Paid Maternity Leave - Good for Women?

[jillian]

most civilized countries have maternity leave, child care, etc.

you should probably come into the 21st century.

I agree that a progressive people should take care of each other, but supporting governmental coercion in order to do so? This is hardly civilized, in my opinion.

what do you call rightwingnut theocrats trying to defund planned parenthood?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Employers don’t pay workers on maternity leave in countries with mandated maternity leave. Nor should they.

In Canada, they’re paid by the unemployment insurance program for 52 weeks. 55% of wages to a maximum of $550.

In Norway the Welfare Office pays 80% of salary but most employers top up the benefit paid to 100%. The Scandinavian countries have the most generous maternity benefits in the world.

Japan gives 100% of salary from the Social Services Ministry.

In Britain, it’s a government paid benefit.

Ok, considering the various systems you've presented, let's try to reduce this to two fundamental options:

1. Families prepare before having children by putting money aside, and/or getting help from friends, family, and willing employers.

2. All people (or all business owners) within an arbitrary boundary (a nation) are forced by violent coercion to pay for other people to stay home and not work, in order to relieve those people of the personal responsibility associated with a voluntary choice they have made.

You'll excuse my reluctance to use euphemisms like "mandatory paid maternity leave", but I want to present the choices as accurately as possible. So, which one do you think is more moral and reasonable?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

what do you call rightwingnut theocrats trying to defund planned parenthood?

I call them immoral and insane. Not for wanting to defund planned parenthood, but for supporting an inherently invalid and immoral system of authority responsible for theft, violence and murder on an unfathomable scale throughout the whole of human history; which all right-wing theocrats do. I would say the same about everyone along the political spectrum who supports governmental authority in any form. I support freedom, voluntary organization, and self-defense. In other words, I support basic morality and true cooperation. Anything you want to do within those very loose parameters, is up to you. Anything you want to do outside those parameters makes you a proponent of slavery, and an enemy of humanity.

 

[jillian]

what do you call rightwingnut theocrats trying to defund planned parenthood?

I call them immoral and insane. Not for wanting to defund planned parenthood, but for supporting an inherently invalid and immoral system of authority responsible for theft, violence and murder on an unfathomable scale throughout the whole of human history; which all right-wing theocrats do. I would say the same about everyone along the political spectrum who supports governmental authority in any form. I support freedom, voluntary organization, and self-defense. In other words, I support basic morality and true cooperation. Anything you want to do within those very loose parameters, is up to you. Anything you want to do outside those parameters makes you a proponent of slavery, and an enemy of humanity.

the system is neither invalid nor immoral. and I can't be bothered with anarchists.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Voluntarily, or coerced by threat of governmental violence?

I prefer the approach of pressure point massaging it by three armed Martians. It's much more realistic than whatever fantasy you're trying to allege.

Fantasy? All I've done is de-euphemize our terms. I'm asking if you support paid maternity leave as a voluntary option of employers, or do you want it imposed by law (i.e. violent government coercion).

 

[Brian Blackwell]

what do you call rightwingnut theocrats trying to defund planned parenthood?

I call them immoral and insane. Not for wanting to defund planned parenthood, but for supporting an inherently invalid and immoral system of authority responsible for theft, violence and murder on an unfathomable scale throughout the whole of human history; which all right-wing theocrats do. I would say the same about everyone along the political spectrum who supports governmental authority in any form. I support freedom, voluntary organization, and self-defense. In other words, I support basic morality and true cooperation. Anything you want to do within those very loose parameters, is up to you. Anything you want to do outside those parameters makes you a proponent of slavery, and an enemy of humanity.

the system is neither invalid nor immoral. and I can't be bothered with anarchists.

So don't be bothered with anarchists. But you have a duty to be bothered investigating whether your own position is valid and moral before going out into the world and imposing it on others.

You don't have to answer me, but ask yourself: Can people validly delegate to others rights they don't have themselves? Do you personally have a moral, valid right to impose a tax upon your neighbor under threat of punishment? If not, then how can you validly delegate that right to Congress?

 

[OldLady]

I believe the Government should foot the bill for Maternity Leave.

The government already funds too much. There is no reason why employers can't offer decent maternity benefits to their employees. They don't fire a worker for breaking a leg and being out six weeks or for getting cancer and being out four months? They cope. They can do the same for pregnancy.

The smaller the buisness the more it hurts. I was running a buisness where I had highly paid proffessionals running around. One of seven of these pros were female and when she got pregnant my wallet flet it hard. She did 20% of the buisness. I felt it bad and it made it difficult to make payroll a couple of times. Leave is important for this but some thing needs to be done to mitigate it's effects on the small buisness!

Would that tax deduction that was mentioned have helped?
I know small businesses run on short rations, but you should have a fall back plan for everyone on your team. You've probably figured that out. Professionals are probably hard to replace with a temp, but perhaps the rest of the team could carve up her responsibilities and the lackey work could be farmed to a temp until that person returns?
Babies and families are important, so thank you for doing it, even though you probably weren't FORCED to.

 

[OldLady]

Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.

We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.

“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.

If finances are a problem, then maybe the best idea is not to get pregnant in the first place.

I've been on message boards for a long time now, and not once have I ever heard or read a right-winger say white people need to have more babies.

You didn't hear Paul Ryan implore Americans to get out there, be fruitful and multiply? Only a couple months ago.

 

[evenflow1969]

I believe the Government should foot the bill for Maternity Leave.

The government already funds too much. There is no reason why employers can't offer decent maternity benefits to their employees. They don't fire a worker for breaking a leg and being out six weeks or for getting cancer and being out four months? They cope. They can do the same for pregnancy.

The smaller the buisness the more it hurts. I was running a buisness where I had highly paid proffessionals running around. One of seven of these pros were female and when she got pregnant my wallet flet it hard. She did 20% of the buisness. I felt it bad and it made it difficult to make payroll a couple of times. Leave is important for this but some thing needs to be done to mitigate it's effects on the small buisness!

Would that tax deduction that was mentioned have helped?
I know small businesses run on short rations, but you should have a fall back plan for everyone on your team. You've probably figured that out. Professionals are probably hard to replace with a temp, but perhaps the rest of the team could carve up her responsibilities and the lackey work could be farmed to a temp until that person returns?
Babies and families are important, so thank you for doing it, even though you probably weren't FORCED to.

Temps did not work for me, they lacked the knowlege! No longer matters it is just me now a days and I realy do not miss being responsible for others!

 

[Dragonlady]

Employers don’t pay workers on maternity leave in countries with mandated maternity leave. Nor should they.

In Canada, they’re paid by the unemployment insurance program for 52 weeks. 55% of wages to a maximum of $550.

In Norway the Welfare Office pays 80% of salary but most employers top up the benefit paid to 100%. The Scandinavian countries have the most generous maternity benefits in the world.

Japan gives 100% of salary from the Social Services Ministry.

In Britain, it’s a government paid benefit.

Ok, considering the various systems you've presented, let's try to reduce this to two fundamental options:

1. Families prepare before having children by putting money aside, and/or getting help from friends, family, and willing employers.

2. All people (or all business owners) within an arbitrary boundary (a nation) are forced by violent coercion to pay for other people to stay home and not work, in order to relieve those people of the personal responsibility associated with a voluntary choice they have made.

You'll excuse my reluctance to use euphemisms like "mandatory paid maternity leave", but I want to present the choices as accurately as possible. So, which one do you think is more moral and reasonable?

Th choices you list are based on a false dichotomy and several false assumptions, and fail to include the very real issues with either of your choices.

Option number one assumes that the parents have sufficient income to provide for all of their family's needs, including health insurance, with enough left over to save for that period of time when the wife will have no income at all.

It further assumes that if the family is unable to set aside enough money for this period, they have family and friends who can or would assist them.

As Mitt Romney pointed out, 47% of the population is dependent on some form of social assistance to get by. That would mean that 47% of the population are NOT in a position to save up for the birth of a child, nor are they in a position to assist family or friends who need their help.

Option number 2 is completely false. It assumes that governments impose laws without public consultation; that jaws are enacted that the people oppose and don’t want; and that those laws don’t benefit the majority of its constituents. It further assumes that the politicians aren’t democratically elected and are not subject to the will of the people.

In a well run democracy, the mandate to provide paid maternity leave is instituted by a democratically elected government after public consultation with its citizens, and its business leaders, to the benefit of its people. Should the people decide the program isn’t working, or they no longer wish it to continue, you simply have to elect people who will change the law.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, considering the various systems you've presented, let's try to reduce this to two fundamental options:

1. Families prepare before having children by putting money aside, and/or getting help from friends, family, and willing employers.

2. All people (or all business owners) within an arbitrary boundary (a nation) are forced by violent coercion to pay for other people to stay home and not work, in order to relieve those people of the personal responsibility associated with a voluntary choice they have made.

You'll excuse my reluctance to use euphemisms like "mandatory paid maternity leave", but I want to present the choices as accurately as possible. So, which one do you think is more moral and reasonable?

Th choices you list are based on a false dichotomy and several false assumptions, and fail to include the very real issues with either of your choices.

Option number one assumes that the parents have sufficient income to provide for all of their family's needs, including health insurance, with enough left over to save for that period of time when the wife will have no income at all.

It further assumes that if the family is unable to set aside enough money for this period, they have family and friends who can or would assist them.

As Mitt Romney pointed out, 47% of the population is dependent on some form of social assistance to get by. That would mean that 47% of the population are NOT in a position to save up for the birth of a child, nor are they in a position to assist family or friends who need their help.

Option number 2 is completely false. It assumes that governments impose laws without public consultation; that jaws are enacted that the people oppose and don’t want; and that those laws don’t benefit the majority of its constituents. It further assumes that the politicians aren’t democratically elected and are not subject to the will of the people.

In a well run democracy, the mandate to provide paid maternity leave is instituted by a democratically elected government after public consultation with its citizens, and its business leaders, to the benefit of its people. Should the people decide the program isn’t working, or they no longer wish it to continue, you simply have to elect people who will change the law.

My choices are meant to speak to the fundamental principles at play. Sound, rational principles can withstand any objections made on the level of particulars.

Option 1 doesn't assume people can afford having a child. If people don't have the means to support everything involved, they can simply not have one. Your objection seems to propose that people MUST be enabled to have babies no matter what, even it if means robbing other people to do it.

Option 2 could not be more accurately stated; it has simply been stripped of euphemization of verbiage, and obfuscation of principle. Permit me to bypass the "hows" and "whys" of legislation and cut right to the chase; for if the root can be showed to be severed, we need not concern ourselves with branches.

Democratic election is a bit philosophically demanding to explore, and I've yet to meet any supporter of government willing to do so in earnest. Perhaps you will be the first. The assumption here is that if a majority of people vote for something, then it's valid. This is simply false. Consensus does not equal validity.

If I build a boat, that boat is created by the labor of my body and mind, both of which are exclusively my "property" (rightfully owned by me in the most fundamental sense). By extension, that boat becomes my property. All the consensus in the world does not give you the moral right to take that boat away from me without my consent. You may have the ability to take it, via force, but not the natural law right. Similarly, if I exchange that boat for money, that money falls under the same right of ownership as the boat it was exchanged for, and you have no right to take any portion of it from me.

If you do not personally have the right to take that boat, or that money, away from me, how do you suppose that you may validly delegate that "right" someone else? If you do not have the right to tax me personally, under threat of violence, how do you "grant" that right to government? The answer is that you don't grant that right, because you can't. You only believe that you can, but you are wrong. You cannot give something you don't have. You do not have the right to tax, or otherwise rule me in any way, and neither does your "delegate", either by himself, or by your vote. It doesn't matter how many people you get to agree with you, it doesn't matter what's written on parchment, or what oaths people take - you can never, by any ritual - political or otherwise - create rights out of thin air, for yourself or anyone else.

Please address this objection before expounding upon the legitimacy of a "well run democracy".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a well run democracy, the mandate to provide paid maternity leave is instituted by a democratically elected government after public consultation with its citizens, and its business leaders, to the benefit of its people. Should the people decide the program isn’t working, or they no longer wish it to continue, you simply have to elect people who will change the law.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

But as a member of society, I will speak my mind:

I believe that we as a society pay enough for other people's kids. Where I live, over half of my property tax goes to schools me nor my tenants have any children in. In fact since I bought this place 25 years ago, nobody here has ever had children in our school system.

However throughout the years, I have paid tens of thousands of dollars to our school system and got nothing out of it.....nothing. In fact I probably pay more than a lot of people that do have kids in the schools because our taxes are based on property value--not if or how many kids you have in that school.

Then there is TANF and other welfare benefits that go to irresponsible parents who have children. Let's not forget those daycare centers for lower income parents. They are subsidized by who else? That's right, us taxpayers. If the kids are older, we support many children with our food stamp program. What about healthcare? You got it, those kids get free treatment through our Medicaid program; a program that's been driving a lot of states into the red. Make a little too much for Medicaid? We have SCHIP's for those people.

So where are we going to put all these poor kids? In HUD houses. The larger the family, the larger HUD home you get, many times in the suburbs. Free lunch in school? Nothing is free. We taxpayers pay for that as well, and some schools even offer free lunch and dinner; even during the summer when school is closed.

So when you add it all up, we working people pay a ton of money for other people's kids. It's not like we want a Thank You for the thousands it costs us, but I object to people telling me I don't pay enough and should be paying more. At some point we have to draw the line. After all, how did your kids become MY responsibility? I didn't have them--you did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.

We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.

“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.

If finances are a problem, then maybe the best idea is not to get pregnant in the first place.

I've been on message boards for a long time now, and not once have I ever heard or read a right-winger say white people need to have more babies.

You didn't hear Paul Ryan implore Americans to get out there, be fruitful and multiply? Only a couple months ago.

And he specified white people? Have a link to that?

 

[Dragonlady]

Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.

We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.

“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.

If finances are a problem, then maybe the best idea is not to get pregnant in the first place.

I've been on message boards for a long time now, and not once have I ever heard or read a right-winger say white people need to have more babies.

You didn't hear Paul Ryan implore Americans to get out there, be fruitful and multiply? Only a couple months ago.

And he specified white people? Have a link to that?

Ryan said “Americans need to have more babies.” 75% of Americans are white.

Now Ryan could have said that the US needs to increase its population and then suggest that the US increase immigration to increase the population. But he didn’t suggest increased immigration. He suggested more American women have babies, and American women are overwhelmingly white.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.

We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.

“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.

If finances are a problem, then maybe the best idea is not to get pregnant in the first place.

I've been on message boards for a long time now, and not once have I ever heard or read a right-winger say white people need to have more babies.

You didn't hear Paul Ryan implore Americans to get out there, be fruitful and multiply? Only a couple months ago.

And he specified white people? Have a link to that?

Ryan said “Americans need to have more babies.” 75% of Americans are white.

Now Ryan could have said that the US needs to increase its population and then suggest that the US increase immigration to increase the population. But he didn’t suggest increased immigration. He suggested more American women have babies, and American women are overwhelmingly white.

So in other words he didn't say that at all, it's just that's how you decided to interpret it.

Well did you also interpret what he said to mean have babies women can't afford and send the bill to the taxpayers?

 

[BlackSand]

The government already funds too much. There is no reason why employers can't offer decent maternity benefits to their employees. They don't fire a worker for breaking a leg and being out six weeks or for getting cancer and being out four months? They cope. They can do the same for pregnancy.

The smaller the buisness the more it hurts. I was running a buisness where I had highly paid proffessionals running around. One of seven of these pros were female and when she got pregnant my wallet flet it hard. She did 20% of the buisness. I felt it bad and it made it difficult to make payroll a couple of times. Leave is important for this but some thing needs to be done to mitigate it's effects on the small buisness!

There's not much you can do but suck it up.
It is good that you suffered from the employee's absence though.

in small business ... If you don't suffer when an employee is absent for 12 straight weeks ...
Then you have one too many employees on the payroll to start with.

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is one of the few leftwing ideas I support; however, it would have to be paid for the federal government itself.

Anything that promotes white women to have child instead of working hard and fearing pregnancy is a good policy. This is the main reason why white families do not often have more than 1 or 2 children, hence diminishing numbers by percentage amongst the total population.

The problem here is that the government doesn't have any money; it produces nothing. It can only steal this money from others, including the people its claiming to help. Once you condone them stealing for the reason you support, you have no valid foothold for denying their right to do so for reasons you don't support.

Steal what? Giving federal money back to the working white people that paid them is simply just reparations for the decades of federal theft and plunder legally sanctioned against the white race.

Better that our money is redirected productively in support of white families instead of welfare queens that have as many children as possible to scam the system.

 

[dblack]

This is one of the few leftwing ideas I support; however, it would have to be paid for the federal government itself.

Anything that promotes white women to have child instead of working hard and fearing pregnancy is a good policy. This is the main reason why white families do not often have more than 1 or 2 children, hence diminishing numbers by percentage amongst the total population.

The problem here is that the government doesn't have any money; it produces nothing. It can only steal this money from others, including the people its claiming to help. Once you condone them stealing for the reason you support, you have no valid foothold for denying their right to do so for reasons you don't support.

Steal what? Giving federal money back to the working white people that paid them is simply just reparations for the decades of federal theft and plunder legally sanctioned against the white race.

Better that our money is redirected productively in support of white families instead of welfare queens that have as many children as possible to scam the system.

I guess if all you got going for you is your race, it's a pretty big deal.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is one of the few leftwing ideas I support; however, it would have to be paid for the federal government itself.

Anything that promotes white women to have child instead of working hard and fearing pregnancy is a good policy. This is the main reason why white families do not often have more than 1 or 2 children, hence diminishing numbers by percentage amongst the total population.

The problem here is that the government doesn't have any money; it produces nothing. It can only steal this money from others, including the people its claiming to help. Once you condone them stealing for the reason you support, you have no valid foothold for denying their right to do so for reasons you don't support.

Steal what? Giving federal money back to the working white people that paid them is simply just reparations for the decades of federal theft and plunder legally sanctioned against the white race.

Better that our money is redirected productively in support of white families instead of welfare queens that have as many children as possible to scam the system.

I guess if all you got going for you is your race, it's a pretty big deal.

Im sure as soon as you Progressives realize that this policy helps white people the most you'll be against it in force.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This is one of the few leftwing ideas I support; however, it would have to be paid for the federal government itself.

Anything that promotes white women to have child instead of working hard and fearing pregnancy is a good policy. This is the main reason why white families do not often have more than 1 or 2 children, hence diminishing numbers by percentage amongst the total population.

The problem here is that the government doesn't have any money; it produces nothing. It can only steal this money from others, including the people its claiming to help. Once you condone them stealing for the reason you support, you have no valid foothold for denying their right to do so for reasons you don't support.

Steal what? Giving federal money back to the working white people that paid them is simply just reparations for the decades of federal theft and plunder legally sanctioned against the white race.

Better that our money is redirected productively in support of white families instead of welfare queens that have as many children as possible to scam the system.

Yes, better... like how it’s better to get mugged for your wallet, but have your ID returned. You still got mugged. There is no such thing as “Federal money”; this is euphemizing the reality. ALL money in the hands of government is gained immorally, via taxation, and supporting ANY government activity funded with that money is also immoral.