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.
I like how no one wants to discuss how if you choose to have kids, you should financially prepare for it. Including having a parent stay home to, you know, ACTUALLY RAISE THE KID.
I always love how the only response many here can give is "if you don't like it, then move". No real discussion, just this single line ultimatum as if that was the only option.
Here's my take.....I think many people in the US has a more independent stance than many other countries that want gov to cradle them more, tell businesses and people what to do, distribute income from here to there, etc. And certain other countries have citizens that largely have no problem accepting such things. Beyond the long paid maternity time topic, I think that general concept hits many people in this country as not a good thing. The more independent nature of many that think "gov, butt out" on certain things in the US, especially when the people who run the gov today on so many levels are seen as bought off and sold and don't seem to care or answer to who they are suppose to work for, the people, doesn't sit well with many. Though I think there are still quite a few people of independent belief's in this country, it's obvious our country is sliding more towards a "gov knows best" approach by more than a few. If this continues, then perhaps we'll just keep sliding more towards a socialist model/gov knows best type country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
I like how no one wants to discuss how if you choose to have kids, you should financially prepare for it. Including having a parent stay home to, you know, ACTUALLY RAISE THE KID.
If you can't afford it, don't do it.
That makes way too much sense. But it doesn't seem to fly anymore with the I want/deserve everything/make everything revolve around "me"/rely on others to pick up the tab crowd. Welcome to the new entitled world order.
I always love how the only response many here can give is "if you don't like it, then move". No real discussion, just this single line ultimatum as if that was the only option.
If you want to have a "real discussion" then don't ignore the point made with a simple dismissal. Of course we all know that you don't really care to address the point.
That point being that nonsense argument that places like Chad, China, Bangladesh, The Congo, etc are good examples of why we should have paid maternity leave in the USA. This, all while completely ignoring how women's rights are actually handled in these countries as well as the extreme poverty women endure there that makes the issue even moot anyway.
Here's my take.....I think the US has a more independent stance than many other countries that want gov to cradle them more, tell businesses and people what to do, distribute income from here to there, etc. And they largely have no problem accepting such things. That concept, not necessarily anything to do with kids, I think hits many people in this country as not a good think. The more independent nature for many of "gov, butt out" on certain things in the US, especially when the people who run the gov today on so many levels are seen as bought off and sold and don't seem to care or answer to who they are suppose to work for, the people. Though I think there are quite a few people of independent belief's in this country, it's obvious our country is sliding more towards a "gov knows best" approach by more than a few. If this continues, then perhaps we'll just keep sliding more towards a socialist model/gov knows best type country.
See, I don't see the US offering some sort of paid parental leave= becoming a socialist country. I'm actually starting to grow tired of the idea that any time the US does something that isn't 100% pro-capitalism, it's become a "socialist country like Sweden" or whatever the argument is.
No the US shouldn't dictate everything a business does, but I don't see much harm in requiring large businesses to pay their share. As I and the article mentioned, and as often been the case, the American public as a whole will end up paying, picking up the slack businesses keep dropping. Very few people who want children will completely forgo having them, so let's stop w/ the equally ridiculous argument of "if you can't afford them, don't have them". People will have kids and taxpayers will, one way or another, pay for them. Newsflash, your tax dollars are already paying for other people's children, you're already paying for school districts, healthcare, Head Start, TANF, WIC, Section 8, and so on. Do you want to pay more when people have kids and must use one of these aids? Why is it so inconceivable that maybe large companies should pitch in when everyone else is?
No one knows 100% the cost of raising a child and even if you could estimate one, NO ONE has that money all saved up in an account, waiting until they conceive. No one budgets for children the way you would budget for a car-there are too many variables. In reality, EVERYONE has children they ultimately can't afford in the long run and many just try to plan it out bit by bit, but, as pointed out in the article, even the best laid plans can fall apart. Paid parental leave eliminates some variables.
The question here is, how much will we let large businesses skip out on helping out? Companies should be penalized for moving off-shore to thwart taxes and rewarded when they pitch in to take care of their employees (e.g., paid parental leave, healthcare, living wages) and relieve part of the burden from US taxpayers.
If you want to have a "real discussion" then don't ignore the point made with a simple dismissal. Of course we all know that you don't really care to address the point.
That point being that nonsense argument that places like Chad, China, Bangladesh, The Congo, etc are good examples of why we should have paid maternity leave in the USA. This, all while completely ignoring how women's rights are actually handled in these countries as well as the extreme poverty women endure there that makes the issue even moot anyway.
That is why we don't have real discussion here.
And what point are you making exactly?
I never argued that these countries were perfect or bastions of human rights. Many have problems that far surpass the issue of paid parental leave. However, in the specific case of paid parental leave (you know, the topic of this thread), they have got it right, IMO, more right than the U.S.
So, if you want to start another thread about human rights issues in other countries, go ahead. Right now, I'm looking at this specific issue of paid parental leave and the fact that, at the moment, 99% (not approximate, but close) of the countries on this sphere of ours have it and the U.S. doesn't.
I'm never argued that these countries were perfect or bastions of human rights. Many have problems that far surpass the issue of paid parental leave. However, in the specific case of paid parental leave (you know, the topic of this thread), they have got it right, IMO, more right than the U.S.
So, if you want to start another thread about human rights issues in other countries, go ahead. Right now, I'm looking at this specific issue of paid parental leave and the fact that, at the moment, 99% (not approximate, but close) of the countries on this sphere of ours have it and the U.S. doesn't.
I agree! They have totally got it right! Non parents should be paying for hoodrat kids to ensure hoodrats can afford kids. Eff the middle class.
See, I don't see the US offering some sort of paid parental leave= becoming a socialist country. I'm actually starting to grow tired of the idea that any time the US does something that isn't 100% pro-capitalism, it's become a "socialist country like Sweden" or whatever the argument is.
No the US shouldn't dictate everything a business does, but I don't see much harm in requiring large businesses to pay their share. As I and the article mentioned, and has often been the case, the American public as a whole will end up paying, picking up the slack businesses keep dropping. Very few people who want children will completely forgo having them, so let's stop w/ the equally ridiculous argument of "if you can't afford them, don't have them". People will have kids and taxpayers will, one way or another, pay for them. The question is, how much will we let large businesses skip out on helping out? Companies should be penalized for moving off-shore to thwart taxes and rewarded when they pitch in to take care of their employees (e.g., paid parental leave, healthcare, living wages) and relieve part of the burden from US taxpayers.
Exactly , it is a ridiculous argument of if you cant afford them don't have them.if we all stopped having kids then there wouldn't be a next generation to pay those taxes. Just because people have kids it doesn't always affect productivity, in fact by making concessions not only on maternity leave but other things productivity actually increases as workers feel they are valued.
See, I don't see the US offering some sort of paid parental leave= becoming a socialist country. I'm actually starting to grow tired of the idea that any time the US does something that isn't 100% pro-capitalism, it's become a "socialist country like Sweden" or whatever the argument is.
No the US shouldn't dictate everything a business does, but I don't see much harm in requiring large businesses to pay their share. As I and the article mentioned, and has often been the case, the American public as a whole will end up paying, picking up the slack businesses keep dropping. Very few people who want children will completely forgo having them, so let's stop w/ the equally ridiculous argument of "if you can't afford them, don't have them". People will have kids and taxpayers will, one way or another, pay for them. The question is, how much will we let large businesses skip out on helping out? Companies should be penalized for moving off-shore to thwart taxes and rewarded when they pitch in to take care of their employees (e.g., paid parental leave, healthcare, living wages) and relieve part of the burden from US taxpayers.
But why is it a businesses duty to "pay their share"? "skip out on helping out"? Heck, I want to breed some dogs in a few weeks and take time off from work to care for the new puppies/mother for a few months. Should I tell the company my personal decision in this case is part of the "pay their share" plan? I want to do (insert any endeavor I feel entitled too) and the company should "pay their share"? C'mon. It's obvious you were brought up much differently than I to think in such a mindset. And of course since they are giving mom paid maternity leave for an extended period of time, you better not discriminate against men, giving dad the same option. Where does it end?
For your other main point, we already have tons of safety nets that I think have gotten to the point of enabling bad behavior. It's ironic that we use the argument "if we don't pay now, we'll pay later", but don't look at the fact that out of the gate, we don't question/put any kind of restrictions on people who pump out kid after kid, often with no financial means or maturity/cares to want to raise a kid right. Birth control is quite an amazing thing to prevent the vast majority of pregnancies when used as directed, like the pill.
In the end, I have no problem with a company wanting to pay for maternity leave. More power to them. It's their business to run as they see fit. I just don't think it should be forced upon a company via the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montygirl
Exactly , it is a ridiculous argument of if you cant afford them don't have them.if we all stopped having kids then there wouldn't be a next generation to pay those taxes. Just because people have kids it doesn't always affect productivity, in fact by making concessions not only on maternity leave but other things productivity actually increases as workers feel they are valued.
I'm sure you'd feel the same when a person or 2 take off from work and their work load is put on you. Let's talk how "valued" you feel when you are the one holding the bag, picking up the slack of their jobs are pushed on your desk. What's that?.....they'll hire someone else temporarily to not put such a burden on you? Oh, sure. And I still have that ocean front property for you in Iowa......
I'm never argued that these countries were perfect or bastions of human rights. Many have problems that far surpass the issue of paid parental leave. However, in the specific case of paid parental leave (you know, the topic of this thread), they have got it right, IMO, more right than the U.S.
So, if you want to start another thread about human rights issues in other countries, go ahead. Right now, I'm looking at this specific issue of paid parental leave and the fact that, at the moment, 99% (not approximate, but close) of the countries on this sphere of ours have it and the U.S. doesn't.
The point was made absolutely clear. You argue that 3rd world countries are examples of why the USA should force employers to provide paid maternity leave all while completely ignoring that most women in these places will never have access to it.
"I'm never argued that these countries were perfect or bastions of human rights." - Nobody said you did. Re-read #1. You are attempting to cherry pick a "specific case" of other cultures and then generalize it into the USA. There is absolutely no logic with this.
I'm not making an argument about Human Rights. I'm stating the example that you cut and pasted from some website about why forced paid paternity leave in the USA (what this topic is about) is nothing but nonsense.
It doesn't matter what you are personally looking at. Unless you can make logical argument for it, and you haven't then it's irrelevant.
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.
Heck, I want to breed some dogs in a few weeks and take time off from work to care for the new puppies/mother for a few months. Should I tell the company my personal decision in this case is part of the "pay their share" plan? I want to do (insert any endeavor I feel entitled too) and the company should "pay their share"? C'mon. It's obvious you were brought up much differently than I to think in such a mindset. And of course since they are giving mom paid maternity leave for an extended period of time, you better not discriminate against men, giving dad the same option. Where does it end? 
