unpaid) should be 26 weeks for the cases of a birth of a child.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 9:06:38 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Yeah, just because it works well for every other first world country on the planet doesn't mean we should consider it. It definitely doesn't mean that:)



Like your mother used to say, if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would you do as well?

How on earth would such a thing be paid for? Seriously?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 9:15:38 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

The days of one parent working are over unfortunately.



Yes, the days of one parent working are over. So are the days where/of/when:


-You had just 1-2 TV sets in the house and 6 channels, even with basic cable
-eating out 1-2 times a month instead of 2-3 times a week, and this includes takeout
-the kids playing pick-up soprts in the neighborhood instead of organized leagues and play-dates
-owning 1 car, used and if you had a second car at all it was one-wheel in the junkyard used just for dad to go to work
-the house being 1,000-1,200 square feet and at most 2 baths, kids sharing rooms
-if you went more than one state away for vacation you were "rich"
-not having central air
-a 3 foot wide closet being enough to hold your clothes
-the kids having a paper route or doing other jobs instead of just getting an allowence

and on, and on, and on. People could probably make it on one paycheck, but they want to live well.

BTW: the US Government is encouraging kids via tax policy. It is working well, our replacement birth rate is near right-on the 2.1 per woman needed to maintain population.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 9:20:48 AM permalink
AZ, It's an interesting question. Are we better off than we were 50 years ago? Definitely arguments on both sides.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 10:13:45 AM permalink
I believe in Scandinavian countries the expected duration is six years and it is on full salary. Scandinavian countries tend not to want the germ factories that are kindergartens and that spread germs throughout the entire society.

In the USA there are social and economic pressures and all these tax-break receiving entities that give "pre-school" to toddlers for free, so the mother can look for work. Such PreSchools and DayCare facilities charge outrageous rates, pay virtually nothing and pretty much do nothing but store the kid. Many working women in the USA have little left over after paying for Day Care.

Women on various forms of welfare often have to stay on welfare so as to be able to afford housing and day care.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 10:23:03 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Great, stay where you are, we don't want you here. We
already have enough foreigners.



What a terrible thing to think. How many foreigners is too many there Bob?
Vote for Nobody 2020!
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 10:29:55 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

the US Government is encouraging kids via tax policy. It is working well, our replacement birth rate is near right-on the 2.1 per woman needed to maintain population.

Got to keep those welfare rolls and prison cells filled. Got to save SOME workers who will pay off their parent's social security checks.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 10:32:31 AM permalink
Quote: P90

Cleaner air and water, less land lost to landfills, homes getting cheaper like computers, steady oil prices (and without accelerating global warming), enough resources to go around?

Well, okay. Realistically, it just means foreign nations grow in size faster, so increased immigration.
But hey - we can't choose how our kids are born (smart, dumb, healthy, sick, eager, lazy, gay, straight), but we can choose who immigrates. That is if we open the gates a little and take, let's say, 10% rather than 0.1% of those who want in.



Water is as clean now as it has ever been in the past 1000 years at least (remember, people used to dump poop right into the river), and man has never had access to so much clean drinking water as he does today. Even a king 500 years ago did not have Brita water filters. And the air is far cleaner. There are stories about women hanging up laundry to dry in the industrial revolution and it would turn black from the soot in the air just in th time it took to drive. Homes would get cheaper if the population shrunk, but only temporarily. Oil prices are driven by a number of factors but growth in population is not a major factor compared to inflation, taxes, political instability, regulations, etc. As far as "plenty of resources to go around" I am not sure I understand what you mean here. But it sounds like you think that there is a big pile of resources somewhere and if only we had fewer people grabbing at the pile there would be more for each of us. This ignores the fact that people not only consume, they also produce, so as you consumers you are also removing producers.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 1:55:55 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Even a king 500 years ago did not have Brita water filters.

So modern royalty drinks water out of Brita filters? What a bunch of fools. I don't drink filtered water, only particular brands of bottled spring water that I have picked out for best taste.

In medieval cities they wouldn't drink water, they would drink low-ABV beer and wine. But urbanization was low, most population lived in the country. I have no problems drinking well or spring water in the country, without boiling.

Quote: bigfoot66

And the air is far cleaner. There are stories about women hanging up laundry to dry in the industrial revolution and it would turn black from the soot in the air just in th time it took to drive.

Note how you had to pick industrial revolution - a bad version of today - for comparison, and use cities rather than villages (where the majority lived).

Now, I'm not part of the "let's climb back on the trees and smoke our joints till we fall down" crowd... just saying. And don't mix up technology and pop size, they aren't the same thing.

Quote: bigfoot66

Homes would get cheaper if the population shrunk, but only temporarily.

Permanently. Land value is the key factor in the cost of housing.

Quote: bigfoot66

Oil prices are driven by a number of factors but growth in population is not a major factor compared to inflation, taxes, political instability, regulations, etc.


It's not "a major factor", it's the dominant factor.
More people and a lot more cars every day, only so much domestic oil for everyone.

Gasoline retails at a pump in US for just 15% more than what the amount of oil it's made out of goes for at producer's port wholesale. It's sold closer to cost than any other product. All the taxes and regulations have to fit in that tiny margin.


Quote: bigfoot66

But it sounds like you think that there is a big pile of resources somewhere and if only we had fewer people grabbing at the pile there would be more for each of us. This ignores the fact that people not only consume, they also produce, so as you consumers you are also removing producers.


Produce what? Computers, cars, manhood enlargement pills. These are not resources, these are products.

With many (not all) resources, yeah, there is a big pile and a crowd of people grabbing at it. Like fish in the oceans - and catches are running low due to overfishing.
Most other resources are layered. There's some close to the surface, some that's harder to get, then it gets even more difficult. Not just oil, metals, everything. Fewer people on the planet will mean lower resource costs.

Now, there are potential advantages to having more people. It speeds our strive to fulfill our ambitions as a species... wait, what are our ambitions as a species? If it's a new jobsPhone and the latest episode of armenican idol, let me think -
- done - yeah, I could totally live with that delayed.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 2:00:26 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Like your mother used to say, if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would you do as well?

How on earth would such a thing be paid for? Seriously?



Every body else has figured it out. seriously.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Beardgoat
Beardgoat
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 876
Joined: Apr 2, 2012
July 1st, 2012 at 2:30:39 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Oh, and the answer is 0. There is no paid maternity leave in the US. If you have been working somewhere for a year, and it's not a small business, your job will be held for 3 months. Of course, if a woman is put on bed rest before she delivers, then she is SOL.



This is not true. Maybe you meant no government paid maternity leave, but I get 12 paidweeks from my company and I am a male
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 2:34:27 PM permalink
Quote: Beardgoat

This is not true. Maybe you meant no government paid maternity leave, but I get 12 paidweeks from my company and I am a male



There's no mandatory company paid maternity leave. Companies can do whatever they want. It's awesome you get 12 weeks paid.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 2:53:03 PM permalink
Do you get 24 weeks for twins ?
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 3:13:56 PM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

Do you get 24 weeks for twins ?



No. Only six. Twins grow twice as fast ;)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 3:21:10 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Every body else has figured it out. seriously.



So YOU are willing to pay 50% of YOUR income for this. Seriouisly?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 3:32:12 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

There's no mandatory company paid maternity leave. Companies can do whatever they want. It's awesome you get 12 weeks paid.


Surely. It's a lot like how it should be. If you want paid leave and other social perks, select an employer that offers them. You'll get paid a little less than a similar employer could pay without perks, but better life security. Or, if you're in a narrow work field, dictate your terms.

Of course you need to have a valuable job skill to be able to do that. Industrial technologist, structural engineer, medical specialist.
But in the end, who is it that we want to have children - valuable professionals or people with no more ambition than to flip burgers and get paid?
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
ahiromu
ahiromu
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2107
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 3:33:02 PM permalink
Don't feed the trolls.

This forum has very few trolls compared to other ones so I understand everyone's naivety. It was a very obvious and shameless troll post.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
Beardgoat
Beardgoat
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 876
Joined: Apr 2, 2012
July 1st, 2012 at 3:39:54 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

There's no mandatory company paid maternity leave. Companies can do whatever they want. It's awesome you get 12 weeks paid.



That's why I quoted what you wrote and suggested you meant something other than what you wrote. You said there is no maternity leave and companies will only give 3 months off unpaid. I pointed out that is not true and gave an example. If someone wants maternity leave paid for maybe they should get a job that pays it. If they can't afford to take time off and won't have any money to pay for their kid then maybe it's not the best time to have kids?
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 4:01:57 PM permalink
Quote: ahiromu

This forum has very few trolls compared to other ones so I understand everyone's naivety.


We know he's trolling. At least I do. And anyone who read his roulette mystery revealed thread. But there are different kinds of trolls, just like with humans. Some are annoying and intolerable like JL, others are a spark of light in the darkness of all internets. This is the kind of troll that is mildly amusing. Treating all trolls the same is just racist.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 4:08:15 PM permalink
Quote: Beardgoat

That's why I quoted what you wrote and suggested you meant something other than what you wrote. You said there is no maternity leave and companies will only give 3 months off unpaid. I pointed out that is not true and gave an example. If someone wants maternity leave paid for maybe they should get a job that pays it. If they can't afford to take time off and won't have any money to pay for their kid then maybe it's not the best time to have kids?



1 - Do you think there's enough people in the US that can afford to have kids, that can sustain a population? No.

2 - Do you think that everyone in the US can get jobs that will give paid leave if they work hard enough? No.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 4:17:07 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

No. Only six. Twins grow twice as fast ;)




Octet Mom only gets a week and a half ??
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 4:18:29 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

1 - Do you think there's enough people in the US that can afford to have kids, that can sustain a population? No.



To paraphrase Sheldon Cooper: That's axiomatically untrue. The US population is growing.

BTW the flip side of mandatory paid maternity leave is what you see in Mexico and elsewhere: pregnant women get fired at a high rate. Not that employers pay directly for that leave, but their social security payments go up when a employee goes on maternity leave.

Come to think of it, pregnant women who are valuable employees don't get fired that often. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Oh, let's skip a step: 1) Pass a law that forbids firing a pregnant woman without showing cause. 2) Women begin to find employment more difficult to obtain.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 4:25:14 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

1 - Do you think there's enough people in the US that can afford to have kids, that can sustain a population? No.


It doesn't matter. US is a nation of immigrants. The nation of immigrants. Without immigrants, it would still be the Aztec Empire in the South and low-tech tribes in the North.

The only way US managed to get ahead of the rest of the world is by attracting the best from all over the world, from France, Russia, Germany, China. Without active immigration, it will fade - and the process has already started - into a mouth-breathing culture of 21st century primitives that still uses feet, yards, stones and pounds like it's the Bronze Age and teaches cretinationism in schools to its mammoth-sized kids in between lunches and brunches.

We don't need more of that. I'm not a fan of eugenics, which got undeservingly bad rep, but if all we can do is not encourage our weakest links to do more mindless breeding, then please let's at least do that. And the economic pressures will force the politicians to open up immigration sooner or later.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Beardgoat
Beardgoat
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 876
Joined: Apr 2, 2012
July 1st, 2012 at 4:25:40 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

1 - Do you think there's enough people in the US that can afford to have kids, that can sustain a population? No.

2 - Do you think that everyone in the US can get jobs that will give paid leave if they work hard enough? No.



1. I'm not an economics major or anything but yes I believe the population would definitely sustain without people below the poverty level pumping out kids they can't afford and relying on government handouts to pay for their kids.

2. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone can get a job that pays for 12 weeks maternity leave. But paid maternity is an option for a lot of people in this country, just not paid by the government. Maybe you should just clarify that is what you meant, instead of acting like paid maternity leave is nowhere to be found in this country
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 4:47:39 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

1 - Do you think there's enough people in the US that can afford to have kids, that can sustain a population?



Yes, but attutudes have to be adjusted to what "affording kids" means. It doesn't mean they have to be taken to every possible organized sport as a child; band lessons; and all the money they need to go to a great 4-year college.

Quote:

Do you think that everyone in the US can get jobs that will give paid leave if they work hard enough? No.



Of course not. To get paid leave you need to produce enough excess value while you do work. So if you want even 3 months off you need to produce that three months value while you are working. Then your employer has to hope you do not come back for three weeks then quit forever.

Want to see that we have no job creation in the USA and insure widespread discrimination towards female employees? Mandate paid maternity leave.

Seriously, SOMEONE has to pay for all this nonsense.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 5:55:39 PM permalink
That's why it would be maternity and paternity. Or, companies need to offer a short-term disability policy.

I understand the argument for letting the market dictate employment conditions. But that's why unions were created, and then people like me were hired by companies to prevent unions from being created.

And I'm not for mandatory paid sick leave. I just feel that our children are pretty much being raised in child raising factories, and I think it would be good for parents to at least be able to spend time with their newborns for a few more weeks.
kenarman
kenarman
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
July 1st, 2012 at 6:37:19 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

To paraphrase Sheldon Cooper: That's axiomatically untrue. The US population is growing.

BTW the flip side of mandatory paid maternity leave is what you see in Mexico and elsewhere: pregnant women get fired at a high rate. Not that employers pay directly for that leave, but their social security payments go up when a employee goes on maternity leave.

Come to think of it, pregnant women who are valuable employees don't get fired that often. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Oh, let's skip a step: 1) Pass a law that forbids firing a pregnant woman without showing cause. 2) Women begin to find employment more difficult to obtain.



The law in Canada is that you can't fire anybody without just cause and you really need your ducks in a row to fire someone pregnant (sex of said pregnant person doesn't matter, shame on you Nareed ;). I once fired an incompetent employee who I then found out was pregnant and had the labour branch all over me. They dropped it right away when I pointed out the replacement I hired was also pregnant.

Canadians get 1 year of maternity leave paid from the government employment insurance fund. Interestingly this leave can be shared between the parents at any ratio they want and start as early as they decide in the pregnancy (or adoption). This causes a lot of problems for small business's that might not have the skills or emloyees to pick up the slack for a year. That means that you sometimes need to hire a replacement worker. This really tough when they know they will be let go in a year or less. The emloyee doesn't need to provide a firm committment to when they might want to come back and can bump the replacement at will.

As always the law of unintended consequences is at work, twisting the results of the maternity leave law. Maternity leave is not available if you don't intend to come back to your employer. This results in eveyone declaring they are coming back to work and forcing you to leave their position available. Probably half the people don't come back but as an employer you don't know until the year is up. So you end up wasting a year before you can look for a permanent replacement.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
July 1st, 2012 at 9:02:07 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So YOU are willing to pay 50% of YOUR income for this. Seriouisly?



I doubt the cost is much more than the current system when everything is netted off. When all we give is unpaid leave, people are more likely to leave their jobs to have kids. Then their replacement needs to be trained immediately, and the woman needs to be trained when she reenters the workforce. I'd rather pay for company loyalty and save the retraining costs.

I already give 37% of my pay for some pretty half-assed state & federal government programs. This would be better than 90% of that crap. So, yes, I'd pay for this. (and then fight like hell to cut something else to net off the added expense)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
July 1st, 2012 at 9:35:34 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

(and then fight like hell to cut something else to net off the added expense)


I know what we could cut off to net off the added expense, but it's against the guy code to suggest it even in jest.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13866
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 2nd, 2012 at 12:04:03 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I doubt the cost is much more than the current system when everything is netted off. When all we give is unpaid leave, people are more likely to leave their jobs to have kids. Then their replacement needs to be trained immediately, and the woman needs to be trained when she reenters the workforce. I'd rather pay for company loyalty and save the retraining costs.

I already give 37% of my pay for some pretty half-assed state & federal government programs. This would be better than 90% of that crap. So, yes, I'd pay for this. (and then fight like hell to cut something else to net off the added expense)



Paying for company loyalty is an issue for the shareholders not the government. Ant the government does not need to be paying yet another class of people to sit at home and not work. Btw don't waste my time with how child rearing is work. I am using work in the form if someone paying for your output not the government giving a handout.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
July 2nd, 2012 at 12:34:39 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Ant the government does not need to be paying yet another class of people to sit at home and not work. .



So I assume you're against unemployment insurance and worker's compensation. I mean, if it's a good company, they will pay thousands of dollars for injuring a worker on their own, otherwise people won't work there, right?
  • Jump to: