3 ms·

> I've never been able to understand how a parent could advocate against European-style healthcare goals With respect to absurdly long paid parental leave in p

by wyager 10y ago

> I've never been able to understand how a parent could advocate against European-style healthcare goals With respect to absurdly long paid parental leave in particular, I would oppose it on the grounds that it's immoral to force people to subsidize other people's children. Having children is a life choice that other people shouldn't be on the hook for.

rndmio 10y ago
That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. Ensuring that the next generation of society is well adjusted and participative seems as sensible an idea as public education and public healthcare.
- wyager 10y ago
  > That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. "There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!" > Ensuring that the next generation of society is well adjusted and participative How does forcing companies to subsidize people's decision to have children achieve this goal?
  - aseipp 10y ago
    > > That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. > "There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!" The OP never said the things they did not benefit from were bad. Merely that as a tax payer, you pay for things that you personally do not always benefit from directly. You might think these are bad, but this is not the same as them being bad. I do not personally benefit from having, say, wheelchair accessible housing requirements. This does not mean it is bad to have those requirements -- I simply do not use a wheelchair. This is only the simplest case imaginable. So your reply comes off as a bit of a farce, I think. Your argument seems to hinge on premises like the fact there is a definitive moral/societal calculus by which we can determine if something is "good for us", so we should/should not do it (it's "immoral" to subsidize having children, but many would argue the same about providing birth control), that we should even treat it as a 'subsidy' vs 'investment' or 'just a good idea' (if we're "subsidizing" children, why even do it for 3 weeks? why not only give 3 days of parental leave?) or that there is a definitive, negative result to be the whole outcome, regardless of context (e.g. that extended parental leave is a definitive societal drain vs the value to be reaped in the same period). If it does not rely on these premises, I apologize, but that's what I read of it. Skipping the bits about morals (you will not do well to convince people on that one) - is there any evidence to suggest that extended parental leave, as offered by EU countries (your quoted bit from the OP) for example, results in sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects?
    - wyager 10y ago
      > but this is not the same as them being bad. Well obviously, there is no such thing as "being bad" as an intrinsic quality. All "badness" or "goodness" is extrinsic, so it should have been fairly clear what I meant. ("This is bad" = "I think this is bad".) > This is only the simplest case imaginable. And in this case I disagree with you. I question whether or not legal accessibility requirements have been a good thing for society. As an example, I used to live in an old university building that was legally required to have a sort of wheelchair lift on some stairs to a commons room. The university had to pay close to $300,000 for that machine. In the two years I lived there, I do not believe the machine was used once. Was it really worth a good 35 years worth of in-state tuition scholarships to pay for a wheelchair lift that no one ever used? > sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects? While it's impossible to isolate this policy as a causative factor, almost all European countries have drastically inferior GDPPC (adjusted for exchange rates and purchasing power) to the USA. It's also not very hard to see how encouraging people to leave the workforce for months at a time would hurt productivity.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  More positively: - Population growth is slowing. - We need the subsequent generations to be well educated participants in a high tech knowledge economy. - If they are not there will be no one to pay for your retirement (current incomes pay for pensions, health subsidies, pay interest on investment debt, pay tolls on roads etc to keep the wheels going round). - Early childcare quality is very important in ensuring subsequent health and education performance.
rimantas 10y ago
What amount of your taxes goes to military? Do you consider killing people more noble job than raising them?
- wyager 10y ago
  > What amount of your taxes goes to military? Too much. > Do you consider killing people more noble job than raising them? False dichotomy. I'd rather subsidize neither.
cgio 10y ago
Having children is a life choice in a social context by definition. Along your lines of argumentation, someone could make absurd arguments like that when you retire you should not be allowed benefits paid for from the tax base you made the choice to not enhance. Or should you be allowed to employ or even work with people who were raised and educated at the expense of people who made the choice to do so? Paternity and Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean in subsidizing the expenses parents make or the benefits of their choice to society.
- wyager 10y ago
  > when you retire you should not be allowed benefits paid for from the tax base you made the choice to not enhance. While I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, I believe you're saying that we shouldn't give money to retirees because they're economically unproductive. I agree, except that most retirement programs (nominally) required retirees to put in money before they retired, so it's at least plausible to claim that they're owed that money, having already paid for it. > Or should you be allowed to employ or even work with people who were raised and educated at the expense of people who made the choice to do so? Not sure what you're saying here. As far as I'm concerned, employment should be a mutual agreement to trade labor for resources. Not sure how the way they were raised comes into it. > Paternity and Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean in subsidizing the expenses parents make or the benefits of their choice to society. While I disagree that people having children in general is good for society, let's leave that aside; we don't feel the need to have the government subsidize (or force companies to subsidize) every "good" behavior, like being nice or having a job. There is no need to subsidize people having children, because they will do it anyway. It's a lifestyle choice, not a public service.

by wyager 10y ago

rndmio 10y ago

That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. Ensuring that the next generation of society is well adjusted and participative seems as sensible an idea as public education and public healthcare.

wyager 10y ago
> That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. "There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!" > Ensuring that the next generation of society is well adjusted and participative How does forcing companies to subsidize people's decision to have children achieve this goal?
- aseipp 10y ago
  > > That's an asinine argument, as a tax payer I'm "forced" to subsidise many things I don't personally benefit from. > "There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!" The OP never said the things they did not benefit from were bad. Merely that as a tax payer, you pay for things that you personally do not always benefit from directly. You might think these are bad, but this is not the same as them being bad. I do not personally benefit from having, say, wheelchair accessible housing requirements. This does not mean it is bad to have those requirements -- I simply do not use a wheelchair. This is only the simplest case imaginable. So your reply comes off as a bit of a farce, I think. Your argument seems to hinge on premises like the fact there is a definitive moral/societal calculus by which we can determine if something is "good for us", so we should/should not do it (it's "immoral" to subsidize having children, but many would argue the same about providing birth control), that we should even treat it as a 'subsidy' vs 'investment' or 'just a good idea' (if we're "subsidizing" children, why even do it for 3 weeks? why not only give 3 days of parental leave?) or that there is a definitive, negative result to be the whole outcome, regardless of context (e.g. that extended parental leave is a definitive societal drain vs the value to be reaped in the same period). If it does not rely on these premises, I apologize, but that's what I read of it. Skipping the bits about morals (you will not do well to convince people on that one) - is there any evidence to suggest that extended parental leave, as offered by EU countries (your quoted bit from the OP) for example, results in sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects?
  - wyager 10y ago
    > but this is not the same as them being bad. Well obviously, there is no such thing as "being bad" as an intrinsic quality. All "badness" or "goodness" is extrinsic, so it should have been fairly clear what I meant. ("This is bad" = "I think this is bad".) > This is only the simplest case imaginable. And in this case I disagree with you. I question whether or not legal accessibility requirements have been a good thing for society. As an example, I used to live in an old university building that was legally required to have a sort of wheelchair lift on some stairs to a commons room. The university had to pay close to $300,000 for that machine. In the two years I lived there, I do not believe the machine was used once. Was it really worth a good 35 years worth of in-state tuition scholarships to pay for a wheelchair lift that no one ever used? > sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects? While it's impossible to isolate this policy as a causative factor, almost all European countries have drastically inferior GDPPC (adjusted for exchange rates and purchasing power) to the USA. It's also not very hard to see how encouraging people to leave the workforce for months at a time would hurt productivity.
angry_octet 10y ago
More positively: - Population growth is slowing. - We need the subsequent generations to be well educated participants in a high tech knowledge economy. - If they are not there will be no one to pay for your retirement (current incomes pay for pensions, health subsidies, pay interest on investment debt, pay tolls on roads etc to keep the wheels going round). - Early childcare quality is very important in ensuring subsequent health and education performance.

rimantas 10y ago

What amount of your taxes goes to military? Do you consider killing people more noble job than raising them?

wyager 10y ago
> What amount of your taxes goes to military? Too much. > Do you consider killing people more noble job than raising them? False dichotomy. I'd rather subsidize neither.

cgio 10y ago

Having children is a life choice in a social context by definition. Along your lines of argumentation, someone could make absurd arguments like that when you retire you should not be allowed benefits paid for from the tax base you made the choice to not enhance. Or should you be allowed to employ or even work with people who were raised and educated at the expense of people who made the choice to do so? Paternity and Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean in subsidizing the expenses parents make or the benefits of their choice to society.

wyager 10y ago
> when you retire you should not be allowed benefits paid for from the tax base you made the choice to not enhance. While I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, I believe you're saying that we shouldn't give money to retirees because they're economically unproductive. I agree, except that most retirement programs (nominally) required retirees to put in money before they retired, so it's at least plausible to claim that they're owed that money, having already paid for it. > Or should you be allowed to employ or even work with people who were raised and educated at the expense of people who made the choice to do so? Not sure what you're saying here. As far as I'm concerned, employment should be a mutual agreement to trade labor for resources. Not sure how the way they were raised comes into it. > Paternity and Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean in subsidizing the expenses parents make or the benefits of their choice to society. While I disagree that people having children in general is good for society, let's leave that aside; we don't feel the need to have the government subsidize (or force companies to subsidize) every "good" behavior, like being nice or having a job. There is no need to subsidize people having children, because they will do it anyway. It's a lifestyle choice, not a public service.