FMLA: Once again America is rather behind the times

[Minaku]

Because you haven't got a leg to stand on. As I said, you're dissing something that provably works and considerably more 'extreme' versions of which work every day for hundreds of millions of people around the world without their economies imploding. Exactly the same as in the UHC debate.

Wait, hold on; you characterize an American sentiment in a bad way, I call you out on it and say that Americans have not been attacking Europeans in the thread for their views, and then you tell me that Americans basically deserve to be characterized suchly?

I haven't been dissing anything. What you guys are suggesting is nice and all but until we can come up with a real way of dealing with it, it is not feasible. Where will the money come from? Who will pay? How long should leave be? What percentage of income should be subsidized? How long should a job remain secure? Who gains from these benefits? What are the minimum requirements for qualifying for such a program? And again, who will pay if this is not mandatory?

Christ on a cracker.

[Watcher]

Wert, your logic is sound, but we're talking about an extreme cultural divide, here. Emotionally, your post just makes me go "ugh" when you're talking about your "buffer or safety net" paid for by anyone BUT the individual savings of the people having children. I cringe when you mention an "national backup insurance plan". You're going to find some Americans who agree with you - many on this board. Just know that a lot of the people on here tend to tilt to the far left; we are underrepresented here in the American center and right.

This is where we are talking past each other. You are right, ideally people should have enough funds to support their decision to have a child. But as its been advised unthread, got pregnant then figure out how to manage your money is the norm. The decision to have a child isn’t purely rational and saying people should do X before having a kid is not workable.

Given that having a child isn’t a completely rational decision we must also base our response on that. We can continue to stumbling along as America has been doing with each company developing it’s own policy with some guidance from the government

Or we can recognize reality that people don’t and won’t think enough about the financial impact of having a child. There are also studies done on raising child that can provide insight on how to develop good policies on this issue. There are also other real-life examples on how this issue is raised and decide if there is a better way and will fit into America's framework.

Based on the fact that ever creditable study that has ever been done showing the first several months (years) of how a child is raised is very influential on their later development. I’ll argue that providing a 12 to 16 week paid medical leave after birth is in the best interest of society. Having a child isn’t rational and making a law saying people must have X amount of money saved before having a kid is impossible and unethical. Having the primary care-giver supported by companies and taxpayers is acceptable and a sound way of using our tax dollars. Because the returns on the country will be greater then the sum invested.

a

[Filippa Eilhart]

according to wikipedia, the world's highest birth-rates are in Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia. I guess that means their systems work best :)

[Swordfish]

Show me the (objective, quantifiable) chaos resulting from not having paid maternity leave. Also, if subsidizing birth does not have quantifiable objectives and results, then it will be time to call it feelgood-progressive-hogwash with no place in government.

That's centrism? Here I've been doing it the whole time, in a very very extreme way. I'm like the mountain dew commercial of centrism :D

Would that make the communist version of you like Mt. Dew Code Red?

[Inigima]

Goddamn you people like your black-and-white arguments.

My sense of things is this. Things that can be done by either the private sector or the government fall into three categories, broadly speaking:

1. Things the private sector does better (either through quality of results or through efficiency, or both).

2. Things the government does better (the same).

3. Things the private sector wouldn't do, but that societally we agree are worth doing, so the government does it.

I don't think a pure system of either extreme works very well. A mixed-mode system is far more desirable.

edit: also quit being douchebags

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Ugh...I am sick of these cart-horse arguments.

The bottom line is, just because the format for maternity leave works in the UK and some other countries doesnt mean it will in the US. The argument from birth rates should be applied thusly: we have a larger birth rate in the US, and therefore more person-hours will be lost here for giving similar leave times than in the US. This deficit has to be made up somehow - you cant just glibly assert that what works in the UK will in the US. If the answer is more taxes or fewer vacations for other members of the workforce, thats ok, but I would like to see such facts acknowledged at least.

Bullshit. Most European countries have longer vacations than US. That´s more than enough to counter the birthrate.

[Swordfish]

This is where we are talking past each other. You are right, ideally people should have enough funds to support their decision to have a child. But as its been advised unthread, got pregnant then figure out how to manage your money is the norm. The decision to have a child isn’t purely rational and saying people should do X before having a kid is not workable.

Given that having a child isn’t a completely rational decision we must also base our response on that. We can continue to stumbling along as America has been doing with each company developing it’s own policy with some guidance from the government

a

How is that stumbling?

Specifically how is the current system in america failing, and what, specifically, are the adverse affects of that failure?

[potsherds]

according to wikipedia, the world's highest birth-rates are in Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia. I guess that means their systems work best :)

:rofl:

Thank you soooo much for posting that. Higher birth rates, if they indicate anything indicate a country with lower education, more poverty, less infrastructure, higher crime, and many other things associated with 3rd world and developing countries.

Some resistance is understandable and I wish more sympathy is afforded people who show such resistance.

Your post made some good points, but I'm gonna disagree with this. I think folks are trying to be as polite as possible, save some frustration. I personally am really not willing to hold conservative America's hand while they make baby steps toward accepting and developing the kind of social safety nets better developed countries have. Exaggerating their positions to show them how it looks to others is well and good, especially if it helps them realize how much their positions are based on selfishness, a false sense of superiority, unrealistic expectations and lies.

[IheartTesla]

Bullshit. Most European countries have longer vacations than US. That´s more than enough to counter the birthrate.

Ok. So what exactly will change when we start giving pregnant women more maternity leave? Please dont say nothing at all.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who has participated in this thread (on both sides). It has been a very interesting discussion, and I have learned a lot.

There was one thing I wanted to comment on. Filippa has mentioned a national insurance program that people pay into, and this inturn provides money for medical leave. I actully like this idea as an alternative. Kind of like a government run "aflac" insurance that would pay you actual money if you are out of work for an extended period of time. Amount paid out based on amount paid in. Also have the insurance optional.

I have optional short term disability and long term disability, but it is subsidised by my company. It would be nice if everyone had something like this and that it could be used in the case of childbirth as well as a lasting injury.

This is how I think a national insurance program would work. (just subsidised by the gov instead of the individual companies) and yes, I realize that while paying is optional, some tax funds would still go towards it, just a lot less than I had originally hypothisized.

And I do hope everyone here realizes that this is just an academic exercise. There is no need for anyone to be getting upset about any of this. It is just a bunch of people tossing ideas around.

[一方通行]

This is where we are talking past each other. You are right, ideally people should have enough funds to support their decision to have a child. But as its been advised unthread, got pregnant then figure out how to manage your money is the norm. The decision to have a child isn’t purely rational and saying people should do X before having a kid is not workable.

and why should that be society as a whole's problem? why save people from this particular spectacularly stupid decision and not from any of the other spectacularly bad decisions they could possibly make? as i asked before, if i dont buy insurance because i want to have some extra cash, then my house burns down, do you believe that the government should cut me a check for a new one?

its just not reasonable to expect me to have been at all responsible with my life decisions.

[Watcher]

How is that stumbling?

Specifically how is the current system in america failing, and what, specifically, are the adverse affects of that failure?

Specifically each company decides its own policies and more of them are cutting back on the benefits it provides. I'm also viewing this as a health care issue and the American system is failing. I'm trying not to highjack this thread.

[Annelise]

The USA having a higher birthrate is an interesting point.

If you want to up your birth rates over there, you could also try teaching abstinance only. In the case of marrieds, call it personal responsibility.

[Swordfish]

Specifically each company decides its own policies and more of them are cutting back on the benefits it provides. I'm also viewing this as a health care issue and the American system is failing. I'm trying not to highjack this thread.

That doesn't even remotely answer the question.

Do you have a link that indicates many companies are cutting back on maternity benefits in the united states?

I would love to hear someone quantify the benefits to society of extending paid maternity leave beyond 'studies show that the first few years of life are important developmentally'.

[potsherds]

I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who has participated in this thread (on both sides). It has been a very interesting discussion, and I have learned a lot.

There was one thing I wanted to comment on. Filippa has mentioned a national insurance program that people pay into, and this inturn provides money for medical leave. I actully like this idea as an alternative. Kind of like a government run "aflac" insurance that would pay you actual money if you are out of work for an extended period of time. Amount paid out based on amount paid in. Also have the insurance optional.

I have optional short term disability and long term disability, but it is subsidised by my company. It would be nice if everyone had something like this and that it could be used in the case of childbirth as well as a lasting injury.

This is how I think a national insurance program would work. (just subsidised by the gov instead of the individual companies) and yes, I realize that while paying is optional, some tax funds would still go towards it, just a lot less than I had originally hypothisized.

I like this idea as well, Lany. :) It'd be nice to have.

[Inigima]

I think folks are trying to be as polite as possible, save some frustration.

You're joking, right? This is a joke?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

What you're talking about in paragraph 1 is a bad idea (in the US), because all it is is SAVINGS (amount paid out based on amount paid in), not true insurance. Get a savings account if you want that. What Filippa has is a true insurance program, but it's required. By the government. For everyone. So people who don't have kids are paying for those who are. That won't go over too well in the US.

Your disability insurance is an entirely different matter. It's a low-cost insurance typically paid for by companies because it IS low-cost. You should also have the cost of the premiums included in your taxable income, so that you pay tax on them. The reason for this is because if you've paid tax on the premiums, any disability income is totally tax-free. However, if you do not pay tax on the premiums, any disability income is totally taxable at your marginal tax rate.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $5 per paycheck in taxes, and if I get run over by a bus and unable to work, the disability insurance will pay me $61,000 a year tax free; than have the alternate scenario of no taxes on my check and only get $52,000 a year because I had to pay taxes on it. (Numbers are rounded for easy example).

Talk to your HR department about having your premiums included as taxable income, if you're interested.

I don't mean savings, I do mean insurance. But I wasn't thinking of a flat amount, but a flat percentange, therefore those paying more in dollars would get more in premium payments than those paying in less (lets face it, we don't all make the same, nor could we all live on the same amount because of the huge differences in cost of living....the US is a lot bigger than Poland, afterall)

And thanks for the tip. I will check on it Monday. All our pay info and options are on-line so we can make the changes ourselves.

[denstorebog]

I think the elephant in the room here is that 'personal responsibility' is being thrown around a lot, but no one cares to define it. Basically it assumes a universal level of intelligence, foresight and *education* throughout a nation's population. I'm still dumbfounded that people are buying into the idea that everyone in the States could and should be adequately financially prepared for a burnt down house *and* a set of twins and whatever else might strike, but okay, I don't see us making headway there.

So let's talk about the concept of personal responsibility. I recognize why it would be *nice* if we could expect everyone to act by a certain set of values and a certain degree of sensibility, but that's also a hell of an assumption given that people are different, some being batshit insane, others being simpletons, others having weird ethics and others again not being very good at planning ahead as a matter of cognitive ability - or lack of proper education.

So to turn it around - we're hearing people shouldn't expect to be paid for if they've proven themselves to be 'personally irresponsible'. First of all, what do you propose we do about these people? Do we, as neighbours, colleagues, etc., judge them on an individual case-by-case basis and decide from there whether they deserve our help? And if they don't, do we ignore that their personal irresponsibility will ultimately harm, say, their unexpected offspring? And would you be able to display this lack of empathy when actually faced with a piss poor family who might not have lived up to your personal, well-educated standards for responsibility and turn your back on them as well as the child they didn't responsibly save up for?

I get the feeling of being entitled to just not caring - but how would you want that to translate into practice?

(I think this question is pretty central to any condemnation of socialist initiatives. A lot of people seem to think that socialists want to hand out money to undeserving, lazy people for the hell of it.)

[Jaerv]

Could it be possible that the costs for armed forces also plays a role here? Being a superpower is expensive, a welfare state is also expensive. The European states have a rather weak military but a strong social safety net. The USA prefer to be a superpower. Can’t have both at the same time, I assume…

[Swordfish]

I don't mean savings, I do mean insurance. But I wasn't thinking of a flat amount, but a flat percentange, therefore those paying more in dollars would get more in premium payments than those paying in less (lets face it, we don't all make the same, nor could we all live on the same amount because of the huge differences in cost of living....the US is a lot bigger than Poland, afterall)

But the problem with that is that only people who are likely to use it, probably mostly people planning to have children, would ever buy such an 'insurance'. So either the premiums would be atrociously expensive, or you'd have to come up with a metric buttload of money from somewhere else.

hell, most people don't even pay the couple bucks a month for disability insurance!

I think the elephant in the room here is that 'personal responsibility' is being thrown around a lot, but no one cares to define it. Basically it assumes a universal level of intelligence, foresight and *education* throughout a nation's population. I'm still dumbfounded that people are buying into the idea that everyone in the States could and should be adequately financially prepared for a burnt down house *and* a set of twins and whatever else might strike, but okay, I don't see us making headway there.

So let's talk about the concept of personal responsibility. I recognize why it would be *nice* if we could expect everyone to act by a certain set of values and a certain degree of sensibility, but that's also a hell of an assumption given that people are different, some being batshit insane, others being simpletons, others having weird ethics and others again not being very good at planning ahead as a matter of cognitive ability - or lack of proper education.

So to turn it around - we're hearing people shouldn't expect to be paid for if they've proven themselves to be 'personally irresponsible'. First of all, what do you propose we do about these people? Do we, as neighbours, colleagues, etc., judge them on an individual case-by-case basis and decide from there whether they deserve our help? And if they don't, do we ignore that their personal irresponsibility will ultimately harm, say, their unexpected offspring? And would you be able to display this lack of empathy when actually faced with a piss poor family who might not have lived up to your personal, well-educated standards for responsibility and turn your back on them as well as the child they didn't responsibly save up for?

I get the feeling of being entitled to just not caring - but how would you want that to translate into practice?

(I think this question is pretty central to any condemnation of socialist initiatives. A lot of people seem to think that socialists want to hand out money to undeserving, lazy people for the hell of it.)

Lets start with not providing two years of paid maternity leave.