Paid Maternity Leave: Yes or No?

[Uxupox]

Why should a company pay for maternity since the mother or father are not producing during that time period?

The exact same logic can be used for denying workers comp.
In fact it WAS used.

And the answer to both is that if a company treats it's employees as expendable than noone will want to work for it and the company will be left with nothing but rookies be cause of the high turnover rate.

2 or 3 months of maternity leaves projects or work with either unsatisfactory or not enough (If in manufacturing for example) made for the quota. It's a literal burden for the company and specifically that project manager to deal with one less hand that is needed.

Monsanto is one of the biggest seed company and the majority of their "benefits" are paid directly by the employee or not covered at all.

[Great Nepal]

Hmm I'm not sure tbh - on one hand parental leave makes absolute sense from perspective from child rearing as they need time to take care of newborn and stuff but on the other hand having child is voluntary personal decision and government subsidizing that isn't really ideal... not really sure of the ideal solution but perhaps some sort of carers allowance for people voluntarily caring for newborn - essentially allowing the primary caregiver to make it their full time role (essentially extending Carer's Allowance)?

Daycares is already a thing for busy parents, they can however be expensive.

Those on the other hand should be government funded; and there is no issue with it regarding subsidizing personal, voluntary choice - and the carer's allowance isn't necessarily same as daycare - I was thinking of something around if you care for the new born fulltime, don't get paid for it, then they get payment.

[Luminesa]

I watched my brother pull that with two kids - worked 3 jobs, came home, cleaned out, cooked, and slept.

Never slept more than about 2-3 hours at a time, maybe 3 times every two days.

For years.

Needless to say, I've never had kids either.

How could we? Parenthood seems like a 1 way trip into poverty to me.

I'm sorry.

[Great Minarchistan]

Decreasing? You mean, it just hit an all-time high and decreased 2%. And last Eurozone recession was in 2008-2009 (2012-2013 has been almost a stagnation).

Yes, the recovery has been less than ideal, but if one looks at the graph, the debt was just fine until 2008, then started shooting up.

The problem isn't the family leave - it's that the economy never truly got back to "normal".

It has been 8 years already and debt jumped from 68.5% to 90% today. If you step back to when Eurozone adopted welfare state in most countries (by 1990s), debt was zoning by 60%, against 90% of today. And US has also been on a welfare state (smaller than European one). That, coupled with GWOT and ARRA spending, helped to raise American debt.

If the US has a smaller welfare state (it does), and welfare states cause unsustainable debt, why is the US debt worse than the eurozone debt?

PS.: High debt after a recession only happens if the government spends money to "stimulate" the economy. FDR did that and debt reached the 100%s mark by the end of WW2.

Yes, and then we used those profits from the economy moving again to pay it down.

1- The economy never came back to normal due to some strange entity, it seems. I guess its name is neokeynesian fairytale. Slash interests to 0, increase government spending and print money to solve a crisis never worked.

2- Again, due to GWOT ($5 trillion) + ARRA ($1 trillion) and welfare (Obamacare by itself has generated $2 trillion in debt). All this sums up to $8 trillion, about half of US debt.

3- Sure, took apparent 6 years to government spending to drop unemployment and give a """healthy""" 2% annual growth. US did almost the same as of Eurozone, and both failed to achieve recovery.

[Galloism]

Yes, the recovery has been less than ideal, but if one looks at the graph, the debt was just fine until 2008, then started shooting up.

The problem isn't the family leave - it's that the economy never truly got back to "normal".



If the US has a smaller welfare state (it does), and welfare states cause unsustainable debt, why is the US debt worse than the eurozone debt?



Yes, and then we used those profits from the economy moving again to pay it down.

1- The economy never came back to normal due to some strange entity, it seems. I guess its name is neokeynesian fairytale. Slash interests to 0, increase government spending and print money to solve a crisis never worked.

Really? Never? Are you sure?

2- Again, due to GWOT ($5 trillion) + ARRA ($1 trillion) and welfare (Obamacare by itself has generated $2 trillion in debt). All this sums up to $8 trillion, about half of US debt.

Ok, so GWAT I'm with you on (and it was stupid to try), but ARRA's problem, according to many economists, is that it wasn't large enough, quite unlike the stimulus plan of FDR.

3- Sure, took apparent 6 years to government spending to drop unemployment and give a """healthy""" 2% annual growth. US did almost the same as of Eurozone, and both failed to achieve recovery.

Mostly because we didn't spend enough up front, at least according to economists. It's one of those funny situations where failing to spend money actually cost us money.

[Oil exporting People]

Yeah, but it's no more you paying them than if your landlord chose to give some of your rent money on a charity providing it. There's nothing weird about it: it's totally internally consistent.

I'm a little bit confused as to what you're trying to say here, and how it even deals with what your saying.

What you've actually said is "if you totally accept right-wing theories of society without question, then everything else looks weird". That's monumentally obvious.

Which I never said nor suggested. The point was this issue makes the left look weird/hypocritical in its entire thinking on multiple subjects.

[Genivaria]

Daycares is already a thing for busy parents, they can however be expensive.

Those on the other hand should be government funded; and there is no issue with it regarding subsidizing personal, voluntary choice - and the carer's allowance isn't necessarily same as daycare - I was thinking of something around if you care for the new born fulltime, don't get paid for it, then they get payment.

While I personally have no objection to that idea there will be those who will scream 'government brainwashing'.

[FutureAmerica]

Yes, but not for the husband.

[Genivaria]

Yes, but not for the husband.

Why not?

[The Conez Imperium]

In a highly developed country, soon to be facing changing demographics for the worse - paid maternity leave is important as it gives further incentive for people to raise children.

Child rearing is extremely expensive these days

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, but not for the husband.

I am ok with both.

You don't have a unique opinion. I have heard it from relatives who interestingly enough yabber on about family values......

[The Black Forrest]

In a highly developed country, soon to be facing changing demographics for the worse - paid maternity leave is important as it gives further incentive for people to raise children.

Child rearing is extremely expensive these days

Especially these days. My mothers time you had access to relatives. People move too much to keep that access......

[The Conez Imperium]

In a highly developed country, soon to be facing changing demographics for the worse - paid maternity leave is important as it gives further incentive for people to raise children.

Child rearing is extremely expensive these days

Especially these days. My mothers time you had access to relatives. People move too much to keep that access......

It's a shame that Australian culture doesn't encourage extended families (grand-parents) to live in 1 house. If that was the case, there might be less of a housing crisis and working parents wouldn't be so burned with childcare. I suppose however, that's the grand-parents decision.

[Maurepas]

I think we need a radical shift in how these things are done. Mandated by the government isn't necessarily the way to go because it wouldn't necessarily be a net benefit for every worker. Instead if we're going to take an EU example, I think we need to restructure how our working relationship functions more similar to how it works in Denmark. I.e. every worker should be unionized and negotiate their own benefits and pay, etc.

[Arumdaum]

Yes. Four years of paid parental leave would be great.

It allows for families who want children to more easily have children, which has been an issue due to the often prohibitively expensive costs and responsibilities that come with rearing a child in developed economies. It would allow parents to interact more with and form stronger bonds with their children, leading to a healthier and happier society. Babies who are talked to more often by their parents often do better in school later on.

Women should not have to go back to work when they are still in immense pain from having given birth, and should not be forced to choose between taking care of their children and their career. This means that men should also have the same amount of leave - only women having paid leave would mean in most families, women would be forced to take time off to take care of the child while the husband works, even if the woman makes more than the husband and the husband is better suited to taking care of the home. Basically, more relegation of the woman to the home, even if she doesn't want it. If paid leave is only given to women, it would also discourage firms from hiring them.

[Wickedly evil people]

no mandated paid leave.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yes, but not for the husband.

Why not?

He's not the one who has to carry a 10-pound fetus for 9 months.

[Alvecia]

Why not?

He's not the one who has to carry a 10-pound fetus for 9 months.

Still has to look after the kid. I get that the mother has to have time to recover, but that doesn't mean the dad doesn't need time to take care of his family.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, but not for the husband.

Sure, babies shouldn't have husbands, not being able to consent to such.

The father should, though. Or ideally, the parents should be able to distribute it between themselves as they wish.

[Arumdaum]

He's not the one who has to carry a 10-pound fetus for 9 months.

Still has to look after the kid. I get that the mother has to have time to recover, but that doesn't mean the dad doesn't need time to take care of his family.

If it's not offered for the dad, you're also essentially forcing the mother to be the one taking care of the family while the father works, which reinforces outdated gender roles.

[Alvecia]

Still has to look after the kid. I get that the mother has to have time to recover, but that doesn't mean the dad doesn't need time to take care of his family.

If it's not offered for the dad, you're also essentially forcing the mother to be the one taking care of the family while the father works, which reinforces outdated gender roles.

There you have it. Paternity leave is pro-women.

[Great Nepal]

Yes. Four years of paid parental leave would be great.

It allows for families who want children to more easily have children, which has been an issue due to the often prohibitively expensive costs and responsibilities that come with rearing a child in developed economies.

And it is society's responsibility to facilitate people having children why?

It would allow parents to interact more with and form stronger bonds with their children, leading to a healthier and happier society. Babies who are talked to more often by their parents often do better in school later on.

A lot of things make children perform better, doesn't mean its society's responsibility to facilitate them all.

Women should not have to go back to work when they are still in immense pain from having given birth,

Most modern world already has a thing to handle that, sick leave - like for every other ailment.

and should not be forced to choose between taking care of their children and their career.

Why not? People are forced to choose between pursuing their careers fully, and doing x all the time. Why should having children be an exception?

[Salandriagado]

[

It would allow parents to interact more with and form stronger bonds with their children, leading to a healthier and happier society. Babies who are talked to more often by their parents often do better in school later on.

A lot of things make children perform better, doesn't mean its society's responsibility to facilitate them all.

Just addressing this one: I'm pretty confident that a parental leave mandate will work out to cost the economy less than it will gain from the future productivity of those kids.

[Great Nepal]

[

A lot of things make children perform better, doesn't mean its society's responsibility to facilitate them all.

Just addressing this one: I'm pretty confident that a parental leave mandate will work out to cost the economy less than it will gain from the future productivity of those kids.

The improvement in productivity resulting from improved school results which can be directly attributed to the parent talking to their kids would be higher than direct and associated cost from loss of experience due to parental leave lasting four years? I find that rather hard to believe.

[Infected Mushroom]

There should be no maternity leave.

If you want to have children, don't expect others to pay for part of the cost.