whoami
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 12:43:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by whoami on Aug 15, 2015 0:41:27 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. Why do you suppose that doesn't happen in other countries with generous maternity leaves? Are you referring to those countries with insanely high tax rates which fund all these generous maternity leaves and social programs?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 15, 2015 2:58:39 GMT -5
Why do you suppose that doesn't happen in other countries with generous maternity leaves? Are you referring to those countries with insanely high tax rates which fund all these generous maternity leaves and social programs? Not that insane. When you factor in what we get in return, it more than makes up for any small difference. Healthcare, mat leave, government-subsidized daycare, very inexpensive higher education......well, how much extra do YOU pay for your health insurance, daycare costs and university?
www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans.aspx
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 7:38:21 GMT -5
Are you referring to those countries with insanely high tax rates which fund all these generous maternity leaves and social programs? Not that insane. When you factor in what we get in return, it more than makes up for any small difference. Healthcare, mat leave, government-subsidized daycare, very inexpensive higher education......well, how much extra do YOU pay for your health insurance, daycare costs and university?
www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans.aspx
Prefer our system where we pay for what we use. Why should a person with no children have to pay higher taxes to fund the daycare costs for a family that made the choice to have 4 children? Just like you like your country the way it is, I like mine the way it is. I don't want to pay crazy taxes to fund choices of others.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Aug 15, 2015 7:47:14 GMT -5
And how are you going to prove this? Are you going to expect your employee to go to the doctors each time they get a migraine, have a case of diarrhea or a cold? We discussed this ad nauseum between the supervisors and HR. If they have the vacation or sick time, you don't have the right to deny them. You can't (or we can't) request proof of one person, and not of everyone. It sucks when one person abuses the system for the rest. It really isn't as easy as you seem to think. That is exactly what one place I worked at expected thanks to the chronically hungover or "cramps" crowd. Call in sick, you better produce a doctors note. As a manager, I'm not to ask for a doctor's notes. Being in people's medical business is none of my business. If they tell me something about their personal business, I can ask if they need an accommodation and then get HR involved if they do. Otherwise everyone gets 10 use it or lose it occasional illness days they can use if they are not feeling well or to take care of somebody in their household who is sick. If they call out and aren't really sick, it's not my business to question it either. Maybe they are. I think it's great and is exactly how it should be. In 15 years, I've taken exactly one sick day and my direct reports don't abuse it either. If they email me and say they have to be out sick, I simple say "Thanks for letting me know. Get some rest and I hope you feel better tomorrow."
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 15, 2015 12:24:57 GMT -5
Prefer our system where we pay for what we use. Why should a person with no children have to pay higher taxes to fund the daycare costs for a family that made the choice to have 4 children? Just like you like your country the way it is, I like mine the way it is. I don't want to pay crazy taxes to fund choices of others. Because you're going to pay one way or another. If a woman with 4 children can't afford daycare, she's not going to go to work. If daycare costs eat up her entire salary, there's no point in working. She'll go on welfare. The money doesn't come from the welfare fairy. It's your taxes.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 15, 2015 12:40:47 GMT -5
I doubt 12 weeks of maternity pay will suddenly make a bunch of middle class career women run out and have a bunch of kids. It might increase the rate of births among lower paid workers, but most people that opt out of having kids, or only have one kid site long-term issues, instead of having to take a short period of reduced pay (via STD or whatever.)
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2015 13:05:15 GMT -5
Prefer our system where we pay for what we use. Why should a person with no children have to pay higher taxes to fund the daycare costs for a family that made the choice to have 4 children? Just like you like your country the way it is, I like mine the way it is. I don't want to pay crazy taxes to fund choices of others. You are already paying for things you don't use as your taxes pay police officers, firefighters, and other municipal workers that you probably never utilize the services of. I never understood this line of thinking.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,754
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2015 13:17:14 GMT -5
There's plenty of things my taxes go towards that I'm not in favor of but it is what it is and that doesn't justify paying more so we can further subsidize people for the decisions they make. Just because we currently pay for things we don't agree with doesn't mean we should pay for more, two wrongs don't make a right and we have limited financial resources and the answer isn't to tax more. Everything has a price and paying more to fund maternity leave (sure employers may pay but it trickles down to employees), college (candidates talking about billion dollar plans instead of addressing the cost of college itself) and so on for able bodied adults who can make and pay for their own choices isn't something I support when our elected leaders can't get our financial house in order.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 17:54:17 GMT -5
Prefer our system where we pay for what we use. Why should a person with no children have to pay higher taxes to fund the daycare costs for a family that made the choice to have 4 children? Just like you like your country the way it is, I like mine the way it is. I don't want to pay crazy taxes to fund choices of others. You are already paying for things you don't use as your taxes pay police officers, firefighters, and other municipal workers that you probably never utilize the services of. I never understood this line of thinking. we should all pay for emergency services and infrastructure. but saying the taxpayers should pay for daycare or college is crazy. I made very good money. I can't imagine expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for daycare.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 15, 2015 18:09:08 GMT -5
You are already paying for things you don't use as your taxes pay police officers, firefighters, and other municipal workers that you probably never utilize the services of. I never understood this line of thinking. we should all pay for emergency services and infrastructure. but saying the taxpayers should pay for daycare or college is crazy. I made very good money. I can't imagine expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for daycare. They already do. I bet you anything that your state has a program that subsidizes daycare for low income people. Then who do you think covers the Pell Grant, GI bill or federal subsidized loans?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 15, 2015 18:10:14 GMT -5
You are already paying for things you don't use as your taxes pay police officers, firefighters, and other municipal workers that you probably never utilize the services of. I never understood this line of thinking. we should all pay for emergency services and infrastructure. but saying the taxpayers should pay for daycare or college is crazy. I made very good money. I can't imagine expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for daycare. Well naturally, just because YOU make very good money, doesn't mean that everyone makes very good money.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 18:12:12 GMT -5
we should all pay for emergency services and infrastructure. but saying the taxpayers should pay for daycare or college is crazy. I made very good money. I can't imagine expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for daycare. They already do. I bet you anything that your state has a program that subsidizes daycare for low income people. Then who do you think covers the Pell Grant, GI bill or federal subsidized loans? Low income but not someone making $50k a year
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 18:12:39 GMT -5
we should all pay for emergency services and infrastructure. but saying the taxpayers should pay for daycare or college is crazy. I made very good money. I can't imagine expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for daycare. Well naturally, just because YOU make very good money, doesn't mean that everyone makes very good money. And just because YOU think everyone should be a leech doesn't mean everyone should agree with you. You are a staunch liberal living in a liberal country. You don't believe people should make choices and actually have to pay for those choices. I strongly disagree with you
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 15, 2015 18:14:01 GMT -5
Well naturally, just because YOU make very good money, doesn't mean that everyone makes very good money. And just because YOU think everyone should be w leg that means everyone should agree with you I don't know what "w leg" means.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 15, 2015 18:14:55 GMT -5
With legs? I think everyone should be with legs.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 15, 2015 18:18:15 GMT -5
They already do. I bet you anything that your state has a program that subsidizes daycare for low income people. Then who do you think covers the Pell Grant, GI bill or federal subsidized loans? Low income but not someone making $50k a year Ok, thought you meant taxpayers shouldn't pay for these things at all.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 18:24:48 GMT -5
And just because YOU think everyone should be w leg that means everyone should agree with you I don't know what "w leg" means. It means I'm on my phone and can't type! I will try to edit it
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2015 18:25:49 GMT -5
Low income but not someone making $50k a year Ok, thought you meant taxpayers shouldn't pay for these things at all. I would much prefer a daycare subsidy to get a woman off her ass and back to work. Im not in favor of paying daycare for everyone. The super poor are one thing, but paying for everyone is another
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 15, 2015 18:40:33 GMT -5
They already do. I bet you anything that your state has a program that subsidizes daycare for low income people. Then who do you think covers the Pell Grant, GI bill or federal subsidized loans? Low income but not someone making $50k a year In some VHCOL areas 50k is low income. A place like NYC or San Fran where daycare can take up more than half a persons pay check. i do think the programs that we have need to have more regional income standards. Where I live an income of 50k gets you into a decent place to live, and enough left over to pay for decent quality daycare. But, that isn't true of all locations.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 16, 2015 9:29:31 GMT -5
Low income but not someone making $50k a year In some VHCOL areas 50k is low income. A place like NYC or San Fran where daycare can take up more than half a persons pay check. i do think the programs that we have need to have more regional income standards. Where I live an income of 50k gets you into a decent place to live, and enough left over to pay for decent quality daycare. But, that isn't true of all locations. But I don't want to support someone's choice. If someone can't afford to live in their area, the answer isn't for the taxpayers to foot the bill. The answer is that they need to move
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 10:05:42 GMT -5
If only everything was that black and white....
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 18:43:48 GMT -5
Most things are that black and white, people are just stupid. We'd prefer to live in Santa Cruz, but I don't make enough to buy a $600k house so we live in Hollister because I can afford a $300k house. It is what it is. That's not exactly what I meant but okay. I would love to move to a cheaper area so that housing didn't eat up so much of my income. Unfortunately that would mean moving about an hour away from X and DS's school. I can't just uproot and go where I want to - he needs his dad, and I don't want my time with him to be made difficult by living so far away. Because of this, I am restricted in where I can live and not be too far away. I guess that makes me a complete idiot.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 19:02:45 GMT -5
Depending on how often you guys trade days/weeks an hour away isn't that big of a deal. Lot of time on the road, but around here an hour on the road is a pretty typical one way commute. People do it twice a day 5 days a week. Do they do it with a hungry and overtired kid in tow? Also the nearby "cheap" places aren't in the safest area. But whatever - I'll deal.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 19:10:09 GMT -5
Surprisingly, yes a lot of them do. The "good" private schools are all in San Jose. So the kids get out of bed at ungodly hours to commute into school with mom or dad who's on their way to work. In the afternoon they get to commute home. It sounds like a fucking nightmare to me, but yeah, plenty of people do it. You can always try to talk the ex into moving too. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt on that conversation MANY TIMES. No dice.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 19:33:32 GMT -5
You have 15 years to talk the kiddo into going to college near wherever you really want to move, then follow them down there to stay close. They're pretty likely to get their first job out of college near the school they graduate from, so you'd be good to go. 15 years sounds like a long time, but it goes by so damn fast. yeah it does go by fast because I only have 14 years.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Aug 16, 2015 20:24:27 GMT -5
Most things are that black and white, people are just stupid. We'd prefer to live in Santa Cruz, but I don't make enough to buy a $600k house so we live in Hollister because I can afford a $300k house. It is what it is. That's not exactly what I meant but okay. I would love to move to a cheaper area so that housing didn't eat up so much of my income. Unfortunately that would mean moving about an hour away from X and DS's school. I can't just uproot and go where I want to - he needs his dad, and I don't want my time with him to be made difficult by living so far away. Because of this, I am restricted in where I can live and not be too far away. I guess that makes me a complete idiot. This is the big thing that would suck if my husband and I got divorced. San Jose is barely tolerable on his income. On what I could make? Less so. Even for couples that stay together, a strong support system can also be a hard thing to leave.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2015 21:08:27 GMT -5
there was a time when X and I were seriously considering packing up and moving to Flyover Country, USA because it can be discouragingly expensive living here. He applied for some jobs in central Texas and Iowa but nothing panned out. I'm glad we stayed here or else I'd be even further from my family.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 17, 2015 8:10:40 GMT -5
Ummm that's precisely what I'm saying. If 59% of all women of child bearing age right now currently have kids, the number affected will be much larger, because plenty of those remaining 41% will eventually have kids. Maybe, maybe not. That 41% (and the 2014 census number suggests that this is closer to 48%) suggests that this number is increasing over time, not decreasing. The number changes, but it's fairly consistent among years (back in 2008 it was 36%) and moving in the child free direction, not the other way. Of the women in the age group 40-50 who have never had children (and while it's not impossible, less likely), nearly 17% of that 10 year age gap has never had a child. If you look at those with college education, this number increases to nearly 23%. Whether it's increasing over time or not, the number would have to be 100% for the eventual number not to be higher than the current number. If 59% of a group has a kid right NOW, the number of that group who will eventually have a kid MUST be over 59%...unless no women in that group have a child who don't currently have one (which seems unlikely given a good portion of that group is well below the normative age for having kids in this country).
That's not to say that in 100 years the actual % might not be lower than 59% of all women having children, but that's not what is being measured. What is being measured is the current population of women. The only way it's NOT higher than 59% cumulatively is if all childless women remain childless.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 17, 2015 8:14:15 GMT -5
Prefer our system where we pay for what we use. Why should a person with no children have to pay higher taxes to fund the daycare costs for a family that made the choice to have 4 children? Just like you like your country the way it is, I like mine the way it is. I don't want to pay crazy taxes to fund choices of others. Because you're going to pay one way or another. If a woman with 4 children can't afford daycare, she's not going to go to work. If daycare costs eat up her entire salary, there's no point in working. She'll go on welfare. The money doesn't come from the welfare fairy. It's your taxes. So then the choice is that our taxes go to welfare for someone in poverty (a small population), or we pay for paid time off for EVERYONE, even those who can afford it. From an equity situation I can see the argument for paying for everyone. You seem to be making a financial argument though, which doesn't hold water. I can pay the same expenses for X% of the population, or pay it for X%+Y% of the population...the former is always going to be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 17, 2015 9:42:48 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not. That 41% (and the 2014 census number suggests that this is closer to 48%) suggests that this number is increasing over time, not decreasing. The number changes, but it's fairly consistent among years (back in 2008 it was 36%) and moving in the child free direction, not the other way. Of the women in the age group 40-50 who have never had children (and while it's not impossible, less likely), nearly 17% of that 10 year age gap has never had a child. If you look at those with college education, this number increases to nearly 23%. Whether it's increasing over time or not, the number would have to be 100% for the eventual number not to be higher than the current number. If 59% of a group has a kid right NOW, the number of that group who will eventually have a kid MUST be over 59%...unless no women in that group have a child who don't currently have one (which seems unlikely given a good portion of that group is well below the normative age for having kids in this country).
That's not to say that in 100 years the actual % might not be lower than 59% of all women having children, but that's not what is being measured. What is being measured is the current population of women. The only way it's NOT higher than 59% cumulatively is if all childless women remain childless.
Not necessarily. You have women aging into the range, and women aging out. As the number of childless women has increased 12% for this statistic since 2008, then why hasn't it decreased as more women have had children?
|
|