Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave

[Vandelay_Industries]

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

i mean 80% of couples, not 80% of people, obviously. and yes, you would be right for many many decades down the line. i am just speaking from a perespective of how many people die per day vs how many are born

[TheBigCheese]

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

entertaining vandelays thoughts just adds fuel to the fire. he’s the donald trump of AF and obviously, we canadians are getting involved.

[Greenman72]

Man, this is a great thread. Don’t think we have ever discussed this before!!!

[Matt_Likes_Analysis]

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

2.1 kids to be exact. the 0.1 dies before they can have kids.

[Sweep_the_Leg]

@Greenman72

Man, this is a great thread. Don’t think we have ever discussed this before!!!

IIRC, and I’m sure I do, I believe we settled somewhere around maternity leave (and paternity leave) should be benefits offered by companies to help attract the best talent. It shouldn’t be driven by the government, but by labor force competition.

I even coined a phrase for it.

[Matt_Likes_Analysis]

@Vandelay_Industries

$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.

the $30k only lasts until the kids are 18. after that, you get maybe $8k-$10k per year on basic welfare. so no, you don’t get to retire. have you raised children? you do know that CAD$30k is like basic amenities for a household with a couple of kids right? if you live in a major city, 1/3 is gone for rent in the crappiest place possible, 1/3 is gone for food, then you have $10k for clothes, transport and all of the other crap. you realize that if you don’t help raise the kid in a $hitty circumstance that he’s going to shiv you when he’s older right?

[Matt_Likes_Analysis]

@Vandelay_Industries

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

i mean 80% of couples, not 80% of people, obviously. and yes, you would be right for many many decades down the line. i am just speaking from a perespective of how many people die per day vs how many are born

if 80% of couples had kids, and assuming 20% of people never marry or couple up, each of these couples you are speaking of must have 3.3 kids to maintain the population. which is fewer than i have and i have more than average. prepare for a population decline i guess. the fact that we are on the borderline of population decline should be enough to tell you that we need more baby making stimulus not less…

[TheBigCheese]

@Matt_Likes_Analysis

@Vandelay_Industries

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

i mean 80% of couples, not 80% of people, obviously. and yes, you would be right for many many decades down the line. i am just speaking from a perespective of how many people die per day vs how many are born

if 80% of couples had kids, and assuming 20% of people never marry or couple up, each of these couples you are speaking of must have 3.3 kids to maintain the population. which is fewer than i have and i have more than average. prepare for a population decline i guess. the fact that we are on the borderline of population decline should be enough to tell you that we need more baby making stimulus not less…

population decline deviates too much from the issue at hand. We need population decline, especially from the highest populated countries.

the women that actually use maternity leave and would cause enough of a financial impact that get vandelay all worked up is a small fraction of the overall population.

[Vandelay_Industries]

@Matt_Likes_Analysis

@Vandelay_Industries

$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.

the $30k only lasts until the kids are 18. after that, you get maybe $8k-$10k per year on basic welfare. so no, you don’t get to retire. have you raised children? you do know that CAD$30k is like basic amenities for a household with a couple of kids right? if you live in a major city, 1/3 is gone for rent in the crappiest place possible, 1/3 is gone for food, then you have $10k for clothes, transport and all of the other crap. you realize that if you don’t help raise the kid in a $hitty circumstance that he’s going to shiv you when he’s older right?

i was just going by united states. you could live on $30,000 with a kid in certain parts of the country

[Vandelay_Industries]

@Matt_Likes_Analysis

@Vandelay_Industries

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

i mean 80% of couples, not 80% of people, obviously. and yes, you would be right for many many decades down the line. i am just speaking from a perespective of how many people die per day vs how many are born

if 80% of couples had kids, and assuming 20% of people never marry or couple up, each of these couples you are speaking of must have 3.3 kids to maintain the population. which is fewer than i have and i have more than average. prepare for a population decline i guess. the fact that we are on the borderline of population decline should be enough to tell you that we need more baby making stimulus not less…

I agree with you in the long term. in the short term, with baby boomers generally still staying alive, fewer people will be dying than would be born. 20-40 years, though, that would be a different story.

[krazykanuck]

@Vandelay_Industries

i was just going by united states. you could live on $30,000 with a kid in certain parts of the country

Never happened.

[Matt_Likes_Analysis]

@Vandelay_Industries

@Matt_Likes_Analysis

@Vandelay_Industries

@geo

@Vandelay_Industries

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.

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.

i mean 80% of couples, not 80% of people, obviously. and yes, you would be right for many many decades down the line. i am just speaking from a perespective of how many people die per day vs how many are born

if 80% of couples had kids, and assuming 20% of people never marry or couple up, each of these couples you are speaking of must have 3.3 kids to maintain the population. which is fewer than i have and i have more than average. prepare for a population decline i guess. the fact that we are on the borderline of population decline should be enough to tell you that we need more baby making stimulus not less…

I agree with you in the long term. in the short term, with baby boomers generally still staying alive, fewer people will be dying than would be born. 20-40 years, though, that would be a different story.

but you don’t want these massive holes in your population. you’re proposing another baby boom which does not help with economic stability or the dependency ratio. are you against parental benefits or for them? it sounds like you’re for their use in a tactical manner… which is another way to say you’re for parental benefits.

[Vandelay_Industries]

@krazykanuck

@Vandelay_Industries

i was just going by united states. you could live on $30,000 with a kid in certain parts of the country

Never happened.

I live in a moderate COL area and live on only $19,000 a year with no kid.I think in a cheap area you could do 1 kid for $30,000

[Matt_Likes_Analysis]

@Vandelay_Industries

@krazykanuck

@Vandelay_Industries

i was just going by united states. you could live on $30,000 with a kid in certain parts of the country

Never happened.

I live in a moderate COL area and live on only $19,000 a year with no kid.I think in a cheap area you could do 1 kid for $30,000

you are one person. what if it were two adults and a kid? what if its one adult and three kids? social assistance is in place to protect the most vulnerable, not the least vulnerable of the most vulnerable.

also, my $30,000 figure is for a single mom with 2 kids. i believe its closer to $24,000 for one kid. the numbers are not set in stone as they include low income housing assistance and a bunch of things that are difficult to quantify and depend on which province you live in.

i’ll be blunt. from the 3 people i know who’ve been in these types of situations, at least temporarily, they did not live well on these sums.

[self_employed]

No government policy can appease everyone. “What makes most people happy” or “generally accepted social principles” (GASP) becomes law.

We can choose to be on the “happy” or “unhappy” side of the population - the choice is ours.

[Greenman72]

^That sounds like the hippiest flower-power bullshit that I have ever heard in my entire life.

[Yayyywork]

I wouldnt mind moving maternity/paternity to a government UI style program. If you look at your check and see how very little you pay for UI its one of the best programs out there. Was my life line after a job loss a few years ago and helped me get back on my feet and where I am now.

Only question I have is where does it stop? Next corporate america cries vacation time is an unfair cross they have to carry and tries to pawn that off on the government. I understand that there are some small businesses that these things are hard for, and maybe we should have a different set of rules for them and walmart.

[Analti_Calte_Equity]

While some may get maternity/paternity leave with pay, lets consider the repurcussions. They are getting paid, but are not working. While this may seem like a free lunch, they are missing out on work. They are missing out on advancement. While you are getting paid and are potentially achieving more results while they are at home with the kids. For those who disagree with this leave, consider working with someone in a company with no paternity leave or maternity leave who needs the money to support the family. They come into work late because their baby woke them up at 2, 3, and 4am. They are groggy and are pulling the team down. Let them take the three months. It is better for everyone.

[40yoCFAcandidate]

I also support paid maternity/paternity leave, though I would prefer most of the cost run through the tax system. Yes there are costs, but I think that the benefits to baby/mom/society would dwarf the costs.

One of my early work experiences was sitting next to a lady who got pregnant, went on maternity leave, but had to rush back to work for financial reaosns. She cried a lot, actually cried in her cubicle the weeks after returning to work. It was awful to see.

For fun, in the US we have FMLA, which guarntees unpaid leave. Republicans predicted doom if it passed. It was fought tooth and nail, but eventually passed. Of course, US business adapted and survived and now almost nobody wants to get rid of it.

[Vandelay_Industries]

@Analti\_Calte\_Equity

While some may get maternity/paternity leave with pay, lets consider the repurcussions. They are getting paid, but are not working. While this may seem like a free lunch, they are missing out on work. They are missing out on advancement. While you are getting paid and are potentially achieving more results while they are at home with the kids. For those who disagree with this leave, consider working with someone in a company with no paternity leave or maternity leave who needs the money to support the family. They come into work late because their baby woke them up at 2, 3, and 4am. They are groggy and are pulling the team down. Let them take the three months. It is better for everyone.

It’s not the company’s fault if someone comes in late and wont do their job. the alternative should be that they hire someone new if the orginal employee cant snuff it. The solution is not to pay someone to have their office empty for 3-12 months