My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

[MikeMcMann]

Yes I think the employer should

Having babies is just part of society and I dont think you can punish women for being the gender that has to deal with being pregnant and if you allow employers to discriminate against women in that way theres a good chance some will

Im not sure if the employer should shoulder the entire burden of the mother being off or if there should be some form of ubi and tax credits which i have mentioned already

Interesting. You are approaching hard core commie land then.

Example:
Small Business with 3 employees. All make $20/hr. Or $41,600/yr. All with the company 5 years.

Employee 1 is a workaholic who not only works the 40 hours every week, taking no vacation time but also works every minute of overtime available raising his annual pay to just over $60,000/yr. In 5 years he makes just over $300k.

Employee 2 just wants to do the basics and be a good employee but is happy earning $41,600/yr and taking his vacation time and no over time. In 5 years makes $208K

Employee 3 - has 3 kids in 5 years and is away from work 3 full years and in that 5 years makes just over $140k with Mat Pay.



Question : would you see employer/gov't combined 'level up' the mom to employee 1's pay level of employee 2 pay level?

I am all for a Mat Leave program such as we have here in Canada which is very generous IMO, but the mothers still make LESS than the people who are at the job working each day and that SHOULD BE OK. But you are saying that is not ok and they should be leveled up, so to which level? Employee 1 level or Employee 2 level.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

So if Karen and Bob start at the same time then Karen has two kids and is out for a total of a year over 3 years. Over that same 3 years Bob never leaves and gets promoted you think Karen should be promoted as well regardless of if she's qualified?

no but she should be made aware a position is available and be allowed to apply for the role. then its up to the company to hire the more qualified individual.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So if Karen and Bob start at the same time then Karen has two kids and is out for a total of a year over 3 years. Over that same 3 years Bob never leaves and gets promoted you think Karen should be promoted as well regardless of if she's qualified?

And not just that should her pay be leveled up so she makes the same as Bob? What if there is a workaholic guy named John who does a ton of over time, should she be leveled up to his pay amount so she is not penalized because if she did not have the babies she could have worked over time too.

 

[shunyata]

A female friend of mine forwarded me this article ...

Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty”

I replied to it with

...without a doubt. Anything that takes you out of the work force for long periods of time and anything that changes your focus from work to other will lower lifetime earnings and that is not a bad thing. That is the balance trade off for those who want kids.

We went back and forth a bit and ultimately she told me she cannot agree. That women should not pay a penalty for choosing to have children.

That was even after I gave her a direct example from my office place as we had two people celebrate 5 years anniversaries with us who work in the same jobs. Both are similar aged (early 30's) but one has had 3 kids in 5 years and only been in the office physically 2 years and the other is a workaholic young guy who takes every minute of over time available and has got several bonuses due to hard work and dedication. In the same 5 years span he has worked 2.5 times more than her but he has made about 3.5 times more with bonuses.

I asked her if she thought the woman who choose to be a mom should just be levelled up in pay to what he is making or if he should make less. I also said she might be happier and have more balance in her life even if he has more money and that should be ok.

In the end she still said she disagreed with my position and does not believe it is right for women to be penalized for having children.

Socialist leaning sherbro's where do you stand on this?

(btw I cannot even read the article beyond the teaser portion as it is stuck behind a pay wall for me since I once subscribed to the Economist and now I cannot see articles free. So my reaction is not to the body of the article)

Neither one of you are wrong.

But it is not unusual in Europe for example to offer tax or financial incentives to educated citizens having children because birth rates are crashing and that is bad for the economy as a whole.

It is also highly unusual for a developed nation to have the kind of lack of parental leave that the US has. Maternal and even Paternal leave are supported and encouraged because of the benefits to all.

Companies even in the US like employing married men with children as they are seen as more stable and responsible and willing to work together for the good of all.

Single people are seen as more unreliable and more likely to leave the company at a whim.

Yet US regulations and companies are extremely unsupportive of paid maternal and paternal leave. They're also extremely unsupportive of any and all paid leave especially workmen's compensation and disability.


The thing is, our current system is already a mix up of capitalism and socialism and that's normal. The only question is where and how to regulate the mostly free market for the good of society and to generate long term growth for the society.

We have farm subsidies, oil and gas subsidies, and much more. Many private business sectors actively benefit from socialist policies, but propaganda would have people believe that oil subsidies are needed and food stamps are a wasteful program.

 

[Pupi]

Last night I was having a similar conversation with my fiancee. Paternity and maternity leave is a great idea, but its usually temporary (what, like 4 or so months?). I feel like companies (not all and it would also depend on the position) can be flexible and provide a mix of work from home days, certification/education programs to diversify skills of valuable employees, and also maternity/paternity leave. I don't like the idea of being out of work for 3-5 years...thats very unrealistic because knowledge, techniques, technology, and markets change very rapidly. Taking 3-5 years off is career suicide, especially if the person isn't getting certifications, going to school, etc.

 

[Seano]

We shouldn't support people making a living having kids. Paid maternity leave and childcare are fine but beyond that, you make decisions.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that it lowers earnings. Again thats up to you. You can choose to stop improving yourself when you have a kid, but who's to blame for that? A lot of people get a kick in the ass when they have kids and try to better themselves and their families.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

no but she should be made aware a position is available and be allowed to apply for the role. then its up to the company to hire the more qualified individual.

That's completely fair

 

[Gutter Chris]

So if Karen and Bob start at the same time then Karen has two kids and is out for a total of a year over 3 years. Over that same 3 years Bob never leaves and gets promoted you think Karen should be promoted as well regardless of if she's qualified?

No but I think karen should be able to come back to her position and not have to start over again and I think karen shoulda been getting paid while she was off

Bob was there the whole time and i am assuming that he earned it but .... this why we have the gender pay gap myth because women miss way more work due to family reasons and it does act as a penalty against them.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

You really get at the heart of it here.

Society needs children, so the government decides to pass the economic costs associated with children onto the business instead of passing those costs back onto the parents. It certainly seems like odd logic. It's not great that the parents are eating the costs themselves, but really, who should absorb the costs for their kids? It's a hard position to argue out of.

the business shouldnt take up all the costs..... the government should cover most of the costs whilst people take maternity leave

 

[Seano]

Last night I was having a similar conversation with my fiancee. Paternity and maternity leave is a great idea, but its usually temporary (what, like 4 or so months?). I feel like companies (not all and it would also depend on the position) can be flexible and provide a mix of work from home days, certification/education programs to diversify skills of valuable employees, and also maternity/paternity leave. I don't like the idea of being out of work for 3-5 years...thats very unrealistic because knowledge, techniques, technology, and markets change very rapidly. Taking 3-5 years off is career suicide, especially if the person isn't getting certifications, going to school, etc.

My wife and I chose to work opposing hours so we could have a kid without much outside help. Any outside help, actually. I was fortunate to be able to do that, I get that some can't.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Interesting. You are approaching hard core commie land then.

Where did I say I do not believe in private property ? Please quote that for me

 

[Headkicktoleg]

No but I think karen should be able to come back to her position and not have to start over again and I think karen shoulda been getting paid while she was off

Bob was there the whole time and i am assuming that he earned it but .... this why we have the gender pay gap myth because women miss way more work due to family reasons and it does act as a penalty against them.

I don't think anyone would argue that Karen should be able to return to her current position. The lady in the OP think Karen should be made to keep up with Bob because it's not fair he makes more

 

[Falsedawn]

The problem with her thinking is that women are always going to be penalized for having children, more pay or not. Time is a finite resource, having a child is an outlay of that finite resource that could be better used for money making endeavours. Know how you don't get penalized for having kids? Hire a nanny.

Now does that mean that a person should accept being destitute just because they have kids? Absolutely not. But you can't expect to be rewarded for it either. Less work for more pay is a reward. It's a reward that may be justified based on your skillset, but it's a reward nonetheless.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I don't think anyone would argue that Karen should be able to return to her current position. The lady in the OP think Karen should be made to keep up with Bob because it's not fair he makes more

Yea theres no way to make this perfect

She cant get promoted if she isnt there and isnt involved in what is going on at that moment in time and there is no way to make it fair

i am just arguing that moms should have a few more options when it comes to money and having children and that we could and should do better

 

[MikeMcMann]

An anecdotal story from my past.


About 12 years ago I almost joined a group who wanted to do a Dental Practice roll up, into a corporation. At the time the vast, vast majority of Dental Practices here in Canada were sole proprietorship. Dentists like many family Doctors ran their practices as there own small business and many were workaholics (at the expense of family time) trying to drive their practices to the point where they were making a Million dollars a year.

The reason the Dental Practice roll-up into a corporation was attractive now and not prior was because of the huge shift in demographics of graduating dentists. It was primarily a male dominated field prior and suddenly graduates from Dental school were almost 50/50 male/female. Today it is almost 60% female btw.

So how was that creating opportunity for a corporate entity to move into the space when the male dentists prior typically had no interest in that?

The issue was that women worked differently generally. Most women coming out of school were not interested in taking on all the debt to start or buy a practice. They also were not interested in working insane hours to try and achieve a million dollar income. Turns out that it was often 3 women dentists buying the practice of a single successful male practice and being happy to share the work load and earn $300kea instead of trying to keep it to themselves to make a Million. They would share clients and collaborate thus making it easy to take time off as you just got whoever was in the office that day. They want more balance in their lives and time for family and were fine earning less to do so.

This is a phenomena we are seeing across all professional areas now as women become more predominant in men almost all professional fields.

IT IS A GOOD THING.

But what is not a good thing is how this correlates to the OP and to the constant false argument that 'women make less then men' that is put forth that ignores every thing I said above here and only wants to say 'look that woman Dentist, doing the same job, is making less than the man was prior'. Of course. She has chosen a more balanced life and to focus less on work. But the politicization of this issue demands she be leveled up and paid the same.

 

[sub_thug]

the business shouldnt take up all the costs..... the government should cover most of the costs whilst people take maternity leave

So will the government pay the salary and benefits of the parent absent from the workplace? I don't know how you do it in the UK, but what people are mostly proposing here in the US that it's either up to the business or the parents, not a third party.

 

[Pupi]

My wife and I chose to work opposing hours so we could have a kid without much outside help. Any outside help, actually. I was fortunate to be able to do that, I get that some can't.

I'm sure that was a big stress on the marriage as well (people need time to spend together doing enjoyable things). Family help is awesome, but many people don't have that option since they are immigrants or the family lives too far or they're dicks that don't want to help out. The balance between work and leisure is the most important political topic we can engage in.

 

[Seano]

I'm sure that was a big stress on the marriage as well (people need time to spend together doing enjoyable things). Family help is awesome, but many people don't have that option since they are immigrants or the family lives too far or they're dicks that don't want to help out. The balance between work and leisure is the most important political topic we can engage in.

Well, in a way but we made that choice to raise our daughter the way we felt she should be raised and I think it was worth it. We simply didn't have close family we could rely on. We had the choice of paying people to raise our kid or find a way to do it ourselves. Everyone has that choice.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Neither one of you are wrong.

But it is not unusual in Europe for example to offer tax or financial incentives to educated citizens having children because birth rates are crashing and that is bad for the economy as a whole.

It is also highly unusual for a developed nation to have the kind of lack of parental leave that the US has. Maternal and even Paternal leave are supported and encouraged because of the benefits to all.

Companies even in the US like employing married men with children as they are seen as more stable and responsible and willing to work together for the good of all.

Single people are seen as more unreliable and more likely to leave the company at a whim.

Yet US regulations and companies are extremely unsupportive of paid maternal and paternal leave. They're also extremely unsupportive of any and all paid leave especially workmen's compensation and disability.


The thing is, our current system is already a mix up of capitalism and socialism and that's normal. The only question is where and how to regulate the mostly free market for the good of society and to generate long term growth for the society.

We have farm subsidies, oil and gas subsidies, and much more. Many private business sectors actively benefit from socialist policies, but propaganda would have people believe that oil subsidies are needed and food stamps are a wasteful program.

I still say she is wrong.

We live in Canada and have a very generous Mat Leave system with both gov't and employer contributing to it.

But still the employee on Mat Leave will only make about 55% of their regular pay.

That is what is being targeted as 'Child Penalty' and wrong. The question being why a mother should receive any discount (and thus be penalized) for taking time to have a child.

I argue that it is not a penalty to have a child and earn less money and to state it so and characterize it as such from the onset is wrong and political. Why is it not a benefit to be able to leave work, spend years with children and yet still get 55% of your pay while off? Is money the only thing being valued in life???

 

[panamaican]

There's some truth to her position. Men who are fathers outearn men who are not fathers. Women who are mothers don't outearn women who aren't mothers. The child penalty isn't strictly about taking time away from the job.

But, of course, if women choose to spend more time away from work as a result of having kids then they will see less compensation overall as a result.

The related social question is why so much of that burden continues to fall on women, even the ones who want to prioritize their careers. I was at a multipanel forum (a real life one, not an internet one) on households where the fathers were the primary caregivers and even in the cases where the women are the primary earners, a significant amount of the parenting time commitments still fell on their shoulders.

Anecdotally, one guy told a story about how even though he's the emergency contact for his kids, the school always calls the mom first and then she has to either call him or re-direct the school to him. Lots of little things like that probably add up over time.