>> ^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.

>> ^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?

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.

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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

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.

@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.

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:

...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.

That is a superb analogy. Well done.

In reply to this comment by packo:
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

...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'.

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'.