5 ms·

It’s worth noting that the 55% is capped at the equivalent ~29k/yr, and the 33% is capped at ~17k/yr. Many employers will top off to 80% or 100% for some perio

It’s worth noting that the 55% is capped at the equivalent ~29k/yr, and the 33% is capped at ~17k/yr. Many employers will top off to 80% or 100% for some period of time, but I don’t know of any companies that do 18 months. > Interestingly, often you hear about people getting in at businesses because "they had a temp opening because of a mat-leave!". This works a lot like an internship, where the employer gets to test out a potential employee while not committing to them since the person on leave will be back on a specific date. Great way to get experience and networking for young people. You’re failing to articulate the down side of this. Both as a direct consequence (backfill) and indirect consequence (not wanting FTEs that can disappear for multiple 18 month periods with no recourse), there are far more recurring contract-only positions. I know multiple people that are stuck in perpetually-renewed annual contracts, no security and no benefits. At least two of those cases started as backfill, and as you note.. they did a good enough job that the employer wanted them to stay. But why would they actually risk hiring young women of child bearing age? (Just to cut off the obvious criticism, several of the people that I’m aware of actually work for the government, directly and indirectly. Canada has a big public sector.)

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
This is a meaningless argument (FUD) against the Canadian position unless we can see the statistics before and after the policy was introduced. It does sound reasonable to assume there is some upward pressure on n-month long contracts over full time employment given the policy, but unless it can be shown the policy has had a significant impact on full time employment, accounting for all other factors, and that we can show there is a net decrease in the overall life satisfaction and national productivity, then what you've written is just an opinion. If we've got the numbers, let's go with the numbers. If all he have is opinions, let's go with mine: Canada's fertility rate is estimated to be approximately 1.6 children born per woman[1], and I'm fairly confident in my guess that the people who have children in excess of the average are disproportional unemployable people on social welfare, given that is presently the state of the things in the very similar Commonwealth country I reside in, Australia. Your last point is nonsensical. Pretty much every government agency employees a significant number of contractors because present day politico-economic ideology demands constant reduction in full time government employees because governments everywhere have a tenancy to prove themselves damagingly inefficient for a whole host of reasons. 1. https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/total_fertility_rate.html https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/total_fertility_rate.html
- wahern 7y ago
  > Canada's fertility rate is estimated to be approximately 1.6 children born per woman[1], and I'm fairly confident in my guess that the people who have children in excess of the average are disproportional unemployable people on social welfare, given that is presently the state of the things in the very similar Commonwealth country I reside in, Australia. This is also why I don't buy the arguments common from millennials regarding why they're choosing not to have children. Setting aside the fact that such choices are hardly as selfless as they appear, the people I would most want to have children are the very ones both economically capable and ethically willing to be so considerate. This is true even if (and I assume it so) the decisions of other less consideration-capable people are entirely independent. More concretely, if you're concerned about global warming, the carrying capacity of the world, ecological stewardship, etc then one of the worst things you could possibly do is not have a family. Whether to have your own biological children or adopt is a more complex issue, but suffice it say simply choosing not to have kids doesn't further the supposed ethical goals. That's less living what you preach and more an abdication of responsibility.
  - maldeh 7y ago
    Whoa nelly, that is a tough argument to make in the face of a global rate of natural increase (RNI) of 1.06 (that's 6% being added year-over-year on top of the last census population of the 7.53 billion we've measured in 2017). If you consider making sure your own particular genepool sustains, as your prime directive, then sure, power to you. When it comes to sustaining humanity, then there is something to be said about sustaining global resources, relaxing supply, improving literacy levels, maximizing public funds, human happiness indexes, etc. that have all long correlated lower population densities with better outcomes.
    - wahern 7y ago
      But if you want to sustain political policies that benefit the environment, you need to ensure that your political preferences carry forward into the next generation. The poor and uneducated are far more conservative than other groups, especially with regards to the environment. Understandably so as they're focused on getting ahead. So long as there exists substantial income inequality in a nation, such as is the case in the U.S., the middle- and upper-middle class need to literally raise future generations of themselves. Otherwise they're de facto abdicating political power to the rich elite and poor masses. And even if eventually the poor masses produce what will become the new middle class, there can still be substantial regressions in political values in the interim, which in the context of accelerating global warming is extremely costly. We've literally seen this--as income inequality has grown in the U.S., and as the stable middle-class has declined, we've become a much more conservative nation. There's no more effective way to perpetuate your values than through your own children. Education of other people's children is not very effective or efficient, at least beyond basic skills like reading and writing. Ask any teacher, especially teachers with children of their own. And in any event people who don't have children aren't engaged in those aspects of our society designed to socialize the young. If you are intent on educating other children, what better way than to have empathetic children of your own who can model your values and keep you productively engaged? I'm not arguing that educated and conscientious groups need to somehow out reproduce everybody else, or even match the reproductive rate of other groups. I'm certainly not saying it's a genetic phenomenon, or that it's equivalent to genetic-based phenomenons in terms of the role of reproduction. But having no children whatsoever and persuading similarly situated people to abstain, well that's a different matter entirely. The fact of the matter is that we know the more educated, wealthy, and independent people are--especially women--that the fewer children they'll have. We see it across cultures. That's good. But it also means that in the presence of disparities in those factors, there exists a dynamic that slows down the reduction in reproductive rate.[1] To accelerate the reduction in reproduction as well as other ecological pressures (reduced carbon consumption, etc), you have to strategically ensure that political policies which diminish inequality, and which in the interim directly mitigate global warming, persist and expand. In democracies where every vote is nominally the same, where educated groups have higher rates of voting and political participation, and where both political preferences and economic mobility are sticky across generations, you can't ignore the implications. At best advocating for fewer children is pointless as it'll happen regardless; at worst it's counter productive. [1] I bet there's a correlation between rate of slowdown in reproduction with low Gini coefficients. For example, Japan. I haven't tested it but I'm gonna put it on my todo list. (Immigration is a confounder in terms of reproduction rate, but I bet it also tends to positively correlate with inequality, and in any event the destination for immigrants are richer nations with much higher per capita resource consumption... but I digress.)
wahern 7y ago
> But why would they actually risk hiring young women of child bearing age? Why would they risk hiring young women, regardless? With mandatory parental leave some of the risk of absenteeism shifts to men, which means women are comparatively less of an absentee risk. Likewise, the costs (onboarding, insurance, etc) are also shared across the sexes which makes women comparatively less costly to hire. Whether society is overall better off is a different question. And whether women come out ahead is still ultimately an empirical question. But "gotcha" arguments about how the unintended consequences of such well meaning policies will have the opposite effect aren't very persuasive to me.
- amscanne 7y ago
  How is it the opposite effect? I’m merely saying that such well-meaning polices can have other consequences. Perhaps it’s still beneficial to society overall but I don’t like to pretend that we can get something for nothing. In general, I’d like to think we could define generous parental leave policies that a) don’t achieve their ends by forcing consequences onto businesses and the labor market, b) don’t tie parental benefits to insurable earnings. Seriously how messed up is (b)? Sorry, you had a hard time holding down a job last year, so we’re going to give you much less than the person who doesn’t need it.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
Yeah, except they have nationalized health care. Much different bucket than America's contracts without bennies.
- amscanne 7y ago
  Yes. But employers still generally provide dental and drug coverage.
  - jbay808 7y ago
    I don't know anyone who has been bankrupted by an emergency dental surgery. I'm sure they exist, but generally dental in Canada is something you can pay for out of pocket without costs being ridiculous.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

This is a meaningless argument (FUD) against the Canadian position unless we can see the statistics before and after the policy was introduced. It does sound reasonable to assume there is some upward pressure on n-month long contracts over full time employment given the policy, but unless it can be shown the policy has had a significant impact on full time employment, accounting for all other factors, and that we can show there is a net decrease in the overall life satisfaction and national productivity, then what you've written is just an opinion. If we've got the numbers, let's go with the numbers. If all he have is opinions, let's go with mine: Canada's fertility rate is estimated to be approximately 1.6 children born per woman[1], and I'm fairly confident in my guess that the people who have children in excess of the average are disproportional unemployable people on social welfare, given that is presently the state of the things in the very similar Commonwealth country I reside in, Australia. Your last point is nonsensical. Pretty much every government agency employees a significant number of contractors because present day politico-economic ideology demands constant reduction in full time government employees because governments everywhere have a tenancy to prove themselves damagingly inefficient for a whole host of reasons. 1. https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/total_fertility_rate.html https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/total_fertility_rate.html

wahern 7y ago
> Canada's fertility rate is estimated to be approximately 1.6 children born per woman[1], and I'm fairly confident in my guess that the people who have children in excess of the average are disproportional unemployable people on social welfare, given that is presently the state of the things in the very similar Commonwealth country I reside in, Australia. This is also why I don't buy the arguments common from millennials regarding why they're choosing not to have children. Setting aside the fact that such choices are hardly as selfless as they appear, the people I would most want to have children are the very ones both economically capable and ethically willing to be so considerate. This is true even if (and I assume it so) the decisions of other less consideration-capable people are entirely independent. More concretely, if you're concerned about global warming, the carrying capacity of the world, ecological stewardship, etc then one of the worst things you could possibly do is not have a family. Whether to have your own biological children or adopt is a more complex issue, but suffice it say simply choosing not to have kids doesn't further the supposed ethical goals. That's less living what you preach and more an abdication of responsibility.
- maldeh 7y ago
  Whoa nelly, that is a tough argument to make in the face of a global rate of natural increase (RNI) of 1.06 (that's 6% being added year-over-year on top of the last census population of the 7.53 billion we've measured in 2017). If you consider making sure your own particular genepool sustains, as your prime directive, then sure, power to you. When it comes to sustaining humanity, then there is something to be said about sustaining global resources, relaxing supply, improving literacy levels, maximizing public funds, human happiness indexes, etc. that have all long correlated lower population densities with better outcomes.
  - wahern 7y ago
    But if you want to sustain political policies that benefit the environment, you need to ensure that your political preferences carry forward into the next generation. The poor and uneducated are far more conservative than other groups, especially with regards to the environment. Understandably so as they're focused on getting ahead. So long as there exists substantial income inequality in a nation, such as is the case in the U.S., the middle- and upper-middle class need to literally raise future generations of themselves. Otherwise they're de facto abdicating political power to the rich elite and poor masses. And even if eventually the poor masses produce what will become the new middle class, there can still be substantial regressions in political values in the interim, which in the context of accelerating global warming is extremely costly. We've literally seen this--as income inequality has grown in the U.S., and as the stable middle-class has declined, we've become a much more conservative nation. There's no more effective way to perpetuate your values than through your own children. Education of other people's children is not very effective or efficient, at least beyond basic skills like reading and writing. Ask any teacher, especially teachers with children of their own. And in any event people who don't have children aren't engaged in those aspects of our society designed to socialize the young. If you are intent on educating other children, what better way than to have empathetic children of your own who can model your values and keep you productively engaged? I'm not arguing that educated and conscientious groups need to somehow out reproduce everybody else, or even match the reproductive rate of other groups. I'm certainly not saying it's a genetic phenomenon, or that it's equivalent to genetic-based phenomenons in terms of the role of reproduction. But having no children whatsoever and persuading similarly situated people to abstain, well that's a different matter entirely. The fact of the matter is that we know the more educated, wealthy, and independent people are--especially women--that the fewer children they'll have. We see it across cultures. That's good. But it also means that in the presence of disparities in those factors, there exists a dynamic that slows down the reduction in reproductive rate.[1] To accelerate the reduction in reproduction as well as other ecological pressures (reduced carbon consumption, etc), you have to strategically ensure that political policies which diminish inequality, and which in the interim directly mitigate global warming, persist and expand. In democracies where every vote is nominally the same, where educated groups have higher rates of voting and political participation, and where both political preferences and economic mobility are sticky across generations, you can't ignore the implications. At best advocating for fewer children is pointless as it'll happen regardless; at worst it's counter productive. [1] I bet there's a correlation between rate of slowdown in reproduction with low Gini coefficients. For example, Japan. I haven't tested it but I'm gonna put it on my todo list. (Immigration is a confounder in terms of reproduction rate, but I bet it also tends to positively correlate with inequality, and in any event the destination for immigrants are richer nations with much higher per capita resource consumption... but I digress.)

wahern 7y ago

> But why would they actually risk hiring young women of child bearing age? Why would they risk hiring young women, regardless? With mandatory parental leave some of the risk of absenteeism shifts to men, which means women are comparatively less of an absentee risk. Likewise, the costs (onboarding, insurance, etc) are also shared across the sexes which makes women comparatively less costly to hire. Whether society is overall better off is a different question. And whether women come out ahead is still ultimately an empirical question. But "gotcha" arguments about how the unintended consequences of such well meaning policies will have the opposite effect aren't very persuasive to me.

amscanne 7y ago
How is it the opposite effect? I’m merely saying that such well-meaning polices can have other consequences. Perhaps it’s still beneficial to society overall but I don’t like to pretend that we can get something for nothing. In general, I’d like to think we could define generous parental leave policies that a) don’t achieve their ends by forcing consequences onto businesses and the labor market, b) don’t tie parental benefits to insurable earnings. Seriously how messed up is (b)? Sorry, you had a hard time holding down a job last year, so we’re going to give you much less than the person who doesn’t need it.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

Yeah, except they have nationalized health care. Much different bucket than America's contracts without bennies.

amscanne 7y ago
Yes. But employers still generally provide dental and drug coverage.
- jbay808 7y ago
  I don't know anyone who has been bankrupted by an emergency dental surgery. I'm sure they exist, but generally dental in Canada is something you can pay for out of pocket without costs being ridiculous.