What is the issue over paid maternity leave?

[Cow Poke]

You are obviously typing faster than she can comprehend.

She does appear to be unwilling to understand that suggesting the wisest course of action, getting yourself ready to have a child (not just economically), is not in any way the same as prohibiting people from having children.

I think it's part of the whole "reverse thinking" to which liberals are enslaved. They never seem to be able to support their nutty ideas with those... um... what are they called.... those fact thingies?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are the one who is Pro-Choice, so you are the one supporting eugenics through abortion. We simply think that you shouldn't have a baby if you can't afford to raise her and give her a good life. That isn't eugenics, that is common sense. We certainly don't advocate getting pregnant then killing the child because you can't afford it or it might have a birth defect or you just don't want it. That indeed is eugenics. and murder. So which of us is supporting actual eugenics? Only you Frau Hypocrite.

And as Cow Poke has told you before, as Christians we do support and help young mothers who mistakenly do end up pregnant and can't afford it. We give them actual support, food, healthcare, housing, etc. All without taxes. Unlike you who refuse to give because you are not a Christian, as you have already admitted. No, you liberals are all about spending other people's money, never your own. How generous of you, you evil prig.

Legal abortions are not eugenics. A eugenics programme is a practice aimed at controlling reproduction in order to “improve” the characteristics of human populations.

Your suggestion was premised on the improvement that only those financially able to rear children without recourse to the state for any financial assistance should breed. That is a eugenics policy

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

rogue06

In Mark 10 the rich man asks Jesus "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus then reminds him of the commandments, the man replies "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth". It is after he has made that comment that Jesus then "looking at him, loved him" and gave him the injunction "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me".

Why, according to you, why was this admonishment only directed to this specific individual? Your interpretation of this episode would seem to imply that within this narrative Jesus considered there were other ways by which that desired state could be attained.

Why, in the embellished version of the same episode found in Matthew 19 , after the "young" man "went away grieving, for he had many possessions" does Jesus then tell his disciples “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” ?

To which specific individual[s], in your opinion, was that forewarning being addressed? Was it just to the disciples? Or did it extend to others?

I'm not going to go down your flowery path about how any and every reading of any text or verbal communication will involve interpretation.

The elucidation of every narrative religious text involves some degree of interpretation.

I realise you have no desire to attempt to defend your position because it risks you inadvertently promoting Al Franken's parody "It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

andbyou got not only your prior response turned right back on you, but I actually went to the trouble of actually answering. Unlike you.
Again, if they want paid maternal leave they can go apply at the countless companies that provide it.

An option that is not always available to all working women.

Nor have you addressed how their husbands/partners and other children are to be factored into your suggestion.

Does the husband/partner leave their place of work - and possibly lose any pension and health insurance etc in order to move to another part of the country/state so that his wife/partner may find [assuming she can get it] a job that offers paid maternity leave?

What about pulling older children out of school and moving them to an area at some [possibly considerable] distance from their friends?

These are social factors that can impact adversely on families despite your view that such factors are entirely inconsequential.

I do comprehend it. That's why my wife obtained a job that provides paid maternal leave

She was fortunate. However, the piecemeal approach to paid maternity leave that you endorse is not always available to all women, especially those on lower incomes.

Your notion that "anybworkplace is welcome to provide that if they want" is a laissez faire approach and leaves employees reliant on the beneficence of their employers. Unregulated capitalism is not generally noted for showing consideration towards its workforce.

again, are you suggesting that all stay at home moms are on welfare?

No.

[Gondwanaland]

An option that is not always available to all working women.

SUch an option is always available to any working woman who goes to the effort.

Nor have you addressed how their husbands/partners and other children are to be factored into your suggestion.

What about them?

Does the husband/partner leave their place of work - and possibly lose any pension and health insurance etc in order to move to another part of the country/state so that his wife/partner may find [assuming she can get it] a job that offers paid maternity leave?

Why are you assuming she would have to move to another part of the country/state? My wife didn't. Indeed, the cause of our moves that we've had have been me and my job(s). So if it were to a different art of the country or state, how is that any different than any other family that gets a better job offer for one of the people, and the family decides to follow that and adjust?

Or, she can wait until they are financially stable enough to afford another kid, if they don't want to move (again, with the baseless assumption that they would have to move and that somehow she couldn't find one of the many companies in her city or region that offers such benefits).

What about pulling older children out of school and moving them to an area at some [possibly considerable] distance from their friends?

See above.

These are social factors that can impact adversely on families despite your view that such factors are entirely inconsequential.

See above.

She was fortunate.

No, she just applied basic common sense and effort.

However, the piecemeal approach to paid maternity leave that you endorse is not always available to all women, especially those on lower incomes.

See above.

Your notion that "anybworkplace is welcome to provide that if they want" is a laissez faire approach

As it should be. Government interfering with the free market tends to harm everyone involved.

and leaves employees reliant on the beneficence of their employers. Unregulated capitalism is not generally noted for showing consideration towards its workforce.

No.

Not in the least. If workers show a predilection toward jobs that offer maternity leave, more jobs will offer that to become competitive and attract workers because of a dearth of workers coming their way. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Best to stay with the armchair historian bit you have going on.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

SUch an option is always available to any working woman who goes to the effort.
What about them?

Somewhat ironic coming from a man who considers the importance of maintaining two parent families for the future benefit of the children.

Why are you assuming she would have to move to another part of the country/state?

Why are you assuming she won't?

Or, she can wait until they are financially stable enough to afford another kid,

Another apparent advocate of a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations.

As it should be. Government interfering with the free market tends to harm everyone involved.

I am sure those working in sweat-shops around the world [including children and sometimes for US companies] heartily agree with you.

Not in the least. If workers show a predilection toward jobs that offer maternity leave, more jobs will offer that to become competitive and attract workers because of a dearth of workers coming their way.

Would you extend that to organised labour unions in the workplace?

[Gondwanaland]

Somewhat ironic coming from a man who considers the importance of maintaining two parent families for the future benefit of the children.

what does that have to do with anything? Just another attempted derail.

Why are you assuming she won't?

because there is no reason to assume she would have to. And if she did it would clearly be a job that has much better benefits and pay to be something she and her family are willing to move for.

Another apparent advocate of a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations.

what the blazes are you talking about? It sounds like you don't know what that word means.

I am sure those working in sweat-shops around the world [including children and sometimes for US companies] heartily agree with you.

I doubt you know this but those exist largely because of their local governments...

Would you extend that to organised labour unions in the workplace?

Most labor unions are indeed harmful to workers.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

what does that have to do with anything? Just another attempted derail.

Merely an observation on your apparent volte face

because there is no reason to assume she would have to.

That is not really an adequate reply. It depends entirely on circumstances such where the family live and what the mother does for a living.

I would suggest [although you are free to correct me] that a woman working in a low paid or minimum wage job and living in a rural or semi-rural region of the USA is unlikely to find a local employer who will offer her paid maternity leave.

I doubt you know this but those exist largely because of their local governments...

You have previously criticised "Government interfering in the free market"

You should therefore see no problems with sweatshops and/or child labour going unregulated by any government because such regulations would [in your own words] interfere "in the free market".

Most labor unions are indeed harmful to workers.

Labour unions arose to combat those working conditions of which you seem to approve.

[Cow Poke]

So, typical liberal thinking...

find a problem that can be exaggerated to the extent that only a federal program can address it.

That's exactly where this thread has gone.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, typical liberal thinking...

find a problem that can be exaggerated to the extent that only a federal program can address it.

That's exactly where this thread has gone.

Regulating working conditions and ensuring safety for workers, the removal of long hours, poor pay, dangerous conditions [and of course child labour] is very much "typical liberal thinking". Something that would surely never be countenanced by souls such as your good self.

And yes, that reply was intentionally acerbic.

[Gondwanaland]

Merely an observation on your apparent volte face

I can't speak to your fevered dreams.

That is not really an adequate reply.

it is just an adequate reply as yours was.

It depends entirely on circumstances such where the family live and what the mother does for a living.

that literally describes anyone changing their workplace.

I would suggest [although you are free to correct me] that a woman working in a low paid or minimum wage job and living in a rural or semi-rural region of the USA is unlikely to find a local employer who will offer her paid maternity leave.

you can suggest that all you want but it reveals your ignorance of basic reality

You have previously criticised "Government interfering in the free market"

yes.

You should therefore see no problems with sweatshops and/or child labour going unregulated by any government because such regulations would [in your own words] interfere "in the free market".

The sweatshops exist BECAUSE of the local governments and their involvement in businesses.

Labour unions arose to combat those working conditions of which you seem to approve.

A century ago, sure. But nowadays labor unions exist to fatten the pockets of labor leaders and the politicians they donate to. They have no real purpose or function beyond that these days in the US. They're incredibly corrupt and do nothing but skim money from workers who in many states are forced to join them.

[Cow Poke]

Regulating working conditions and ensuring safety for workers, the removal of long hours, poor pay, dangerous conditions [and of course child labour] is very much "typical liberal thinking". Something that would surely never be countenanced by souls such as your good self.

Actually, no, that's pretty much common sense, and a reason unions were, in days gone by, justifiable.

And yes, that reply was intentionally acerbic.

I would expect nothing less.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I can't speak to your fevered dreams.

I was merely considering remarks you had previously made.

it is just an adequate reply as yours was.

that literally describes anyone changing their workplace.

Except where work with paid maternity leave may not be available and again the woman's partner has to be factored in, along with any other existing children,

you can suggest that all you want but it reveals your ignorance of basic reality

It reveals your fixation with money.

The sweatshops exist BECAUSE of the local governments and their involvement in businesses.

It is not that simple but I realise from past exchanges that you prefer easy answers to complex issues.

A paper from 2017
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/siers/vol1/iss1/2/

The governments of many developing nations are often not overly concerned with the conditions of the poorest in their societies, when one factors in religious/cultural mores and societal attitudes.


For developing countries to support their economies, it is almost impossible do so without participating in foreign direct investment (FDI) and being aware of globalization. Many Americans are aware that sweatshops exist, but it has become the norm to turn a blind eye. Why do sweatshops exist? Why do American brands and companies choose to do business on foreign soil? The answer to these questions is simple, cheap labor. China has been known as the “world’s factory,” along with the label “Made in China” being associated with sweatshops (Guo, Hsu, Holton, & Jeong, 2012; Yu, 2015). According to Yun-Wing (2007), China surpassed the United States in 2002 when it became the sole leader of FDI. Sweatshops are not a new phenomenon and have been in the media for decades, but are relevant during a government flare up. The most well-known flare up concerning sweatshops appeared in the 90s, with Nike, Inc. Roberts, Engardio, Bernstein, Holmes, and Ji, (2006) wrote an article about the secrets and lies of sweatshops. It revealed companies, like Nike, will go to any length to make their merchandise cheaper for Americans. China is not the only country that has experienced how American companies can manipulate and demand. Countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India, Guatemala and Bangladesh have all been so called “victimized” by Western businesses.

Governments in developing countries needing foreign direct investment will therefore acquiesce with the demands of foreign [often American] companies. If one developing country introduces mandatory labour laws, it runs the risk that those the big corporations will move somewhere where labour is cheaper, taking that FDI with them.

A century ago, sure. But nowadays labor unions exist to fatten the pockets of labor leaders and the politicians they donate to. They have no real purpose or function beyond that these days in the US. They're incredibly corrupt and do nothing but skim money from workers who in many states are forced to join them.

That is not the issue as to why Labour Unions were initially formed.

[Cow Poke]

That is not the issue as to why Labour Unions were initially formed.

Who cares? They served a useful role at one time, now they exist - particularly the public sector unions - to enrich the pockets of the leaders and protect bad cops and teachers from discipline and termination.

[Cow Poke]

As happens so often with H_A's threads, this one keeps getting hopelessly derailed...

• She starts off with a nutty totalitarian idea to force small business owners to pay women to stay home to have care for a newborn.
• Somewhere along the way, she admits she doesn't know where the issue of "small business" came up, even though it was very clearly explained AND documented that the VAST majority of employees in the private sector are employed by SMALL business.
• THEN she goes to the moronic notion of selectively taxing people "a small amount" to pay for this disastrous notion.
• She is CLEARLY revealing her ignorance of the employer/employee system as opposed to federal government.
• She THEN goes to the nutty idea of a federal program to oversee this.

Some TEXAS BOUNTY HUNTER needs to round her up and lock her in the basement.