Tags for this video have been changed from 'fox news, megyn kelly, entitlement, maternity leave' to 'fox news, megyn kelly, entitlement, other people want, maternity leave, samson' - edited by calvados

>> ^Yogi:

Soo happy when I saw this. They've got a killer research team to be able to find her talking about the very same subject that far back. Of course if it's just a Lexis Nexis search I'll be quite upset.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure they just search the transcripts: [find "maternity"]

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.

>> ^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...

Rather heavily at that! She says that the US is in "The Dark Ages" for its policies with respect to maternity leave.>> ^grinter:

>> ^Edgeman2112:
ehhh... I see your point, but employers aren't required to give paid maternity leave.

During the interview she implies that they should be.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

ehhh... I see your point, but employers aren't required to give paid maternity leave.


During the interview she implies that they should be.

ehhh... I see your point, but employers aren't required to give paid maternity leave.

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.

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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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:

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.

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.

>> ^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.