21 ms·

Your tone is negative. You seem to believe that making parental leave a positive economic choice is a bad thing for those with no children. Do those people ben

by nagrom 16y ago

Your tone is negative. You seem to believe that making parental leave a positive economic choice is a bad thing for those with no children. Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? Do they benefit from those children having the parents at home a lot when they are very young - does it lead to better-adjusted adults in the long run? What are the alternatives - subsidised child care so that the parents can work? No subsidised child care so that parents are exhausted and do a bad job when they are at work? Does it pay off in ancillary benefits even for those who choose to have no children? If everyone benefits, then why is it a bad thing? In order to persuade people that subsidising parental care is a bad thing, it's probably better to show your working. It's not clear to many people that it is a bad thing, even people like me who are single males who end up paying for it.

anamax 16y ago
> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count. Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than 18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.
- nagrom 16y ago
  You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've ignored the other benefits too. You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people. You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Probably. > would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? > Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit. As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. > You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
    - nagrom 16y ago
      > Probably. You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence. > You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce? >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily. > As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence? Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
Every country has some ideal population level. Below that level, workers are treated very well but resources go unexploited. Above that level, resources are merely spread thinner per capita, and desperate workers are abused. My country (the US) is leaning alarmingly toward "life is cheap" territory, so I would prefer to dissuade some would-be parents--but that's nearly impossible without screwing up the kids we will be burdened with.

by nagrom 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count. Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than 18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.

nagrom 16y ago
You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've ignored the other benefits too. You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people. You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.
- anamax 16y ago
  > You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Probably. > would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? > Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit. As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. > You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
  - nagrom 16y ago
    > Probably. You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence. > You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce? >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily. > As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence? Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.

prodigal_erik 16y ago

Every country has some ideal population level. Below that level, workers are treated very well but resources go unexploited. Above that level, resources are merely spread thinner per capita, and desperate workers are abused. My country (the US) is leaning alarmingly toward "life is cheap" territory, so I would prefer to dissuade some would-be parents--but that's nearly impossible without screwing up the kids we will be burdened with.