Microsoft now gives 20 weeks parental leave 100% paid

[Grey_Beard]

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.

Although I agree with this information and agree that birth rates have a positive or negative impact on the economy, when you interject surveys and opinions it begins to get muddy. People's opinions on derived on their personal responsibility or lack there of. I have a number of male friends that put their careers on hold to spend the first five years with their children. They are actually doing quiet well right now. Additionally, throughout history, this is a new phenomenon. The birth rates were much higher years ago when no company had any leave for parents or even when folks are sick. I am not saying that is current practice is not better, but there is data to suggest the contrary to most opinions.

[Grey_Beard]

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.

Although I agree with this information and agree that birth rates have a positive or negative impact on the economy, when you interject surveys and opinions it begins to get muddy. People's opinions on this subject are derived based their personal responsibility or lack there of. I have a number of male friends that put their careers on hold to spend the first five years with their children. They are actually doing quiet well right now. Additionally, throughout history, this is a new phenomenon. The birth rates were much higher years ago when no company had any leave for parents or even when folks are sick. I am not saying that is current practice is not better, but there is data to suggest the contrary to most opinions.

[mr moose]

Although I agree with this information and agree that birth rates have a positive or negative impact on the economy, when you interject surveys and opinions it begins to get muddy. People's opinions on derived on their personal responsibility or lack there of. I have a number of male friends that put their careers on hold to spend the first five years with their children. They are actually doing quiet well right now. Additionally, throughout history, this is a new phenomenon. The birth rates were much higher years ago when no company had any leave for parents or even when folks are sick. I am not saying that is current practice is not better, but there is data to suggest the contrary to most opinions.

 

I think you will find that 30 (or even as close as 15) years ago most woman didn't work at all and stayed at home so maternity (parental) leave was not needed.  However the economy in nearly every first world nation has evolved to a point where it is difficult to sustain an independent family without 2 incomes thus requiring that both parents work. This is due to the exponential nature of economic growth.   It isn't case specific though, it is the overall trend.   The issue I see in this thread is that people aren't considering the overall trend and how seriously that effects the economy for everyone (why I linked the Japanese case article).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth#Importance_of_long-run_growth

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp224/

 

That last article (while very interesting looks at the budget requirement for a renting family with 2 kids) and has a very interesting section on the averages for single parents and families with incomes below the average family budget requirement.

[ivan134]

I think you will find that 30 (or even as close as 15) years ago most woman didn't work at all and stayed at home so maternity (parental) leave was not needed.  However the economy in nearly every first world nation has evolved to a point where it is difficult to sustain an independent family without 2 incomes thus requiring that both parents work. This is due to the exponential nature of economic growth.   It isn't case specific though, it is the overall trend.   The issue I see in this thread is that people aren't considering the overall trend and how seriously that effects the economy for everyone (why I linked the Japanese case article).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth#Importance_of_long-run_growth

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp224/

 

That last article (while very interesting looks at the budget requirement for a renting family with 2 kids) and has a very interesting section on the averages for single parents and families with incomes below the average family budget requirement.

I think we should all stop beating around the bush and say what he and xorbot are implying we should be doing: Eugenics.

[mr moose]

I think we should all stop beating around the bush and say what he and xorbot are implying we should be doing: Eugenics.

 

I personally don't think they have thought about it that deep is all. Like many discussions that pop up in the news section, this is a rather in-depth topic that isn't as simple as it looks on the surface.   It's very easy (and common) for someone who is new to a topic to put more weight in their personal experiences and preconceptions because they have not had time to observe and absorb the research or experience first hand dealing with people in these positions.  

[TroubleKlef]

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.

 

Cool. Last time I had someone disregard a valid argument with an insult was when I met a someone with an under developed mind and a personality of a goat. Wait, see what I did there?

[alicskysareblue]

Then consider not having kids if a career is desired.

As far as I can tell, having a kid is something that people can optionally do on their own time. Whatever I choose to do on my own time should have nothing to do with my employer.

What it comes down to is there is a void of productivity when people are not working at the company while they get paid 100% wages. To fill that void, more workers or contractors must be hired. This results in a smaller pool of money that is paid-out to all employees as a whole. Basically this amounts to a redistribution of money towards people who choose to start families from people who choose not to start families. This is the part that is unfair towards people who choose to remain childless.

Look how old are you ? My job only offers 12 weeks unpaid, that is terrible. Also try making some woman go to work while pregnant most already have too up until three weeks before pregnancy which can put stress on the mother who is already stressed due to haveung a babym

I strongly suggest having a child then maybe you will reevaluate your opinion

[TroubleKlef]

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

 

Your article is correct but I was specifically pointing our your argument. Your argument lies on an assumption. 

 

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.

 

A basic rule to follow which I'm sure you already know is correlation does not equal causation. Your general premise is that without a steady flow of birthrates that the economy suffers from it, no? Except this is just a mere cycle not a trend. As jobs increases, more and more people gain financial stability (which they should before having kids), and thus growth happens exponentially. However, jobs do not experience the same growth so what happens? No jobs for all these new kids now approaching adults who are able to have kids. So what do they do? They don't have kids. It's a cycle. Not a trend.

 

It is silly to look at a subset of data from 1990-2010 and then apply it elsewhere. The economy is much more complex than that. However, it is known that the economy never always grows, it dips and weaves it shrinks and its grows. One cannot just examine one stages of the economy and then say when if it worked then, it should work now!

[mr moose]

Your article is correct but I was specifically pointing our your argument. Your argument lies on an assumption. 

 

 

A basic rule to follow which I'm sure you already know is correlation does not equal causation. Your general premise is that without a steady flow of birthrates that the economy suffers from it, no? Except this is just a mere cycle not a trend. As jobs increases, more and more people gain financial stability (which they should before having kids), and thus growth happens exponentially. However, jobs do not experience the same growth so what happens? No jobs for all these new kids now approaching adults who are able to have kids. So what do they do? They don't have kids. It's a cycle. Not a trend.

 

It is silly to look at a subset of data from 1990-2010 and then apply it elsewhere. The economy is much more complex than that. However, it is known that the economy never always grows, it dips and weaves it shrinks and its grows. One cannot just examine one stages of the economy and then say when if it worked then, it should work now!

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence to support your counter claims.   Because it's not my general premise, it's the one nearly all analytical research into economic growth points to.  Australia is starting to suffer right now from it, Japan is in danger and the US is heading that way.  It's not a cycle, it is the result of an insufficient ratio of working population to non-working (the too young and the too old).  

[TroubleKlef]

Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence to support your counter claims.   Because it's not my general premise, it's the one nearly all analytical research into economic growth points to.  Australia is starting to suffer right now from it, Japan is in danger and the US is heading that way.  It's not a cycle, it is the result of an insufficient ratio of working population to non-working (the too young and the too old).  

 

I may have missed it but could you link again your evidence for paid leave and economies?

[TroubleKlef]

Not really any revelation here. Economies shrink and so do birth rates. Economies recover and so do birth rates. This has been a cycle for I don't know how many centuries.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/04/06/us-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/17/birth-rate-rises-us-women/28811271/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-economy-grew-2-6-q4-slower-expected-135115848.html

 

 

While it was fun debating population growth and economies. We should really get back on topic to parental leave and how that benefits or detracts from the company, the employees looking to start a family, and how it affects employees who decide not to start a family.

[mr moose]

Not really any revelation here. Economies shrink and so do birth rates. Economies recover and so do birth rates. This has been a cycle for I don't know how many centuries.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/04/06/us-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/17/birth-rate-rises-us-women/28811271/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-economy-grew-2-6-q4-slower-expected-135115848.html

 

 

While it was fun debating population growth and economies. We should really get back on topic to parental leave and how that benefits or detracts from the company, the employees looking to start a family, and how it affects employees who decide not to start a family.

 

From your links:

 

The analysis suggests that the falloff in fertility coincides with deteriorating economic conditions.

 

Though the increase in fertility rate is small, he said, it could be indicative of a shifting trend. Haub said this demographic change aligns with an improving economy.

 

 

Which Is what I have already said:

 

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.

 

It is not merely a correlation  and you are missing the main point, I.E that birth rate has quite an impact on economy in that a low birth rate now will result in a harder financial times when the population majorities shift from working to retiring ages.  Conversely the opposite can happen, a High birth rate can burden the current resources of a country.

 

Hence why china has the 1 child policy and why governments pay close attention to birth rates and change policy depending on their state.  This is why I linked all the above articles. especially note the Japanese issue.

[TroubleKlef]

 

From your links:

 

 

Which Is what I have already said:

 

 

It is not merely a correlation  and you are missing the main point, I.E that birth rate has quite an impact on economy in that a low birth rate now will result in a harder financial times when the population majorities shift from working to retiring ages.  Conversely the opposite can happen, a High birth rate can burden the current resources of a country.

 

Hence why china has the 1 child policy and why governments pay close attention to birth rates and change policy depending on their state.  This is why I linked all the above articles. especially note the Japanese issue.

 

From your quote from my link. suggests. indicative.

 

When there is uncertainty in the economy or a downturn in the economy the birthrate also goes down

 

Actually what you have been saying relates to the bolded statement but isn't what you have been saying.

 

I am not arguing that birth rate doesn't have an impact on the economy. I am not arguing that the economy has no impact on birthrate. I have linked that the economy swells and shrinks and the birth correlates along with it. However, birth rates are not a direct cause to a growing economy. In fact, high birth rates correlate to a lower average GDP among nations. The key point we're not talking about here is the availability of jobs. As birth rate increases, more jobs are filled to the point where they are saturated, thus less people are economically stable thus the birth rate goes down. The economy then rebounds, not due to increasing birth rates that comes after, and then it all starts again. The only difference that occurs between your scenario and mine, is that I believe there are periods in which the elderly cannot be taken care for and another period where the entering workforce has no jobs. It's a balance, as is everything with the economy

[mr moose]

From your quote from my link. suggests. indicative.

 

When there is uncertainty in the economy or a downturn in the economy the birthrate also goes down

 

Actually what you have been saying relates to the bolded statement but isn't what you have been saying.

 

I am not arguing that birth rate doesn't have an impact on the economy. I am not arguing that the economy has no impact on birthrate. I have linked that the economy swells and shrinks and the birth correlates along with it. However, birth rates are not a direct cause to a growing economy. In fact, high birth rates correlate to a lower average GDP among nations. The key point we're not talking about here is the availability of jobs. As birth rate increases, more jobs are filled to the point where they are saturated, thus less people are economically stable thus the birth rate goes down. The economy then rebounds, not due to increasing birth rates that comes after, and then it all starts again. The only difference that occurs between your scenario and mine, is that I believe there are periods in which the elderly cannot be taken care for and another period where the entering workforce has no jobs. It's a balance, as is everything with the economy

 

We're not talking about the availability of jobs, the number of available jobs is driven by the economy and public spending not the other way around.  Please read the articles I linked.  They explain it so much better than I think I am. 

[TroubleKlef]

We're not talking about the availability of jobs, the number of available jobs is driven by the economy and public spending not the other way around.  Please read the articles I linked.  They explain it so much better than I think I am. 

 

okay I will but what did you mean by the other way around? and we cannot talk about birth rate and the economy without acknowledging jobs.

[ivan134]

Cool. Last time I had someone disregard a valid argument with an insult was when I met a someone with an under developed mind and a personality of a goat. Wait, see what I did there?

Valid argument? You think someone will go through sleepless nights from a baby crying, anxiety, the ridiculous amounts it costs to clothe a feed another human being for 18 years before you even start talking about college fees, research to make sure you hire the right babysitter then money to pay them, etc, for 20 weeks of paid leave?

 

mr moose This is why I'm unwilling as you are to give these neanderthals the benefit of the doubt.

[TroubleKlef]

Valid argument? You think someone will go through sleepless nights from a baby crying, anxiety, the ridiculous amounts it costs to clothe a feed another human being for 18 years before you even start talking about college fees, research to make sure you hire the right babysitter then money to pay them, etc, for 20 weeks of paid leave?

 

mr moose This is why I'm unwilling as you are to give these neanderthals the benefit of the doubt.

 

Again cool. Please go away with your meaningless posts based on entitlement. If you cannot afford to have a kid do not have one. Don't go complaining about long hours and the ridiculous costs if you cannot afford them. 

[mr moose]

okay I will but what did you mean by the other way around? and we cannot talk about birth rate and the economy without acknowledging jobs.

 

The number of jobs is a function of spending.  People don't spend when the economy is down, when the economy picks up and people have more money to spend, consumer demand goes up and thus business grows which results in the creation of more jobs. It cannot work the other way because if there is no demand then business will not employ people with nothing for them to do and no revenue to pay them.  Job creation does not drive the economy the economy dictates job creation.  This is why some governments implement what they call stimulation spending/packages when the economy fails, a set of measures designed to put more money in the hands of the people that they will spend in turn jump starting a growth cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

 

What this means is that the economy essentially grows and shrinks to the number of people employed and spending. Ergo as I said before if you have more people that need supporting (pension or too young to work) and not enough people able to work and sustain the economy then the economy will start to fail.  This will happen if the birthrate drops.(which is what has been happening in Japan 0.6% deflation per year due to aging population because the birthrate has been well below the replacement ratio).

[TroubleKlef]

The number of jobs is a function of spending.  People don't spend when the economy is down, when the economy picks up and people have more money to spend, consumer demand goes up and thus business grows which results in the creation of more jobs. It cannot work the other way because if there is no demand then business will not employ people with nothing for them to do and no revenue to pay them.  Job creation does not drive the economy the economy dictates job creation.  This is why some governments implement what they call stimulation spending/packages when the economy fails, a set of measures designed to put more money in the hands of the people that they will spend in turn jump starting a growth cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

 

What this means is that the economy essentially grows and shrinks to the number of people employed and spending. Ergo as I said before if you have more people that need supporting (pension or too young to work) and not enough people able to work and sustain the economy then the economy will start to fail.  This will happen if the birthrate drops.(which is what has been happening in Japan 0.6% deflation per year due to aging population because the birthrate has been well below the replacement ratio).

 

Mhmm. There are many ways to jumpstart an economy, this is one of many. That is why you use methods such as these to get the economy going, people start working jobs, and financial stability can be achieved. Thus causing a correlative trend in birth rates. Then more and more people are entering the workforce allowing the elderly to be taken care of. However it then reaches a point where they are too many people in the workforce, thus financially stability is compromised and then birthrates go down. Then the cycle begins again.

 

Another key talking point along with jobs that we're not acknowledging is immigration. Where countries who have an over abundance of people looking for jobs go out and seek another country in which there are a diminishing number of people in the cycle. I mean that is the American Dream right?

[MellowCream]

Politcal discussion on a tech forum, great!

[mr moose]

. Thus causing a correlative trend in birth rates. Then more and more people are entering the workforce allowing the elderly to be taken care of.

 

Yes, yet the upward trend in birthrate only lasts as long as the economic can sustain it.  When you reach a position where there aren't enough workers (like in Japan and soon to be Australia) then you have the results of a drop in birthrates.

 

Taking us right back to my original points.   Access to a stable predictive income is a dictator of birthrate which has longer more damaging repercussions on the economy as a whole, thus giving paid parental leave benefits to everybody actually benefits everybody, not just parents.

[ivan134]

okay I will but what did you mean by the other way around? and we cannot talk about birth rate and the economy without acknowledging jobs.

Let me know when you actually decide to back up your ridiculous assertion that someone would go through all that for 20 weeks of paid leave.

[EpicAdom]

This is an imbalance to those who chose not to start a family.

Why?

[TroubleKlef]

Yes, yet the upward trend in birthrate only lasts as long as the economic can sustain it.  When you reach a position where there aren't enough workers (like in Japan and soon to be Australia) then you have the results of a drop in birthrates.

 

Taking us right back to my original points.   Access to a stable predictive income is a dictator of birthrate which has longer more damaging repercussions on the economy as a whole, thus giving paid parental leave benefits to everybody actually benefits everybody, not just parents.

 

Yup. Japan needs to figure out how to create a more stable and predictable economy thus allowing their population issue to go away. Unfortunately they've been facing fierce competition from China and South Korea and some truly unfortunate events such as the earthquakes. 

 

EDIT: I finally remembered what their economy crash of the 90s was. The Lost Decade is no doubt a large factor in why birth rates have plummeted in Japan. They have been stumbling on their feet ever since.