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.
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.
eh? Not sure what you mean?
Change your lean.
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?
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.
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:Liberals are all about "let's make the government take care of us." Conservatives are all about "let the people take care of themselves."
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.
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 thought conservatives were all about family values? Apparently I can't be independent or conservative if I want to value families?
And isn't it conservatives who want the more traditional stay at home mom's?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The OP is....I don't think anyone is advocating for 18 year paternity leave (that doesn't even make sense).
And a constantly lower rate of natural increase is (partially) the result of a system that disincentives having children. Thank god for immigration!
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?