Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Kamala wins the Democrat POTUS nomination (unlikely), this is just one more reason why Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee is) will win.
(And I strongly dislike Trump, but if it came to a choice between him and one of the "progressive" (LOL) leftists and the race in my state was very close, I would hold my nose and vote for him.)
And Ivanka's proposal for paid family leave? You hate that too?
As I mentioned, I took 6 months of maternity leave. But both before and after my leave, I was in charge of hiring extra-hire people to fill in for other people on leave. I found it much easier to find someone wanting 6 months of work than finding someone to fill in for lesser amounts of time. You are right that it is sometimes hard to find qualified replacements, but what else can you do? You can't prohibit pregnancy. If the proposed law said 4 months, you would still have to find a replacement for that time.
You were the one hiring them but were you the one paying them? The issue here isn't so much maternity leave but paid maternity leave. A company is being forced to pay someone for no work in return, and then paying someone else to actually do the work, so they are paying twice. And if you were the one paying twice, you would very much prefer it be for 4 months versus 6 months.
If Kamala wins the Democrat POTUS nomination (unlikely), this is just one more reason why Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee is) will win.
(And I strongly dislike Trump, but if it came to a choice between him and one of the "progressive" (LOL) leftists and the race in my state was very close, I would hold my nose and vote for him.)
I could have written this post. I live in ca and as ol nancy said about AOC, a glass of water with a D on it would get all 55 I think it is EC votes.
Already close to 50% of all births are paid for by the government. We have too many poor people having too many children that they cannot possibly afford. Everyone else pays for it. This will only encourage more of it. You can call me a snob, but middle class people tend to plan their lives and decide what they can and cannot afford. They have fewer children as a result. Too many poor people do not plan for the future, and do not consider the consequences of their decisions. The end result is more and more poor people.
6 months fully paid (for those earning up to 75k) is very generous by the standards of most large western economies.
How will it be paid for? From the article: "The federal government’s portion would be funded through fines on corporations that fail to narrow their gender-based pay gaps. Harris estimates the fines would total $180 billion in the first decade and diminish over time. It would also be funded through tax increases on large corporations."
Will this nonsense help her in the Primaries? It sure won't in the General.
Yeah, while I am very much in favor of paid family leave, it’s her funding plan that will leave it dead in the water. Realistically, it should be funded by those who use it. My state has paid family leave; it covers the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child (for both parents), caring for a qualifying family member, or allowing a parent to stay home while their spouse is on military deployment. We all pay into the fund via a payroll tax of 0.126% (I think the max is capped at $85 per year), unless one chooses to opt out, in which case they are not eligible to use it.
Last edited by Ginge McFantaPants; 10-09-2019 at 08:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.