I want this

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's nice to know that staying home to take care of the kids is nothing more than sitting on one's ass. Or is it only toil and work when mom does it? Or if the daycare or babysitter or au pair does it?

There are plenty of people who care for their kids by plopping them in front of a tv and sitting on their asses. I've done the whole single parenting thing myself before, and that's not what I did. But I do know people who do it that way.

It's like getting paid by the government to do your own laundry, or cook your own meals, or repair your own range. It's part of life, not something for which other people should pay you.

[kairparavel]

There are plenty of people who care for their kids by plopping them in front of a tv and sitting on their asses. I've done the whole single parenting thing myself before, and that's not what I did. But I do know people who do it that way.

It's like getting paid by the government to do your own laundry, or cook your own meals, or repair your own range. It's part of life, not something for which other people should pay you.

When you go out on a Saturday night and leave the kids behind with a babysitter, that's an example of someone being paid to look after your kids. When you have a job and a financial obligation and you choose to stay home with the children, to help in their formative upbringing, you are not getting paid to look after them. You are receiving a form of employment insurance, like you would if you were ill or part of a job loss. It's a benefit not renumeration.

All I can say is, I come from a country that provides this benefit, and though I am not a parent myself nor will be, I would never want to have child bearing come down to a series of questions that stem from my ability to afford care, either by myself or a third party.

[Gertrude]

There are plenty of people who care for their kids by plopping them in front of a tv and sitting on their asses. I've done the whole single parenting thing myself before, and that's not what I did. But I do know people who do it that way.

It's like getting paid by the government to do your own laundry, or cook your own meals, or repair your own range. It's part of life, not something for which other people should pay you.

Not being a parent myself, I don't have direct experience, but wouldn't taking care of a new baby - kind of the point of maternal/paternal leave - be vastly different from setting the kid in front of a tv and sitting on your ass? It's adjusting to a whole new schedule and routine, dealing with lack of sleep, etc.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not being a parent myself, I don't have direct experience, but wouldn't taking care of a new baby - kind of the point of maternal/paternal leave - be vastly different from setting the kid in front of a tv and sitting on your ass? It's adjusting to a whole new schedule and routine, dealing with lack of sleep, etc.

If I may speak for FLOW, I believe he brought this up as an extreme example, to drive home his point that child-rearing is a personal decision and a personal expense, not something to be subsidized by one's productive neighbors.

[Fenryng]

"Why doesn't everyone want this?"

I suspect for the same reasons that involve no one actually enforcing their immigration policies, and setting standards as to whom the banks and lenders can and cannot lend their money to people who cannot afford it - God forbid the government do anything that takes away from businesses and free enterprise, and, oh, I don't know, enforce the laws simply as they stand?

Both of the things I just listed above? Done by Canada.

Care to take a wild, stab-in-the-dark guess as to which country isn't, has not, and continues not to have any problems with the aforementioned examples?

[Altherion]

If I may speak for FLOW, I believe he brought this up as an extreme example, to drive home his point that child-rearing is a personal decision and a personal expense, not something to be subsidized by one's productive neighbors.

This is not entirely true. The generation of the children will ultimately support the generation of the parents when the latter get old so to an extent child-rearing is worth subsidizing. Unfortunately, to get what Sweden has, we'd have to significantly rearrange our society -- there is no way to pay for it otherwise.

[litechick]

I agree that there is a need for equality in parenting. I would tend to weigh parental leave more like 60/40 because the woman has to recover physically in addition to adapting to care for the new baby.

I would highly approve of a company which offered part-time parental leave for both parents. I think this is a superior plan for the following reasons:

1) Parents need to adjust to managing the baby while also getting to work on time.

2) It doesn't require two people 24 hours a day to care for a baby.

3) The employer isn't losing your valuable skills altogether during the leave time.

4) Each parent will get time for parenting but also time to get out of the house, keep their head in the game (work), and a chance to take a deep breath and not worry about the baby for a few hours.

I agree that on the government level we cannot remotely afford any new programs and moreover, I believe that increasing domestic spending should really be a choice of what other programs need to be cut in order to make budget room for it.

For instance, if we want the government to pay we need to send less money for fighting Aids in Africa or close down military bases in Germany, etc.

First balance the budget, then decide where to cut in order to fund the new program. In the meantime, employers can use their progressive parental leave policies to attract the best and brightest to their companies.

[Swordfish]

I agree that there is a need for equality in parenting. I would tend to weigh parental leave more like 60/40 because the woman has to recover physically in addition to adapting to care for the new baby.

I would highly approve of a company which offered part-time parental leave for both parents. I think this is a superior plan for the following reasons:

1) Parents need to adjust to managing the baby while also getting to work on time.

2) It doesn't require two people 24 hours a day to care for a baby.

3) The employer isn't losing your valuable skills altogether during the leave time.

4) Each parent will get time for parenting but also time to get out of the house, keep their head in the game (work), and a chance to take a deep breath and not worry about the baby for a few hours.

I agree that on the government level we cannot remotely afford any new programs and moreover, I believe that increasing domestic spending should really be a choice of what other programs need to be cut in order to make budget room for it.

For instance, if we want the government to pay we need to send less money for fighting Aids in Africa or close down military bases in Germany, etc.

First balance the budget, then decide where to cut in order to fund the new program. In the meantime, employers can use their progressive parental leave policies to attract the best and brightest to their companies.

Assuming the best and brightest are interested in having children.

[Galactus]

Assuming the best and brightest are interested in having children.

That's actually one of the reasons for this. Forcing women to choose between a career and having children means a lot would pick a career (it's not an unreasonably supposition that many, if not most, would pick both if they could)

[Kat]

Assuming the best and brightest are interested in having children.

A lot of times they are. It's just that being the "best and the brightest" does not necessarily translate to working at a high-paying job.. If you're in a field where the wages are not as high, however, that doesn't mean that a) you can't be a superb candidate for that job and b )you should have to fork over nearly your entire salary for child care.

I would love it if we changed our national priorities to stop messing around so much overseas and start worrying about the quality of life for people who actually live here, including parents, young children, and school-aged children. Family values indeed.

[Swordfish]

That's actually one of the reasons for this. Forcing women to choose between a career and having children means a lot would pick a career (it's not an unreasonably supposition that many, if not most, would pick both if they could)

Well.... sure.

I don't want to get into the discussion about why we should or shouldn't be subsidizing the creation of children.

But what you are saying is subtly different than the supposition that it would be a major selling point for the 'best and brightest' employees on a large scale.

What about those who are done having kids or are past child bearing age?

The notion that the best and brightest are likely to want kids could be construed as ageist, could it not?

[litechick]

I would love it if we changed our national priorities to stop messing around so much overseas and start worrying about the quality of life for people who actually live here, including parents, young children, and school-aged children. Family values indeed.

On the face of it, this would seem logical but since I consider parental leave a luxury moreso than a necessity, it's hard for me to feel good about taking money away from a place where it is a matter of life or death.

I hope we won't be distracted by my 'best and brightest' comment. It was meant to be shorthand for a company's ability to retain the best employees for their needs. Even in a minimum wage situation you want to retain the fastest and most accurate cook or the most charismatic customer service people, etc.

Also, I think there should be equity in the treatment of employees. If a person is not breeding or parenting for whatever reason, there should be some sort of benefit for them but it shouldn't be the employer's job to relieve them of the responsibility of making big life choices. You can have paid flex time for parenthood or education or sabbatical but not all three.

The benefits extended should not exceed the value that the employee adds to the company.

[Gertrude]

If I may speak for FLOW, I believe he brought this up as an extreme example, to drive home his point that child-rearing is a personal decision and a personal expense, not something to be subsidized by one's productive neighbors.

I see now that he was talking specifically about taxpayer funded paternity leave. I just took offense that the notion of a man taking time off to be with his baby was an excuse for paid vacation for him to sit on his ass.

FLOW - I assume that you don't think that men or women should be paid - by their employer or otherwise - for taking time off to be with a new baby?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I see now that he was talking specifically about taxpayer funded paternity leave. I just took offense that the notion of a man taking time off to be with his baby was an excuse for paid vacation for him to sit on his ass.

FLOW - I assume that you don't think that men or women should be paid - by their employer or otherwise - for taking time off to be with a new baby?

Definitely not by the government. Again, it is a personal choice.

By the employer? Well, that's up to them. But the reality is that an employer is going to spend so much on labor costs, and giving money to one employee necessarily means that money can't go to other employees. I personally wouldn't offer it as an employer because it necessarily means I'm taking money out of the pockets of other employees. But again, I've got no bitch about employers deciding to do that on their own.

A few friends of mine are Catholic, with large families. One has 8 brothers and sisters, another has 6, and one is the 7th child of his own. It's been pretty much a kid a year. Consider what that means under such policies. A fair number of jobs really can't be performed well if the employee is taking significant amounts of leave each year. Add to that actually paying employees to do so, and (this is important) the piggybacking of legal claims based on discrimination against people who took such leave, and you have a significant burden to both businesses and coworkers who have to pick up the slack.

Having kids involves making sacrifices, as everyone who has kids knows. But they should be sacrifices made by the parents, not by the parents' neighbors.

I know some folks who desperately want kids but can't have children of their own. The thought that they should end up paying for other people not to work so they can be with their kids....I dunno. Just seems wrong to me.

[Shryke]

If I may speak for FLOW, I believe he brought this up as an extreme example, to drive home his point that child-rearing is a personal decision and a personal expense, not something to be subsidized by one's productive neighbors.

Yes, and that's why maternity leave is a crock of shit that should be done away with.

[mormont]

I would highly approve of a company which offered part-time parental leave for both parents.

Well, as you point out there clearly needs to be some element of full-time leave if only for the mother to adjust and recover physically. And yes, this can mean the other partner also being off full-time to care for the baby. It is very much a 24-hour job for some time after the birth, and when I say 24-hour, I mean 24-hour: in other words you need someone to cover the hours when you're asleep, whenever they happen to be.

But putting that aside, in my experience many employers and most employees now realise that a period of part-time adjustment starting after a short break is better than a long full-time break abruptly ending in a full-time return. So I wouldn't disagree with some of what you say there. And one of the recent developments in maternity leave (in the UK) that I like is that the government encourages employers to use 'keep in touch' days during maternity leave to bring employees in to maintain their skills, keep them up to date on developments, etc. It's not a 'return to work' but a way of preparing the new mother for a return to work (when used properly, anyway). So in practise, it's increasingly common for parental leave to be regarded flexibly.

The idea that parental leave is a 'luxury moreso than a necessity', on the other hand, suggests you're either using the word 'luxury' in a way I'm not familiar with, or that you haven't that much first-hand experience of new babies. A matter of life and death? Maybe not death, but very much a matter of life. It greatly improves health outcomes for the parents and the child.

Also, I think there should be equity in the treatment of employees. If a person is not breeding or parenting for whatever reason, there should be some sort of benefit for them

This is a false 'equity', though. Would you suggest that my employer should give me additional leave if my colleagues are off sick a lot? Or if I get a lot of compassionate leave one year, should my colleagues get something to make up for that?

This is based on the assumption that having children is a 'lifestyle choice' and nothing more than that, like going abroad on holiday or (as you mention) going on sabbatical. It's silly to suggest employers should try to enforce some sort of artificial equality of outcome rather than treating employees as individuals, with individual circumstances.

[Shryke]

Well, on that front mormont, federal employees in Canada (at least a bunch of them) get "generalized leave" once in their lives. It is, in actual fact, honeymoon leave or some such but they had to give it out to anyone, even those who didn't get married, so you can just take it whenever.

[Datepalm]

The real Tormund is at his friend's cabin in the mountains, shooting guns of a ridiculous and possibly illegal caliber, drinking moonshine, and partaking in substances banned by multiple laws.

This guy here is sitting at his desk at home, working for the man and moderating his tone somewhat, trying to at least get people to agree that if they can't be fiscally conservative, they can at least be fiscally rational.

Good Lord, is that a distinction between reality and fantasy? Where is the real Tormund and how many rounds did it take?

On topic - I think this came up ages ago that in dropping so much childcare on women in a way thats detrimental to their careers, particularly, you're losing both good options. A lot of people aren't having kids (Eurabia! Hipanamerica! The chinese in Siberia! No more white people! More to the point, wonky demographic pyramids with bad long term economic prospects.) AND a lot of women are sacrificing valuable careers. The supposedly most efficient of systems shoots itself in the fott and a few other appendages, again.

ETA - Shryke - isn't that the same problem though? Instead of having "honeymoon leave" youve established some amount of time that a person should need, and then anyone who dosen;t fit into that - becuase they have a sick kid, for example, is now in trouble.

[MinDonner]

1) Society needs to keep producing kids in order to ensure its long-term survival

2) It's government's responsibility to ensure equal treatment for all its citizens; the gender pay-gap is one of the most entrenched examples of inequality, largely perpetuated by the disproportionate amount of child-rearing responsibility placed on women.

So, I don't think it should be down to businesses, though if they want to offer additional benefits to retain staff then good on 'em. This is a cost the taxpayer needs to be paying; treating this as just an "individual parental choice" matter is just inadequate.

[Shryke]

Shryke - isn't that the same problem though? Instead of having "honeymoon leave" youve established some amount of time that a person should need, and then anyone who dosen;t fit into that - becuase they have a sick kid, for example, is now in trouble.

I don't see how this follows at all. In fact, I can't understand what your trying to say here at all. We seem to be thinking of 2 different things here or something.

It was originally honeymoon leave. After your marriage you got like 2 weeks off or something (I can't remember the specifics). It's part of the union contract.

Then people, rightly, complained that this was discriminatory. What about people who didn't ever get married. Or couples that are essentially married but never use the word or do the ceremony or anything (a very big thing in Quebec among the like under 50 crowd).

So the government simply extended that period of leave to everyone. Everyone gets that 2 weeks (or whatever) off once in their life, at whatever time and for whatever purpose they want. Many still use it for honeymoons, but if you ain't married, just take some time off instead.

My point (if I even have one, I'm kinda tired here :P) is that handing out random leave to everyone, because some need it and you are trying to enforce some equality of outcome, is not a crazy or bad or weird thing.