swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Aug 14, 2019 9:31:01 GMT -5
Top Trump official claims the Statue of Liberty poem refers to Europeans only.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-official-statue-of-liberty-poem-refers-to-europeans/ar-AAFLdLX
Makes it pretty clear who thinks we should only allow 'white' immigrants.
(The truth about the Statue of Liberty is that it was given to us by the French to celebrate the end of the civil war, which was supposed to be the end of racism in our country - that's why there are broken chains at her feet. The poem was added much later.)
If the administration is trying to prove they aren't racist, they're doing it wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 10:05:20 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! and? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? this is a deeply engrained belief from the right. anyone who doesn't do it their way is doing it wrong.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 14, 2019 10:06:58 GMT -5
Sorry to see you were unable to understand Obama’s statement. I understood it perfectly, Obama's an idiot! What would that make you then?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 10:07:03 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! no, it's not that interesting. It's pretty common. in France, the first year is paid for, and the second year you can have a government nanny stay with your kids....for free.
my guess is that it is way more common there than here, because it CAN BE.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 10:08:21 GMT -5
I am often amused when "the right" presumes to know how "the left" thinks. It is also curious that this mindset thinks an entire political spectrum thinks as one, with one exact view. How limiting! moreover, they think that this singular view is everything they disagree with. which is also rubbish. there is considerable overlap that is rarely acknowledged.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 14, 2019 11:14:25 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! Not every wife WANTS to stay at home, and not every wife CAN stay at home.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 11:18:55 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! a nd? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 14, 2019 11:37:54 GMT -5
a nd? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? are you the employer here, or a taxpayer? because yesterday you were complaining about taxpayers having to pay for an employer-offered perk. how do you feel about maternity leave in general? do you think that should be allowed, or should everyone just plan accordingly like you did? I mean, you keep reminding us that you grew up in shitty conditions and made yourself successful. if you can do it, anyone should be able to, amiright? is there a reason you are so insistent that everyone live their lives the way you do?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Aug 14, 2019 11:41:40 GMT -5
a nd? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? I don't see it as complaining, but it is offered by many countries who have similar standards of living as our own. I think it's worth a discussion as to whether this is something we as a society want to offer to encourage people to have more children and strengthen the family unit. The USA, for all its talk about family values, isn't very supportive of families.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 11:45:39 GMT -5
Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? are you the employer here, or a taxpayer? because yesterday you were complaining about taxpayers having to pay for an employer-offered perk. how do you feel about maternity leave in general? do you think that should be allowed, or should everyone just plan accordingly like you did? I mean, you keep reminding us that you grew up in shitty conditions and made yourself successful. if you can do it, anyone should be able to, amiright? because I was replying to both you and weltz. You think it should be employer provided and weltz was talking about government provided. Whether I am the taxpayer or the employer, I do not want to pay for someone's personal choices. Does that clear it up? I do believe everyone should be entitled to the 12 weeks unpaid, given by FMLA. Some companies offer disability insurance (whether paid for by the company or the employee), some offer paid leave (mine was not one of them back in the day) and some offer unpaid leave. Also, I want to point out that I was only in my mid-20s when I had my children. I could live for several years right now just on the cash I have sitting in my money market account (mainly because the market is too volatile and I think overpriced). That was not the case when I had my children. But I made sure to scrimp and save until I could afford to stay home with my children, at least as long as I wanted to. I was no where near a 6 figure salary back then. I was only 3 years into my career. So please stop making it sound that I had the money that I have now because I didn't. But I still never considered it anyone else's responsibility to take care of me or my children.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Aug 14, 2019 11:52:29 GMT -5
are you the employer here, or a taxpayer? because yesterday you were complaining about taxpayers having to pay for an employer-offered perk. how do you feel about maternity leave in general? do you think that should be allowed, or should everyone just plan accordingly like you did? I mean, you keep reminding us that you grew up in shitty conditions and made yourself successful. if you can do it, anyone should be able to, amiright? because I was replying to both you and weltz. You think it should be employer provided and weltz was talking about government provided. Whether I am the taxpayer or the employer, I do not want to pay for someone's personal choices. Does that clear it up? I do believe everyone should be entitled to the 12 weeks unpaid, given by FMLA. Some companies offer disability insurance (whether paid for by the company or the employee), some offer paid leave (mine was not one of them back in the day) and some offer unpaid leave. Also, I want to point out that I was only in my mid-20s when I had my children. I could live for several years right now just on the cash I have sitting in my money market account (mainly because the market is too volatile and I think overpriced). That was not the case when I had my children. But I made sure to scrimp and save until I could afford to stay home with my children, at least as long as I wanted to. I was no where near a 6 figure salary back then. I was only 3 years into my career. So please stop making it sound that I had the money that I have now because I didn't. But I still never considered it anyone else's responsibility to take care of me or my children. I agree it is a parent's responsiblity to care for their own children, but we do offer some programs to assist parents so that children have the ability (allegedly) to thrive. Public school, school breakfast/lunch programs, Head Start, public health clinics, subsidized day care. How far do we want to expand the programs. IMHO, I think we shortchange our kids.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 14, 2019 11:52:38 GMT -5
Why us? You can't tell me the people in power and those with money won't still have it in another system. Democratic socialism is being pushed by a lifelong politician who has done nothing during his years of service (unless amassing some wealth counts) who wants to spend other people's money. Like you said, at least he's honest. You can say it's baloney but no country with the wealth and economy the size of the US has made the change. As a working stiff I'd rather see politicians work on the problems we have rather than promising more freebies on the back of taxpayers. I guess the next election will decide what the voters want if Bernie gets the nod. this is another red herring, because there has never been a country of this size and economy.
here is what bugs me about your response (which, frankly, is far more common than mine):
this was the country full of AmeriCANs. now it is the country full of AmeriCAN'Ts. it is always about what we can't do. never about what we can do.
why us? because I think we can do better than 12% poverty rates. because I think we an do better than having 2x the medical cost of ANY other nation for no better service. because I think that we can do better than having half the population with 2% of the national wealth. because, in short, I think we can do better.
is Democratic Socialism the ONLY way? no. of course not. but we have been trying "this way" for a long time, and it is not getting us where we should be, imo. we should have the longest life expectancy, and at or below average cost for healthcare, infant mortality, poverty, imprisoned populations, gun violence, spousal abuse, etc. instead we languish in the mid-30's when we are ranked.
if you are satisfied being #35, that is cool. but I am not. I never have been. and I never will be.
but as I have said before, soon it will be your problem. I am sick of people telling me what can't be done. I am moving somewhere where people believe in their country and other people.
I respect your opinion but this reminds me of my entry level philosophy class where we're given a topic to argue that neither of us doesn't necessarily support. My response was in regards to democratic socialism and not against making other changes. America can do a lot more but as a middle class taxpaying citizen I'm not going to support giving more money to the federal government who has shown no ability on either side to live within their means. I don't think simply doing something in the way of democratic socialism is the answer. We can do better by simply cutting spending from the military and other areas then focus on poverty/healthcare/etc but neither side does that it's always more spending and/or new taxes to fund their promises and projects. We can be better across the board but in some ways a bloated government and two sides that really don't care about fixing problems they can get their base fired up about by blaming the other side has us where we are today. For me the answer isn't the status quo but it's also not squeezing what's remaining of the middle class even more. A lot of people in certain situations absolutely need and deserve help but I'd argue there's more of the "can't" mentality from them than other groups as you move up the economic scale. If it's something the government should provide by all means but both sides have convinced their hardcore supporters into believing what they're selling while making them more dependent on the government. Giving more money and promises for votes won't fix that mentality it just makes it a lot harder to ever take anything away while the point of most programs should be to help and not enable or create a dependency.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Aug 14, 2019 11:55:01 GMT -5
a nd? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? Because options are a good thing.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 14, 2019 11:57:29 GMT -5
well, you only quoted me. anyway. moving on.
you specifically mention the 12w required by FMLA. I don't remember exactly when that was passed, or whether it would have been in effect when you were on maternity leave. that is way more than what was offered as standard practice in generations past. do you think women of past generations didnt deserve the 12w? if not, then why do American women not deserve the extended leaves offered as standard practice/required by law in other countries? as swamp pointed out, it's a good discussion to have, comparing countries of similar standards of living.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 14, 2019 12:31:53 GMT -5
Sorry to see you were unable to understand Obama’s statement. I understood it perfectly, Obama's an idiot! I'd pit your IQ against Obama's any day of the week. He graduated from Harvard Law school with a Magna C.U.M. Laude, while you can do nothing but post your ubiquitous "WoooHooos!"
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 12:37:27 GMT -5
well, you only quoted me. anyway. moving on. you specifically mention the 12w required by FMLA. I don't remember exactly when that was passed, or whether it would have been in effect when you were on maternity leave. that is way more than what was offered as standard practice in generations past. do you think women of past generations didnt deserve the 12w? if not, then why do American women not deserve the extended leaves offered as standard practice/required by law in other countries? as swamp pointed out, it's a good discussion to have, comparing countries of similar standards of living. Because I can only see the hardship to the company. I have been on the company side, where I had an employee go out for 12 weeks. Actually, my Controller in Brazil went out for 16 weeks (that is what is allowed there). It was brutal. It takes several months to get someone up and run at full speed, so even if they brought the person in the day she want on maternity, it would still be several months of hell (just like someone resigns). Sure, if my AP clerk went out on leave it would be fairly easy to have a temp come in and replace her. Not the case for a higher level finance person. And to expect a company to pay someone's salary for a year and then pay another full salary is ridiculous. It is very easy to say make the company pay for it but will truly cause men to be the first choice. If I knew I had to pay my controller $125k and then replace her with another $125k salary everytime she decided to have a baby (she now has 3, btw), I would definitely be looking to hire a man. Sorry, a company should not have to pay $375k over the course of 5 years because she chose to have children. And how is that fair to the men or the people that chose not to have children? That money would come out of bonuses as it would be a direct his to our EBITDA, which is what the bonuses are paid from. Nope, that is not ok with me. Women in generations past were more likely to not go back to work at all once they had a baby.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 12:38:20 GMT -5
Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? Because options are a good thing.
We all have the option of not working...but an employer shouldn't be stuck footing the bill of our choices.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 12:40:26 GMT -5
because I was replying to both you and weltz. You think it should be employer provided and weltz was talking about government provided. Whether I am the taxpayer or the employer, I do not want to pay for someone's personal choices. Does that clear it up? I do believe everyone should be entitled to the 12 weeks unpaid, given by FMLA. Some companies offer disability insurance (whether paid for by the company or the employee), some offer paid leave (mine was not one of them back in the day) and some offer unpaid leave. Also, I want to point out that I was only in my mid-20s when I had my children. I could live for several years right now just on the cash I have sitting in my money market account (mainly because the market is too volatile and I think overpriced). That was not the case when I had my children. But I made sure to scrimp and save until I could afford to stay home with my children, at least as long as I wanted to. I was no where near a 6 figure salary back then. I was only 3 years into my career. So please stop making it sound that I had the money that I have now because I didn't. But I still never considered it anyone else's responsibility to take care of me or my children. I agree it is a parent's responsiblity to care for their own children, but we do offer some programs to assist parents so that children have the ability (allegedly) to thrive. Public school, school breakfast/lunch programs, Head Start, public health clinics, subsidized day care. How far do we want to expand the programs. IMHO, I think we shortchange our kids. And this comment I don't understand. I've heard many women on this board say how they couldn't wait to get back from maternity, they hated being home, etc. Other women claim that men should be "stuck" with childcare duties so women can live to their full potential. But then we should also pay women for a year to sit home...I'm so confused. ETA: If a parent needs help with daycare I would much rather the taxpayers assist with that and let them be fully contributing members of this society, then quit their jobs and stay home. Daycare is a shortlive thing. And once you leave the work force it is so much harder to get back in and you almost never start where you left off. I believe in feeding kids, etc. I do not believe in paying any able-bodied person to stay home.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 14, 2019 12:43:51 GMT -5
well, you only quoted me. anyway. moving on. you specifically mention the 12w required by FMLA. I don't remember exactly when that was passed, or whether it would have been in effect when you were on maternity leave. that is way more than what was offered as standard practice in generations past. do you think women of past generations didnt deserve the 12w? if not, then why do American women not deserve the extended leaves offered as standard practice/required by law in other countries? as swamp pointed out, it's a good discussion to have, comparing countries of similar standards of living. Because I can only see the hardship to the company. I have been on the company side, where I had an employee go out for 12 weeks. Actually, my Controller in Brazil went out for 16 weeks (that is what is allowed there). It was brutal. It takes several months to get someone up and run at full speed, so even if they brought the person in the day she want on maternity, it would still be several months of hell (just like someone resigns). Sure, if my AP clerk went out on leave it would be fairly easy to have a temp come in and replace her. Not the case for a higher level finance person. And to expect a company to pay someone's salary for a year and then pay another full salary is ridiculous. It is very easy to say make the company pay for it but will truly cause men to be the first choice. If I knew I had to pay my controller $125k and then replace her with another $125k salary everytime she decided to have a baby (she now has 3, btw), I would definitely be looking to hire a man. Sorry, a company should not have to pay $375k over the course of 5 years because she chose to have children. And how is that fair to the men or the people that chose not to have children? That money would come out of bonuses as it would be a direct his to our EBITDA, which is what the bonuses are paid from. Nope, that is not ok with me. Women in generations past were more likely to not go back to work at all once they had a baby. ....and once AGAIN, the employer wouldn't pay two salaries. Unemployment Insurance would pay for maternity leave. That's how we do it.
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,187
|
Post by azucena on Aug 14, 2019 12:47:49 GMT -5
This is the part I will never understand about this facet of the mommy wars. None of us would be alive if our mothers didn't take some time off to give birth to us. The very human race can only continue to exist if mothers are able to have some sort of maternity leave to recover. Because only women can give birth, why shouldn't both genders (i.e. humankind) support them?
And, on top of that, wouldn't we rather have the top performing women reproduce?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 12:48:16 GMT -5
Because I can only see the hardship to the company. I have been on the company side, where I had an employee go out for 12 weeks. Actually, my Controller in Brazil went out for 16 weeks (that is what is allowed there). It was brutal. It takes several months to get someone up and run at full speed, so even if they brought the person in the day she want on maternity, it would still be several months of hell (just like someone resigns). Sure, if my AP clerk went out on leave it would be fairly easy to have a temp come in and replace her. Not the case for a higher level finance person. And to expect a company to pay someone's salary for a year and then pay another full salary is ridiculous. It is very easy to say make the company pay for it but will truly cause men to be the first choice. If I knew I had to pay my controller $125k and then replace her with another $125k salary everytime she decided to have a baby (she now has 3, btw), I would definitely be looking to hire a man. Sorry, a company should not have to pay $375k over the course of 5 years because she chose to have children. And how is that fair to the men or the people that chose not to have children? That money would come out of bonuses as it would be a direct his to our EBITDA, which is what the bonuses are paid from. Nope, that is not ok with me. Women in generations past were more likely to not go back to work at all once they had a baby. ....and once AGAIN, the employer wouldn't pay two salaries. Unemployment Insurance would pay for maternity leave. That's how we do it. And once AGAIN, I wasn't replying to you. Chiver WANTS the employer to pay for it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 12:51:01 GMT -5
This is the part I will never understand about this facet of the mommy wars. None of us would be alive if our mothers didn't take some time off to give birth to us. The very human race can only continue to exist if mothers are able to have some sort of maternity leave to recover. Because only women can give birth, why shouldn't both genders (i.e. humankind) support them? And, on top of that, wouldn't we rather have the top performing women reproduce? And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 14, 2019 13:00:47 GMT -5
they aren't unable. but it's an increasingly distasteful pill to swallow, especially for those of us that work in very global markets, to realize that our colleagues around the world are getting way better perks and benefits than we are here. why is that? and why can't we have what they do, considering the similar standard of living? past that, stop putting words in my mouth. I WANT employers to offer the benefits that compare to around the world. I don't know what the best mechanism is for that. but what do I know? I haven't saved enough to afford a child, even though I don't want any. I guess my opinion doesn't mean much on this topic.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 13:17:10 GMT -5
Because I believe in personal responsibility. I had to take out student loans for college, save for maternity leave, etc and now everyone wants my tax dollars to pay again. It pisses me off an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic. I can't quote within a quote (or at least I don't know how) but please tell me how I put words in your mouth. You said in THIS post that you were talking about it being employer paid. I was replying to both of you and she got snarky, as usual, because my reply was regarding employer paid. So I said you were the one that wanted employer paid. I even replied to you earlier that you wanted employer paid and she wanted taxpayer paid., when you got confused with my replies.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 13:19:49 GMT -5
they aren't unable. but it's an increasingly distasteful pill to swallow, especially for those of us that work in very global markets, to realize that our colleagues around the world are getting way better perks and benefits than we are here. why is that? and why can't we have what they do, considering the similar standard of living? past that, stop putting words in my mouth. I WANT employers to offer the benefits that compare to around the world. I don't know what the best mechanism is for that. but what do I know? I haven't saved enough to afford a child, even though I don't want any. I guess my opinion doesn't mean much on this topic. Europeans get tons of perks that we don't get, perks that would benefit ALL employee and not just a subset. For example, they get much more vacation than we do. Significantly more. That is a perk that everyone would enjoy and therefore no one would be treated differently. I think as a whole, Americans do not get enough time away from work. I don't see anyone championing that cause, though. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have the opinion that women of child-bearing age will be harmed if we start making employers pay for them to have children.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 14, 2019 13:27:25 GMT -5
This is the part I will never understand about this facet of the mommy wars. None of us would be alive if our mothers didn't take some time off to give birth to us. The very human race can only continue to exist if mothers are able to have some sort of maternity leave to recover. Because only women can give birth, why shouldn't both genders (i.e. humankind) support them? And, on top of that, wouldn't we rather have the top performing women reproduce? And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? It's not that women are not unable to have kids unless someone else pays for them. When my FIL was working, way back post WWII, there was a woman who worked in the clerical department who had a baby on Friday and was back at work Monday because they granted no paid time off, and she needed the money and couldn't afford to lose her job. I doubt she or her baby was ready to back to work that soon, but it was that or lose her job and income.
People can do a lot of hard things if they have to.
If we don't care how other people's kids turn out, or we don't want to spend one thin dime helping to ensure every kid has a good start in life, we should go back to making women come back to work the next day or lose their jobs. That's the best option for companies and taxpayers. If women don't like that option, they can scrimp and save like you did until the have enough to be able to pay for themselves to be off for a year, and cross their fingers they can find another job. Or they can just make sure they don't have kids.
Since there's a lot of evidence that the first couple of years of a child's live are the most developmentally important, though, I would prefer, as a society, we figure out how to make sure they have the most time possible with their mom/dad before they move to day care. If that means some of my taxes go towards paying unemployment for someone to take care of their baby for the first year, I'm ok with that. I'd rather my taxes go towards that than giving big corporations giant tax rebates so someone like Amazon pays no taxes.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 14, 2019 13:40:02 GMT -5
they aren't unable. but it's an increasingly distasteful pill to swallow, especially for those of us that work in very global markets, to realize that our colleagues around the world are getting way better perks and benefits than we are here. why is that? and why can't we have what they do, considering the similar standard of living? past that, stop putting words in my mouth. I WANT employers to offer the benefits that compare to around the world. I don't know what the best mechanism is for that. but what do I know? I haven't saved enough to afford a child, even though I don't want any. I guess my opinion doesn't mean much on this topic. Europeans get tons of perks that we don't get, perks that would benefit ALL employee and not just a subset. For example, they get much more vacation than we do. Significantly more. That is a perk that everyone would enjoy and therefore no one would be treated differently. I think as a whole, Americans do not get enough time away from work. I don't see anyone championing that cause, though. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have the opinion that women of child-bearing age will be harmed if we start making employers pay for them to have children. I was referring to vacation time as well. in a previous company, I walked away from 8wks PTO (14y with the company) when I left. this current one, US employees earn vacation time at different rates than European and Japanese colleagues. why is that? why do employers not have to offer US employees the same perks as other countries? vacation, maternity leave, all of that. why aren't we having THAT conversation?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 13:45:23 GMT -5
this is another red herring, because there has never been a country of this size and economy.
here is what bugs me about your response (which, frankly, is far more common than mine):
this was the country full of AmeriCANs. now it is the country full of AmeriCAN'Ts. it is always about what we can't do. never about what we can do.
why us? because I think we can do better than 12% poverty rates. because I think we an do better than having 2x the medical cost of ANY other nation for no better service. because I think that we can do better than having half the population with 2% of the national wealth. because, in short, I think we can do better.
is Democratic Socialism the ONLY way? no. of course not. but we have been trying "this way" for a long time, and it is not getting us where we should be, imo. we should have the longest life expectancy, and at or below average cost for healthcare, infant mortality, poverty, imprisoned populations, gun violence, spousal abuse, etc. instead we languish in the mid-30's when we are ranked.
if you are satisfied being #35, that is cool. but I am not. I never have been. and I never will be.
but as I have said before, soon it will be your problem. I am sick of people telling me what can't be done. I am moving somewhere where people believe in their country and other people.
I respect your opinion but this reminds me of my entry level philosophy class where we're given a topic to argue that neither of us doesn't necessarily support. My response was in regards to democratic socialism and not against making other changes. America can do a lot more but as a middle class taxpaying citizen I'm not going to support giving more money to the federal government who has shown no ability on either side to live within their means. that is not really true. we were within a gnats hair of having a balanced budget in 2000. that is because we had fiscal restraint coupled with sound tax policy.
if W, Obama, and Trump had followed up on that, we would be running surpluses. we are not. but it is not because both parties were fiscally irresponsible. it is because we had irresponsible leadership.
and yeah, i can back that up. it is not just Clinton. hell, even NIXON was fiscally responsible.
PS- i resent the suggestion that this is a sophomoric discussion. i think it is more important than that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 13:50:38 GMT -5
For me the answer isn't the status quo but it's also not squeezing what's remaining of the middle class even more. A lot of people in certain situations absolutely need and deserve help but I'd argue there's more of the "can't" mentality from them than other groups as you move up the economic scale. If it's something the government should provide by all means but both sides have convinced their hardcore supporters into believing what they're selling while making them more dependent on the government. Giving more money and promises for votes won't fix that mentality it just makes it a lot harder to ever take anything away while the point of most programs should be to help and not enable or create a dependency. for me, the answer is to move to a country that already has my priorities, and stop arguing with people and government officials who don't share them. what most people in the US don't realize is that there are nations that have a higher standard of living because their costs are LOWER than here. and the blame for that lies in the fundamental structure of the US, and (as i said above) our national priorities. we seem to have fallen into the bathtub with Grover Nordquidst, but i will be damned if i am going down with him. the government should foster independence, but that is not accomplished by making us dependent on employers, imo. that is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between myself and most Americans. you guys will have to work it out, because i am done trying to convince you.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 14, 2019 13:51:12 GMT -5
a nd? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to? Then why the constant complaining that we won't pay a mom to stay home with her baby for a year? Also, jobs usually aren't held open for a year. So if you wanted to stay home for some time, but wanted to go back to work, having a society that says that is normal and acceptable would make getting back into the work force easier.
|
|