7 ms·

I am against one-year parental leaves. My wife and I want ten children. That means ten years off work? How can a company manage? What if I were a less moral man

I am against one-year parental leaves. My wife and I want ten children. That means ten years off work? How can a company manage? What if I were a less moral man and got two women pregnant a year? I mean, it's not that difficult. Even for faithful men, we plan on trying again (last baby born in December) in a few months. Is it really fair to ask my company to pay for my sex life? More worryingly, what kind of incentive does this set up? Obviously, it would force companies to adopt policies that overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing. The number of children my wife and I have should be determined by our ability to support them and our willingness to have them. I am perfectly able to support children with my salary, and I'd prefer to spend my time making that salary, rather than having it handed to us. Nevertheless, the main reason I am against them is that it removes all incentives from employers (and government, by extension) to make things better for parents that are actually working. I'd rather have a more flexible schedule and more vacation than one year of parental leave. Or to live in a society where only one parent has to work.

Aloha 8y ago
You dont need to take the whole year.
- freefal 8y ago
  Yes, but the fact that he could creates a strong incentive for the company to identify such people and not hire them in the first place.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I mean, yeah. If this were the policy mandated by the state, I certainly wouldn't hire me.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I don't see why anyone in his/her self-interest would not. If I could take all the time in the world to play with babies and be paid my current salary to do it, that's honestly my dream life.
  - danans 8y ago
    > I don't see why anyone in his/her self-interest would not. If I could take all the time in the world to play with babies and be paid my current salary to do it, that's honestly my dream life. Because your dream life is not everyone else's dream life. There are a lot of good reasons people want to work. Many people actually enjoy practicing their skill, and want to get back to it when they can. Any such policy would need to have measures to ensure that it is not used to an extent that it is not intended for, including using it for more than N years in a row, or for more than M children.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > Because your dream life is not everyone else's dream life. There are a lot of good reasons people want to work. Many people actually enjoy practicing their skill, and want to get back to it when they can. Certainly, but the number of times the leave is taken was not the issue at hand. The commenter said you don't have to take the full leave. However, empirical data in countries and societies that do have long parental leaves show that most people take the full leave. So while not everyone's dream life involves taking out the full term of parental leave, it is most people's.
      - danans 8y ago
        > So while not everyone's dream life involves taking out the full term of parental leave, it is most people's. This statement "it is most people's [dream]", not being manifestly obvious, requires a citation to a statistically significant survey of people asked if they would take a full year of paid leave from their jobs, regardless of the tradeoffs (there are always some tradeoffs). Either that or it requires a qualification like "in my opinion". And that opinion can't be used as a general argument against the benefit of paid parental leave. Just as the existence of people who want to take less than the maximum leave can't be used to argue against the benefit for people who want to take the full amount. This sort of benefit isn't a "natural" right based on people's individual desires and dreams. It's a practical policy implemented via institutions to deal with the modern reality that often both parents are required to work to maintain a middle-class standard of living.
foolfoolz 8y ago
the point of perks is to attract talent. if you want 10 kids it'll take you about 20 years. if the company got someone to stay for 20 years, the perk worked and no one has any incentives to make things better for working parents. the only incentives are to make things better for top talent. it just so happens that more experienced people tend to be that top talent. and more experienced people are older, and older people tend to have more kids. the company should try to make things better for top talent and if that is being more flexible on schedules, or vacation, then they should do it (and most companies do both of these)
- tathougies 8y ago
  > and no one has any incentives to make things better for working parents. the only incentives are to make things better for top talent. it just so happens that more experienced people tend to be that top talent. and more experienced people are older, and older people tend to have more kids. the company should try to make things better for top talent and if that is being more flexible on schedules, or vacation, then they should do it (and most companies do both of these) Correct, which is why these government mandates are rubbish.
pjc50 8y ago
> My wife and I want ten children This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. > overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children.
- scrumbledober 8y ago
  > This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. he's pretty much saying he doesn't want a medal for that.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. I don't want a medal. That's why I think it's ridiculous that some countries mandate private companies pay me money to do it. > This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children. Sure, but it lets us be leeches on the system, which is something most welfare states should seek to minimize. One way to minimize this is by not offering this benefit. Another way to minimize it is to adopt programs encouraging people to make certain reproductive decisions. In the interest of minimal coercion, I'd think the former was better.
perfmode 8y ago
Your argument is so convoluted that you were probably better off not saying anything at all. It seems like you're starting from a conclusion and providing all of the things that support your conclusion. Instead, consider all the data and see what conclusions are revealed. You haven't conceded a single merit to the counterargument.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I started from a conclusion (that one year parental leave is a good thing) and then argued it leads to a number of outcomes which I deem unsatisfactory. Thus, I reject the initial conclusion. This is a form of argument by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum. Part of it, is actually assuming the conclusion and then showing that it contradicts itself or leads to other unsavoriness. One criticism of reductio ad absurdum is if the arguer sets up a straw man, but I'm not sure you've successfully pointed out any straw man in my argument.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Using Latin terms doesn’t change the fact that your argument is intellectually dishonest. Name a single, unqualified societal benefit to a one year leave.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > Using Latin terms Reductio ad absurdum is an English phrase. Derived from Latin certainly, but it does not require understanding Latin (a language which I do not speak) to comprehend. > Name a single, unqualified societal benefit to a one year leave. You are demanding I argue against my argument as evidence for my own argument? That seems to me the height of intellectual dishonesty. A single unqualified social benefit is that people like me would be able to take many years off work, which I think would just be grand, because I'm rather lazy and other people paying for tathougies to play with babies sounds great! Is that a social benefit?
      - perfmode 8y ago
recursive 8y ago
> it would force companies to adopt policies that overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing. I've heard that said many times. I'm surprised to hear someone imply the opposite.
danans 8y ago
> I am against one-year parental leaves. My wife and I want ten children. That means ten years off work? You are an outlier in terms of how many children you want. This sort of benefit is intended to help with people who have the median number of children (1.9 in the US today) [1]. The way to deal with outlying cases like yours is to rapidly phase out the benefit as you move far above the median, so you only get the benefit for the first N children. We already do this today with income-based tax-credit phaseouts for tax mechanisms like the investment and education tax credits. That's not at all to say that you shouldn't have that many children, but rather that after a certain number of children, it's only in your personal interest to have them, and not in society's. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of...
- tathougies 8y ago
  A phase out benefit makes a lot of sense if the reasoning behind parental leave is that the government wants to encourage a certain number of children. That is almost never the stated reasoning behind these kinds of laws. Usually, the justification is 'family-friendliness' or for the benefit of the child. In that case, there is no justification for a phase out. If the justification is 'family friendliness', then a phase out for certain kinds of families seems rather unfriendly. If the justification is the benefit to the parent-child relationship, which is shown to reduce certain societal ills , then it's not clear why only the eldest children ought to benefit while leaving the younger children to suffer a host of social issues, like susceptibility to crime, teen pregnancy rates, etc.
  - danans 8y ago
    > Usually, the justification is 'family-friendliness' or for the benefit of the child. In that case, there is no justification for a phase out Family-friendliness absolutely is a policy goal that encourages people to have children, but any such policy has a target population and also has limits. The objective of these policies is usually to assist median income and median sized families, not outliers. An example of this today is the Child and Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP) [1] which parents in the US use to pay for childcare with pre-tax dollars. This benefit is restricted to around $5,000 a year, regardless of how many children you have. It also cannot be claimed unless all parents are either employed or are full-time students. [1] https://www.irs.gov/publications/p503 https://www.irs.gov/publications/p503
e12e 8y ago
On the other hand, say you and your wife each work for 40 years each. Take 10 years out, and that leaves 70 years. Take one parent out, and that leaves 40 years. You've just earned 30 years of skilled labour by granting parental leave.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Why would we want both of us to work full-time (rather than as a form of passion) if one of us is capable of supporting the family and buying appropriate life insurance? That seems to be working for the wrong reasons.
  - e12e 8y ago
    Assuming the surplus is socialized via taxes, one would want a high degree of work force participation,to pay for schools, health care, infrastructure etc.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Sure the government and society would want a high degree of work force participation, but I would I want to participate?

Aloha 8y ago

You dont need to take the whole year.

freefal 8y ago
Yes, but the fact that he could creates a strong incentive for the company to identify such people and not hire them in the first place.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I mean, yeah. If this were the policy mandated by the state, I certainly wouldn't hire me.
tathougies 8y ago
I don't see why anyone in his/her self-interest would not. If I could take all the time in the world to play with babies and be paid my current salary to do it, that's honestly my dream life.
- danans 8y ago
  > I don't see why anyone in his/her self-interest would not. If I could take all the time in the world to play with babies and be paid my current salary to do it, that's honestly my dream life. Because your dream life is not everyone else's dream life. There are a lot of good reasons people want to work. Many people actually enjoy practicing their skill, and want to get back to it when they can. Any such policy would need to have measures to ensure that it is not used to an extent that it is not intended for, including using it for more than N years in a row, or for more than M children.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > Because your dream life is not everyone else's dream life. There are a lot of good reasons people want to work. Many people actually enjoy practicing their skill, and want to get back to it when they can. Certainly, but the number of times the leave is taken was not the issue at hand. The commenter said you don't have to take the full leave. However, empirical data in countries and societies that do have long parental leaves show that most people take the full leave. So while not everyone's dream life involves taking out the full term of parental leave, it is most people's.
    - danans 8y ago
      > So while not everyone's dream life involves taking out the full term of parental leave, it is most people's. This statement "it is most people's [dream]", not being manifestly obvious, requires a citation to a statistically significant survey of people asked if they would take a full year of paid leave from their jobs, regardless of the tradeoffs (there are always some tradeoffs). Either that or it requires a qualification like "in my opinion". And that opinion can't be used as a general argument against the benefit of paid parental leave. Just as the existence of people who want to take less than the maximum leave can't be used to argue against the benefit for people who want to take the full amount. This sort of benefit isn't a "natural" right based on people's individual desires and dreams. It's a practical policy implemented via institutions to deal with the modern reality that often both parents are required to work to maintain a middle-class standard of living.

foolfoolz 8y ago

the point of perks is to attract talent. if you want 10 kids it'll take you about 20 years. if the company got someone to stay for 20 years, the perk worked and no one has any incentives to make things better for working parents. the only incentives are to make things better for top talent. it just so happens that more experienced people tend to be that top talent. and more experienced people are older, and older people tend to have more kids. the company should try to make things better for top talent and if that is being more flexible on schedules, or vacation, then they should do it (and most companies do both of these)

tathougies 8y ago
> and no one has any incentives to make things better for working parents. the only incentives are to make things better for top talent. it just so happens that more experienced people tend to be that top talent. and more experienced people are older, and older people tend to have more kids. the company should try to make things better for top talent and if that is being more flexible on schedules, or vacation, then they should do it (and most companies do both of these) Correct, which is why these government mandates are rubbish.

pjc50 8y ago

> My wife and I want ten children This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. > overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children.

scrumbledober 8y ago
> This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. he's pretty much saying he doesn't want a medal for that.
tathougies 8y ago
> This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. I don't want a medal. That's why I think it's ridiculous that some countries mandate private companies pay me money to do it. > This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children. Sure, but it lets us be leeches on the system, which is something most welfare states should seek to minimize. One way to minimize this is by not offering this benefit. Another way to minimize it is to adopt programs encouraging people to make certain reproductive decisions. In the interest of minimal coercion, I'd think the former was better.

perfmode 8y ago

Your argument is so convoluted that you were probably better off not saying anything at all. It seems like you're starting from a conclusion and providing all of the things that support your conclusion. Instead, consider all the data and see what conclusions are revealed. You haven't conceded a single merit to the counterargument.

tathougies 8y ago
I started from a conclusion (that one year parental leave is a good thing) and then argued it leads to a number of outcomes which I deem unsatisfactory. Thus, I reject the initial conclusion. This is a form of argument by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum. Part of it, is actually assuming the conclusion and then showing that it contradicts itself or leads to other unsavoriness. One criticism of reductio ad absurdum is if the arguer sets up a straw man, but I'm not sure you've successfully pointed out any straw man in my argument.
- perfmode 8y ago
  Using Latin terms doesn’t change the fact that your argument is intellectually dishonest. Name a single, unqualified societal benefit to a one year leave.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > Using Latin terms Reductio ad absurdum is an English phrase. Derived from Latin certainly, but it does not require understanding Latin (a language which I do not speak) to comprehend. > Name a single, unqualified societal benefit to a one year leave. You are demanding I argue against my argument as evidence for my own argument? That seems to me the height of intellectual dishonesty. A single unqualified social benefit is that people like me would be able to take many years off work, which I think would just be grand, because I'm rather lazy and other people paying for tathougies to play with babies sounds great! Is that a social benefit?
    - perfmode 8y ago

recursive 8y ago

> it would force companies to adopt policies that overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing. I've heard that said many times. I'm surprised to hear someone imply the opposite.

danans 8y ago

> I am against one-year parental leaves. My wife and I want ten children. That means ten years off work? You are an outlier in terms of how many children you want. This sort of benefit is intended to help with people who have the median number of children (1.9 in the US today) [1]. The way to deal with outlying cases like yours is to rapidly phase out the benefit as you move far above the median, so you only get the benefit for the first N children. We already do this today with income-based tax-credit phaseouts for tax mechanisms like the investment and education tax credits. That's not at all to say that you shouldn't have that many children, but rather that after a certain number of children, it's only in your personal interest to have them, and not in society's. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of...

tathougies 8y ago
A phase out benefit makes a lot of sense if the reasoning behind parental leave is that the government wants to encourage a certain number of children. That is almost never the stated reasoning behind these kinds of laws. Usually, the justification is 'family-friendliness' or for the benefit of the child. In that case, there is no justification for a phase out. If the justification is 'family friendliness', then a phase out for certain kinds of families seems rather unfriendly. If the justification is the benefit to the parent-child relationship, which is shown to reduce certain societal ills , then it's not clear why only the eldest children ought to benefit while leaving the younger children to suffer a host of social issues, like susceptibility to crime, teen pregnancy rates, etc.
- danans 8y ago
  > Usually, the justification is 'family-friendliness' or for the benefit of the child. In that case, there is no justification for a phase out Family-friendliness absolutely is a policy goal that encourages people to have children, but any such policy has a target population and also has limits. The objective of these policies is usually to assist median income and median sized families, not outliers. An example of this today is the Child and Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP) [1] which parents in the US use to pay for childcare with pre-tax dollars. This benefit is restricted to around $5,000 a year, regardless of how many children you have. It also cannot be claimed unless all parents are either employed or are full-time students. [1] https://www.irs.gov/publications/p503 https://www.irs.gov/publications/p503

e12e 8y ago

On the other hand, say you and your wife each work for 40 years each. Take 10 years out, and that leaves 70 years. Take one parent out, and that leaves 40 years. You've just earned 30 years of skilled labour by granting parental leave.

tathougies 8y ago
Why would we want both of us to work full-time (rather than as a form of passion) if one of us is capable of supporting the family and buying appropriate life insurance? That seems to be working for the wrong reasons.
- e12e 8y ago
  Assuming the surplus is socialized via taxes, one would want a high degree of work force participation,to pay for schools, health care, infrastructure etc.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Sure the government and society would want a high degree of work force participation, but I would I want to participate?