• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Give this a read, I truly can't understand why we don't have paid parental leave. It's embarrassing. The richest nation on earth and we can't even help new mothers be with their kids.
Voices: If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today

The benefits outweigh any potential negatives:
 
Benefits are up to employers to decide. Frankly its a violation of the right to property and contract to force the issue.
 
Benefits are up to employers to decide. Frankly its a violation of the right to property and contract to force the issue.

Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.
 
Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.

So what? All that means is that the government is violating employers right to property and contract.
 
Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.

True. Which is why they should not have to provide more.

Every added tax or employee benefit requirement adds to pressures putting small businesses out of business, and large businesses to pass the costs onto the rest of us.

If women want to work, then don't have kids until they are ready to stay home and take care of them while their husbands (or significant others) work to pay the bills. :coffeepap:
 

Why not? Hell, employers who have below a certain number of employees get tax breaks or the government subsidizes the paid leave. Problem solved. The real question is, where is the problem in other countries? There isn't one, and the benefits are numerous. I'm sorry, but the "don't have kids" argument ignores reality. Women are going to have kids regardless.
 

So now you're advocating taxpayers have to pay for peoples paid leave? sigh..
 

Did you miss the part about passing the costs onto the rest of us consumers?

Where do people get the idea that business is a charity? The point of doing business is to make a profit.

It's one thing to offer vacation time, sick leave, and the occasional bonus to keep workers happy and productive. The government already requires 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA for medical issues if you've worked for the employer long enough.

It's another thing to give paid parental leave for months of non-work time.

I'd end up paying for other people to have kids every time businesses raise costs to maintain their profit margins while paying for those parental leave benefits.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think a tax increase has to accompany such a venture?

Who mentioned a tax increase?

Oh right, you're suggesting that the government spend money they doesn't have.
 
Did you miss the part about passing the costs onto the rest of us consumers?
Ok, some businesses raise prices by a tiny amount, this is obviously a soul crushing burden in every other country with paid leave, especially in poorer countries. Oh wait....
The point of doing business is to make a profit.
Where did I disagree?
It's another thing to give paid parental leave for months of non-work time.
I agree, it's something we need.
 
Ok, some businesses raise prices by a tiny amount, this is obviously a soul crushing burden in every other country with paid leave, especially in poorer countries. Oh wait....

Where did I disagree?

I agree, it's something we need.

Only people who think other people are required to take care of them think the way you do.
 
Henrin, where do you think the private sector gets money from?

Don't tell me you're whole point is now going to be that money is debt. That argument gets old real quick.
 
Don't tell me you're whole point is now going to be that money is debt. That argument gets old real quick.

What do you think money is Henrin? In the real world, not fantasy land.
 
What do you think money is Henrin? In the real world, not fantasy land.

Depends on the system in use and how it works. Under the one we have today in this country it's exactly what I said in the prior post.
 
So , knowing that they couldn't afford for one parent to stay home and be with the kids and knowing they would have to put the kids in daycare they chose to have kids. an accident ( possibly neglect I don tknow the specifics ) happened... and now they are blaming it all on their employer. hrm..
 

Frankly, I don't buy it. Day care costs plenty. If you can afford that, you can most likely afford to just stay home for a couple of months.
 
Well I'll let the neanderthal extremist far right fight against an idea that has little to no impact on business at all and works in the rest of the civilized world. :roll:



Congratulations America, due to knuckle dragging Far Right Conservative ideologues you're like, LIBERIA! FREEDOM PARTAY!
 

So because some people won't act responsibly that means it is other people's responsibility to pay for them. And you really don't see an issue with.
 
Frankly, I don't buy it. Day care costs plenty. If you can afford that, you can most likely afford to just stay home for a couple of months.
.... huh? When you stay home without paid leave, you're not bringing in any income. No one is saying people can't afford daycare if they work, the question is, what is better for the baby?
 

They truly don't care. It's the same argument going back 100 years. "EVERYTHING THAT ISNT "natural" with businesses will kill us all!"
 

Mothers should not be required to work at all. The law should require employers to pay men enough to support their dependents.

Unless you're proposing several years paid maternal leave, this is the only way to remedy the problem you refer to.
 

It is not beneficial to any society if only the wealthy have any reasonable hope of having children, or providing a decent upbringing for them. If most families don't have kids because they are being 'responsible,' population growth takes a nosedive. If they do have kids but can't provide a decent upbringing, many of those are likely to be the destitute and criminals of tomorrow. Compared to the social costs of crime and the public expense of arrests, trials and incarceration, reasonable parenting provisions should be a no-brainer.

It must take a very special kind of mind to treat your country's next generation as irrelevant, someone else's problem, a burden to be avoided.
 
I've never really thought about it much, but always been a bit iffy, even leaning against the idea of maternity leave: Why should a business have to bear that cost and, if made to, wouldn't that be a strong incentive to hire fewer young women?

But paid publicly, with no burden on the business save a guarantee that the mother (or doubtless father in some cases) has an equivalent job to come back to afterwards, it seems only right and fair. Career downtime from having children is one the biggest, if not the biggest reasons for the income gap between the sexes. And yet if people stopped having kids, there'd be no future for the country. In a sense it is a public service; it shouldn't have to be a sacrifice.

I'd say that all parenting provisions/allowances should start decreasing after the second child though (maybe even first); the stereotypical welfare queen mother might be a vanishingly small number of women, but that's no reason to keep an incentive out there.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…