midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Dec 17, 2015 13:49:16 GMT -5
I think before we start looking at 6+ months of paid leave for everyone, we need to focus on the people who aren't even getting more than a couple of weeks. Not everyone is covered by FMLA, and being forced to go back to work at 3-4 weeks postpartum or risk losing your job is a decision I don't think women (already under the influence of hormones and major sleep deprivation) should have to make.
And for those worried about women of childbearing age being passed over for jobs because of fear that they'll get pregnant... that's already happening. (Well, I guess "still" happening.)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 13:55:10 GMT -5
I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. By the way, my company always has people out on long term disability for one thing or another. They get up to a year before the company begins thinking about having to fire them. Including new moms in that group is not going to bankrupt my company, and I suspect most companies are that way. As for employers not hiring women because they might want maternity leave - that already exists right now, due to FMLA requiring employers to give women time off without pay. Only difference would be they would have to pay them. Some employers don't want to hire women who are moms, or might become moms, or men who have young kids and working wives (so they're obligated to help with sick kids) - it is what it is. Horseshit. Nobody forces a woman to be a mom except in the very rare cases of pregnancies that result from rapes. Woman choose to have sex and if an unwanted pregnancy results from that CHOICE, to this conservative, it shouldn't mean you should simply be able to kill the consequences of your CHOICE. Don't even pretend to know what conservatives think because you obviously do not have a clue.
Histrionics. Plain and simple.
The closing of Planned Parenthood and other womens' health clinics IS a way of forcing women to be moms. Some presidential candidates have vowed to make abortion illegal in all cases. Just because you are celibate doesn't mean everyone else should be. It's completely unrealistic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 14:34:07 GMT -5
is it? the ADA is about accommodating people that have different physical needs. is not paid maternity leave also about accommodating people who have different physical needs? if you are going to argue that getting pregnant is a choice, i would have you consider for a moment where you would be if your mother had chosen NOT to get pregnant. Does it take 6 months to a year to physically recover from having a child? know anything about "bonding time"?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 14:35:58 GMT -5
We get a year off. Either the mother or father can take the time off. I t really has less to do with physically recovering from having a child, but more to do with adjusting to a different lifestyle with lack of sleep, and bonding with the child. It builds stronger families. Not if people start comparing it to ADA laws. the comparison was not to PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT, it was to "special needs". IE- Lenny, from "Of Mice And Men" was perfectly physically capable, but had special needs. mothers ALSO have special needs. i think it is arguable that the needs of the mother far outweigh that of Lenny, yet we have the ADA, and we have no paid maternity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 14:37:58 GMT -5
i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics. Why should women's unique role as bearers of children cause us to nullify the fundamental "pay = productivity" rule? Paid maternity leave is pay without production. There can be no doubt that it breaks the rule. Mandating that businesses selectively break the rule for women is unjust. The fact that paying female employees on maternity leave (in deference to their special role) is noble, sometimes even beneficial to the employer, doesn't annul this injustice. Consider: Orthodox Jews and Christians who observe the seventh day Sabbath (of which I am one) cannot work at our customary jobs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. There are no exceptions. If you adhere to the religion, if you believe in it, you cannot break the rule. Employers find this remarkably hard to deal with. Especially up north where sundown can come as early as 4:00 PM in winter, it causes a lot of problems. In a sense, Sabbath-keepers are a liability. Huge Monday morning deadline that requires an over-the-weekend crunch? Can't do it. Major corporate presentation on one of the annual high days? Can't do it. Need somebody to close up shop Friday evening? Can't do it. Even imposing on employers to shuffle hours around--maybe putting in an extra two hours Thursday to take off early on Friday, or working double shifts in the week before the week-long Feast of Booths in the fall--causes a lot of real consternation. Businesses have rules, schedules, and protocols, and an employee that needs to deviate them can gum everything up. Other employees see Joe Sabbath-keeper being accommodated and wonder "why not accommodate my unique needs too?". Which brings me to my point: I don't begrudge businesses for refusing to accommodate me, and I certainly don't support the government forcing them to do so. This is despite the heavy penalties Sabbath-keepers pay for lack of accommodation, which either means being disqualified from being hired, or in some cases being fired when a frantic, irate employer discovers that "no exceptions" really does mean "no exceptions" during a Friday afternoon emergency. The business doesn't exist to accommodate the employee. The business exists to profit the business owners, and the employee's relationship with the business is governed by pay = productivity. Do I consider it a good and noble thing when employers accommodate me? Yes, obviously. But they shouldn't be forced to. It's unjust, just as forcing businesses to pay women for no production during maternity leave is unjust. You don't force businesses to break a fundamental rule as a matter of accommodating a group with unique needs. It's a form of tyranny. general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 14:39:29 GMT -5
I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. By the way, my company always has people out on long term disability for one thing or another. They get up to a year before the company begins thinking about having to fire them. Including new moms in that group is not going to bankrupt my company, and I suspect most companies are that way. As for employers not hiring women because they might want maternity leave - that already exists right now, due to FMLA requiring employers to give women time off without pay. Only difference would be they would have to pay them. Some employers don't want to hire women who are moms, or might become moms, or men who have young kids and working wives (so they're obligated to help with sick kids) - it is what it is. Horseshit. Nobody forces a woman to be a mom except in the very rare cases of pregnancies that result from rapes. Woman choose to have sex and if an unwanted pregnancy results from that CHOICE, to this conservative, it shouldn't mean you should simply be able to kill the consequences of your CHOICE. Don't even pretend to know what conservatives think because you obviously do not have a clue.
Histrionics. Plain and simple.
this is a very helpful situation for a reducio ad absurdum: what if ALL women CHOSE to not bear children?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 17, 2015 14:40:48 GMT -5
Yes, the often quoted 78 cents per dollar is misleading at best. It simply compares the overall earnings of full time, year round employees, without controlling for industry, job, hours worked, or any number of other factors. And I agree, those "issues" of the female illegal immigrants and campaign finance reform were out of left field. It looks like they were grasping at straws. if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. Hypothetically, that would be wrong, but in reality, that's not the case.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 14:42:55 GMT -5
if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. Hypothetically, that would be wrong, but in reality, that's not the case. it certainly was in 19th century England. it probably is in places today. i am not sure if any are in the US or not. thanks for answering the question. i was NOT trying to entrap you, Phoenix. i was just wondering if you could see the analogy.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 17, 2015 14:49:56 GMT -5
Because it's a choice. I regret not choosing a career where I made big bucks but I chose a more family friendly career. That choice led to a lifestyle that I made do with but always wished for more. I had my kids several years apart because daycare was an expense I needed to consider. It's a choice I made and no one else is responsible for my choices but me. i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics. In theory, you're right. We always need at least a few kids kicking around, but fertility isn't an issue in practice. We don't need policies to encourage more children at this time.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 15:00:08 GMT -5
i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics. In theory, you're right. We always need at least a few kids kicking around, but fertility isn't an issue in practice. We don't need policies to encourage more children at this time. Right, because forcing women to go on welfare because their post-maternity jobs aren't protected, coupled with very expensive daycare are MUCH better policies.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 17, 2015 15:06:59 GMT -5
Why should women's unique role as bearers of children cause us to nullify the fundamental "pay = productivity" rule? Paid maternity leave is pay without production. There can be no doubt that it breaks the rule. Mandating that businesses selectively break the rule for women is unjust. The fact that paying female employees on maternity leave (in deference to their special role) is noble, sometimes even beneficial to the employer, doesn't annul this injustice. Consider: Orthodox Jews and Christians who observe the seventh day Sabbath (of which I am one) cannot work at our customary jobs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. There are no exceptions. If you adhere to the religion, if you believe in it, you cannot break the rule. Employers find this remarkably hard to deal with. Especially up north where sundown can come as early as 4:00 PM in winter, it causes a lot of problems. In a sense, Sabbath-keepers are a liability. Huge Monday morning deadline that requires an over-the-weekend crunch? Can't do it. Major corporate presentation on one of the annual high days? Can't do it. Need somebody to close up shop Friday evening? Can't do it. Even imposing on employers to shuffle hours around--maybe putting in an extra two hours Thursday to take off early on Friday, or working double shifts in the week before the week-long Feast of Booths in the fall--causes a lot of real consternation. Businesses have rules, schedules, and protocols, and an employee that needs to deviate them can gum everything up. Other employees see Joe Sabbath-keeper being accommodated and wonder "why not accommodate my unique needs too?". Which brings me to my point: I don't begrudge businesses for refusing to accommodate me, and I certainly don't support the government forcing them to do so. This is despite the heavy penalties Sabbath-keepers pay for lack of accommodation, which either means being disqualified from being hired, or in some cases being fired when a frantic, irate employer discovers that "no exceptions" really does mean "no exceptions" during a Friday afternoon emergency. The business doesn't exist to accommodate the employee. The business exists to profit the business owners, and the employee's relationship with the business is governed by pay = productivity. Do I consider it a good and noble thing when employers accommodate me? Yes, obviously. But they shouldn't be forced to. It's unjust, just as forcing businesses to pay women for no production during maternity leave is unjust. You don't force businesses to break a fundamental rule as a matter of accommodating a group with unique needs. It's a form of tyranny. general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust? I don't know. Maybe we should ask Rosa Parks.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 17, 2015 15:12:32 GMT -5
Horseshit. Nobody forces a woman to be a mom except in the very rare cases of pregnancies that result from rapes. Woman choose to have sex and if an unwanted pregnancy results from that CHOICE, to this conservative, it shouldn't mean you should simply be able to kill the consequences of your CHOICE. Don't even pretend to know what conservatives think because you obviously do not have a clue.
Histrionics. Plain and simple.
The closing of Planned Parenthood and other womens' health clinics IS a way of forcing women to be moms. Some presidential candidates have vowed to make abortion illegal in all cases. Just because you are celibate doesn't mean everyone else should be. It's completely unrealistic.
I don't believe everyone should be celibate. There you go know being absolutely sure you know what other's think. Heck...I'm not even sure I should be celibate anymore. That's a choice and there are consequences - both good and bad - to every choice we make. It's ridiculous to say that motherhood is forced on anyone who chooses to have sex.
Good thing you people don't try to make a living out of mind-reading because you suck at it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 15:22:09 GMT -5
The closing of Planned Parenthood and other womens' health clinics IS a way of forcing women to be moms. Some presidential candidates have vowed to make abortion illegal in all cases. Just because you are celibate doesn't mean everyone else should be. It's completely unrealistic.
I don't believe everyone should be celibate. There you go know being absolutely sure you know what other's think. Heck...I'm not even sure I should be celibate anymore. That's a choice and there are consequences - both good and bad - to every choice we make. It's ridiculous to say that motherhood is forced on anyone who chooses to have sex.
Good thing you people don't try to make a living out of mind-reading because you suck at it.
People have sex. Accidents and birth control failure happen all the time. Denying access to abortion IS forcing women to be moms, whether they want to be or not. You seem to want women to be punished for having sex.
Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child. -Dr. H. Margentaler
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Dec 17, 2015 15:38:30 GMT -5
OK, no more abortion talk in this thread. You all know that it is a topic that is off limits. Any further discussion that arises leaves us no choice but to take additional steps other than this warning.
Blond Granny - Admim
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 17, 2015 15:57:08 GMT -5
I don't believe everyone should be celibate. There you go know being absolutely sure you know what other's think. Heck...I'm not even sure I should be celibate anymore. That's a choice and there are consequences - both good and bad - to every choice we make. It's ridiculous to say that motherhood is forced on anyone who chooses to have sex.
Good thing you people don't try to make a living out of mind-reading because you suck at it.
People have sex. Accidents and birth control failure happen all the time. Denying access to abortion IS forcing women to be moms, whether they want to be or not. You seem to want women to be punished for having sex.
Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child. -Dr. H. Margentaler
Second total fail at reading my mind.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,060
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 17, 2015 15:58:54 GMT -5
People have sex. Accidents and birth control failure happen all the time. Denying access to abortion IS forcing women to be moms, whether they want to be or not. You seem to want women to be punished for having sex.
Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child. -Dr. H. Margentaler
Second total fail at reading my mind.
Possibly you're not articulating your position very well?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,060
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 17, 2015 16:03:18 GMT -5
if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. Hypothetically, that would be wrong, but in reality, that's not the case. Have you heard about the glass ceiling? I work at a company with 800 plus employees. Almost everyone in the corporate office is a man, except the admins (all female). The people with the top ten salaries are all men (it's listed on our annual report). So - either men are just better at being executives, or women aren't often considered for executive positions, so they don't often get a taste of that fat executive pay. I would agree for middle management jobs, the scales are becoming more equal, but there is still a big void at the top, where the really sweet jobs are.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -5
general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust? I don't know. Maybe we should ask Rosa Parks. little late for that, unless you have some smelling salts and a really good heater.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 17, 2015 16:09:44 GMT -5
Second total fail at reading my mind.
Possibly you're not articulating your position very well? Good defense! "I'm wrong so instead of admitting it, I'll just insinuate the other person is stupid! Good plan, I says to me!"
Sorry, Blonde Granny . Didn't mean to make this about abortion and it's really not. It's about others purporting to know what other groups/people are thinking or feeling. I'll not be told what I think, even it if pertains to a taboo subject.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Dec 17, 2015 16:20:20 GMT -5
Possibly you're not articulating your position very well? Good defense! "I'm wrong so instead of admitting it, I'll just insinuate the other person is stupid! Good plan, I says to me!"
Sorry, Blonde Granny . Didn't mean to make this about abortion and it's really not. It's about others purporting to know what other groups/people are thinking or feeling. I'll not be told what I think, even it if pertains to a taboo subject.
One more use of the word abortion, even if it's in a quote from another poster and this thread will be locked.
BG -admin
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 16:43:46 GMT -5
Horseshit. Nobody forces a woman to be a mom except in the very rare cases of pregnancies that result from rapes. Woman choose to have sex and if an unwanted pregnancy results from that CHOICE, to this conservative, it shouldn't mean you should simply be able to kill the consequences of your CHOICE. Don't even pretend to know what conservatives think because you obviously do not have a clue.
Histrionics. Plain and simple.
this is a very helpful situation for a reducio ad absurdum: what if ALL women CHOSE to not bear children? There's always going to be women who have children. With the amount of illegals as well as "legals" coming in, we aren't running out of children any time soon.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on Dec 17, 2015 17:26:38 GMT -5
In theory, you're right. We always need at least a few kids kicking around, but fertility isn't an issue in practice. We don't need policies to encourage more children at this time. Right, because forcing women to go on welfare because their post-maternity jobs aren't protected, coupled with very expensive daycare are MUCH better policies. How often does that happen to people that truly have a career or desired employment skills? If you have a career, you probably plan for your exit from the workforce, your time off and your return to work often even before you actually conceive. If an employer is not stable enough to hold the job open for the employee mandating leave will fix the situation how?
We already have welfare. We already have all the entitlements we can afford. If we want to consider paid leave - lets talk about 6 weeks or 8 weeks, b/c it is going to be the middle and upper class that pay for this for everyone else. Because if you get 6 months of leave and go back to work it will not be smooth sailing from there - you will still be up nights with fussy kids, have well baby and sick baby Dr. Appts need to shuffle your kids to and from Daycare on your way to work for years to come. So now we need to pay for Maternity Leave and Day care? and we are reducing taxes? How will we ever balance that budget?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 17:32:36 GMT -5
OK, no more abortion talk in this thread. You all know that it is a topic that is off limits. Any further discussion that arises leaves us no choice but to take additional steps other than this warning.
Blond Granny - Admim I thought scripture was off limits. Abortion is off-limits as well? At least there's a religious board here for those who want to post bible passages. Is there no pace to discuss abortion?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 17, 2015 17:35:14 GMT -5
OK, no more abortion talk in this thread. You all know that it is a topic that is off limits. Any further discussion that arises leaves us no choice but to take additional steps other than this warning.
Blond Granny - Admim I thought scripture was off limits. Abortion is off-limits as well? At least there's a religious board here for those who want to post bible passages. Is there no pace to discuss abortion?
No, there is not. Every time the subject comes up it devolves into a battle between a select few, and it's not a civil debate by any means - ever. For that reason, the subject is not to be debated on this board. That's been said and re-said by moonbeam on several occasions.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 17:37:13 GMT -5
Right, because forcing women to go on welfare because their post-maternity jobs aren't protected, coupled with very expensive daycare are MUCH better policies. How often does that happen to people that truly have a career or desired employment skills? If you have a career, you probably plan for your exit from the workforce, your time off and your return to work often even before you actually conceive. If an employer is not stable enough to hold the job open for the employee mandating leave will fix the situation how?
We already have welfare. We already have all the entitlements we can afford. If we want to consider paid leave - lets talk about 6 weeks or 8 weeks, b/c it is going to be the middle and upper class that pay for this for everyone else. Because if you get 6 months of leave and go back to work it will not be smooth sailing from there - you will still be up nights with fussy kids, have well baby and sick baby Dr. Appts need to shuffle your kids to and from Daycare on your way to work for years to come. So now we need to pay for Maternity Leave and Day care? and we are reducing taxes? How will we ever balance that budget?
Our one year mat leaves are paid for by Unemployment Insurance. Everyone pays into that. The new moms are paid with UI and the employer hires another worker to replace her temporarily. Win-win.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 17, 2015 17:40:08 GMT -5
Yes, the often quoted 78 cents per dollar is misleading at best. It simply compares the overall earnings of full time, year round employees, without controlling for industry, job, hours worked, or any number of other factors. And I agree, those "issues" of the female illegal immigrants and campaign finance reform were out of left field. It looks like they were grasping at straws. if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend for your post to be insulting, but I wasn't 'funneled' into anything. It's a free country and I was free to choose as was my mother (business woman who owned 5 stores & authored 2 books) as was her mother (farmer) as is my DIL (owns her own small company)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 17:40:42 GMT -5
When it comes to Family Values, Conservatives talk a good game, but when push comes to shove.... If you actually want to raise a family without being harshly penalized, you're on your own.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:41:08 GMT -5
this is a very helpful situation for a reducio ad absurdum: what if ALL women CHOSE to not bear children? There's always going to be women who have children. With the amount of illegals as well as "legals" coming in, we aren't running out of children any time soon. you are either missing the point, or intentionally evading it. there are things that are necessary for our survival. those things are not really choices, zib.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:42:18 GMT -5
if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend for your post to be insulting, but I wasn't 'funneled' into anything. It's a free country and I was free to choose as was my mother (business woman who owned 5 stores & authored 2 books) as was her mother (farmer) as is my DIL (owns her own small company) i meant it to be hypothetical. i stated that very very clearly. hypothetical meant "not real". which also means "NOT YOU". mmkay?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 17:43:28 GMT -5
There's always going to be women who have children. With the amount of illegals as well as "legals" coming in, we aren't running out of children any time soon. you are either missing the point, or intentionally evading it. there are things that are necessary for our survival. those things are not really choices, zib. It is not necessary for anyone's survival to have children.
|
|