4 ms·

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

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.

lovich 8y ago
We don't control who comes here with immigration so it is an unreliable source to maintain the population. Today we have an inflow of immigrants but tomorrow that may have reversed. Parents are not a class of people that structurally have more wealth. A lot of prospective parents save up in preparation for having a child, but those resources are drained by taking care of the child, on top of all the unprepared parents. Your points about social security are something I agree with but immaterial to the argument. I'm not discussing a younger generation supporting the elderly with social security. I'm discussing literally taking care of you. We don't have 70 year old nurses feeding people in nursing homes. We also need people to actually participate in the economy. If people are aging out work, there needs to be replacement workers. >Parents can raise children without taking extensive time off They could, but we don't see that as a good thing with women. This proposed change just makes men and women have an equal cost to the employer when it comes to child birth. All of these points we are discussing are tangential to that fact really. If you are against parental leave, that's your opinion you have a right to have. While we have parental leave for women however, this change is attempting to fix the prisoners dilemma society has fallen into of valuing male workers more because they can be forced to not spend time with their new child
- zimablue 8y ago
  We don't control who comes here with childbirth, it's actually a far less controllable method. Immigration can have totally arbitrary rules, and until the world hits 11bn and wealth is equalised there will be an unlimited supply of immigration. Men aren't forced not to take time off in most countries but they still generally choose not to. There are multiple ways to address the perceived gender pay gap effect of maternity leave, the most obvious is to have state funded (m|p)aternity leave. The alternative, in countries other than the US with very long maternity leaves, is to shorten it. If women aren't allowed to take 9 months off paid then there won't be any discrimination on that basis.
  - lovich 8y ago
    You obviously don't want children to be born for some reason. This change is still tangential to your goals. What is is doing is adding an interface of IParent to both men and women so that when companies do their cost benefit analysis men and women are treated equally. That is the whole change, full stop. If you want to get rid of parental leave so that you don't have to pay a dollar to maintain society, that is a different situation that has nothing to do with this

lovich 8y ago

We don't control who comes here with immigration so it is an unreliable source to maintain the population. Today we have an inflow of immigrants but tomorrow that may have reversed. Parents are not a class of people that structurally have more wealth. A lot of prospective parents save up in preparation for having a child, but those resources are drained by taking care of the child, on top of all the unprepared parents. Your points about social security are something I agree with but immaterial to the argument. I'm not discussing a younger generation supporting the elderly with social security. I'm discussing literally taking care of you. We don't have 70 year old nurses feeding people in nursing homes. We also need people to actually participate in the economy. If people are aging out work, there needs to be replacement workers. >Parents can raise children without taking extensive time off They could, but we don't see that as a good thing with women. This proposed change just makes men and women have an equal cost to the employer when it comes to child birth. All of these points we are discussing are tangential to that fact really. If you are against parental leave, that's your opinion you have a right to have. While we have parental leave for women however, this change is attempting to fix the prisoners dilemma society has fallen into of valuing male workers more because they can be forced to not spend time with their new child

zimablue 8y ago
We don't control who comes here with childbirth, it's actually a far less controllable method. Immigration can have totally arbitrary rules, and until the world hits 11bn and wealth is equalised there will be an unlimited supply of immigration. Men aren't forced not to take time off in most countries but they still generally choose not to. There are multiple ways to address the perceived gender pay gap effect of maternity leave, the most obvious is to have state funded (m|p)aternity leave. The alternative, in countries other than the US with very long maternity leaves, is to shorten it. If women aren't allowed to take 9 months off paid then there won't be any discrimination on that basis.
- lovich 8y ago
  You obviously don't want children to be born for some reason. This change is still tangential to your goals. What is is doing is adding an interface of IParent to both men and women so that when companies do their cost benefit analysis men and women are treated equally. That is the whole change, full stop. If you want to get rid of parental leave so that you don't have to pay a dollar to maintain society, that is a different situation that has nothing to do with this