Wow, paid maternity leave??

[Veliko]

I'm sure society would be just fine if we didn't have ridiculous amounts of maternity leave.

Who said anything about having ridiculous amounts of maternity leave?

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, costs will have to be offset in one way or another; that's how an economy works and I don't think that anyone has suggested otherwise.

A business can only exist whilst society exists, therefore a business will have to contribute towards the upkeep of that society to ensure it's survival.

Oh ya, Americans are always willing to pay a little at the register extra knowing it is because it benifits society. Can you imagine if they didn't? We would start running massive trade deficits and lose jobs overseas in doves.....

 

[Matt1970]

I'm sure society would be just fine if we didn't have ridiculous amounts of maternity leave.

We've done pretty good so far.

 

[Veliko]

Oh ya, Americans are always willing to pay a little at the register extra knowing it is because it benifits society. Can you imagine if they didn't? We would start running massive trade deficits and lose jobs overseas in doves.....

This is another one of those posts that neither agrees nor disagrees with what I said.

 

[buckshot24]

Who said anything about having ridiculous amounts of maternity leave?

6 months is ridiculous.

But before you start using the society line you'd have to establish that the society wouldn't function without paid maternity leave.

My assertion is that society would exist without paid maternity leave. There is historical evidence of this fact. What evidence do you have that a society will simply stop existing if we don't have maternity leave?

 

[Veliko]

6 months is ridiculous.

But before you start using the society line you'd have to establish that the society wouldn't function without paid maternity leave.

My assertion is that society would exist without paid maternity leave. There is historical evidence of this fact. What evidence do you have that a society will simply stop existing if we don't have maternity leave?

At no point has anyone claimed that society would stop existing if maternity leave was stopped.

It is, however, vital to ensure the health of society.

 

[mikeymikec]

Oh ya, Americans are always willing to pay a little at the register extra knowing it is because it benifits society. Can you imagine if they didn't? We would start running massive trade deficits and lose jobs overseas in doves.....

Congratulations, Matt1970. Achievement unlocked:
King of the Non-Sequitur.

6 months is ridiculous.

But before you start using the society line you'd have to establish that the society wouldn't function without paid maternity leave.

My assertion is that society would exist without paid maternity leave. There is historical evidence of this fact. What evidence do you have that a society will simply stop existing if we don't have maternity leave?

Straw-man detected. If you would like to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner, why not put forward arguments as to why you think 6 months' maternity leave is ridiculous, or why 6 months' maternity leave will contribute to the detriment of society?

 

[Matt1970]

Congratulations, Matt1970. Achievement unlocked:
King of the Non-Sequitur.

At least you spelled it right.

 

[buckshot24]

At no point has anyone claimed that society would stop existing if maternity leave was stopped.

It is, however, vital to ensure the health of society.

A business can only exist whilst society exists, therefore a business will have to contribute towards the upkeep of that society to ensure it's survival.

I think the implication is pretty clear from your earlier statement.

 

[Matt1970]

Congratulations, Matt1970. Achievement unlocked:
King of the Non-Sequitur.



Straw-man detected. If you would like to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner, why not put forward arguments as to why you think 6 months' maternity leave is ridiculous, or why 6 months' maternity leave will contribute to the detriment of society?

Do you really need it spelled out what slapping struggling businesses with an average of $18,000 in added expenses per female employee who gives birth is bad?

 

[Veliko]

I think the implication is pretty clear from your earlier statement.

What an utterly inane point to try and pick at.

 

[Veliko]

Do you really need it spelled out what slapping struggling businesses with an average of $18,000 in added expenses per female employee who gives birth is bad?

What is the obsession with struggling businesses?

It isn't possible, nor desirable to attempt to, to design the laws and rules of society around the effect that something may or not have on a struggling businesses.

 

[buckshot24]

Straw-man detected. If you would like to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner, why not put forward arguments as to why you think 6 months' maternity leave is ridiculous, or why 6 months' maternity leave will contribute to the detriment of society?

The more we pay people to not work the less productive the workforce becomes. But, if a business wants to give 18 years of maternity leave that is their freedom and the market will take care of it.

These sorts of ideas lead to increased labor costs when its hard enough to find a decent job as it is.

 

[buckshot24]

What an utterly inane point to try and pick at.

Then stop saying stupid shit that you don't mean.

 

[mikeymikec]

Do you really need it spelled out what slapping struggling businesses with an average of $18,000 in added expenses per female employee who gives birth is bad?

Citation needed for this being the case in the US, also as far as I'm aware in countries where significant amounts of maternity leave is considered normal, the state contributes to the cost of provision.

Surely if you're going to talk about struggling businesses and unnecessary state-imposed expenses, you should argue for some sort of struggling business welfare benefit. If not, why do you care about this situation?

Obviously if a country is going to push for a particular benefit, it has to be implemented in a sensible fashion.

There can't be many complaints in the UK about it, because despite the austerity measures the government keeps talking about, cuts to maternity leave provision haven't been suggested by any sides of the debate.

 

[Veliko]

Then stop saying stupid shit that you don't mean.

Now that we've got that particular misunderstanding resolved, do you have anything to contribute to one side of the discussion or the other?

 

[Matt1970]

What is the obsession with struggling businesses?

It isn't possible, nor desirable to attempt to, to design the laws and rules of society around the effect that something may or not have on a struggling businesses.

Umm, incase you haven't noticed we are trying to recover from a bad economy. And I like how you think maternity leave is vital to society but keeping businesses afloat isn't. Not only is it possible and desireable but it is damn near mandatory we keep strugling businesses in mind when designing these laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Passing laws without considering everything can have dire consequences.

 

[Matt1970]

Citation needed for this being the case in the US, also as far as I'm aware in countries where significant amounts of maternity leave is considered normal, the state contributes to the cost of provision.

Surely if you're going to talk about struggling businesses and unnecessary state-imposed expenses, you should argue for some sort of struggling business welfare benefit. If not, why do you care about this situation?

Obviously if a country is going to push for a particular benefit, it has to be implemented in a sensible fashion.

There can't be many complaints in the UK about it, because despite the austerity measures the government keeps talking about, cuts to maternity leave provision haven't been suggested by any sides of the debate.

So then you just want the government to pay for it. No problem. It's not like we have any budget problems.

 

[Veliko]

Umm, incase you haven't noticed we are trying to recover from a bad economy. And I like how you think maternity leave is vital to society but keeping businesses afloat isn't. Not only is it possible and desireable but it is damn near mandatory we keep strugling businesses in mind when designing these laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Passing laws without considering everything can have dire consequences.

Unfortunately, people do not stop having children just because the economy is bad.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that you seem unable to deal in anything other than absolutes: at no point have I suggested that keeping businesses afloat is not important to society - the only claim I have made in that regard is that maternity leave is important to society, which is not the same as claiming that maternity leave is the only thing that is important to society.

As your last sentence states, you need to consider everything (or last as close to it as possible) when passing laws, which is why your fixation on struggling businesses is somewhat daft.

 

[Matt1970]

at no point have I suggested that keeping businesses afloat is not important to society

Really? Sounds like it to me.

It isn't possible, nor desirable to attempt to, to design the laws and rules of society around the effect that something may or not have on a struggling businesses.

 

[Veliko]

You're about ten minutes too late with that one, Matt1970.

 

[mikeymikec]

The more we pay people to not work the less productive the workforce becomes.

Yes, but we're talking about maternity leave for women who are already working. They're not typically in any way similar to some people on unemployment benefit who need to be encouraged to find work.

These sorts of ideas lead to increased labor costs when its hard enough to find a decent job as it is.

The current economic climate which is affecting most of the world is not caused by people on benefits, so trying to draw some sort of correlation between more employee friendly job conditions and job availability doesn't really work here.

Also, you weren't suggesting that 6 months' maternity leave isn't practical because of the current economic climate, you just said it was ridiculous. I think it's more likely that you're looking for anything to fuel a statement that you hadn't given sufficient thought to.

Furthermore, in recent years research has been done that supports the idea that babies need a lot more one-on-one time with parents than previously thought; it helps their brain development amongst other things. A government that tries to show a bit of responsibility in steering society along the course of optimal development should pay attention to such research. Having an optimally effective workforce should be the priority of any sensible government.

 

[mikeymikec]

So then you just want the government to pay for it. No problem. It's not like we have any budget problems.

And another straw man.

 

[buckshot24]

The current economic climate which is affecting most of the world is not caused by people on benefits, so trying to draw some sort of correlation between more employee friendly job conditions and job availability doesn't really work here.

And I didn't say it was the cause of our sluggish economy. The point is that adding costs to employers is going make it that much harder for them to hire people.

Also, you weren't suggesting that 6 months' maternity leave isn't practical because of the current economic climate, you just said it was ridiculous. I think it's more likely that you're looking for anything to fuel a statement that you hadn't given sufficient thought to.

Mandating 6 months maternity leave is ridiculous. If a company wants to give 6 months or 6 years it's their problem. It should be the company's choice. If they can offer these benefits and the market sustains them then fine.

I'm certain that one on one time with their parents is much better for kids development. That doesn't mean I think it should be the government's job to force employers to give long maternity leave.

But, if its better for the child to have their mother with them for the first 6 months why stop there? It must be better for a child to be raised with a stay at home parent. Why not have the government mandate that one parent is a stay at home mom/dad?

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm certain that one on one time with their parents is much better for kids development. That doesn't mean I think it should be the government's job to force employers to give long maternity leave.

But, if its better for the child to have their mother with them for the first 6 months why stop there? It must be better for a child to be raised with a stay at home parent. Why not have the government mandate that one parent is a stay at home mom/dad?

The only thing being mandated is the maximum supported length of maternity leave.

You acknowledge that it's good for the child to have more one-on-one time, yet you say 6 months is ridiculous, because how many months is the maximum the child needs exactly?

You then go on to suggest that parents should be forced into doing something, which isn't what this is about at all. This doesn't force them to do anything, it gives them extra flexibility.

I've already addressed the point of cost, any scheme such as this has to be assessed for financial viability. If that's your only objection, then say so. Neither of us have access to data to figure out whether it's financially viable, and there aren't any other arguments against this scheme, so what's the point in discussing it on purely this point?