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.

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.

Your video, Megyn Kelly on maternity leave being "a racket", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^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*

>> ^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!

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

>> ^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

>> ^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?

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.