8 ms·

>>(we get 1 year for 80% pay, first 6 months full pay, then 5 years protection against dismissal) That is just crazy.... I would hate to be a chidless person

>>(we get 1 year for 80% pay, first 6 months full pay, then 5 years protection against dismissal) That is just crazy.... I would hate to be a chidless person in your country, I can not image the extra amount of work that get places on people that do not have children... As someone that will never have a child I like the fact that the US does not force this kind of parental leave on employers, I know that will be very unpopular hot take

bbbobbb 4y ago
sorry what extra work? you know the company is able to hire more people right?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  You know companies have budgets right? you can not just "hire more people" and remain profitable, no profit no company. Companies are not charities created to employ people. So sure if only 1 person is off on leave most likely another person could be hired But 5 years of protected leave..... What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that? Also since it is very hard to terminate someone in the EU, what happens to the employees that are "filling" the positions of those people out on 5 years of leave? can they be terminate or do you have to keep them employed even after the original employee returns? If you can be terminated would you take a job knowing the second the parent returns you will be terminated Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,.
  - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
    You are misunderstanding what the 5 years is: it’s a protection against being fired. You know as retaliation against actually having priorities that trump your employers emergency-through-incompetence-while-planning. The actual leave time is typically around a year. Which is roughly where you can give children over without them crying. But yeah the workload of that parent will have to be picked up by additional staff
  - flippinburgers 4y ago
    Not five years of leave. Five years of protection that one wont be fired due to having taken leave is the way I read it. Also in the system I work under, all employees pay a government tax that is used to pay for the parental leave. That is, the money isn't coming out of the companies pocket, but coming out of a national bucket designated for the purpose. The company pays nothing when the employee is taking this time.
    - RHSeeger 4y ago
      Well, not "nothing", just not money directly. They still have to pay the loss in productivity during ramp up times. It's less of a big deal, but it's not nothing.
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    if the companies are unhappy with those terms then they're free to go elsewhere. under those terms companies hire people, so your assessment that such terms must break companies is clearly wrong.
  - speedgoose 4y ago
    What you suggest is not a good government policy in my opinion. A government wants educated people to not be scared to have kids. Leaving a job to be at home a few months and look a for a new job after is extremely stressful and risky, and it can destroy a career. And long parental leaves are just normal and common in some countries. A medium to large company has no issues dealing with them. It’s part of the management work to deal with that. Moreover it’s better for a company that their employees don’t leave.
  - benj111 4y ago
    >Companies are not charities created to employ people. And employees aren't charities required to do things unpaid because there isn't the budget. It works both ways
  - bbbobbb 4y ago
    For one thing, most companies have hard time keeping employees working for them so this 'we have hired too many good workers and now we have to get rid of them' does not happen nearly as often. As others have pointed out, it's not a 5 year leave. Assuming it one to two years and assuming you simply cannot afford to have more people on payroll it's completely OK to hire somebody specifically for a year or two. Not all work contracts are indefinite. I have no kids, don't plan on having any but it's kind of crazy how 'hail corporate' some cultures are. We're humans after all. Let people spend some time with their newborns instead of forcing them to make more money for somebody 3 weeks after giving birth.
  - isodev 4y ago
    > Companies are not charities created to employ people. And employees are not charities for their employers! If you can't afford the staff needed for a given task, perhaps you should pivot to something else.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Right you are paid X currency for X labor. How is paying employees to sit at home not working anything other than charity/
      - Qem 4y ago
        Where do new employees came from? Do they materialize adult and fully educated out of thin air? Society-wise new workers are born and raised from preexisting workers. If corporations don't bear some of this burden in minting new employees, they are free-riding.
      - isodev 4y ago
        It’s because when you hire employees they come with the aspect of being “people”. People work to live, they don’t live to work.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        This has the very very close connotation to "from each according to ability to each according to need" I live a very frugle life, my expenses are low, I have no kids, I dont take expensive vacations, drive a fancy car, etc... So should that mean I do not get time off, or high raises, etc simply because my "needs" are not the same as a co-worker? Why should a co-workers personal life choices (i.e the choice to have 1 or more children) be a factor in the terms of their employment? I think employment policies should be agnostic to the personal life choices and situations of employee's infact the employer should not even know if you have kids or not, let alone provide you with "extra" because you do Sounds like you would support a policy of income based on your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5 kids make more than the programmer with no kids simply because the programmer with kids has more expenses?
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that? Its the workforce who votes for those laws. The workforce in Europe are not propagandized fools to the extent that they vote against their interests.
  - mjan22640 4y ago
    > Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. slavery ended thousands years ago
  - Oletros 4y ago
    > Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,. And is for things like this that libertarians shouldn't make laws
webstrand 4y ago
On the other hand, it sounds like it might be viable to have a kid there. Two parents working full-time in the US struggle when they have a kid, due to the loss of income. Our system worked a lot better when both parents were not expected to work, it's kind of broken now.
- em-bee 4y ago
  which is exactly the point. birthrate is already bad enough as it is. for the moment this is compensated with immigration, but eventually support for parenting may have to increase even further if we want to keep the birthrate up.
  - marvin 4y ago
    Wouldn't it also work to just make everything cheaper for everyone? Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be surprised that just having housing back to 1980s price levels would give most families enough breathing room with just unpaid leave.
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      Of course that would work, but that requires the economy to not adapt itself to the new prices, which requires politicians to step in and prevent the richer people from buying up things which makes would-be families feel too uneasy about starting a family. It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign most politicians aren't winning votes with.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        >> which requires politicians to step in Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains, irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the process making everyone worse off
trevvr 4y ago
That is not a hot take my friend? Do you pay your taxes? Sales taxes? Does the company you work for pay their taxes? Do you intend on retiring with a pension at some point? Rising tides and boats comes to mind.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Well now we are going to get into more unpopular hot takes, because IMO income based taxation is theft.... I do not plain on retiring, and if I did I do not expect government social security (I am in the US) will be there to fund it so I do have a private retirement account that currently the US Monetary policy and government regulations/spending is doing its level best to destroy
  - croes 4y ago
    Taxes are the membership fee of society
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      There are many public finance options to fund society in more equal way than taking a persons labor. If there is anything akin to "wage slavery" in modern times it is more because of income tax than anything else Personal I am supporter of the Henry George Single Tax model to fund society instead of income based taxation
      - Jochim 4y ago
        Personally I think the only problem with current taxes is the primitive nature of the bands in most cases and that non-labour income is often taxed far less heavily. Progressive taxation is our most effective tool for ensuring that a few people don't end up owning everything. For those of us who end up wealthier than the rest it's the price you pay for society providing you with a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads etc.
        4y ago
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Grey mass is a huge problem in most of Europe and we do realize most people want children and not break their back trying to fund them. There are better solutions (teaching individuals to be more financially responsible and kicking overly rich capitalists to the curb, for one) but that's preaching to the choir.
croes 4y ago
Like paying schools from taxes and never have kids, or paying fire fighters and your house never burns. It's called society.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. as for schools, to the extent I support their funding (which is more limited than I suspect you do) it is generally ethically justified because I too attended schools paid for by taxation, so in that manner I paying off a debt vs paying for others. Granted it is a debt I did not consent to, and had no option to opt out of but still there is that ethical foundation None of that exist for what we are talking about here and I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. As is quite common in the US, my fire services (as well as part of education costs--the state also contributes) are paid for out of my quarterly property taxes and my town budget is right up on the website to look at. So it's not really obfuscated. And I don't really want to get 20 different bills from my town rather than a quarterly property tax (and water) bill.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    Well, my parents got parental leave for me and my brother. Which I think I benefited from.
  - badpun 4y ago
    > for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. That would have to be mandatory service though (remember, firemen can perform inspections, fine people etc. - they're not there just for fighting fires), at which point it's just simpler to pay for that through taxes.
isodev 4y ago
For you, there will be no impact beyond having to sign the "Congratulations!" card for your colleague! A company (an employer) rents the time and skills of employees for a particular task. It's not a pool of work that employees must struggle to achieve regardless of circumstances - it's the employer's responsibility to hire enough staff. For example, my paternity leave (20 days or 40 half days) would not impact my colleagues. Some of them can opt into overtime, but the same labor laws also define how overtime works - as an employer, you can't order someone to work extra hours unless described in their contract (and limited to the maximum specified by law, with mandatory regular breaks). Overtime is also paid at 150% or 200% of your regular pay, depending on the day of the week and hour of the day (e.g., weekends and nights obviously cost more than daytime rates). Very few jobs are even allowed to work on Sundays.
- Alan_Dillman 4y ago
  That's similar to how it works in my Canadian workplace. My employer has a pool of workers, and when a project is coming up, the manager phones around and fills his or her labour requirements. Lots of us work secondary jobs too, and this is both reasonable and understood, and a "no" or even a series of noes to an offer won't put you on the street, though it may lower you on a particular manager's call list. Its like renting yourself out. You don't feel owned, and nobody feels they own you. Its great.
drakonka 4y ago
I will also not have a child and live in an EU country where parents get a lot of paid parental leave. I think it's great. Why wouldn't I want to work alongside happy, less stressed coworkers who aren't constantly _extra_ sleep and energy deprived from worrying about having to unsustainably juggle work and kids? Companies are well aware of the laws and know they need to staff appropriately. In addition, it is a good thing that parents get to prioritize their children because it makes for well adjusted children for us all to live with as they grow. As a person without kids I do sometimes wish childfree people got benefits in ways that have more _immediate_ applications for us as well. But that doesn't mean parents shouldn't keep getting generous leave allowances to care for their children.
- piaste 4y ago
  As a person without kids, I'm painfully aware that I'm not (yet) contributing to building the future in which I hope to still be living in, several decades from now. There are countless things the State spends money on that I resent having to pay taxes for, but childhood and parenting benefits _definitely_ isn't among them. Go nuts.
- geek_at 4y ago
  > stressed coworkers who aren't constantly _extra_ sleep and energy deprived maybe I should have added that the parental leave only applies to the mother. Fathers can just take a month off. And since women can choose to go back to work after 1 year or even 2 years (at reduced pay until then) the kids can already go to the nursery although it's not free until they're 2.5 years old. Then kindergarten is free
  - drakonka 4y ago
    > maybe I should have added that the parental leave only applies to the mother. Fathers can just take a month off. That's unfortunate. Where I live parental leave is split between both parents (I think it is 480 days total), I think that works better.
CameronNemo 4y ago
Uh... Weren't you a kid at some point? And weren't all your coworkers children at some point? Seems like you would benefit from the policy no matter how badly you don't want to participate in the task of childrearing.
bernulli 4y ago
There's a simple word for people with that attitude: freeloader. It's pretty easy to understand: > I can not image the extra amount of work that get places on people that do not have children... What you're forgetting is the amount of work required to raise children. That's an externality that is only covered through a social contract, where everyone contributes to a next generation. Why should parents put in the extra work to raise children that, god forbid, would ever do something you benefit from? What you want is someone else doing the work so that you can just reap the benefits. You're a freeloader, plain and simple (other, less favorable words come to mind). Unless, of course, you will never in your life use the services or inventions of anyone younger than you. But, somehow, I doubt that - am I right? You just expect those cohorts to just appear out od thin air to your benefit.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  I think there's a lot of people that want things to be fair at the individual level ("that person gets time off for a child, but that other, childless person works the whole time")... but don't see the greater "benefit to society overall" part of it. It's not necessarily that they're being greedy; it may not even be something that would benefit them directly. They just never consider that they're paying a cost for the greater good, because it's not in their view of the world.
  - yibg 4y ago
    In some cases it’s probably legitimately “unfair”. Me for example am probably at the more unfair end. I - have high income so pay a large % into taxes - not a citizen so don’t enjoy some of the benefits of military protection - wasn’t raised here so didn’t use any of the earlier year services - likely won’t retire here so won’t use those either Most of my tax dollars goes to fund others in the country. But as a society there is no good way to account for all that. To try to do so the tax calculation will be crazy. So I’ll grumble about the taxes I pay, but end of the day I also don’t really have a better solution.
    - bernulli 4y ago
yibg 4y ago
Taxation is pooling resources and in this case some people will put in more or less than their “fair” share. If we account for every penny (some how) of how much everyone puts in and everyone gets out of their tax dollars it’s not going to be 1:1 for everyone. This is ok and by design to some degree (wealth redistribution). For better or worse, we as a society has taken the stance that people with more wealth should contribute more. Unfortunately this won’t work if it’s an opt out system.

bbbobbb 4y ago

sorry what extra work? you know the company is able to hire more people right?

phpisthebest 4y ago
You know companies have budgets right? you can not just "hire more people" and remain profitable, no profit no company. Companies are not charities created to employ people. So sure if only 1 person is off on leave most likely another person could be hired But 5 years of protected leave..... What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that? Also since it is very hard to terminate someone in the EU, what happens to the employees that are "filling" the positions of those people out on 5 years of leave? can they be terminate or do you have to keep them employed even after the original employee returns? If you can be terminated would you take a job knowing the second the parent returns you will be terminated Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  You are misunderstanding what the 5 years is: it’s a protection against being fired. You know as retaliation against actually having priorities that trump your employers emergency-through-incompetence-while-planning. The actual leave time is typically around a year. Which is roughly where you can give children over without them crying. But yeah the workload of that parent will have to be picked up by additional staff
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  Not five years of leave. Five years of protection that one wont be fired due to having taken leave is the way I read it. Also in the system I work under, all employees pay a government tax that is used to pay for the parental leave. That is, the money isn't coming out of the companies pocket, but coming out of a national bucket designated for the purpose. The company pays nothing when the employee is taking this time.
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    Well, not "nothing", just not money directly. They still have to pay the loss in productivity during ramp up times. It's less of a big deal, but it's not nothing.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  if the companies are unhappy with those terms then they're free to go elsewhere. under those terms companies hire people, so your assessment that such terms must break companies is clearly wrong.
- speedgoose 4y ago
  What you suggest is not a good government policy in my opinion. A government wants educated people to not be scared to have kids. Leaving a job to be at home a few months and look a for a new job after is extremely stressful and risky, and it can destroy a career. And long parental leaves are just normal and common in some countries. A medium to large company has no issues dealing with them. It’s part of the management work to deal with that. Moreover it’s better for a company that their employees don’t leave.
- benj111 4y ago
  >Companies are not charities created to employ people. And employees aren't charities required to do things unpaid because there isn't the budget. It works both ways
- bbbobbb 4y ago
  For one thing, most companies have hard time keeping employees working for them so this 'we have hired too many good workers and now we have to get rid of them' does not happen nearly as often. As others have pointed out, it's not a 5 year leave. Assuming it one to two years and assuming you simply cannot afford to have more people on payroll it's completely OK to hire somebody specifically for a year or two. Not all work contracts are indefinite. I have no kids, don't plan on having any but it's kind of crazy how 'hail corporate' some cultures are. We're humans after all. Let people spend some time with their newborns instead of forcing them to make more money for somebody 3 weeks after giving birth.
- isodev 4y ago
  > Companies are not charities created to employ people. And employees are not charities for their employers! If you can't afford the staff needed for a given task, perhaps you should pivot to something else.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Right you are paid X currency for X labor. How is paying employees to sit at home not working anything other than charity/
    - Qem 4y ago
      Where do new employees came from? Do they materialize adult and fully educated out of thin air? Society-wise new workers are born and raised from preexisting workers. If corporations don't bear some of this burden in minting new employees, they are free-riding.
    - isodev 4y ago
      It’s because when you hire employees they come with the aspect of being “people”. People work to live, they don’t live to work.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        This has the very very close connotation to "from each according to ability to each according to need" I live a very frugle life, my expenses are low, I have no kids, I dont take expensive vacations, drive a fancy car, etc... So should that mean I do not get time off, or high raises, etc simply because my "needs" are not the same as a co-worker? Why should a co-workers personal life choices (i.e the choice to have 1 or more children) be a factor in the terms of their employment? I think employment policies should be agnostic to the personal life choices and situations of employee's infact the employer should not even know if you have kids or not, let alone provide you with "extra" because you do Sounds like you would support a policy of income based on your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5 kids make more than the programmer with no kids simply because the programmer with kids has more expenses?
- unity1001 4y ago
  > What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that? Its the workforce who votes for those laws. The workforce in Europe are not propagandized fools to the extent that they vote against their interests.
- mjan22640 4y ago
  > Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. slavery ended thousands years ago
- Oletros 4y ago
  > Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,. And is for things like this that libertarians shouldn't make laws

webstrand 4y ago

On the other hand, it sounds like it might be viable to have a kid there. Two parents working full-time in the US struggle when they have a kid, due to the loss of income. Our system worked a lot better when both parents were not expected to work, it's kind of broken now.

em-bee 4y ago
which is exactly the point. birthrate is already bad enough as it is. for the moment this is compensated with immigration, but eventually support for parenting may have to increase even further if we want to keep the birthrate up.
- marvin 4y ago
  Wouldn't it also work to just make everything cheaper for everyone? Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be surprised that just having housing back to 1980s price levels would give most families enough breathing room with just unpaid leave.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Of course that would work, but that requires the economy to not adapt itself to the new prices, which requires politicians to step in and prevent the richer people from buying up things which makes would-be families feel too uneasy about starting a family. It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign most politicians aren't winning votes with.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >> which requires politicians to step in Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains, irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the process making everyone worse off

trevvr 4y ago

That is not a hot take my friend? Do you pay your taxes? Sales taxes? Does the company you work for pay their taxes? Do you intend on retiring with a pension at some point? Rising tides and boats comes to mind.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well now we are going to get into more unpopular hot takes, because IMO income based taxation is theft.... I do not plain on retiring, and if I did I do not expect government social security (I am in the US) will be there to fund it so I do have a private retirement account that currently the US Monetary policy and government regulations/spending is doing its level best to destroy
- croes 4y ago
  Taxes are the membership fee of society
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    There are many public finance options to fund society in more equal way than taking a persons labor. If there is anything akin to "wage slavery" in modern times it is more because of income tax than anything else Personal I am supporter of the Henry George Single Tax model to fund society instead of income based taxation
    - Jochim 4y ago
      Personally I think the only problem with current taxes is the primitive nature of the bands in most cases and that non-labour income is often taxed far less heavily. Progressive taxation is our most effective tool for ensuring that a few people don't end up owning everything. For those of us who end up wealthier than the rest it's the price you pay for society providing you with a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads etc.
      - 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Grey mass is a huge problem in most of Europe and we do realize most people want children and not break their back trying to fund them. There are better solutions (teaching individuals to be more financially responsible and kicking overly rich capitalists to the curb, for one) but that's preaching to the choir.

croes 4y ago

Like paying schools from taxes and never have kids, or paying fire fighters and your house never burns. It's called society.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. as for schools, to the extent I support their funding (which is more limited than I suspect you do) it is generally ethically justified because I too attended schools paid for by taxation, so in that manner I paying off a debt vs paying for others. Granted it is a debt I did not consent to, and had no option to opt out of but still there is that ethical foundation None of that exist for what we are talking about here and I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. As is quite common in the US, my fire services (as well as part of education costs--the state also contributes) are paid for out of my quarterly property taxes and my town budget is right up on the website to look at. So it's not really obfuscated. And I don't really want to get 20 different bills from my town rather than a quarterly property tax (and water) bill.
- matsemann 4y ago
  Well, my parents got parental leave for me and my brother. Which I think I benefited from.
- badpun 4y ago
  > for fire services monthly, like water instead of having it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not taxation. That would have to be mandatory service though (remember, firemen can perform inspections, fine people etc. - they're not there just for fighting fires), at which point it's just simpler to pay for that through taxes.

isodev 4y ago

For you, there will be no impact beyond having to sign the "Congratulations!" card for your colleague! A company (an employer) rents the time and skills of employees for a particular task. It's not a pool of work that employees must struggle to achieve regardless of circumstances - it's the employer's responsibility to hire enough staff. For example, my paternity leave (20 days or 40 half days) would not impact my colleagues. Some of them can opt into overtime, but the same labor laws also define how overtime works - as an employer, you can't order someone to work extra hours unless described in their contract (and limited to the maximum specified by law, with mandatory regular breaks). Overtime is also paid at 150% or 200% of your regular pay, depending on the day of the week and hour of the day (e.g., weekends and nights obviously cost more than daytime rates). Very few jobs are even allowed to work on Sundays.

Alan_Dillman 4y ago
That's similar to how it works in my Canadian workplace. My employer has a pool of workers, and when a project is coming up, the manager phones around and fills his or her labour requirements. Lots of us work secondary jobs too, and this is both reasonable and understood, and a "no" or even a series of noes to an offer won't put you on the street, though it may lower you on a particular manager's call list. Its like renting yourself out. You don't feel owned, and nobody feels they own you. Its great.

drakonka 4y ago

I will also not have a child and live in an EU country where parents get a lot of paid parental leave. I think it's great. Why wouldn't I want to work alongside happy, less stressed coworkers who aren't constantly _extra_ sleep and energy deprived from worrying about having to unsustainably juggle work and kids? Companies are well aware of the laws and know they need to staff appropriately. In addition, it is a good thing that parents get to prioritize their children because it makes for well adjusted children for us all to live with as they grow. As a person without kids I do sometimes wish childfree people got benefits in ways that have more _immediate_ applications for us as well. But that doesn't mean parents shouldn't keep getting generous leave allowances to care for their children.

piaste 4y ago
As a person without kids, I'm painfully aware that I'm not (yet) contributing to building the future in which I hope to still be living in, several decades from now. There are countless things the State spends money on that I resent having to pay taxes for, but childhood and parenting benefits _definitely_ isn't among them. Go nuts.
geek_at 4y ago
> stressed coworkers who aren't constantly _extra_ sleep and energy deprived maybe I should have added that the parental leave only applies to the mother. Fathers can just take a month off. And since women can choose to go back to work after 1 year or even 2 years (at reduced pay until then) the kids can already go to the nursery although it's not free until they're 2.5 years old. Then kindergarten is free
- drakonka 4y ago
  > maybe I should have added that the parental leave only applies to the mother. Fathers can just take a month off. That's unfortunate. Where I live parental leave is split between both parents (I think it is 480 days total), I think that works better.

CameronNemo 4y ago

Uh... Weren't you a kid at some point? And weren't all your coworkers children at some point? Seems like you would benefit from the policy no matter how badly you don't want to participate in the task of childrearing.

bernulli 4y ago

There's a simple word for people with that attitude: freeloader. It's pretty easy to understand: > I can not image the extra amount of work that get places on people that do not have children... What you're forgetting is the amount of work required to raise children. That's an externality that is only covered through a social contract, where everyone contributes to a next generation. Why should parents put in the extra work to raise children that, god forbid, would ever do something you benefit from? What you want is someone else doing the work so that you can just reap the benefits. You're a freeloader, plain and simple (other, less favorable words come to mind). Unless, of course, you will never in your life use the services or inventions of anyone younger than you. But, somehow, I doubt that - am I right? You just expect those cohorts to just appear out od thin air to your benefit.

RHSeeger 4y ago
I think there's a lot of people that want things to be fair at the individual level ("that person gets time off for a child, but that other, childless person works the whole time")... but don't see the greater "benefit to society overall" part of it. It's not necessarily that they're being greedy; it may not even be something that would benefit them directly. They just never consider that they're paying a cost for the greater good, because it's not in their view of the world.
- yibg 4y ago
  In some cases it’s probably legitimately “unfair”. Me for example am probably at the more unfair end. I - have high income so pay a large % into taxes - not a citizen so don’t enjoy some of the benefits of military protection - wasn’t raised here so didn’t use any of the earlier year services - likely won’t retire here so won’t use those either Most of my tax dollars goes to fund others in the country. But as a society there is no good way to account for all that. To try to do so the tax calculation will be crazy. So I’ll grumble about the taxes I pay, but end of the day I also don’t really have a better solution.
  - bernulli 4y ago

yibg 4y ago

Taxation is pooling resources and in this case some people will put in more or less than their “fair” share. If we account for every penny (some how) of how much everyone puts in and everyone gets out of their tax dollars it’s not going to be 1:1 for everyone. This is ok and by design to some degree (wealth redistribution). For better or worse, we as a society has taken the stance that people with more wealth should contribute more. Unfortunately this won’t work if it’s an opt out system.