Microsoft now gives 20 weeks parental leave 100% paid

[dalekphalm]

I would disagree.  Everyone should be treated fairly and equally at a company.  No one should get higher rights or privileges than others unless it is the case of having access to things such as handicapped parking spaces or washrooms.

 

If I buy a new PC as my own choice, I do not get 20 weeks paid time to play games on said PC.  Maternity and paternity leave should actually not be a real thing.

This is not correct.

 

You're missing one key factor: Job advancement.

 

Within those 20 weeks of leave (And possibly longer, after, with reduced or no pay), the parent does not progress their career, advance their skills, get promotions, or impress their employers.

 

You, on the other hand, benefit from actually being on the job, advancing your skills and knowledge, creating and improving the relationships with your employer and coworker, continuing to do networking, and so on.

 

When that person gets back after 20 weeks, despite still having their job and getting paid, they WILL be at a disadvantage to you and everyone else who didn't take leave.

[Xorbot]

This is not correct.

 

You're missing one key factor: Job advancement.

 

Within those 20 weeks of leave (And possibly longer, after, with reduced or no pay), the parent does not progress their career, advance their skills, get promotions, or impress their employers.

 

You, on the other hand, benefit from actually being on the job, advancing your skills and knowledge, creating and improving the relationships with your employer and coworker, continuing to do networking, and so on.

 

When that person gets back after 20 weeks, despite still having their job and getting paid, they WILL be at a disadvantage to you and everyone else who didn't take leave.

 

No one requires anyone to have children.  If it were the case that the government required people to have children, then this would be a different issue.  Since having a child is typically 100% personal choice, then it is up to the person to deal with the fact that he or she will be out of work for some time.  In fact, a mother and/or father does not even need to be with a newborn baby, although it is typically a very normal thing to do.  And that is fine if the parents want to take time away from work to raise a newborn baby.  At the end of the day, it was completely their choice.

 

I still maintain the fact that the co-workers shouldn't have to pay for someone else's personal choices.  There is a certain pool of money to be made by all employees.  If money is dedicated to parents, and there is no equivalent benefits to single/childless people, then it is by every single definition unfair to the single/childless people since there is a redistribution of money towards new parents.

 

Not a single comment has been written in this thread that proves that it is 100% fair towards childless people.  The only opposing comments seem to be based on the so-called "conventional wisdom" that parents of children somehow have more rights than childless people and automatically deserve more money for less productivity simply because families with children out-rank childless families.

[rhyseyness]

Only 20 weeks?

 

 

Five months.  But.. eh.  Doesn't seem like enough.

 

 

How is slightly less than 5 months supposed to be a lot? How much was there before O_o Though I suppose it's US where 2 months worth of wages is considered a lot in layoffs and companies advertise having 20 days off throughout the year as being a major boon...

 

In many companies in the UK, 2 weeks is standard with 100% pay.

Normally more can be taken, but you have to sacrifice your pay to do so (or use up your holiday).

20 weeks is really really good.

And no matter how much you give, it's never going to be "enough", unless you're going to start doing 18 years

[Swndlr]

Well, may not be the best, but progress I suppose

[SirRoderick]

No one requires anyone to have children.  If it were the case that the government required people to have children, then this would be a different issue.  Since having a child is typically 100% personal choice, then it is up to the person to deal with the fact that he or she will be out of work for some time.  In fact, a mother and/or father does not even need to be with a newborn baby, although it is typically a very normal thing to do.  And that is fine if the parents want to take time away from work to raise a newborn baby.  At the end of the day, it was completely their choice.

 

I still maintain the fact that the co-workers shouldn't have to pay for someone else's personal choices.  There is a certain pool of money to be made by all employees.  If money is dedicated to parents, and there is no equivalent benefits to single/childless people, then it is by every single definition unfair to the single/childless people since there is a redistribution of money towards new parents.

 

Not a single comment has been written in this thread that proves that it is 100% fair towards childless people.  The only opposing comments seem to be based on the so-called "conventional wisdom" that parents of children somehow have more rights than childless people and automatically deserve more money for less productivity simply because families with children out-rank childless families.

Your wages are not affected by the leave of another employee.

 

You have every same right and are treated in the same way as every other employee. The equality of rights in this situation is in the rights given to you by the company, NOT the rights that you choose or need to exercise. You said yourself that having children or not is a personal choice, it very much is. Therefore, because you choose not to have children you also choose not to apply to the right for parental leave.

 

As another example, you may also need sick leave for a medical condition while another employee remains healthy, in your reasoning  scheme this puts the healthy person at a disadvantage because the sick person doesn't have to work for a few weeks. That is completely reversed logic. You BOTH have the right to paid sick leave, but you did not both need to use it. The rights are identical, there is no discrimination.

[Xorbot]

Your wages are not affected by the leave of another employee.

 

You have every same right and are treated in the same way as every other employee. The equality of rights in this situation is in the rights given to you by the company, NOT the rights that you choose or need to exercise. You said yourself that having children or not is a personal choice, it very much is. Therefore, because you choose not to have children you also choose not to apply to the right for parental leave.

 

As another example, you may also need sick leave for a medical condition while another employee remains healthy, in your reasoning  scheme this puts the healthy person at a disadvantage because the sick person doesn't have to work for a few weeks. That is completely reversed logic. You BOTH have the right to paid sick leave, but you did not both need to use it. The rights are identical, there is no discrimination.

 

My original point did not include the topic of sick leave.  While you are using it as an analogy, it does not disprove a point that parents are equal to non-parents.

 

It is true that a non-parent employee does not automatically get a higher wage if there were all non-parent co-workers or a policy of unpaid maternity/paternity leave.  However, there is money that goes somewhere.  In the case of fully paid parental leave, that money is going towards parents.  Non-parent co-workers do not have an equal opportunity to gain money for any other activity of their personal choosing.  By this point alone, employees that are parents automatically have more rights and/or freedoms in the company than non-parent employees.

 

In the event that there is indeed a fully paid parental leave option in a company, and there happen to be all non-parent employees, then the company itself has more money.  With this extra money and full employee productivity (non-parent employees are not taking a full year off), then the company is free to re-invest the extra money into the company, potentially getting a bigger return on investment resulting in a greater chance for all employees to equally benefit from the potential profits (via improved benefits for all employees equally in the future, larger raises, or in general become more stable to volatile markets).

 

In the example of getting sick, everyone has a chance to become sick as we are all humans.  There are of course variances between humans.  For instance, my previous employer did not have optical included in the health plan, and I need to by contact lenses and/or get eye exams and new lenses for my glasses.  In this case, I pay my own way because this is how my body is.  I don't expect anyone else to pay for that.  It would never exist that I post a message on the bulletin board for everyone to chip-in $20 so that we can equally by frames.  So in this example, it is absurd to compare the personal choice of becoming pregnant with the situation of becoming sick and/or being generally unhealthy in comparison to the next person.  It is mostly because anyone can become sick at any time, and frequently it's because of working in said office is the reason people become sick in the first place.

 

The bottom line is very clear for everyone who oppose this simple fact:

 

1) You choose to have children, and communally everyone in the company including the company itself pays you and receives less productivity in return.

2) You choose not to have children, and nothing extra comes to you.

 

In an overall, aggregation of benefits, rights, and power to do general things, parent employees have more ability than non-parent employees. This, by the purest definition, is unfair.

[mr moose]

1) You choose

2) You choose

 

 

 

That might make it easier to understand.

[dalekphalm]

My original point did not include the topic of sick leave.  While you are using it as an analogy, it does not disprove a point that parents are equal to non-parents.

 

It is true that a non-parent employee does not automatically get a higher wage if there were all non-parent co-workers or a policy of unpaid maternity/paternity leave.  However, there is money that goes somewhere.  In the case of fully paid parental leave, that money is going towards parents.  Non-parent co-workers do not have an equal opportunity to gain money for any other activity of their personal choosing.  By this point alone, employees that are parents automatically have more rights and/or freedoms in the company than non-parent employees.

 

In the event that there is indeed a fully paid parental leave option in a company, and there happen to be all non-parent employees, then the company itself has more money.  With this extra money and full employee productivity (non-parent employees are not taking a full year off), then the company is free to re-invest the extra money into the company, potentially getting a bigger return on investment resulting in a greater chance for all employees to equally benefit from the potential profits (via improved benefits for all employees equally in the future, larger raises, or in general become more stable to volatile markets).

 

In the example of getting sick, everyone has a chance to become sick as we are all humans.  There are of course variances between humans.  For instance, my previous employer did not have optical included in the health plan, and I need to by contact lenses and/or get eye exams and new lenses for my glasses.  In this case, I pay my own way because this is how my body is.  I don't expect anyone else to pay for that.  It would never exist that I post a message on the bulletin board for everyone to chip-in $20 so that we can equally by frames.  So in this example, it is absurd to compare the personal choice of becoming pregnant with the situation of becoming sick and/or being generally unhealthy in comparison to the next person.  It is mostly because anyone can become sick at any time, and frequently it's because of working in said office is the reason people become sick in the first place.

 

The bottom line is very clear for everyone who oppose this simple fact:

 

1) You choose to have children, and communally everyone in the company including the company itself pays you and receives less productivity in return.

2) You choose not to have children, and nothing extra comes to you.

 

In an overall, aggregation of benefits, rights, and power to do general things, parent employees have more ability than non-parent employees. This, by the purest definition, is unfair.

Frankly, it seems as if you desire to live in a Libertarian, 100% capitalist society.

 

That might make it easier to understand.

Agreed. In the end, you choose to take advantage of those benefits. If you choose not to have children, then that's fine. It also means you're choosing not to use those benefits given to you.

 

It's not unfair at all.

 

During those 20 weeks while a parent is away, you will be more productive, which gives the company more income, which means with that additional income, they can choose to pay you more (Or not - and keep the additional profit - as is more likely the case).

 

This is all about choice.

 

Someone can choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, and then take advantage of the sick leave benefits, just the same as if another person is just naturally unhealthy.

 

Besides, society as a whole NEEDS children, you know, to survive as a human species. The company you work for needs children, if they intend on being around in 30+ years. While that does not mean that every person must have children, it does mean that society needs a net neutral or greater birthrate.

[Grinners]

That's awesome for their employees I guess. I mean they are definitely going out there with it, since I couldn't imagine having to pay someone for 5 months that does nothing for me. Good going Microsoft though

 

Well, if you buy windows, you are now doing exactly that.

[RagnarokDel]

What does a CEO promotion look like? Did he become the infamous Super CEO God?

[Xorbot]

Frankly, it seems as if you desire to live in a Libertarian, 100% capitalist society.

 

 

Incorrect.  You have inferred something by not understanding that 2 types of people at a company are treated differently.

 

 

Besides, society as a whole NEEDS children, you know, to survive as a human species. The company you work for needs children, if they intend on being around in 30+ years. While that does not mean that every person must have children, it does mean that society needs a net neutral or greater birthrate. 

 

This is an absurd example.  If indeed a company's intention is to invest in parents for the purpose of having their children work for the same company in 18+ years, then it is one of the most terrible investments that can exist.  Also, it is a function of the government to handle programs which give benefits for families with children, and this already exists through certain tax codes and tax benefits for these situations.  Do not conflate what a company must do with what the government already does.

 

Also, all the critical replies to my posts tend towards me being opposed to children and/or families.  For instance, you point out the fact that children are required in a society and civilization in general as though to say "Gotcha! It is stupid or idiotic of you to hate children and parents!"  I believe everyone here has totally missed the point.  I even stated it in the most simple of two points.  One of which parents have more power, or the other which non-parents have less power in comparison.

 

I feel that I have to use a very simplified example to explain it to everyone here.  This example is not realistic, but it is only for illustration purposes only.

 

Imagine a company that has 1 manager, and 2 employees.  The salaries for these employees are:

- 1 manager has a salary of $80,000/year

- 2 employees each have a salary of $50,000/year.

 

If the 1 manager were to take 1 year off maternity leave, the company would have no managers.  As a result, the company must hire a new manager as a full-time employee or as a contractor.  This replacement manager will also have a salary of $80,000.

 

The company normally makes $90,000 in profits per year.  However, an additional $80,000 must be paid to the new temporary manager.  This results in profits for that year only being $10,000.

 

When it comes time for performance evaluations, as expected, the two base employees had an outstanding year of productivity.  They dedicated themselves, stayed late when needed, and propelled the company forward to help the company maintain its profits through the past year of a volatile economy.  When it comes time for raises, all of the companies employees normally get a 20% raise each year.  This means that each employee will get a raise from $50,000/year to $60,000/year.  This company draws the raises from the previous years' profits.

 

UNFORTUNATELY, the company only made $10,000 in profits that year.  Bummer.  It seems that an additional $80,000 was paid out to the original manager on parental leave.  The employees were sadly only given $2000/year raises instead of the expected $10,000 year raise even though it was their most productive year ever.  But wow, that original manager also equally gets a part of that $2500/year raise, where the amount adjusted for their higher-level position and previous salary share.  INTERESTING.  The original manager not only gets a raise for ZERO productivity for the company, but also gets $80,000 for doing NOTHING for the company for a WHOLE YEAR!!

 

What an absurd outcome.  In that previous simplified example, even take out the raise for the original manager.  He or she has still received $80,000 for doing nothing for the company.

 

Well, it's OK, because at least childless employees have the same freedoms and options to do PERSONAL things that have nothing to do with the company.  Wait, which were those personal things again?  Let's see some examples of personal choice things that non-parents can do:

- build a cottage

- play World of Warcraft for an entire year

- train for the Olympics

- take care of a terminally-ill, dying parent

- work on contracts for another company from home

- go to college studying a topic that has no relevance to the company

 

While not all items are excluded from company policies (for example, a company may be lenient on someone taking leave for an ill parent, but not pay said employee for an entire year to do it), the non-parent employee cannot do any of the above personal things and get paid for it for one year.  I should take this time to note that I am not equating any of the above items with the act of raising a child, what I am comparing is the personal choice to do whatever action you want that has absolutely zero to do with the company's function.

 

The end result is this:  If you are a parent, you flat-out have "more" than a non-parent in a company (i.e. more power, more ability, more freedoms, etc.).  I am pointing out that this is wrong.  And to bring it full circle and show how it relates to the original post, it is wrong and unfair of Microsoft or companies like Netflix to offer extended paid parental leaves, unless non-parent employees are given an equivalent, optional benefit.

[SirRoderick]

Easy fix for all your troubles, just choose to have children. You'll get all those sweet, sweet benefits.

 

At this point you're a parody of a pure capitalist.

[dalekphalm]

Incorrect.  You have inferred something by not understanding that 2 types of people at a company are treated differently.

 

 

This is an absurd example.  If indeed a company's intention is to invest in parents for the purpose of having their children work for the same company in 18+ years, then it is one of the most terrible investments that can exist.  Also, it is a function of the government to handle programs which give benefits for families with children, and this already exists through certain tax codes and tax benefits for these situations.  Do not conflate what a company must do with what the government already does.

 

Also, all the critical replies to my posts tend towards me being opposed to children and/or families.  For instance, you point out the fact that children are required in a society and civilization in general as though to say "Gotcha! It is stupid or idiotic of you to hate children and parents!"  I believe everyone here has totally missed the point.  I even stated it in the most simple of two points.  One of which parents have more power, or the other which non-parents have less power in comparison.

 

I feel that I have to use a very simplified example to explain it to everyone here.  This example is not realistic, but it is only for illustration purposes only.

 

Imagine a company that has 1 manager, and 2 employees.  The salaries for these employees are:

- 1 manager has a salary of $80,000/year

- 2 employees each have a salary of $50,000/year.

 

If the 1 manager were to take 1 year off maternity leave, the company would have no managers.  As a result, the company must hire a new manager as a full-time employee or as a contractor.  This replacement manager will also have a salary of $80,000.

 

The company normally makes $90,000 in profits per year.  However, an additional $80,000 must be paid to the new temporary manager.  This results in profits for that year only being $10,000.

 

When it comes time for performance evaluations, as expected, the two base employees had an outstanding year of productivity.  They dedicated themselves, stayed late when needed, and propelled the company forward to help the company maintain its profits through the past year of a volatile economy.  When it comes time for raises, all of the companies employees normally get a 20% raise each year.  This means that each employee will get a raise from $50,000/year to $60,000/year.  This company draws the raises from the previous years' profits.

 

UNFORTUNATELY, the company only made $10,000 in profits that year.  Bummer.  It seems that an additional $80,000 was paid out to the original manager on parental leave.  The employees were sadly only given $2000/year raises instead of the expected $10,000 year raise even though it was their most productive year ever.  But wow, that original manager also equally gets a part of that $2500/year raise, where the amount adjusted for their higher-level position and previous salary share.  INTERESTING.  The original manager not only gets a raise for ZERO productivity for the company, but also gets $80,000 for doing NOTHING for the company for a WHOLE YEAR!!

 

What an absurd outcome.  In that previous simplified example, even take out the raise for the original manager.  He or she has still received $80,000 for doing nothing for the company.

 

Well, it's OK, because at least childless employees have the same freedoms and options to do PERSONAL things that have nothing to do with the company.  Wait, which were those personal things again?  Let's see some examples of personal choice things that non-parents can do:

- build a cottage

- play World of Warcraft for an entire year

- train for the Olympics

- take care of a terminally-ill, dying parent

- work on contracts for another company from home

- go to college studying a topic that has no relevance to the company

 

While not all items are excluded from company policies (for example, a company may be lenient on someone taking leave for an ill parent, but not pay said employee for an entire year to do it), the non-parent employee cannot do any of the above personal things and get paid for it for one year.  I should take this time to note that I am not equating any of the above items with the act of raising a child, what I am comparing is the personal choice to do whatever action you want that has absolutely zero to do with the company's function.

 

The end result is this:  If you are a parent, you flat-out have "more" than a non-parent in a company (i.e. more power, more ability, more freedoms, etc.).  I am pointing out that this is wrong.  And to bring it full circle and show how it relates to the original post, it is wrong and unfair of Microsoft or companies like Netflix to offer extended paid parental leaves, unless non-parent employees are given an equivalent, optional benefit.

Your "example" has several very large flaws. I'll start with the most glaring:

 

Microsoft (Who is on the upper echelon of generous benefits) gives 20 weeks pay for parental leave. 20 weeks, not one year.

 

So, the company would have to pay a contractor ~$30,000 for 20 weeks worth of contract employment. Not $80,000, but $30,000.

 

So in your hypothetical situation, that leaves $60,000 of profits left over that year, which still leaves room for $10,000 raises each (BTW, that figure is ridiculous and unrealistic, but hey, whatever. The $2500/year raise is much more reasonable in the real world) for the hard working employees. Even after raises, that still leaves $30,000 of pure profit.

 

The point being you're simplifying things to an absurd degree to "prove" your point. The outcome is absurd, because you made an absurd scenario to begin with.

[Xorbot]

Your "example" has several very large flaws. I'll start with the most glaring:

 

Microsoft (Who is on the upper echelon of generous benefits) gives 20 weeks pay for parental leave. 20 weeks, not one year.

 

So, the company would have to pay a contractor ~$30,000 for 20 weeks worth of contract employment. Not $80,000, but $30,000.

 

So in your hypothetical situation, that leaves $60,000 of profits left over that year, which still leaves room for $10,000 raises each (BTW, that figure is ridiculous and unrealistic, but hey, whatever. The $2500/year raise is much more reasonable in the real world) for the hard working employees. Even after raises, that still leaves $30,000 of pure profit.

 

The point being you're simplifying things to an absurd degree to "prove" your point. The outcome is absurd, because you made an absurd scenario to begin with.

 

Your comments here are ridiculous.  I knew this retort was very likely by the critics of my point.  The reason is because I stated that it was an example for illustration purposes.  I did not say this is an exact situation at Microsoft.

 

These round numbers were chosen to make things simplified.  I never once stated that the example was a direct analysis of Microsoft's situation.

 

Please have a read on "Robinson Crusoe Economy".  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe_economy).  This is an example situation of an economy that is used in teaching economics.  To brute-force refer to an exact economy, it would take forever to sort out the variables.  Since this is a forum, I kept the post and example as simple as possible.  I could have easily wrote a 5-page essay on a more detailed and elaborate example.

 

Furthermore, I specifically mentioned that Microsoft and Netflix participate in paid leaves.  In fact, the one-year paid leave example was derived from Netflix in recent news articles (http://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-offers-new-parents-one-year-of-paid-leave-1438735806).

 

I could go on to create a new example that works within a 20-week period, but the numbers come out to the same proportions.  And the end result is still that "parent employees" are getting more money than "non-parent employees" whilst providing less productivity to the company.

 

 

 

The point being you're simplifying things to an absurd degree to "prove" your point. The outcome is absurd, because you made an absurd scenario to begin with.

 

This is the most ridiculous part of your post.  Do you even understand the concept of a thought experiment?  Once again, please read through Robinson Crusoe Economy.  The example that I provided just illustrates with simple numbers that non-parent employees earn less money for (in some cases) more productivity.  This absolutely is unfair by definition.

 

 

 

$10,000 raises each (BTW, that figure is ridiculous and unrealistic, but hey, whatever

 

I couldn't faceplam harder.  One year, I went from $58,000 to $70,000.  And this wasn't recently, it was mid 2000's, last decade.  And the company I was working for was not a major company like Microsoft or Netflix, but rather a start-up.  A $10,000/year raise is completely realistic for a salary position, but perhaps not for a cashier at Walmart.

[Grey_Beard]

..yeah.. Because raising kids for the future generations is damn important. The first year or two are very critical in brain development.

Then save your money and take a leave of absence without pay. Why do the rest of need to support your bad financial decisions?

[Grey_Beard]

Oh look, debate, no.

It is reasonable because you need a year's time with your kid to start their mental development, not a lot happens in the first five months but the seven after are still VERY crucial.

Conveniently ignore the thing about insurance, kthxbai. I don't care.

You are free to take as much time off as possible. Why is it not your own financial misguidance that is the reason you cannot take as much time as possible? If you feel it is important, then find a way to save the money and stay home with the child for 5 years. No debate, just make it your responsibility not others.

[Grey_Beard]

Oh look, debate, no.

It is reasonable because you need a year's time with your kid to start their mental development, not a lot happens in the first five months but the seven after are still VERY crucial.

Conveniently ignore the thing about insurance, kthxbai. I don't care.

You are free to take as much time off as possible. Why is it not your own financial misguidance that is the reason you cannot take as much time as possible? If you feel it is important, then find a way to save the money and stay home with the child for 5 years. No debate, just make it your responsibility not others.

[AlwaysFSX]

Then save your money and take a leave of absence without pay. Why do the rest of need to support your bad financial decisions?

You are free to take as much time off as possible. Why is it not your own financial misguidance that is the reason you cannot take as much time as possible? If you feel it is important, then find a way to save the money and stay home with the child for 5 years. No debate, just make it your responsibility not others.

K. You're clueless.

[mr moose]

It has become quite apparent that some people in this forum don't understand the importance of having children and how that effects the economy and just how much time and money it takes to raise children.  If people have to decide between food and  a roof over their head and a child that will get to school and become a contributing member of society you know what most will choose.

 

 

If you make it harder for people to have children (by not offering paid leave) then in 20 years time (50 for most here) when you are ready to retire there will be no-one around to run the country and ensure you are taken care of in your dotage.  Imagine being 60 and not getting care because there isn't enough workers to provide not only the services but the tax revenue required by the government to provide said services.  It happens, we have to keep the birth rates at 1:1 minimum  or slightly growing to sustain the economy and social securities.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/

 

This is what happens when birth rates fall.  So for all those complaining about rights to not have children, it is in your interest too that people continue to have children and maintain jobs so they can raise them to be fully functioning working members of society.

[TroubleKlef]

With some of these comments I wouldn't be surprised if some of you had kids solely to get benefits. Kids cost money folks. If you don't have money and want your kids to have the attention and/or lifestyle that you want them to, don't whine if your employer doesn't give you paid leave.

[TroubleKlef]

It has become quite apparent that some people in this forum don't understand the importance of having children and how that effects the economy and just how much time and money it takes to raise children.  If people have to decide between food and  a roof over their head and a child that will get to school and become a contributing member of society you know what most will choose.

 

 

If you make it harder for people to have children (by not offering paid leave) then in 20 years time (50 for most here) when you are ready to retire there will be no-one around to run the country and ensure you are taken care of in your dotage.  Imagine being 60 and not getting care because there isn't enough workers to provide not only the services but the tax revenue required by the government to provide said services.  It happens, we have to keep the birth rates at 1:1 minimum  or slightly growing to sustain the economy and social securities.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/

 

This is what happens when birth rates fall.  So for all those complaining about rights to not have children, it is in your interest too that people continue to have children and maintain jobs so they can raise them to be fully functioning working members of society.

 

Except this assumes that nobody will have children if there is no paid leave. People will continue to have children regardless of paid leave. I mean, that's how this discussion came to be in the first place. Now of course, I'm not denying that paid leave wouldn't increase birth rates and but I find it hard to believe that without paid leave we would find ourselves in a stagnant population.

[mr moose]

Except this assumes that nobody will have children if there is no paid leave. People will continue to have children regardless of paid leave. I mean, that's how this discussion came to be in the first place. Now of course, I'm not denying that paid leave wouldn't increase birth rates and but I find it hard to believe that without paid leave we would find ourselves in a stagnant population.

There no assumption it is what happens,  the birth rate drops, not ceases.

[Grey_Beard]

There no assumption, it is what happens when the birth rate drops, not ceases.

But you are assuming the birthdate drops because no one gets leave. Birth rates could drop even when there is ample leave. It's not like folks say, well there is no parental leave, so no children. My other comments center around personal responsibility. Anyone can have and should have children. If you are complaining that paid leave from your job is not enough, then subsidize it. Save some dollars. If you save enough, then take a year off or 5, who cares. Some even say that they give up their careers or do not gain experience. I thought the argument was that children are important, so put them first. Why worry about the career, as I thought that raising the children was a career.

[ivan134]

With some of these comments I wouldn't be surprised if some of you had kids solely to get benefits. Kids cost money folks. If you don't have money and want your kids to have the attention and/or lifestyle that you want them to, don't whine if your employer doesn't give you paid leave.

The last time I heard an argument this idiotic it was conservatives trying to justify their bigotry against transsexuals by suggesting that men would get a sex change just so they could use the women's bathroom and peek on women. You should get a refund on your 2nd grade education with those reasoning skills.

[mr moose]

But you are assuming the birthdate drops because no one gets leave. Birth rates could drop even when there is ample leave. It's not like folks say, well there is no parental leave, so no children. My other comments center around personal responsibility. Anyone can have and should have children. If you are complaining that paid leave from your job is not enough, then subsidize it. Save some dollars. If you save enough, then take a year off or 5, who cares. Some even say that they give up their careers or do not gain experience. I thought the argument was that children are important, so put them first. Why worry about the career, as I thought that raising the children was a career.

 

No, not at all.  My comments are founded on current research and current known trends in the first world.

 

Please people this isn't some "what I believe must be the case" scenario.  Economics have strongly been linked to birth rates in the first world.   When there is uncertainty in the economy or a downturn in the economy the birthrate also goes down.    One of the biggest factors woman in birthing years consider is the ability to maintain income. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/01/28/u-s-birthrate-falls-again/

 

 

Things like paid parental leave will have an effect on birthrates and without it you can be assured the birthrate will be less than they could.

 

http://qz.com/266841/economic-case-for-paternity-leave/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwjznfjgppvHAhXGGaYKHTUiAT8&url=http%3A%2F%2Frepec.iza.org%2Fdp1613.pdf&ei=venGVbPLN8azmAW1xIT4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGhAoePsGJLbM9XmKWZNQIc_tYC1A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.dGY&cad=rja

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/46557526_Does_Maternity_Leave_Encourage_Higher_birth_Rates_An_Analysis_of_the_Australian_Labour_Market

 

This is not some new thing, there is much research and the links between maternity leave and higher birthrates along with more mothers returning to work earlier and higher GDP figures is just some of it.