It is a god damn racket. Having a child is a personal choice, a stupid and irresponsible one in most cases, and nobody owes you a three month holiday, especially with pay, for doing it.

In Canada - I believe it's 6-9 months (Paid- although at a reduced rate) leave. And either the man or the woman can take the leave - but not both.

In Austria mothers (or fathers) get 2 years of (paid) maternity leave. Oh, and we also have a AAA credit rating.

I wish I could afford to leave the U.S. it's getting pretty bad, the media is this huge opinion ratings propaganda machine, telling the facts and news don't exist anymore. Our economy is shit, reputation is shit, and our government most of them need to be hung for treason.

If only I could afford the paper work and the plane ticket to get out, I'd be out as fast as possible, it's time for the smart rats to jump off this sinking ship.

Wikipedia has a giant table of maternity leave laws across over 150 countries. The US is the only 0 on the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

>> ^gorillaman:

It is a god damn racket. Having a child is a personal choice, a stupid and irresponsible one in most cases, and nobody owes you a three month holiday, especially with pay, for doing it.


Right. Because the rest of us should not live beyond the current generation you exist in. Society should not take the responsibility required to ensure that our species endures beyond your life span. When you're dead the world doesn't matter, so why support and encourage its existence? Right?

And the government requiring paid materity leave is....survey says... SOCIALIST IN NATURE!

Well, she's still has a negative balance, but this got her a few points.

>> ^gorillaman:

It is a god damn racket. Having a child is a personal choice, a stupid and irresponsible one in most cases, and nobody owes you a three month holiday, especially with pay, for doing it.




yep, thats the definition of FREEDOM right there
you are free to have a kid, just don't expect to keep your job or be able to support yourself

China gives 4 months after childbirth for maternity leave
I guess this Communist country gives their people more FREEDOM in the decision of when and if to have children... the government should stay out of that decision... wait a sec!?!

and yes, maternity leave is SOCIALISM
but isn't it funny how COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM/CAPITALISM all have different and sometimes opposing intersections with the word (propaganda) FREEDOM?

citizens of the United States, GENERALLY, are moronic when it comes to the word FREEDOM... because they've been sold a version of it, and will defend it to the death mind you, that is really more FREEDOM for the corporations... once it wasn't this way... but the current generation of Americans are a long fall from the GREATEST GENERATION

some comedian said, no one has a better understanding of the American Dream... than an Indian, a Chinese, or a Mexican... and sadly, that is true

It comes down to this...does the society believe that having a child is something that should be supported or not? I think it should be...kinda need people to keep a society going, and I'd like them to get a good start on education and medicine and so forth.

Ew! I feel dirty upvoting Megyn Kelly!

>> ^braindonut:

Well, she's still has a negative balance, but this got her a few points.


Not with me. Just shows up her hypocricy (don't know why spellcheck doesn't like that). As soon as the bosses tell her to be against FMLA--guess what she'll do?

Hypocrisy*

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo

We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.

Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.

If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.

It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.

>> ^gorillaman:

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo
We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.
Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.
If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.
It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.


You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.

Also your comparison of taking 3 months off for a hobby rather than a child...is exactly the problem with some people. Please give this more study.

EDIT: Also "Incentivising" isn't something that's in play here. Unless you're figuring that a woman says to herself "Man I want a few months off of work...I should just get preggers." We have data from other countries that "Incentivize" a lot more than that, you can look that up but I haven't heard of French women doing anything of the sort...and it's kind of ridiculous to suggest they would.

>> ^Sagemind:

In Canada - I believe it's 6-9 months (Paid- although at a reduced rate) leave. And either the man or the woman can take the leave - but not both.


One year, basically, but yeah, the rest is correct. There is a correlation between parental leave and family cohesion, societal well being and child self-esteem.

Oh, and "holiday"? Fuck you. Pretty sure you are neither female nor a parent.

>> ^Yogi:
You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.You can tell people exactly that, in the same way you can tell them, "Don't buy a sports car unless you have enough money." Some idiots will do it anyway, and provoke the consequences. What you won't have is society paying billions to redeem their irresponsibility.

the thing about "personal responsibility", is that it is used in very misleading, and brainwashed ways

the brainwashed way is the whole "you shouldn't have had a kid if you can't afford it" schpeel...

first, its moronic because it reduces the subject to $ figures... raising a child goes WELL beyond money, let alone the questions posed morally and on the scale of society itself... should only the rich (and yes, its expensive to have a child, outrageous actually, in the US... i'm not talking about the cost of feeding/clothing/education/etc... simply the procedures up to and including birth, let alone any issues that may arise afterwards both in mother and child - glad I live in a country where this is covered socially, and that I more than happily contribute to - our future isn't regulated to have/have nots)

second, as part of a society, do you feel you have a personal responsibility to it? or other members of it (irrespective of your opinion as to whether or not a particular person is "contributing" or not)? do other's in your society have a personal responsibility in regards to you?... the debate in the US literally ALWAYS boils down to someone arguing "personal responsibility" yet assuming none in regards to the society they "LOVE SO MUCH" and "WOULD DIE FOR"... that, or that if you give people handouts, that's all they'd ever want; they'd never strive

WELL, that is EXACTLY describing the situation of your (and I mean YOU, yes YOU) parent's raising you... did they keep all the receipts and calculate the interest you owe on top regarding food they fed you, education they paid for, etc? are they sending collectors yet?

better yet, can you honestly say you have no drive or ambitions in life because of being raised like this (as is the general norm)?

it provides a foundation, a base from which to launch... its two swimmers racing, one with something to push off of, and the other starting with nothing to push off of... sure the outcome isn't decided completely... but you can make a REALLY accurate guess as to who has the better chance to win... no one is throwing them a dragline while they are swimming... its just the start of the race

if you had a family member who got ill, would you help them? if the swimmer got cramps and couldn't stay afloat would you want someone to pull their head up above the water?

why this doesn't translate from being a staple of family life, to society should make most American's go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

the honest truth... it is GREED
both personal GREED of the average citizen not wanting to spend a cent on a fellow citizen
and corporate GREED... they see social programs and free health care as either a pool of money they don't got but WANT or robbery from them... and they lobby and basically buy off politicians through campaign financing and lucrative job offers post office... meanwhile you are sold that this is in the interests of your freedom... when really all you are being sold is the freedom to be F_CKED

Government is there to protect the INTERESTS of it's citizens, not it's CORPORATIONS (most of whom are multinational btw)... and it's failing Americans... mainly because Americans are failing themselves... they'd rather drink the kool-aid than question what's in it... they'd rather get worked up about side issues that really only affect their life MINIMALLY (mainly because of religion) rather than care about issues that do... and they like to bite people who question the status quo... why? because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!! USA USA USA. (despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary)

its really elementary logic to deduce that a society that tries to elevate itself by uplifting all members of that society (or as many as possible) will have a better survival chance than a society where all individuals horde and fight over resources... i mean, which one do you think leads to feudal style systems? really?

Not being able to support a family on one parent's salary may not be within the realm of reason. But having both parents working and giving them time off (sometimes not even paid in the US, but let's assume it's paid) to arrange things for the new child and then returning to work is a small thing.
Unless you're seeing a woman being turned into a baby machine and having a kid each year after she has 2-3 already.

Now, financial security and knowing you can probably afford a baby is a great situation to be in. However it's not feasible to tell people they can't have any kids because they can't afford the time off to deal with pre and post birth stuff. Remember that people used to be able to afford big families on one salary not so long ago. And now it's hard to afford a single kid on two people's salary.

There's just something fundamentally wrong with the way the US has changed, the only people who would be allowed to reproduce would be the wealthy. And now we have people trying to change schooling and take away funding......which means anyone who can't afford to have their kids taught at home or privately may well end up with kids that won't be educated enough to follow even in their parents career path due the parents having to both work to sustain the family.

And besides knowing you can afford a kid NOW, doesn't mean that in 2 years your situation will still be the same. Nothing is certain as many many people have learned. Waiting for better times can only be a plan for so long if you want a kid..especially if you're a woman.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^Yogi:
You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.You can tell people exactly that, in the same way you can tell them, "Don't buy a sports car unless you have enough money." Some idiots will do it anyway, and provoke the consequences. What you won't have is society paying billions to redeem their irresponsibility.


http://www.ehow.com/facts_5391105_average-cost-child-birth.html

sorta ranges from 7-10 thousand for just child birth

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/06/16/cost-to-raise-a-child-in-us-tops-220000.htm

so lets say 225k to raise a child as a ward of the state (this is probably a HIGHER cost that the state would actually pay as the above estimate is for a middle class upbringing but whatever)

i mean in poorer parts of the world, it only takes 400/yr to raise a child in an orphanage with the BAREST of necessities... and then see where the cost to raise 40 million orphans compares to other expenditures http://www.stand4kids.org/the-cost-of-providing-for-40-million-orphans-vs-the-cost-of-sin/

i mean seriously, they are only part of your society, why treat them any different than someone from a 3rd world nation?

now I'm sure there aren't 40 million orphans currently in the US

In the US there are approximately 500,000 children in foster care (Based on data submitted by states as of January 16, 2008) * http://abbafund.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/orphan-statistics/

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage thats alittle over 1/2 the number of orphans (according to state of New York statistics), another 1/4 is with family, and about 1/6 is in state ward care... my math may be off, but lets say, 100,000 children on tax dollars

~ 225,000,000,000 cost per year for orphans
311,954,380 current USA population http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

or $721.26 in taxes per person per year, roughly $60/month in taxes

obviously this isn't taking into account money foster parents receive to aid with their fostering... but again, the 225,000$ estimate for the cost a state facility in regards of cost to raise a child for life is HIGH... both in regards to the fact that not all children will be in the orphanage from day 1 to adult hood, some don't become orphans until later... and how the facility itself will not be spending the same amount and a middle class family to raise the child... on the other hand, not every citizen pays their taxes or is taxable

but it is very safe to assume <$60/month as the cost to each tax paying citizen in regards to this
not $60/kid... $60/month for ALL of them

its about GREED

oh man, what a burden!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Yogi:
Hypocrisy

I am so angry at you! How dare you point out that spellchck was right and I was (am?) dumb!


wam*

Wow, the staggering hypocrisy of Kelly just blows my mind. How can she advocate for paid maternity leave on one hand and rail against socialised medicine on the other? Typical of the right wing in america... hate big government until it's paying you money.

For the record, I am 100% in favour of both paid maternity and paternity leave, and I don't plan to have kids.

A gay couple would never have this problem.

Also, title Megyn Kelly on maternity leave being "a racket" is misleading. I thought she was on maternity leave and she was yelling at everyone.

It's approximately one year on employment insurance, your employer may choose to be friendly and "top it up" to a certain percentage for a certain number of weeks. If you're a government employee, your salary is topped up to 92% or so for the entire duration (that's a tad over the top IMO but, that's part of the package). And of course, the employment insurance is technically paid by the employee who is on leave (prior to going on leave). And yes, either the woman or the man can take leave but many employers will afford some time to allow the "other" parent some time off.

To those who don't support social programs, you can go fuck yourselves. If you don't want to be paid when you have to take time off to raise a young baby, then don't apply for coverage. Then, send your kids to private school since public school is socially funded. Oh, and if you live in Canada, and don't like socialism, INSIST that you pay for your hospital stay -- but, you won't do that will you? You're just a fucking hypocrite.

>> ^Sagemind:

In Canada - I believe it's 6-9 months (Paid- although at a reduced rate) leave. And either the man or the woman can take the leave - but not both.

Funny how that works eh?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

Wow, the staggering hypocrisy of Kelly just blows my mind. How can she advocate for paid maternity leave on one hand and rail against socialised medicine on the other? Typical of the right wing in america... hate big government until it's paying you money.

>> ^heropsycho:

And the government requiring paid materity leave is....survey says... SOCIALIST IN NATURE!


And you're saying that's bad? Nothing wrong with a little socialism.

Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.

The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.

A society should maintain a 2.1 average children per woman to maintain its replacement rate. It's why many countries have put up incentives to encourage families to go and have 2 and more children. Not doing so leads to population ageing, labor shortage, and more economic costs to society.

Right now, the fertility rate in the US is 2.05, si I can understand why the US doesn't feel pressed to help families procreate.

>> ^gorillaman:

Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.


You seem to be ignoring the frequent reminders from other people that paid maternity leave is pretty much everywhere in the developed world except here, and yet the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave.

The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the social darwinists is killing us all.

*news
*politics
*money

Adding video to channels (Money, News, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

I can really appreciate the first part of your comment. I think that people have babies at the drop of a hat, and I also think that helping to put a cap on overpopulation (through education, and maybe even tax reform) would help fix a ton of the problems we have, from the economy to the environment, and hunger and a million other things.

But the government guaranteeing 3 months of unpaid leave is not an incentive to have children. And it is certainly not a "racket". If money is a problem for someone who's had a baby, then they're not going to be able to take that time off anyway. Very very few people, especially the ones struggling, are not looking forward to three months without income. A "racket" brings in income. No income = no racket.

The fact of the matter is, it's cruel to expect a person who has just gone through the trauma (whether personal choice or not) of giving birth (not to mention gestating a human for ten months) to return to work immediately or lose their income permanently. The sad part is that we need to make laws like this in the first place. That time people use for recuperating and connecting with their child can be the most important part of their development. So again you arrive at "hurting children", only from this end it's all so an employer can save a few bucks on not having to screen a temp. It's totally ridiculous.

If an employer is not ready to treat their employees like human beings, then maybe they shouldn't have started up a business in the first place.

>> ^gorillaman:

Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.

@gorillaman

Yes. We get it. You're a misanthrope. Woe is the planet for all the stupidity of humanity.

Now back to the main point.

Maternity leave was implemented to ensure that the offspring of workers are healthy and happy.

You know, time and money spent now to ensure the next generation isn't dumber and poorer than the previous.

But you wouldn't understand that concept or give a damn since you're too busy wankin' your angsty misanthropic hipster boner.

Maybe you can help humanity out with the whole "babies are dumb and useless" thing if you..

went back in time and gave your mother an abortion. =]

Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^gorillaman:
Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.

You seem to be ignoring the frequent reminders from other people that paid maternity leave is pretty much everywhere in the developed world except here, and yet the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the social darwinists is killing us all.

@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.

Seeing as we are using the resourses of the planet at a rate of about 1.5 planets production per year, the theory that we need to maintain our replacement rate is insanity, short sighted, and uninformed. We need to reduce the global population (or somehow increase global production capacity) to budget/ballance our need with availability (possibly with some margin for error, preferably on the safe side of ballance). This concept seems to be lost to many, in all facets of life. Maybe the 'greatest generation/baby boomers' should have thought things through when they decided to have 4+ children each in order to avoid even slight population aging, labor shortage, or economic costs. It's just one more instance of the past few generations greed, ignoring the high (possibly insurmountable)cost to others for their own temporary gain.
On a side note, I do love the term 'baby boomer', it unintentionally but correctly describes the explosive situation that overpopulation creates, and correctly blames the 'bomb's creators.
>> ^ravioli:
A society should maintain a 2.1 average children per woman to maintain its replacement rate. It's why many countries have put up incentives to encourage families to go and have 2 and more children. Not doing so leads to population ageing, labor shortage, and more economic costs to society.
Right now, the fertility rate in the US is 2.05, si I can understand why the US doesn't feel pressed to help families procreate.

So then you retract your statement..." the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave"? You seem to have just agreed that it is too many people taking maternity leave (among other programs) crashing Europe.

>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.


>> ^newtboy:
Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^gorillaman:
Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.

You seem to be ignoring the frequent reminders from other people that paid maternity leave is pretty much everywhere in the developed world except here, and yet the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the social darwinists is killing us all.

Your statement makes the wrong assumption that, without governmental/socialtal support, no one will have children, or at least that no one can afford them without a handout. Where's the responsibility for your actions and the consequences of them in your world?
If you can't support one, don't have one, just like a dog, a ferrarri, or plastic surgery. It's that simple, and it's that easy with forthought. There's no shortage of people, don't fret. If you NEED to be a parent, try adoption or fostering. We can lose 3 billion people(+-) and still have a planetary surplus. Stop the 'we need more children' BS, it's a lie, there are plenty to be had already.
>> ^Yogi:
It comes down to this...does the society believe that having a child is something that should be supported or not? I think it should be...kinda need people to keep a society going, and I'd like them to get a good start on education and medicine and so forth.

Oh, I guess I need to roll my eyes here. Apparently by "the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government and giving less back" you didn't mean corporations and rich people, you meant poor people, and mothers taking maternity leave.

I gotcha. No, I still stand by what I'm saying.

>> ^newtboy:

So then you retract your statement..." the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave"? You seem to have just agreed that it is too many people taking maternaty leave (among other programs) crashing Europe.
>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.

>> ^newtboy:
Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.

EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.
>> ^NetRunner:
Oh, I guess I need to roll my eyes here. Apparently by "the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government and giving less back" you didn't mean corporations and rich people, you meant poor people, and mothers taking maternity leave.
I gotcha. No, I still stand by what I'm saying.
>> ^newtboy:
So then you retract your statement..." the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave"? You seem to have just agreed that it is too many people taking maternaty leave (among other programs) crashing Europe.
>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.

>> ^newtboy:
Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.

I'd impregnate it.

>> ^newtboy:

...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.
EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.

For some reason, you remind me a lot of blankfist.

Europe's debt didn't cause an economic collapse, an economic collapse caused a debt problem. That problem has arisen in countries that didn't have one before (Spain, Ireland), and been made more acute in ones that did (Italy, Greece). I'm not in favor of running deficits when times are good, so I like for government to take in more taxes than it spends, and collect them largely from those most able to pay. If poor people generally wind up getting more out than they pay in, and the rich pay more than they get out, that's a feature, not a bug.

In any case, mandatory maternity leave doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on government budgets, here or in Europe.

If you believe something else, that's fine. I retract even the most tacit endorsement of anything you've said.

I don't know blankfist well enough to be sure, but I think I should be offended by that remark! I don't think I insulted you.
That's funny that you retract any endorsement, because it seems you repeated most of what I said. The only thing I would argue that you seem to omit is that at this point is that everyone is getting back more than they put in, here and abroad, and there's no way that's sustainable.
What I was looking for, and you completely missed with your assumptions, was for you to re-state your position from
"the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave" to something closer to
" the problems that have destroyed the global economy are unregulated financial BS from the free market, and a preponderance of people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." It seemed like you agreed with that, but then you made a mistaken assumption about me (Umption is still waiting for that apology), and now want to distance yourself from me based on what?
I would say that mandatory paid maternity leave certainly does effect government budgets, or do you think public servants don't have children? If you make it too much of a burden on the employer, and we are the employer, it's too hard on all of us. In some european countries, I was under the impression that the pay came from the state (perhaps that's wrong), making it all government budget related.
That said, I do support manditory maternity leave, I'm just not so sure about manditory paid maternity leave. I do not support 9+ months of paid maternity leave for both parents, and 3 months paid vacation guaranteed, or the other kinds of programs that bankrupted Greece and others. Their debt problem contributed greatly to the latest economic collapse, which exacerbated the debt problem, spreading economic collapse and creating new debt problems. True enough, it was not the sole or even main cause here, yet. It certainly isn't helping matters though.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^newtboy:
...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.
EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.
For some reason, you remind me a lot of blankfist.
Europe's debt didn't cause an economic collapse, an economic collapse caused a debt problem. That problem has arisen in countries that didn't have one before (Spain, Ireland), and been made more acute in ones that did (Italy, Greece). I'm not in favor of running deficits when times are good, so I like for government to take in more taxes than it spends, and collect them largely from those most able to pay. If poor people generally wind up getting more out than they pay in, and the rich pay more than they get out, that's a feature, not a bug.
In any case, mandatory maternity leave doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on government budgets, here or in Europe.
If you believe something else, that's fine. I retract even the most tacit endorsement of anything you've said.

@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.

Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.

I didn't mention debt, you did.

I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.

I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.

Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.

But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.

OK, let me start by saying I was never incensed, irked, consternated, angered, or otherwise bothered. I always think it's funny to hear the assumptions people make about me, they are invariably wrong, I'm a wierdo and rarely take the path expected. I take joy in setting the record straight in the hopes of presenting a different point of view for consideration, I see no reason for revenge or anger over a misunderstanding and usually not schadenfreude either.
I didn't see it as consession to my arguement, I saw it as coming to agreement that we really meant the same thing. I guess to some people that might be the same thing, it's not to me.
The only apology needed is to Umption, you made an ass out of him. I'm not looking for one myself, I don't know why I might be due one except for the blankfist thing. You misunderstood me again.
It depends on which current financial crisis you mean. I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem. The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
The debt discussion stems from the discussion of the european crash, which I believe was caused mostly by the crushing debt of many union members, caused in large part by over spending on social programs like paid maternity (along with many others), and the worsening of that debt to the point their partners could no longer ignore it caused by the global market declines. It came to a head when Greece couldn't borrow more money to pay for the services they refused to curtail. I disagree with the contention that Spain and Ireland were in "good" shape simply because they were not collapsing yet. Greece has been spending like a teenager with daddy's credit card for far too long (probably decades), so long that it's people (and corperations most likely, don't misunderstnad) believe they are entitled to all their handouts because many have never known different, and they flatly refused to raise taxes to pay for those services and entitlements, forget paying their debts. Let's be clear, they are not us, they were even worse about entitlement programs and ignoring debt. That does not mean we should not use them as a cautionary tale of what to avoid, we don't want to be where they are now, and it's where we are heading.
Here in the USA, I think our debt stems from overspending (on defense and entitlement programs, stupid wastes, and needed services) AND under taxing. I'm not sure about your health care point, we haven't really paid for it yet, so it hasn't really effected the debt. Maybe I'm missing your point.
I disagree with your final point, that our debt is a made up problem. I also disagree with the contention that we must erase the debt completely and instantly, damn the consequences. Sadly, the big 'debt debate' that once again tarnished our reputation worldwide (and continues to) is really not about paying down our debt. As far as I know, no one seriously even floated a ballanced budget ammendment, forget actually paying down the debt. All the wrangling is over a small percentage of the insane increase they expect in the national debt over 10 years (I think I recall the number 24trillion). I fear the debt will crush us, and stagnate our economy if not dealt with quickly, but it must be done with reason and thoughfulness, not ignored OR myopicly focused on.>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.
Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.
I didn't mention debt, you did.
I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.
I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.
Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.
But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.

Wow.

>> ^Sagemind:

In Canada - I believe it's 6-9 months (Paid- although at a reduced rate) leave. And either the man or the woman can take the leave - but not both.


I had thought they could split it.

How can you afford to have a child in the US if you don't have health insurance (or have crappy insurance) and don't get paid leave?

>> ^newtboy:

I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem.

That there is pretty much what I meant in my original quip, and subsequent responses.

>> ^newtboy:
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.

Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.

In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.

Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.

More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

Back to the video, it's only socialism if the government does it. Her EMPLOYER is paying for her leave, which is just part of her compensation package.

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2. I think they also defaulted in the end. Inflation can be a nation killer.
I have repeatedly said the same thing to you about ballance, but reversed. There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing. You seem to be focused solely on raising taxes as a way out of the problem, I'm saying that's only 1/2 the solution (that should not translate into 'I don't think low tax rates are a problem' or 'I think overspending is the only problem', it seems that's what you're incorrectly gleeming from my words). Maybe it's just that you don't like the WAY I said it, but you agree with my point? I don't get it.
We are NOT the rich and powerful country we claim to be, and have not been for a while...that's the issue. We need to consider ourselves a second world country and decide if we want to continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility and become a third world country, or do we want to regain first world status. Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them. If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc., as long as we never spend more than we have, I'm fine with it. It's just not fiscally possible without going into the hole even farther, and that leads to disaster. Right now, we are in debt more than the entire country produces in a year, and that only counts the debt on the books, and counts our GDP at 09 levels, which we no longer meet. That means if every person/corperation was taxed at 100%, it could not erase our debt in a year (assuming we also stop spending a dime on anything). That's a HUGE problem that should never have been allowed to happen, if you don't think it is, I think you aren't responsible with money. Living above your means on credit is irresponsible, and usually passes the bill on to others or leaves it unpaid. I have no children to worry about there, but I'm not the kind of a$$hole that plans on leaving YOUR children deep in debt in a third world country...and I don't want to end up there myself before I die.
>> ^NetRunner:
>>
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.
In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.
Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.
More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

Agreed, voluntary private paid maternity leave is not socialist. But if it's manditory, that means public servants get it too, and that's a little socialist.
My discussion with Netrunner may have gone a bit off topic. Sorry.
>> ^Payback:
Back to the video, it's only socialism if the government does it. Her EMPLOYER is paying for her leave, which is just part of her compensation package.

>> ^Payback:

Back to the video, it's only socialism if the government does it. Her EMPLOYER is paying for her leave, which is just part of her compensation package.


But what if the government makes a law that forces employers to do it?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Payback:
Back to the video, it's only socialism if the government does it. Her EMPLOYER is paying for her leave, which is just part of her compensation package.

But what if the government makes a law that forces employers to do it?


That hasn't even happened here in Canada. There is merely job security for the ( up to a ) year off. Pay actually comes from the Employment Insurance system, PARENTAL leave has been recognized as a valid reason for being off work. The employer has to either make do with out the applicant for the time, or arrange for a temporary replacement. They can't use parental leave to fire them, they must allow them back afterwards. I believe seniority can be harmed though, but don't quote me.

The idea of parental leave (either parent), rather than maternity leave (just the mother), is so couples where the mother has a job that is higher paid and/or harder/impossible to return to after a year without major training or expense, the family doesn't have to choose the worst-case.

EDIT Also, each parent can use a part of the total, so the mother can take a month or two to recover and bond, then the father can take the rest of the time. You can also earn up to 25% of your weekly benefit (minimum $50) without losing any benefit. Anything over that is deducted from your next benefit 1:1 though.

>> ^Hmmm:

How can you afford to have a child in the US if you don't have health insurance (or have crappy insurance) and don't get paid leave?


Sell drugs.

As usual, the Canucks seem to get it right. Pre-pay into insurance, not paid by the feds. My question would be, what about public servants? Does the same go for them?
About the benefit, I'm assuming (sorry Uming) that's paid by the employer, are they required to also give the temp benefits?
>> ^Payback:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Payback:
Back to the video, it's only socialism if the government does it. Her EMPLOYER is paying for her leave, which is just part of her compensation package.

But what if the government makes a law that forces employers to do it?

That hasn't even happened here in Canada. There is merely job security for the ( up to a ) year off. Pay actually comes from the Employment Insurance system, PARENTAL leave has been recognized as a valid reason for being off work. The employer has to either make do with out the applicant for the time, or arrange for a temporary replacement. They can't use parental leave to fire them, they must allow them back afterwards. I believe seniority can be harmed though, but don't quote me.
The idea of parental leave (either parent), rather than maternity leave (just the mother), is so couples where the mother has a job that is higher paid and/or harder/impossible to return to after a year without major training or expense, the family doesn't have to choose the worst-case.
EDIT Also, each parent can use a part of the total, so the mother can take a month or two to recover and bond, then the father can take the rest of the time. You can also earn up to 25% of your weekly benefit (minimum $50) without losing any benefit. Anything over that is deducted from your next benefit 1:1 though.

>> ^newtboy:

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).

I'd say per capita isn't as important as debt/GDP ratios. By that measure, Greece is in terrible shape (148% of GDP), while places like Sweeden and Denmark and Finland are all in the 30-40% range. The US is at about 60%, which isn't great, but it's not terrible, and definitely nothing like Greece.

>> ^newtboy:
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!

It's true. Not every EU nation has given up their own currency, but all of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) have.

>> ^newtboy:
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.

Well, Fed policies can reduce the money supply too. Any time the Fed raises interest rates, that's what it's doing.

>> ^newtboy:
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2.

That's hyperinflation, i.e. a process where inflation doesn't just rise, but starts exponentially increasing. That's why central banks in modern times have explicit, stable inflation targets that they communicate publicly.

Adopting a higher inflation target definitely helps a government's long term fiscal position, at the cost of weakening its exchange rate, without risking any sort of runaway inflation.

Sometimes that's a worthwhile trade to make, especially if the alternative (default) is worse.

>> ^newtboy:
There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing.
...
Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them.

That's the thing, you say it's the programs that "bankrupted them", I'm saying "no it didn't, they went bankrupt because they didn't ask people to pay the taxes to pay for the safety net they had".

You can balance the government budget at 18% of GDP or 50% of GDP. Having paid maternity leave doesn't bankrupt you. It's having paid maternity leave, and then cutting the taxes that pay for it that bankrupts you.

>> ^newtboy:
If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc.,

Well, having the money is a choice we make as a society. Our GDP, even in this crisis, is $14 trillion a year. I suspect maternity leave wouldn't even cost a thousandth of one percent of that.

Again, the size of government has nothing to do with your fiscal discipline. Fiscal discipline is saying that you want to be taxed at a rate that will pay for the government as it exists. Demanding other people sacrifice so that you don't have to pay higher taxes is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Damn it, I don't know how to break up the quote so nicely, so I'll just have to answer in order and hope you can follow. Apologies.
Agreed, I was wrong when I said per capita, that can be misleading in both directions, debt/GDP is a much better measure. I don't understand your math however, our debt is well over $14 TRILLION, and our GDP is less than that today (I think by far, but I can't find current projections, it was $14 trillion in 09). That makes our ratio 1/1 at best, or 100%, not 60%. That only takes the 'on the book' debt into account.
Thanks for the EU lesson, I really didn't know. It sounds like ditching your own currency is a bad move, huh?
OK, raising interest rates is LIKE re-valuing the currency, but not the opposite of how they often devalue it, by simply printing more. That's why the gold standard was good, it made it illegal to just print more without the gold to back it, making hyper inflation less likely.
Yes, hyper inflation is the fear. If, because we have obvious insurmountable debt, we become more of a credit risk and no one will lend us money (like happened to Greece), that's the only option left, isn't it? We don't have union partners tied to us with a currency chain, and we are too big for any 'partner' to bail out anyway. We're left with paying debts by printing money, which leads to hyper inflation. That's what could happen if they don't get hold of the debt, by spending cuts AND tax increase.
And that leads to the next point, I have repeatedly said it is BOTH under taxing AND overspending. You seem to not read the part where I say it's also under taxing, repeatedly. It's imperative we get BOTH under control and in balance, in my view.
It's true, you can balance the budget at 100% of GDP if you live in a socialist society, that's a way to go. In a capitalist society, you need to leave enough for commerce to continue in order to generate MORE revenue for next year. I don't think 50% quite cuts it in most cases. 75% probably would, and would give the feds a huge fund (3.5 trillion per year) to both pay our debts and pay for services, if those services are curtailed to a reasonable level (and that's the rub, what's reasonable to one is not to the other). It's absolutely true that maternity leave by itself poses no problem whatsoever, it's the hundred thousand other iterations of similar programs combined that make it impossible to do anything properly. I absolutely agree that we should generate revenue (taxes) at least at the same level as our spending. I don't think that's quite possible at the level of spending we have now, just as it's not possible to continue under funding the budget that exists and floating larger debt (creating more spending with no service because of larger interest payments, another reason large debt is BAD). We need to thoughtfully prioritize our spending AND raise revenue in my eyes. Keeping priorities straight is not a strength held by most Americans, and certainly not our government, so I have little hope this will happen.

>> ^newtboy:

As usual, the Canucks seem to get it right. Pre-pay into insurance, not paid by the feds. My question would be, what about public servants? Does the same go for them?
About the benefit, I'm assuming (sorry Uming) that's paid by the employer, are they required to also give the temp benefits?


Employment Insurance is paid by both the employer and the employee. It's been 100,000 years since I was the one doing the paycheques, but I think the Employer's contribution is 1.5 or 1.6 times the employee's.

Government employees, for the most part, are considered employees. Unionized employees, but work is work up here. Mostly the unions are to blame can take credit for anything govt employees get that private sector ones don't. If by public servants you mean the elected ones, well, they're just as heinous, overpaid and overcompensated on termination as anywhere else.

Yes, as an employee, the temp's employment counts towards EI.

>> ^cito:

I wish I could afford to leave the U.S. it's getting pretty bad, the media is this huge opinion ratings propaganda machine, telling the facts and news don't exist anymore. Our economy is shit, reputation is shit, and our government most of them need to be hung for treason.
If only I could afford the paper work and the plane ticket to get out, I'd be out as fast as possible, it's time for the smart rats to jump off this sinking ship.


Canada's a bus ticket away...

Also, this video is pure win. My fav is the part when he gets smacked down by the momma bear.

If we waited for perfection, no one would ever have kids. Just saying. And I was offered 3 months time with my kids... So I understand. It was in no way paid, but it was there. My choice to work for a company that isn't run by fucking retards who care only about money at the expense of others (Not saying business is a bad thing, but most businesses don't "live within their means" so they can provide actual benefits to the employees, you know, the job creators?)

>> ^gorillaman:

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo
We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.
Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.
If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.
It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.

1. the us does not have paid maternity leave, some companies do, most don't. it's at their discretion.

2. what many corporate operations will have is short term disability insurance, which is paid by employee and employer.

3. many corporate operations will also offer paid time off, the day i found out i was pregnant, i did not spend any of my pto, saving it all up for my 6 weeks maternity leave.

4. the first few months of life are EXTREMELY VITAL to proper human development. even if you think people should have less babies (and most of them seem to be agreeing with you, btw) we still need a significant amount of new people born each year. unless you want ignorant malnourished sociopaths changing your pants in your nursing home, it's in your best interest to be supportive of strong prenatal and post partum policies.

5. capitalism is built on the backs of women. 1000's upon 1000's of unpaid hours creating future workers for the machine. if you want the best workers possible, even if you want less of them, it's in societies best interest to be supportive of motherhood. it's doing a piss poor job right now. and you pricks wonder why kids are so stupid and bratty and burning their cities to the ground? i bet not a little of that is due to the increasing difficulty of balancing being a mother, with paying all the bills. and in the end, motherhood is the single greatest risk factor for poverty in old age.

6. fuck your patriarchal bullshittery "live within your means, if i want bicycle around europe blah blah" arguments.

7. thinking that good maternity policies "incentivise" people to have more kids is silly. people who are actually fortunate enough to have planned pregnancies realize they're going to be raising the kid longer than a few months. and birth rates are on the decline in the developed world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Wikipedia has a giant table of maternity leave laws across over 150 countries. The US is the only 0 on the chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave


Yea it's pretty bad when countries like the CONGO have far better maternity leave laws than the 'great' USA.

On topic it's rather funny to see a fox news 'opinionator' pull a 180 on worker entitlements. You know what they say, if the shoe fits...

Sadly for him, they don't want indigent aliens imigrating either. Otherwise I might start a fund for busses to canada for those wishing to leave...B-bye.
>> ^Krupo:
>> ^cito:
I wish I could afford to leave the U.S. it's getting pretty bad, the media is this huge opinion ratings propaganda machine, telling the facts and news don't exist anymore. Our economy is shit, reputation is shit, and our government most of them need to be hung for treason.
If only I could afford the paper work and the plane ticket to get out, I'd be out as fast as possible, it's time for the smart rats to jump off this sinking ship.

Canada's a bus ticket away...
Also, this video is pure win. My fav is the part when he gets smacked down by the momma bear.

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Nails-Megyn-Kelly