7 ms·

I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a criti

I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a critical stage in their life.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foogazi 6y ago
Replace citizens with children and you would be more on point If you will be having kids why not save up to be away from work for a year and the take leave paid by your own family?
- baq 6y ago
  Because biology? It’s hard to save when you’re 20-24 and that’s the best time to have a child. It’s completely insane that 30 is considered early for a firstborn.
Fezzik 6y ago
The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other peoples’ decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6 months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute.
- dudul 6y ago
  You're subsidizing the replenishing of the population of the country. You're subsidizing the creation of new people to be your friends, customers, colleagues. You're subsidizing the people who will become cops to protect you, or nurses to take care of you, or engineers who will create new tech and maybe keep you alive a little longer. It is really astonishing to see this comment again and again on this thread. New human beings are necessary.
  - zanny 6y ago
    Yet you would probably agree giving every mother $100,000 for every child they have is a poor use of tax revenue? Or that it might produce some undesirably perverse incentives? This isn't a black and white or moralistic "with or against me" topic. Every society basically independently has to evaluate how much it wants to divert capital to produce babies. Many nations - ie, China, India, etc - have or had programs in place to actively disincentivize reproduction. I'd just as easily argue that subsiding reproduction when your country has foreigners wanting to immigrate as being unethical. If there are people out there right now that want to come and fill the holes in your society left by a replacement deficit, how is it just to instead pay your own people to replace them? Its largely why Japan is in its replacement crisis - the nations staunch ethonostatist view against immigration.
- noelsusman 6y ago
  The long term societal benefits of supporting people who are raising children are obvious. If you don't care about the future of your city/country/species then you'll need to accept that you hold a relatively fringe viewpoint that is not going to be represented in government policy.
  - zanny 6y ago
    How about this position - being against paid family leave like this but being for tax-funded professional parents. IE, train and treat parenting as much of a profession as it honestly rightly deserves, let people specialize and pursue a career in parenting, and then have them be parents as a full time job, paid the same way public schools are. Because lets be honest - humans evolved to be carried around by their parents in communal groups while nomading around Africa. Its why babies cry when separated and are designed to be constantly attached to someone for most of their first year of life. They aren't even meant to sleep apart from their parents. There is enough sociological evidence that pretty much any form of the stereotypical family unit in any socioeconomic sphere causes trauma to infants because of how they are deprived of their biologically imperative socialization and physical interaction. It goes so far as there being evidence that babies become so anxious because they are stationary - they have a biological impetus to move, that a moving family is safe and to stop moving is dangerous. Its why most calm down if you walk them around in circles holding them. I think there is also an argument that subsidizing reproduction when there is appreciable demand to immigrate to your country is at least racially biased if not wholly unethical, but thats another ramble.
- pi-rat 6y ago
  Won’t the future tax revenue generated by that child (on average) easily cover that cost many times over? (And maybe even help cover your own retirement?)
- spbaar 6y ago
  It's an extension of the reason we fund schools.
- some_furry 6y ago
  > Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute. It shouldn't, but if your quality of life is being diminished, that's not the kid's fault, nor the mother's. That's management's fault.
- kazen44 6y ago
  you make it seem like raising a baby is like taking a vacation. Let me tell you, it definitely is not.
- contemporary343 6y ago
  So that the people wiping your ass when you're 90 are well-adjusted, and intellectually and social capable, and thus have empathy and care for you in your declining years. If nothing else.
- jurassic 6y ago
  We need more babies today so that there will be workers to pay taxes when we're of age to draw social security benefits. Millennials are having a huge baby bust right now. You will benefit from that, eventually.
- lutorm 6y ago
  Part of living in a civilized society is that we band together to support activities that we agree are necessary, even if we don't personally benefit from them. My taxes go to pay for many things that I don't benefit from, or even disagree with. However, the "price" of living in society is that that you don't sweat the small stuff because in the end it averages out enough that everyone sees sufficient benefit for it to be worth it. What you can't justifiably do, however, is complain about the specific instances in which you pay for a benefit for someone else without acknowledging all the other ways in which things flow in the other direction. My favorite example is road costs. Suppose I don't drive a car. Why should I pay for road infrastructure? Because I realize that even if I don't personally drive a car, I benefit from a society in which people and property can be efficiently transported without having to pay the owner of each and every road a toll. What about schools? Should people without children not have to pay taxes that go toward schools, because they don't "benefit"? They should, because everyone should realize that even if they don't have children, a modern society needs educated citizens to persist. The same reason applies to supporting those that do the work of raising the citizens of tomorrow. (Which you, if you have no children, might mistake for leisure rather than a job.) Presumably you, when you're in your 80s and 90s, would like there to exist people of working age that can take care of you?
- intopieces 6y ago
  Remember, lots of systems that will benefit you are supported by the young workers. If you intend to draw social security, you should support paid parental leave.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Regardless of your plans to have kids, you once were a kid. Supporting you when you were young means supporting other people's kids too.

I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a critical stage in their life.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

foogazi 6y ago

Replace citizens with children and you would be more on point If you will be having kids why not save up to be away from work for a year and the take leave paid by your own family?

baq 6y ago
Because biology? It’s hard to save when you’re 20-24 and that’s the best time to have a child. It’s completely insane that 30 is considered early for a firstborn.

Fezzik 6y ago

The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other peoples’ decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6 months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute.

dudul 6y ago
You're subsidizing the replenishing of the population of the country. You're subsidizing the creation of new people to be your friends, customers, colleagues. You're subsidizing the people who will become cops to protect you, or nurses to take care of you, or engineers who will create new tech and maybe keep you alive a little longer. It is really astonishing to see this comment again and again on this thread. New human beings are necessary.
- zanny 6y ago
  Yet you would probably agree giving every mother $100,000 for every child they have is a poor use of tax revenue? Or that it might produce some undesirably perverse incentives? This isn't a black and white or moralistic "with or against me" topic. Every society basically independently has to evaluate how much it wants to divert capital to produce babies. Many nations - ie, China, India, etc - have or had programs in place to actively disincentivize reproduction. I'd just as easily argue that subsiding reproduction when your country has foreigners wanting to immigrate as being unethical. If there are people out there right now that want to come and fill the holes in your society left by a replacement deficit, how is it just to instead pay your own people to replace them? Its largely why Japan is in its replacement crisis - the nations staunch ethonostatist view against immigration.
noelsusman 6y ago
The long term societal benefits of supporting people who are raising children are obvious. If you don't care about the future of your city/country/species then you'll need to accept that you hold a relatively fringe viewpoint that is not going to be represented in government policy.
- zanny 6y ago
  How about this position - being against paid family leave like this but being for tax-funded professional parents. IE, train and treat parenting as much of a profession as it honestly rightly deserves, let people specialize and pursue a career in parenting, and then have them be parents as a full time job, paid the same way public schools are. Because lets be honest - humans evolved to be carried around by their parents in communal groups while nomading around Africa. Its why babies cry when separated and are designed to be constantly attached to someone for most of their first year of life. They aren't even meant to sleep apart from their parents. There is enough sociological evidence that pretty much any form of the stereotypical family unit in any socioeconomic sphere causes trauma to infants because of how they are deprived of their biologically imperative socialization and physical interaction. It goes so far as there being evidence that babies become so anxious because they are stationary - they have a biological impetus to move, that a moving family is safe and to stop moving is dangerous. Its why most calm down if you walk them around in circles holding them. I think there is also an argument that subsidizing reproduction when there is appreciable demand to immigrate to your country is at least racially biased if not wholly unethical, but thats another ramble.
pi-rat 6y ago
Won’t the future tax revenue generated by that child (on average) easily cover that cost many times over? (And maybe even help cover your own retirement?)
spbaar 6y ago
It's an extension of the reason we fund schools.
some_furry 6y ago
> Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute. It shouldn't, but if your quality of life is being diminished, that's not the kid's fault, nor the mother's. That's management's fault.
kazen44 6y ago
you make it seem like raising a baby is like taking a vacation. Let me tell you, it definitely is not.
contemporary343 6y ago
So that the people wiping your ass when you're 90 are well-adjusted, and intellectually and social capable, and thus have empathy and care for you in your declining years. If nothing else.
jurassic 6y ago
We need more babies today so that there will be workers to pay taxes when we're of age to draw social security benefits. Millennials are having a huge baby bust right now. You will benefit from that, eventually.
lutorm 6y ago
Part of living in a civilized society is that we band together to support activities that we agree are necessary, even if we don't personally benefit from them. My taxes go to pay for many things that I don't benefit from, or even disagree with. However, the "price" of living in society is that that you don't sweat the small stuff because in the end it averages out enough that everyone sees sufficient benefit for it to be worth it. What you can't justifiably do, however, is complain about the specific instances in which you pay for a benefit for someone else without acknowledging all the other ways in which things flow in the other direction. My favorite example is road costs. Suppose I don't drive a car. Why should I pay for road infrastructure? Because I realize that even if I don't personally drive a car, I benefit from a society in which people and property can be efficiently transported without having to pay the owner of each and every road a toll. What about schools? Should people without children not have to pay taxes that go toward schools, because they don't "benefit"? They should, because everyone should realize that even if they don't have children, a modern society needs educated citizens to persist. The same reason applies to supporting those that do the work of raising the citizens of tomorrow. (Which you, if you have no children, might mistake for leisure rather than a job.) Presumably you, when you're in your 80s and 90s, would like there to exist people of working age that can take care of you?
intopieces 6y ago
Remember, lots of systems that will benefit you are supported by the young workers. If you intend to draw social security, you should support paid parental leave.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Regardless of your plans to have kids, you once were a kid. Supporting you when you were young means supporting other people's kids too.