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 every woman thought like you, we'd be like countries like Australia and Germany that are begging women to have babies because the birth rate is so low. The only growth in those countries is from immigrants coming in because so many women have decided against children. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean other women shouldn't be allowed to get additional maternity leave benefits. It's not just about the money, birthing a child is very taxing on a person's body and emotions as well so women do deserve some type of special treatment for that since men can't give birth and since you've never had a baby you wouldn't understand that.
Totally agree Missingatlanta. American families deserve what families in all other developed country get. That's why I support presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:
If every woman thought like you, we'd be like countries like Australia and Germany that are begging women to have babies because the birth rate is so low. The only growth in those countries is from immigrants coming in because so many women have decided against children. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean other women shouldn't be allowed to get additional maternity leave benefits. It's not just about the money, birthing a child is very taxing on a person's body and emotions as well so women do deserve some type of special treatment for that since men can't give birth and since you've never had a baby you wouldn't understand that.
"Deserve"? "Special treatment"?
You have a very entitled "me me me" attitude that the government should force companies to pay for your decisions to have a kid. And an interesting entitled view that the father seems to have no rights to have paid time off who just might have a little interest in spending time home with their kid too. No pay for him? Wow. As for this "burden" on the woman, how about the government letting workers go for a year or 2 paid sabbaticals, forced by the government because workers who are working hard can be considered very "taxed" in their job emotionally also. How about forcing companies to pay workers who have a death in the family for 6 months or 1 year to recover? How about forcing companies to pay workers to take off for a year/years to take care of a sick relative? Where does it end? And what about the point of you working in the office that 1, 2, 3, etc. key people decide to get a payed entitled time off break and you're the one who gets to pick up all their work/slack they leave behind?
Having children is a personal choice. It's not the burden of a company/government to provide money for it. How about mom and dad can make plans on their own to save enough money before the kid arrives so they can take time off and prepare for things like people have been figuring out to do for generations now? Or plan to have 1 worker in the family so the mother can be where it's most healthy for the child and that's with her child, not just for a year and dump the kid off in daycare when she returns back to work like so many do. To me, a child is worth spending more time with than accumulating material things that money buys/a job buys that many seem to choose over spending time with their kids these days. But hey, we all have our priorities, right?....material things vs our own kids.
As for our country having a low birth rate, we don't have that problem at all. With all the legal/illegal immigration alone, it seems we are all set in that aspect.
You have a very entitled "me me me" attitude that the government should force companies to pay for your decisions to have a kid. And an interesting entitled view that the father seems to have no rights to have paid time off who just might have a little interest in spending time home with their kid too. No pay for him? Wow. As for this "burden" on the woman, how about the government letting workers go for a year or 2 paid sabbaticals, forced by the government because workers who are working hard can be considered very "taxed" in their job emotionally also. How about forcing companies to pay workers who have a death in the family for 6 months or 1 year to recover? How about forcing companies to pay workers to take off for a year/years to take care of a sick relative? Where does it end? And what about the point of you working in the office that 1, 2, 3, etc. key people decide to get a payed entitled time off break and you're the one who gets to pick up all their work/slack they leave behind?
Having children is a personal choice. It's not the burden of a company/government to provide money for it. How about mom and dad can make plans on their own to save enough money before the kid arrives so they can take time off and prepare for things like people have been figuring out to do for generations now? Or plan to have 1 worker in the family so the mother can be where it's most healthy for the child and that's with her child, not just for a year and dump the kid off in daycare when she returns back to work like so many do. To me, a child is worth spending more time with than accumulating material things that money buys/a job buys that many seem to choose over spending time with their kids these days. But hey, we all have our priorities, right?....material things vs our own kids.
As for our country having a low birth rate, we don't have that problem at all. With all the legal/illegal immigration alone, it seems we are all set in that aspect.
Having women go back to the kitchen is a dinosaur policy not fit for the 21st century where the majority of college graduates are women. Women want to work and that's why policies are needed to make sure that happens. Companies operate in a society in which they benefit from a steady stream of well educated workers. They can't just pretend that they dont benefit from society so shouldnt be forced to contribute.
Having women go back to the kitchen is a dinosaur policy not fit for the 21st century where the majority of college graduates are women. Women want to work and that's why policies are needed to make sure that happens. Companies operate in a society in which they benefit from a steady stream of well educated workers. They can't just pretend that they dont benefit from society so shouldnt be forced to contribute.
I'm not suggesting "women go back to the kitchen" nor did I mention anything close to that in my post.
You're evading my points. My point is personal responsibility. You want a kid? Take care of it/do the things you have to do to give that child the best shot in life. If material things are more important in one's lives and having 2 incomes is the priority and the material things that it buys? I feel that's unfair to the child and selfish. Those parents shouldn't have a kid in my book. This is all about what's best for the child. I'm not at all an "old" guy nor did I grow up in the "good old days". It's simply stats and my own experience growing up where the kids I knew who were latchkey kids/had parents working all the time were the kids who were more likely to be screwed up/got into trouble. That's reality.
As for companies and why they "operate", they operate to make a profit. End of story. Anything else is window dressing. Now if a company on their own wants to pay a worker to take off for whatever reason, more power to them. What I have a problem with is gov mandating it. How many companies pay workers for a year or 2 to raise a kid and guarantee their job upon return? There's your answer what they feel is best for them/where their priorities are.
So we differ. You feel it's the governments job to fund people's life decisions......I feel that's not the place of gov. And in this case, if one wants a kid, spend time with the kid, give up the material things, and get out of selfish mode and stop rationalizing it in other ways.
I'm not suggesting "women go back to the kitchen" nor did I mention anything close to that in my post.
You're evading my points. My point is personal responsibility. You want a kid? Take care of it/do the things you have to do to give that child the best shot in life. If material things are more important in one's lives and having 2 incomes is the priority and the material things that it buys? I feel that's unfair to the child and selfish. Those parents shouldn't have a kid in my book. This is all about what's best for the child. I'm not at all an "old" guy nor did I grow up in the "good old days". It's simply stats and my own experience growing up where the kids I knew who were latchkey kids/had parents working all the time were the kids who were more likely to be screwed up/got into trouble. That's reality.
As for companies and why they "operate", they operate to make a profit. End of story. Anything else is window dressing. Now if a company on their own wants to pay a worker to take off for whatever reason, more power to them. What I have a problem with is gov mandating it. How many companies pay workers for a year or 2 to raise a kid and guarantee their job upon return? There's your answer what they feel is best for them/where their priorities are.
So we differ. You feel it's the governments job to fund people's life decisions......I feel that's not the place of gov. And in this case, if one wants a kid, spend time with the kid, give up the material things, and get out of selfish mode and stop rationalizing it in other ways.
So are you against mandates against child labor as well? How about the 40 hour work week?
If you honestly believe that only moms who stay at home should be parents, America's economy will soon burn and crash. And that wont benefit the companies you carry the water for.
So are you against mandates against child labor as well? How about the 40 hour work week?
If you honestly believe that only moms who stay at home should be parents, America's economy will soon burn and crash. And that wont benefit the companies you carry the water for.
Your getting into apples/oranges with child labor, 40 hour work weeks, etc. My main point again is the nature of entitlements. People making personal decisions and expecting government via laws/mandates that another entity should pick up the bill for those personal decisions. I think that's wrong. People should man/woman up and take financial and whatever other means of support on their own, not expect the gov to foot the bill/force it on someone else.
The economy will soon burn and crash if we don't have these gov/companies foot the bill to raise their kids is what you're saying? Please. Again, our society seems to be pushing out a good number of population over the decades internally and from both legal/illegal immigration. For every job out there, there's a long line of people waiting to get in to many of them. Take a look at our unemployment numbers....not the numbers the politicians use, but the "U-6" number which includes people who "gave up" looking for work. No shortage of labor out there. And a population to make that happen.
You were apparently brought up different than I. You have an entitled "gov take care of me" type mentality, "someone owes me" while I come from a "no one owes me anything" place. If I make a big life decision like having a kid, I expect no one else to foot the bill. I'm not that special no matter how many politicians try to tell me I am. If I can't make a decision like having/supporting a kid work at a given point in my life time-wise/financially on my on? I'll wait until I can.
It's called personal reasonably.
We are 180 degrees apart from each other on this. We can agree to disagree though.
An increase in female labor force participation by ten percentage points to levels seen in countries with good parental leave policies would boost GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars and would dramatically reduce the debt.
I'm not suggesting "women go back to the kitchen" nor did I mention anything close to that in my post.
You're evading my points. My point is personal responsibility. You want a kid? Take care of it/do the things you have to do to give that child the best shot in life. If material things are more important in one's lives and having 2 incomes is the priority and the material things that it buys? I feel that's unfair to the child and selfish. Those parents shouldn't have a kid in my book. This is all about what's best for the child. I'm not at all an "old" guy nor did I grow up in the "good old days". It's simply stats and my own experience growing up where the kids I knew who were latchkey kids/had parents working all the time were the kids who were more likely to be screwed up/got into trouble. That's reality.
As for companies and why they "operate", they operate to make a profit. End of story. Anything else is window dressing. Now if a company on their own wants to pay a worker to take off for whatever reason, more power to them. What I have a problem with is gov mandating it. How many companies pay workers for a year or 2 to raise a kid and guarantee their job upon return? There's your answer what they feel is best for them/where their priorities are.
So we differ. You feel it's the governments job to fund people's life decisions......I feel that's not the place of gov. And in this case, if one wants a kid, spend time with the kid, give up the material things, and get out of selfish mode and stop rationalizing it in other ways.
What about those families who can't afford to live with only one income? No kids for them?
Although I find the lack of parental leave in the US to be outrageous, inhumane and reflective of an obtuse, selfish mentality - I had to eventually admit it is probably for the better.
At this moment in history, any policy that discourages reproduction - anywhere on Earth - is a righteous policy.
But this is especially so in a voracious country like the US where babies are expected to become massive consumers.
If the educated, western middle class mothers will have fewer babies as a result of inadequate parental leave...well, even better. There will be less consumption as a result.
This is not about the ethics of the employer being forced to pay for an employee's "reproductive choices". When you have employees, perhaps you should feel some sense of responsibility towards them beyond squeezing them of as much labor as you can. I would not cry a single tear over a law that would force ALL employers to do just that.
This is about the ethics of adding yet another mouth to the pool of billions vying for dwindling resources and opportunities.
Yes, there may be fewer "caliber babies" born and lots of "trash babies"....but it looks like we're headed towards idiocracy anyway. Those at the top will have a fun, fun time.
As for companies and why they "operate", they operate to make a profit. End of story.
Maybe they shouldn't?....
Nope. It's not the end of story.
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.
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.
No pay for him? Wow. As for this "burden" on the woman, how about the government letting workers go for a year or 2 paid sabbaticals, forced by the government because workers who are working hard can be considered very "taxed" in their job emotionally also. How about forcing companies to pay workers who have a death in the family for 6 months or 1 year to recover? How about forcing companies to pay workers to take off for a year/years to take care of a sick relative? Where does it end? And what about the point of you working in the office that 1, 2, 3, etc. key people decide to get a payed entitled time off break and you're the one who gets to pick up all their work/slack they leave behind?
