How America ended up with the worst maternity leave laws on earth

[Skull Pilot]

You cant even do it...

Let's define terms

When you say leave do you mean paid leave?

If you do then we will disagree from the outset.

If you mean unpaid leave then yes there can be a point where it is detrimental.

If you want to work for an employer and have a kid every year then you are IMO a part time employee and your job should not be held. There comes a point where the viability of a business especially small businesses that employ the lion's share of people in this country must be considered. If the business goes under because it has to hold positions for people who aren't working how is that good for anyone?

It is difficult if not impossible for a business with a small staff to run if people are taking 25% of the year off in order to have kids. Besides that the employees with the most kids tend to be the least reliable in my experience as they are calling out every time their kids are sick. They also tend to be the most demanding and the least flexible when it comes to scheduling.

So yes catering to people's reproductive choices can be overdone.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now, try it from the view of employees and how that would be bad for society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, try it from the view of employees and how that would be bad for society.

Anyone given anything at the expense of another thinks it's a good thing.

That's human nature.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

I am all for maternity leave. We can bring up birthrates and stop bringing in third world coolies under the excuse " we need them sustain our population growth", also, we can get more men back into the workforce and more women back into domestic roles.

I am glad liberals are on board with a very conservative policy prescription.

Most businesses if not all already offer maternity leave it's just not paid maternity leave.

Well the government should provide a paid one. Institute a maternity tax, or do it like social security, with contributions from female workers and employers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now, try it from the view of employees and how that would be bad for society.

Anyone given anything at the expense of another thinks it's a good thing.

That's human nature.

Try harder than that..c'mon I believe in you

 

[bripat9643]

No again, someone with a job needs time off to have a child. Look if you are so against it why arent you crying about the maternity leave they get now? Let me take a wild guess....because they already get it, right? Ok, so when they get more time people like you will be ok with that too.

Employers need people who are on the job working. They don't hire people so they can pay them for a month to do nothing. If a woman needs to not work after having a child, then let her quit. A lot of women take a year off or even five years off to have their children.

Now, try this...Start the sentence with America needs or even words like "Society needs". Try it from that view just once. I'll wait

What you think America "needs" or what society "needs" is irrelevant to the legitimate functions of government. No one has any right to impose his conception of utopia on anyone else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am all for maternity leave. We can bring up birthrates and stop bringing in third world coolies under the excuse " we need them sustain our population growth", also, we can get more men back into the workforce and more women back into domestic roles.

I am glad liberals are on board with a very conservative policy prescription.

Most businesses if not all already offer maternity leave it's just not paid maternity leave.

Well the government should provide a paid one. Institute a maternity tax, or do it like social security, with contributions from female workers and employers.

No it should not.

Your reproductive choices are your responsibility.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, try it from the view of employees and how that would be bad for society.

Anyone given anything at the expense of another thinks it's a good thing.

That's human nature.

Try harder than that..c'mon I believe in you

I don't have to explain a true statement any further than I already have.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

Most businesses if not all already offer maternity leave it's just not paid maternity leave.

Well the government should provide a paid one. Institute a maternity tax, or do it like social security, with contributions from female workers and employers.

No it should not.

Your reproductive choices are your responsibility.

So you don't think it is the purview of the state to incentivize procreation/family formation and healthy childhood development? You seriously put corporate profits above the continuation and social stability of society? Sorry, I can't get behind your degenerate libertarian philosophy here.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny, I don't see any countries from Africa or South America on your little chart, so I guess you lied about the US being the worse on earth. Typical commie.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

Funny, I don't see any countries from Africa or South America on your little chart, so I guess you lied about the US being the worse on earth. Typical commie.

So America should be more like those third world shitholes? Well I guess with mass immigration, our corrupt leaders and our corporate kleptocracy we are becoming more like the third world everyday...

 

[OKTexas]

Funny, I don't see any countries from Africa or South America on your little chart, so I guess you lied about the US being the worse on earth. Typical commie.

So America should be more like those third world shitholes? Well I guess with mass immigration, our corrupt leaders and our corporate kleptocracy we are becoming more like the third world everyday...

The very FACT that some states and many companies in the US provide for leave means the US does not have a zero as the ridiculous chart implies, it just says there is no federal standard. I know, I know, commies want everything controlled by federal standards, all I can say is though shit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well the government should provide a paid one. Institute a maternity tax, or do it like social security, with contributions from female workers and employers.

No it should not.

Your reproductive choices are your responsibility.

So you don't think it is the purview of the state to incentivize procreation/family formation and healthy childhood development? You seriously put corporate profits above the continuation and social stability of society? Sorry, I can't get behind your degenerate libertarian philosophy here.

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

No it should not.

Your reproductive choices are your responsibility.

So you don't think it is the purview of the state to incentivize procreation/family formation and healthy childhood development? You seriously put corporate profits above the continuation and social stability of society? Sorry, I can't get behind your degenerate libertarian philosophy here.

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

 

[Politico]

It depends on the employee. If we're talking about some grocery bagger, then no, it won't endanger the company. If we're talking about some key person working on a big project, then it can. Many companies simply can't allow a position to go unfilled for an entire month, and there are many highly skilled positions that you just can't fill at the drop of a hat.

Furthermore, companies that hire a lot of young workers can have a real problem on their hands just from the number of employees who get pregnant. When I first graduated it seems like every other woman in the company I worked for was pregnant.

Allowed? What the employer thinks is irrelevant. The FMLA says they have to allow 12 weeks of maternity leave without fear of retaliation from trolls like initforme. Let's not confuse topics.

Only Nazis believe what the employer thinks doesn't matter. I think Initforme is on the same side of this issue as you, so I don't know why you're calling him a troll

Speaking of trolls. Because I am not on the same side as I clearly said. The issue is not about whether people should have time off.

 

[bripat9643]

So you don't think it is the purview of the state to incentivize procreation/family formation and healthy childhood development? You seriously put corporate profits above the continuation and social stability of society? Sorry, I can't get behind your degenerate libertarian philosophy here.

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

That's just plain bullshit. The individual can easily exist outside of society, and prior to the rise of the nation state, he often did exist outside of society. Your premise is bullshit, so the conclusions based on the premise are bullshit. Furthermore, not paying for your birth control is not "antisocial or degenerate" and don't "threaten the security, stability and continuity of society" in any way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you don't think it is the purview of the state to incentivize procreation/family formation and healthy childhood development? You seriously put corporate profits above the continuation and social stability of society? Sorry, I can't get behind your degenerate libertarian philosophy here.

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

Society does not exist independently of individual human beings. As Ludwig von Mises noted, “The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort.”1 Indeed, he continues, “The fundamental facts that brought about . . . society. . . are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth.” In other words, society exists to serve individuals—not the other way around.

The Individual and Society : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

That's just plain bullshit. The individual can easily exist outside of society, and prior to the rise of the nation state, he often did exist outside of society. Your premise is bullshit, so the conclusions based on the premise are bullshit. Furthermore, not paying for your birth control is not "antisocial or degenerate" and don't "threaten the security, stability and continuity of society" in any way.

Well, that is just plain stupid, society does not necessarily equal a nation state. Before the nation state, there were kingdoms and empires, before that city states. There is no such thing as individual rights, legal protections outside of a state apparatus. Your delusions of individualism werent even conceived of pre-state. Why? Because the continuity society is of greater importance than whatever the whims of one individual may be. This is something anarchists and libertarians have totally backwards.

I don't know what you are talking about, this conversation is about maternity leave, not birth control. I oppose abortion.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

No it is not.

We do not have an obligation for the continuation of society.

Society exists to serve the individual not the converse.

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

Society does not exist independently of individual human beings. As Ludwig von Mises noted, “The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort.”1 Indeed, he continues, “The fundamental facts that brought about . . . society. . . are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth.” In other words, society exists to serve individuals—not the other way around.

The Individual and Society : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

There is no such thing as individual sovereignty unless the society is willing to recognize. Meaning a collective is necessary to come together to recognize these "rights".

 

[Skull Pilot]

Individual sovereignty, individual rights, individual legal protections, don't exist outside of societal recognition of these concepts. So no, individuals can't exist outside of a society, and owe their existence to the society, thus anti social and degenerate actions that threaten the security, stability and continuity of society must be prohibited. And conversely, those in power in said society should take pro social actions to assure it's continued existence.

Society does not exist independently of individual human beings. As Ludwig von Mises noted, “The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort.”1 Indeed, he continues, “The fundamental facts that brought about . . . society. . . are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth.” In other words, society exists to serve individuals—not the other way around.

The Individual and Society : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

There is no such thing as individual sovereignty unless the society is willing to recognize. Meaning a collective is necessary to come together to recognize these "rights".

Funny according to the definitive document of our government we have agreed that rights are inseparable from each individual.