• 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!

Mothers not employed are in the “work force”.

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,216
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Time is an expense of having children. You must decide if it is important to you. The world will be just fine without your kids, there's no reason we should pay you to have them.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The SS system is not well-funded to begin with. Your point is well-taken, but there are piecemeal provisions to offset some of this disadvantage--the stay at home parent being able to draw off the working parent's benefits in some situations; SSI benefits/free medicare for low income retirees; inheritance laws entitling a spouse not to be cut out completely; equitable distributions of property/community property provisions in divorce cases; child and spousal support provisions come to mind right off the bat. Nonetheless, I would support making SS income-contingent so that we could afford to boost payments up for people most vulnerable and could support making that a factor in determining enhanced benefit levels.
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Time is an expense of having children. You must decide if it is important to you. The world will be just fine without your kids, there's no reason we should pay you to have them.

Why should having children be negatively rewarded? Also there is no risk at all of you having to pay for anything, our country is monetarily sovereign, no reason to tax before spending.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.

Change your lean.
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When you seem to be advocating that stay-at-home parents be subsidized by the government, you're leaning so far left you're about to tip over.

I thought conservatives were all about family values? Apparently I can't be independent or conservative if I want to value families?
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And isn't it conservatives who want the more traditional stay at home mom's? I don't see how this is anything at all related to being left leaning.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I thought conservatives were all about family values? Apparently I can't be independent or conservative if I want to value families?

Conservatives in Australia arguing for the same thing:

Abbott's $5.5b baby scheme 'may help close pay gap'

If labels are that important to you and not the actual content of the argument then that doesn't say much for your debating ability here. :)

And isn't it conservatives who want the more traditional stay at home mom's? I don't see how this is anything at all related to being left leaning.

Liberals are all about "let's make the government take care of us." Conservatives are all about "let the people take care of themselves." We already fairly subsidize stay-at-home parents. They are entitled to a percentage of their spouse's Social Security after only ten years of marriage. They are subsidized through their spouses and workers' tax credits. They are most often provided health insurance through their spouse's healthcare policy at work. If their income qualifies, they are eligible for food stamps and Section 8 housing assistance.

In fact? I'd take a WAG that there are more women enjoying stay-at-home status who are collecting welfare than there are stay-at-home moms whose husbands earn a living substantial enough for them to do so.

Every time a liberal comes up with a hair-brained idea to collect more money from the government, we get further and further away from democracy. Why can we not stand on our own two feet? Who is supposed to put more into the pot to further subsidize stay-at-home parents? Those people who are working for a better life. Work for your own. Stop wanting to take mine.
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Liberals are all about "let's make the government take care of us." Conservatives are all about "let the people take care of themselves."
How is this the government taking care of anyone? Mothers are taking care of their children, the government wouldn't be doing that. This isn't hairbrained. A Basic Income Guarantee had been applied in the past and worked quite well:

Both Friedman and Nixon supported an idea like this, a good read on how to make a more efficient welfare type program:

"WHITEHORSE, YK—Try to imagine a town where the government paid each of the residents a living income, regardless of who they were and what they did, and a Soviet hamlet in the early 1980s may come to mind.

But this experiment happened much closer to home. For a four-year period in the '70s, the poorest families in Dauphin, Manitoba, were granted a guaranteed minimum income by the federal and provincial governments. Thirty-five years later all that remains of the experiment are 2,000 boxes of documents that have gathered dust in the Canadian archives building in Winnipeg."
[...]
"Undeterred, [Evelyn Forget, a professor of health sciences at the University of Manitoba] has begun to piece together the story by using the census, health records, and the testimony of the program's participants. What is now emerging reveals that the program could have counted many successes."

A Town Without Poverty?: Canada's only experiment in guaranteed income finally gets reckoning | The Dominion

Stop trying to label this, its been embraced by both sides.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,593
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.

SS is partly based on what you put in. If you put nothing in, and take a bunch out, the system fails...Huh...imagine that. We currently have a bunch of people putting nothing in and expecting a bunch back and it is failing. So no, stay at home moms/dads should not get added benefits.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,765
Reaction score
53,396
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.

Work is generally defined as labor in exchange for pay, not counting volunteer work done for others or work done on simply improving your own home or mowing your own lawn. The reason that those SS benefits are "reduced" is that no contributions were made to SS while doing this "work". Would you suggest placing a dollar value on this "self defined" work and levying SS and FIT upon that value? If not then why should this "self defined" work be considered equivalent to a conventional job?
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
25,213
Reaction score
11,691
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For those that wish to discuss political lean, i'll make this thread easy enough to follow along. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid maternity leave.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I thought conservatives were all about family values? Apparently I can't be independent or conservative if I want to value families?

The utmost family value is Independence and Self-Sufficiency. Pretty much the total opposite of what you're suggesting.

And isn't it conservatives who want the more traditional stay at home mom's?

Yes, with a working Husband/Father who supports their wife and children. We already have a vision of what you're suggesting - the rcurrent welfare system, which pays single, non-working mothers gobs of cash to do nothing every day. How would your system differ? If anything it would seem that EVERY mother would draw this "pay" in your system, dramatically INCREASING our debt and defecit in the process.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
For those that wish to discuss political lean, i'll make this thread easy enough to follow along. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid maternity leave.

Nor should it. Those women shouldn't have been in the workforce to begin with, why the hell would we reward them for not being able to choose between being a mother and an employee?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.

Since unemployment insurance is paid to an individual based on their income prior to losing their job, to a particular maximum, you should answer your own question first - what income level should be assigned and accrued to a stay at home mom/dad in lieu of actual income? In addition, most people on unemployment insurance are required to be gainfully seeking employment - how would you gibe this with stay at home moms/dads who have no intention of doing so.

That said, if I'm not mistaken, parents receive significant tax benefits and payments from the government solely for being able to procreate and these benefits/payments increase with the number of children pumped out. Are you going to suggest that any family who has a stay at home mom/dad is eligible for unemployment insurance but all other government benefits/payments related to children are eliminated for them until such time as the stay at home parent enters or reenters the workforce?

I don't for a minute denigrade or belittle the societal benefit stay at home parents provide both to their children and to society as a whole but to suggest parents aren't adequately compensated for bringing a child into the world is misleading.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
25,213
Reaction score
11,691
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nor should it. Those women shouldn't have been in the workforce to begin with, why the hell would we reward them for not being able to choose between being a mother and an employee?

Why do you believe it is sufficient to respond to a positive statement, "The U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that does not mandate paid maternity leave", with a normative statement, "Nor should it"?
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
For those that wish to discuss political lean, i'll make this thread easy enough to follow along. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid maternity leave.

There is a world of difference between 'maternity leave' for a newborn/adoption, which I believe can be filed for under temporary disability in some areas, and an 18 year 'maternity leave'.....

Having children is a choice, not something the rest of the workforce should have to contribute to a monetary pool to support someone who makes that choice.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
25,213
Reaction score
11,691
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a world of difference between 'maternity leave' for a newborn/adoption, which I believe can be filed for under temporary disability in some areas, and an 18 year 'maternity leave'.....

I don't think anyone is advocating for 18 year paternity leave (that doesn't even make sense).

Having children is a choice, not something the rest of the workforce should have to contribute to a monetary pool to support someone who makes that choice.

And a constantly lower rate of natural increase is (partially) the result of a system that disincentives having children. Thank god for immigration!
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,216
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why should having children be negatively rewarded? Also there is no risk at all of you having to pay for anything, our country is monetarily sovereign, no reason to tax before spending.

What if I wanna own a really nice car. It takes time to service it, and keep it clean and detail it. That's work, shouldn't I get paid?
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think anyone is advocating for 18 year paternity leave (that doesn't even make sense).
The OP is....

And a constantly lower rate of natural increase is (partially) the result of a system that disincentives having children. Thank god for immigration!

Perhaps people are just finally realizing that being able to afford having kids is important. You know, paying for their upbringing from money they earn?

This country is no longer agriculturally based, where having 6 kids gave you workers on the farm to support the family. It's not necessary to have kids to survive in today's world.

There is no cause to celebrate 'immigration' other than those who come legally, work and give something back to the community.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
As anyone who was ever raised by a mother who stayed at home and could legitimately recall the work their mother did to keep things in order and to raise them, they should be able to come to the conclusion that what their mother did could very well fit into the category of “labor”.

If one agrees that a stay at home mom, or even a dad, is in fact a “laborer” should it then logically follow that they should be offered the same rights as people who are employed? The difference here is that one is employed (being paid) and the other is laboring, but not being paid. Should a stay at home parent have SS benefits diminished? As it stand now those benefits are diminished if a parent decides to stay at home and raise a child.

Should a parent receive some kind of unemployment benefits for deciding to stay at home and labor? As it stand now their future earnings and employable skills are diminished if they decide to labor at home and raise kids. Could this be a reason why more women are working professionals early in life, and foregoing motherhood?

Right now our employable population is measured by something called the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), which measures the amount of people able to work. This number leaves out those who stay at home to raise children. As it stands now the LPR is at 63.4%, and I am positive that this number would drastically increase if being a child raiser was included as participating in the labor force.

With all this being said I think it is due time to consider and discuss how we monetarily ignore the most important job of all, motherhood and raising children.

I understand and appreciate your point. I was a single mom for several years and was forced to make a choice between being a good mother and building a career. Both could simply not be done and done well; kids won. However, I do fear that it would incentivize people to have children they don't really want and won't properly parent. How would you avoid that?
 
Top Bottom