4 ms·

It pushes you towards having kids because you're effectively already paying for them. It wouldn't be enough to completely change someone who was very opposed to

It pushes you towards having kids because you're effectively already paying for them. It wouldn't be enough to completely change someone who was very opposed to it but it's by no means neutral. The proposal the guy made in a different post of just enforcing sabbaticals is neutral.

lovich 8y ago
How does it push you towards having kids, it just gives you the option. Giving someone choices is not, in any way, some kind of force. The proposed change simply makes me and women both have the same cost to the employer up front. As it stands currently men are slightly cheaper due to the requirements of biology, and managers keep that in mind when comparing otherwise equal employees. It does not fix the difference between employees with kids and employees without so it is not a perfect solution
- zimablue 8y ago
  OK so I tax everybody enough to make indian food free for everybody. Now I'm not forcing you to eat Indian food, technically. But if you hate curries you might feel a certain sense of injustice. We're not cheaper due to the requirements of biology. (screaming) You don't have to have children. Even if you DO have children, and you're female, you DONT have to take extensive time off. I've known multiple successful women take almost no time off. The injustice of paying for people who are already on average privileged (parents tend to be richer, etc etc) to be more privileged is far more greater than the imagined injustice of women being more likely to CHOOSE to have children then CHOOSE to take time off.
  - dang 8y ago
    > (screaming) No screaming here, please. That includes not using uppercase for emphasis, which amplifies it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lovich 8y ago
    A women has to be there for the birth from what I understand, so they de facto have to take off time that men do not. As for your curry example, you might feel injustice but if Indian curry was required for society to continue then you'd have to just deal with it. This undercurrent in this thread where people are outraged at having to spend a cent supporting parents just because they don't want children is mind boggling. I never plan to have children and yet I'd still support this. Do you expect there to be some sort of magical force supporting you in your old age, or making sure the economy doesn't shrink as the population declines? From the viewpoint of a society, making sure that parents can raise the next generation is basic maintenance that we have to pay or face oblivion. I am sorry that you are appalled to have to share in that burden with the rest of us
    - zimablue 8y ago
      1. Women have to be there for the birth, and let's say it's very hard to work immediately before and after, so that's a month generously. That has no connection with this idea, which is many months of leave. 2. As explained elsewhere, we do not need to raise the population for society to function. If we did, it would be better for everyone if we did it through immigration. The strongest argument you can make that we do need children is the social security setup, but this is artificial. It's very possible for social security to be funded for each generaion BY that generation itself, the system is just set up wrong. 3. Parents are on average far more privileged than me, I object to being forced to support anyone already above me socioeconomically, so should you. 4. I don't expect a magical force, as I said in point 2 the social security arrangement is artifical, and for a bonus point by the time I get to collecting requirement it will have been dramatically cut because even with flat population the current system is unsustainable. It will last just long enough for me to transfer a lot of wealth from the millenial to boomer generation (who are again on average more privileged). That's not a fringe perspective it's mainstream, look it up. So my retirement arrangement will be my savings and ascetism basically. 5. Parents can raise children without giving them lots of time off. We absolutely wouldn't face oblivion if the native American birthrate dropped to zero. It would blow a hole in social security that we'd plug with a wealth/corporate wealth grab tax, otherwise life would continue pretty well. Bonus point - this isn't a tightness thing, most people who are opposed to this measure would probably be in favour of something that actually directly benefitted children, like a government run early years childcare for poorer children.
  - gumby 8y ago
    I don't agree with the people who feel that there is some obligation to have kids, BUT: If people have kids its in my interest that they are educated, well nourished, well brought up etc as these kids will eventually become voters, taxpayers, perhaps my doctor etc. Yes, it's the parents' choice, but to some extent I have an interest in their implementation, specifically by making it easier to make the choices they want. If you want to pick a "I don't want to pay for it" hill to fight for, pick something more useful like the abolition of the destructive special tax treatment for donations to "non-profits" (it just puts the government in a position to choose which qualify) or the mortgage interest deduction (which mathematically doesn't help homeowners at all but is simply a government subsidy to real estate agents and home builders).

lovich 8y ago

How does it push you towards having kids, it just gives you the option. Giving someone choices is not, in any way, some kind of force. The proposed change simply makes me and women both have the same cost to the employer up front. As it stands currently men are slightly cheaper due to the requirements of biology, and managers keep that in mind when comparing otherwise equal employees. It does not fix the difference between employees with kids and employees without so it is not a perfect solution

zimablue 8y ago
OK so I tax everybody enough to make indian food free for everybody. Now I'm not forcing you to eat Indian food, technically. But if you hate curries you might feel a certain sense of injustice. We're not cheaper due to the requirements of biology. (screaming) You don't have to have children. Even if you DO have children, and you're female, you DONT have to take extensive time off. I've known multiple successful women take almost no time off. The injustice of paying for people who are already on average privileged (parents tend to be richer, etc etc) to be more privileged is far more greater than the imagined injustice of women being more likely to CHOOSE to have children then CHOOSE to take time off.
- dang 8y ago
  > (screaming) No screaming here, please. That includes not using uppercase for emphasis, which amplifies it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lovich 8y ago
  A women has to be there for the birth from what I understand, so they de facto have to take off time that men do not. As for your curry example, you might feel injustice but if Indian curry was required for society to continue then you'd have to just deal with it. This undercurrent in this thread where people are outraged at having to spend a cent supporting parents just because they don't want children is mind boggling. I never plan to have children and yet I'd still support this. Do you expect there to be some sort of magical force supporting you in your old age, or making sure the economy doesn't shrink as the population declines? From the viewpoint of a society, making sure that parents can raise the next generation is basic maintenance that we have to pay or face oblivion. I am sorry that you are appalled to have to share in that burden with the rest of us
  - zimablue 8y ago
    1. Women have to be there for the birth, and let's say it's very hard to work immediately before and after, so that's a month generously. That has no connection with this idea, which is many months of leave. 2. As explained elsewhere, we do not need to raise the population for society to function. If we did, it would be better for everyone if we did it through immigration. The strongest argument you can make that we do need children is the social security setup, but this is artificial. It's very possible for social security to be funded for each generaion BY that generation itself, the system is just set up wrong. 3. Parents are on average far more privileged than me, I object to being forced to support anyone already above me socioeconomically, so should you. 4. I don't expect a magical force, as I said in point 2 the social security arrangement is artifical, and for a bonus point by the time I get to collecting requirement it will have been dramatically cut because even with flat population the current system is unsustainable. It will last just long enough for me to transfer a lot of wealth from the millenial to boomer generation (who are again on average more privileged). That's not a fringe perspective it's mainstream, look it up. So my retirement arrangement will be my savings and ascetism basically. 5. Parents can raise children without giving them lots of time off. We absolutely wouldn't face oblivion if the native American birthrate dropped to zero. It would blow a hole in social security that we'd plug with a wealth/corporate wealth grab tax, otherwise life would continue pretty well. Bonus point - this isn't a tightness thing, most people who are opposed to this measure would probably be in favour of something that actually directly benefitted children, like a government run early years childcare for poorer children.
- gumby 8y ago
  I don't agree with the people who feel that there is some obligation to have kids, BUT: If people have kids its in my interest that they are educated, well nourished, well brought up etc as these kids will eventually become voters, taxpayers, perhaps my doctor etc. Yes, it's the parents' choice, but to some extent I have an interest in their implementation, specifically by making it easier to make the choices they want. If you want to pick a "I don't want to pay for it" hill to fight for, pick something more useful like the abolition of the destructive special tax treatment for donations to "non-profits" (it just puts the government in a position to choose which qualify) or the mortgage interest deduction (which mathematically doesn't help homeowners at all but is simply a government subsidy to real estate agents and home builders).