Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
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
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
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
Joined: Apr 2, 2012
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 876
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
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12333
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
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3721
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
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
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
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7236
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
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
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
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12333
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
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3721
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: