FMLA: Once again America is rather behind the times

[Altherion]

Nobody uses that reasoning though. It's not birthrate, it's just ... compassion. Enlightened Self-Interest. A ton of other things too.

We help others in society because it's "the right thing to do" and because, in the end, it always pays itself back in lower crime rates and better products and all the other things that make life great.

Compassion is all well and good, but it is virtually infinite whereas our resources are painfully limited. There are dozens of ways to redistribute resources -- all of which are compassionate and all of which are expensive. It would be nice if there was some omnipotent being that would step in to do the work of the individual on leave at no charge, but since such a being has yet to manifest, the costs of this compassion must be borne by all of us and there is only so much that we can bear. Thus, outside of egregious situations completely incompatible with our culture (e.g. 6 year olds being forced to work), you have to convince people that what you're proposing will actually benefit everyone more than various other things we can do with the same money.

In this particular case, I'm not sure of the details, but as far as I can tell, the proposal (and actual policy in several countries) is to give all mothers a period of paid leave after (and possibly before) childbirth. Is that right? That idea has some interesting consequences. For example, suppose the leave is 3 months and a woman who makes $20K per year has a baby. The company and/or state would then have to pony up $5K for her paid leave. On the other hand, if a woman who makes $100K per year has a baby, the company and/or state would have to pay her $25K for the same amount of time. The two are in different tax brackets so the difference won't be quite as drastic, but the rich will still get more out of this than the poor.

[Swordfish]

My point was there are plenty of people making just barely above minimum wage. Those people who work at Wal-Mart and other such places. You don't like the way they are treated or how much money they make. Not everyone has a college degree and an income above the poverty level.

And those people cannot afford to have children, and should therefor be doing everything they can to avoid it.

[Shryke]

Government is a function of society.

Society/Govrnemnt is not people "living at the expense of everybody else", it's people leaning on each other to acheive more then they could alone.

Again, this is pure hypocritical bullshit coming from you, who's existence, good health, home, education and pretty much everything that makes you, you (including your talking to me here on the internet), comes from society.

Your quote is pure fiction from someone too stupid to see the very systems that make his life possible.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

And those people cannot afford to have children, and should therefor be doing everything they can to avoid it.

Like taking the pill?

It's not the child they can't afford, it is the 6 weeks of no pay they can't handle.

[denstorebog]

Who, in the United States, are the "millions going hungry every day"? I grew up with broke-ass-poor parents (way below the poverty line), and I can't recall missing meals ever.

So the idea of the broken ass loser applies only to the states? If you want to argue from principle, then why not apply where applicable? I don't suppose you'd suddenly support maternity leave if you lived in, say, an east european country? After all, it's still a matter of you paying for someone else. The myth of the american dream lives on well beyond american borders, so you'll hear the same 'get a job' argument pretty much anywhere.

This discussion started out with a US-specific situation, but when it's a matter of principally being against paying for someone else's children or well-being because of the notion that they shut up and put up, it becomes a much more universal topic.

[Swordfish]

Like taking the pill?

It's not the child they can't afford, it is the 6 weeks of no pay they can't handle.

If you can't afford to lose 6 weeks of pay, you cannot afford to raise a child.

Simple.

[denstorebog]

If you can't afford to lose 6 weeks of pay, you cannot afford to raise a child.

Following my previous post - if we take the topic out of the states, how would you apply this to, say, a third world country? Would you apply it? - or would that be different? Why?

[Swordfish]

Following my previous post - if we take the topic out of the states, how would you apply this to, say, a third world country? Would you apply it? - or would that be different? Why?

I'm not sure I understand the question? There are many in third world countries who cannot afford to have children.

What is the relevance of third world countries here?

[ljkeane]

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Because all the countries in the world without governments are doing so well. I certainly wish I was living in Somalia free from the brutal oppression of the rule of law and a high standard of living.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

If you can't afford to lose 6 weeks of pay, you cannot afford to raise a child.

Simple.

So what should they do? Abort?

That would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it? Let us just force all poor people to abort.

Reminds me of the involuntary sterizations the US used to do.

[denstorebog]

I'm not sure I understand the question? There are many in third world countries who cannot afford to have children.

Yes, but would your advice to them be 'just don't have children'?

I want to know whether your point is 'anyone can save up to have children if they just get their act together' or 'some people will never have the money, so they shouldn't have children, period'. Since there seems to be some delusions that 'there aren't people in the states who can't get out of their poverty', I'm asking from a third world perspective because I assume you wouldn't argue that anyone in a third world country could get a job if they wanted, etc., even if you're still convinced that anybody in the US being able to make ends meet given the will to do so.

[一方通行]

So what should they do? Abort?

That would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it? Let us just force all poor people to abort.

Reminds me of the involuntary sterizations the US used to do.

why are you equating 'should' with 'should be made to'?

people are allowed to make stupid decisions.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Society/Govrnemnt is not people "living at the expense of everybody else", it's people leaning on each other to acheive more then they could alone.

Society != government. And now you are sounding like a marxist :P

Again, this is pure hypocritical bullshit coming from you, who's existence, good health, home, education and pretty much everything that makes you, you (including your talking to me here on the internet), comes from society.

My family has never taken a dime of government money (that I recall, my dad might have taken unemployment sometime in the early eighties, but I'm not sure). My good health has been paid for and maintained by me, same with my home. I was homeschooled, and paid for my own college so that argument falls flat too. I'm sure you're going to say that the structure is all built on Government etc etc, but again, we weren't given a choice in that matter were we? Also, if you want to debate something other than maternity leave, start a new thread (tomorrow, I'm about out for the night).

Like taking the pill?

Or not having sex? It's what we tell our kids to do if they want to avoid pregnancy, I bet it works for grown ups too.

So the idea of the broken ass loser applies only to the states?

The whole topic has been about the US. Are you saying that Zimbabwe should put other things on hold to ensure that they have paid maternity leave?

Because all the countries in the world without governments are doing so well. I certainly wish I was living in Somalia free from the brutal oppression of the rule of law and a high standard of living.

Somalia has plenty of governments. A couple hundred all fighting each other I think.

So what should they do? Abort?

Move in with Mom and Dad? Get a cheaper apartment? Shryke keeps telling me I should move to a deserted island in the pacific. Perhaps they should do that.

[denstorebog]

The whole topic has been about the US.

No, it hasn't. The moment you state that you don't want to pay for other people's children, it doesn't matter squat where you're located. If you moved to another country, would you suddenly want to?

Or not having sex? It's what we tell our kids to do if they want to avoid pregnancy, I bet it works for grown ups too.

Who are 'we', here, exactly? Because I'm certainly *not* going to tell my kids that (or practice that method myself).

[Guest thebadlady]

Like I told my dumbass sister, 'fucking makes babies, now stop it'. Seriously, why are you arguing against self-control and common sense? Don't eat out and go to the bar, don't fuck if you can't afford it, save some fucking money and go to school. Once you are out, have a fucking work ethic and make money and advance. My parents did it, I did it and now my dumbass sister is doing it. Even if you aren't that bright, you can still make good money in blue collar jobs. But you have to *work* and sacrifice shit.

Neither Chataya or I are saying that FMLA or other parental leave programs are wrong. From what I know of Chataya, I think she would agree with me that they are a great idea and are an investment personally and professionally. What both of us are saying is that, to a point, poverty IS chosen. Maybe not in the sense that someone wakes up and says fuckit, I think I will be a broke ass loser all my life, but in the sense that they will make EXCUSES for EVERYTHING. Whinging that they can't afford school, can't afford this, can't afford that. Get up and do something about it! There are soooo many places and ways to get help to suceed - it is willfully and purposefully ignoring that help that is so frustrating.

*Chataya and I are both from an area of the country known for its no-nonsense work ethic. You walk to work both ways up a hill in a blizzard so you can feed your kids and shit.

Third world economy and social structures have nothing at all in common with the rest of the industralized world. You are pulling strawmens out of your ass to even bring their situation into this.

[Rakehell]

Give them a good education, lots of time with their families and all those other things that lead to better adjusted, more productive members of society. Everyone wins.

Can we apply that to everyone?

The single guy with no kids can go spend time with his parents and come back to work after 12 weeks healthier and happier, or go work for Habitat for Humanity or the Peace Corps, or he can just spend those 12 weeks sitting around doing nothing but whatever the hell he wants as long as he's making himself happy. Maybe he needs that time to clear his head so he can come back and be more productive with the company, maybe he needs it to take a short term job so he can invest in a new side project. Regardless of what he does with it, that time will most likely make him happier, better adjusted and more productive.

Or are we saying that only parents are worthy of this special treatment?

I get the idea of looking at it as an investment in the future, that some day these kids are going to be running the world and it's in all of our best interests to try and make them as ready for that as we can. I just think you're putting a lot of blind faith in the parents to actually use that time to raise the kid properly.

Me? I'd rather invest that time in employees who will contribute to the company, and to the world, now, rather than gambling that their child will be worth it.

[Joanna vander Poele]

Or not having sex? It's what we tell our kids to do if they want to avoid pregnancy, I bet it works for grown ups too.

This particular bit makes me laugh every time I read it...

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Can we apply that to everyone?

The single guy with no kids can go spend time with his parents and come back to work after 12 weeks healthier and happier, or go work for Habitat for Humanity or the Peace Corps, or he can just spend those 12 weeks sitting around doing nothing but whatever the hell he wants as long as he's making himself happy. Maybe he needs that time to clear his head so he can come back and be more productive with the company, maybe he needs it to take a short term job so he can invest in a new side project. Regardless of what he does with it, that time will most likely make him happier, better adjusted and more productive.

Or are we saying that only parents are worthy of this special treatment?

I get the idea of looking at it as an investment in the future, that some day these kids are going to be running the world and it's in all of our best interests to try and make them as ready for that as we can. I just think you're putting a lot of blind faith in the parents to actually use that time to raise the kid properly.

Me? I'd rather invest that time in employees who will contribute to the company, and to the world, now, rather than gambling that their child will be worth it.

Daycares won't take kids under 6 weeks old. It is not just about the bonding time, there are legal reasons for having it.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

This particular bit makes me laugh every time I read it...

Me too. Not only should teenagers not have sex, but even married people should not have sex. really. :rolleyes:

[Guest thebadlady]

sex isn't a requirement for anything, do you realize that? why, people have gone without sex for YEARS and LIVED. just like anything else - if you can't handle the potential consequences, don't do it.

when did self-control and self-discipline become bad characteristics?