vandelay, when trying to argue fundamental equality rights, you have to present your arguments in a more rash manner. i know this because i would say these things in front of women and then have to defend myself to the death.
some 50 years ago, in canada, women did not have paid maternity leave. As the service sector (this includes finance) grew, so did the number of women in the workforce. Obviously, their employment rights changed as a result. First you had 6 months maternity leave, now they have 12. government employment insurance pays 60-65% of the salary for the year, employer tops up the other 35-40% for the first 17 weeks. point here is that most of the cost, at least here in canada, does not fall on the employer. In terms of actual workload, you can backfill a position.
your argument of having to work harder and longer because someone is on mat leave is subjective and not valid. ‘working hard’ is vague. try working smart
how to not have this problem? find a way not to hire women of fertile age. you can be as discreet about it as you want (complain about their skills or lack of them etc), and you won’t have people thinking you’re an asshole
pick your battles and be smart about it. this is not one of them
a. The employer is still being forced to pay something for no work. that isn’t right.
b. the fact that the governement subsidizes it doesnt help any. it just means the taxpayers are footing the bill instead.
c. point is, others within the organization will have to bear the burden, which isn’t fair. either that, or the company will have to hire a new person, which again, hurts the company
If/when I have a child, I am not going to expect anyone to pay me money for no work for 3 months to a year. it’s a ludicrous notion. Im not an entitled person.
i am especially against the government mandating it. if a company wants to offer it on their own, while i hate it, i have no problem with them choosing to do it. the real issue is govenment forcing it on us and raising our taxes to pay for it.
Mat leave should be government funded via the unemployment insurance scheme. It’s unreasonable for companies to shoulder that cost, especially small business. It should be paid for by the workers and employers together, just like any other UI. When someone is on mat leave, the company needs to backfill with someone on the UI dole, so the net impact in cost is near zero. It’s a win win for everyone.
paid maternity leave provides the opportunity for the woman to stay in the workforce, especially those with low incomes. there is a major economic disincentive to return to work if you have no paid maternity leave. you talk about paid maternity leave as if it is simply a benefit to women at the expense of men but the reality is that it is a benefit that helps equalize a woman’s financial incentive to return to work within a household. it also promotes a higher birth rate which is generally a good thing for society, especially one with a low birth rate. further, enabling the mom to stay home and look after her own baby is beneficial to society, especially in the first 3-12 months, as most moms make about as much as the average caregiver to a 3 month year old and the mom would get much greater emotional benefit from being the one who looks after the baby.
i agree with geo obviously that the Canadian model is superior. EI covers 55% of salary for 12 months up to the maximum pensionable income. the employer then has the option to provide more above and beyond that.
from personal experience, my wife and i wouldn’t have been able to have all the kids we did if it weren’t for EI + her employer topping her maternity benefits to 95% for six months. it’s not great for the employer on the surface, which is public sector anyway, but i’m sure society will see a handsome return when several smart very low risk kids are born and i work 10 years longer as a result. the employer gets lower turnover in return so there is an economic benefit to the employer.
its funny because i think paid maternity leave is actually the one social benefit that rich people benefit more than the poor so you’re basically arguing against the one benefit that benefits you personally, if you were a normal person who had kids instead of a grinch who despises gender equality and the pepetuation of the species.
who said everything needs to be fair an equitable. in any company there will always be people getting paid more for less or getting benefits that others don’t get.
How does having paid leave offer any more incentive to return to work than unpaid leave would? seems to be that not getting paid any money on leave would incentivize one to return to workforce to get income.
A high birth rate is bad in my book. every child raise to age 18 is about $250,000. three months of paid salary will do little to offset that. overall, having more children is a harsher burden for parents at a time when many do not have great sums of money.
Maybe you and your wife shouldnt have had so may kids. this notion that everyone should have kids and is entitled to them is bizarre to me. if there was no paid leave and you couldnt afford the kids, simply dont have any, or have fewer. seems like a reasonable course of action.
I would argue that it hurts the rich more. Households where the wife is already stay at home or was planning to become stay at home see no benefit. And a rich person that works will have more held out of their taxes than they will likely recoup. otherwise, the funding wouldnt be sustainable.
Some of the theory does turn up in real life. Women are paid less than men, for example. One reason is that women take more leave and have shorter careers. This would be true with or without maternity leave. So again, there is certainly a policy balance that needs to be achieved, and I’m not saying OP is right. However, he does correctly state many inequities or (perhaps justified) shortcomings of the policy.
That is generally between the employer and the employee. it isn’t mandated by the federal government.
Also, those pay discrepancies for equal positions but generally be validated by some sort of superior education, performance, experrience, or knowledge. this would be based solely on who chooses to have children and who doesnt.
Vandelay is like the snot-nosed window licker from elementary school who runs to the teach when everyone was supposed to get 2 crayons and you were given 3.
I pay ~$950 a year in employment insurance premiums and that covers me up to a year if I get laid off (1.88% of salary up to ~$950 max total). Pretty small change for these expensive benefits. And like I said, I don’t think there is a big cost. Someome comes off EI to backfill the mat leave, so there isn’t really more people on EI because of it. Maybe only marginally so. It’s a tiny cost for a massive social benefit. Americans like to throw out the tax cost boogeyman, but it’s rarely true. In my province I’m paying an average tax rate of 27.7% on my income. In New York state I’d be paying 26.6% average. And I have a lower sales tax, free-ish health care, high quality public schools, etc. For 1% more. The cost of progress isn’t that much.
New York State is also by far the highest taxed state in the country with massive cost of living. try comparing to a state tax free state like Texas. Ted Cruz had adjusted gross income of over $1 million and didnt even pay a tax rate of 27.7%
paid leave provides an incentive to return to work where a welfare system exists. particularly in canada, single mothers can receive up to about $30k in child related welfare payments by not working. for non-single mothers, the cost of daycare alone for a child under 1 is about $24k annually.
a high birth rate is often bad but a birth rate in line with a sustainable population is seen as a minimum for a stable economy. if you don’t have kids, you have to bring in new immigrants which is a very expensive process overall. my kids will be smarter, less prone to crime, will speak the language and will be well assimilated compared to your average immigrant. bringing in doctors is great for the country, bringing in your average immigrant is not, economically at least.
having kids isn’t an entitlement, like someone here already said, it is the only reason for our existence. it is the only thing our bodies were designed to do. every society should support childrearing. further, parents spend more of their money on basic necessities for their kids, not flying in planes for leisure (one of the worst things for the environment and economy) and buying 1 million inch tvs which end up in a landfill in 5 years.
okay. yes. it hurts the extreme rich but who cares about those a$$holes anyway. i’m talking about the much large group of productive rich. the two income earning households. two professionals who add craploads to the economy. the type of people you want to have kids.
$30,000 a year to single mothers that dont work? canada sounds so awful. you can just have a baby and retire and never even work again.
well, at least we can both agree that low skill immigration is bad. im surprised you arent for it. with people living much longer, the birth rate far exceed the death rate already. i would venture to say that if even if only 80% of adults had a child, and only had 1 child each, all that died would be replaced just fine.
plenty of moderately solid income people $50-,$150,000 can afford having a stay at home wife. it’s not only multi millionares that would be affected.
This is perhaps the dumbest thing I’ve read here. Re-read what you just said. Further each woman needs to have two kids to replace the population. Men cannot have children. I’m not sure if you’ve learned that yet given the juvenile nature of your rambling so I thought I should clarify.