These fuckheads really picked the wrong time and place to go strong-arm. They'll be lucky to not be sandwich spread by sunrise.
Gadi Schwartz @GadiNBCLA 15m15 minutes ago Glendora, CA Enormous police response at #TylerMall in #Riverside - View from our @NBCLA Chopper 4.
Wonder what their response time was. I can't believe they got that many cops on scene before someone said "oh nevermind they were just looking for some shiny shit."
Like I said, you pretty much have to misconstrue what others are saying to push these over the top entitlement programs through. It was no different than when Canada first introduced the year long maternity leave. No, that is scamming the system. You're not doing any work, you're just riding it out until the benefits are gone. That's treating your employer like shit who's juggling temp hires he can't guarantee permanent employment to because the mother won't give an answer. Take the woman I quoted earlier. She's had 7 months off and expects her boss to immediately fire her replacement. Then, she wants to only be back for her minimum 600 hours, and the employer has to replace her again while making no promises to her temp. That's ok though, it's what she's entitled to under the law. Why do you think placing these unrealistic burdens on employers and screwing over the people actually doing her work is fair? What you've said about families not being to afford children without enormous social welfare is just patently false. Women do it in this country all the time. Every day. We have a higher birth rate than Canada. I also don't think there's anything wrong at all with being a stay at home, so long as the family can make it work. That's why a working spouse (vs a single guy like me) gets a much higher tax return and employers tweak their insurance programs to make adding the family artificially cheap. Here's one of those halfway feminist bitches who doesn't get it: Year-long maternity leave, flexi hours, four day weeks... why would ANY boss hire a woman? Moreover, It doesn't matter how well intentioned employers are. Sooner or later these legislations are going to force their hand. In 20 years when their daughters are sitting at a job interview who's outcome has already been decided, and they're only at the interview so the employer can claim they don't discriminate they'll ask how so much progress did a 180. I have no doubt that when employment discrimination is both obvious and so hard to prove the last people they'll blame is themselves.
Holy shit. Just a LITTLE bit of a crossfire situation there, and I'd really like to know the odds of any of the perps making it out alive.
Kampf, I don't remember you being this much of a misogynist before. 1. You seem to think that staying home with an infant is light work. I'm pretty sure it's the most stressful thing in the world, and that an eight hour work day spent with adults would be a respite in comparison. 2. Using the full amount of maternity leave is no different than optimizing your tax return so you get the most benefit. You do that, right? How is this different, and of all the groups to hate on, why are you picking young mothers? 3. The US is no bastion for how to raise kids in the developed world. Yeah, the birth rate is higher than Canada, but that's due to a far higher amount of fundamental Christians, poorer access to birth control and lower levels of sex education. You rank worse on child literacy, infant mortality and the amount of violent crime and juveniles in prison is astronomical compared to us. Think something might be going wrong in early childhood? 4. Imagine an eight week old baby, who is still nursing and not sleeping through the night. Totally helpless. Now imagine handing that baby to a stranger who makes $6/hr and has to also look after five other kids, all so your employer doesn't have to hire a temp. Sound good? I think the more the system integrates young parents while still allowing them to raise their kids as they see fit, the better off we are. I just can't believe that of all the wasteful and redundant pork barrel government programs you could target, you pick maternity leave, which your country (alone in the developed world) doesn't offer.
To the larger point of maternity leave, any time you pay someone to not work, it's going to warp the incentives, which almost always has unpredicted and undesired consequences. Even something as comparatively tiny as a handful of paid sick days generates all manner of tomfoolery.
You know, I was going to do the whole me saying only rich people should breed would be like you saying all the kids in America grow up becoming criminals and failures, but I didn't think you were actually going to go there. I can post this stuff all day. I don't think I would say all the dads are spending paternity leave on career goals and moms only with their kids, but she's right. If you want we can call it 'taking full advantage' instead of 'abusing the system' but it doesn't change anything. It makes women less employable. Beyond that I'm not real big on the idea of paying someone to be a mom. Tax and insurance incentives are good, necessary even, but asking the company to revolve around your family life isn't equality. I don't think anyone said taking on a full time career doesn't mean making sacrifices, but it's a choice people have to make. You can either make it work or you can't. This idea that you can have it both ways whenever you want, and it's still going to work just as well... I know you're a lot smarter than that.
I'm not one to get all fuzzy about government programs and vulnerable people. For the most part, I think that the government is a bumbling group of inefficiency populated by people who live off the public tit. That being said, look at young children from a perspective of a tax base and employment group. If they're not seen to properly when they're very young, they grow up to be far less productive and useful to society. To give a very general example: married couple that collectively earns $80k pre-tax, so they take home about 70% of that. One parent stops work entirely to raise a baby, and the cost of raising kids to adulthood in Canada is something like $13,000 per kid. This family decides to have two kids, which keeps the birth rate somewhat stable. That means this family is shelling out an additional $26k/year, on half the salary they had before. Or, they keep the salary because both parents go back to work right away but then they're spending somewhere between $700-1100/kid on daycare, in addition to the other expenses. Who could afford to do that? Very few people, if there wasn't a social program to help out. It's one of the rare programs I'll admit to not minding within our country. By your logic, no one should ever retire because CPP is paying people to not work and to just be old. Does that sound reasonable? And I 100% agree - women who elect to have children are typically at an extreme disadvantage. Their career goes on hold for however long the kids are young, they have less future earning potential and employers in general are shy about hiring anyone that might cost them money. We as a gender are ALREADY dealing with the disadvantage; it's not something that will happen in the future if things continue as they are. If you want to save money in government spending, cut defense. Cut it like it's your fucking job, because that's the most obscene mismanagement of wealth I can think of. In Canada's case, I would pinch off all transfer payments to remote reserves and work out a system that limits the amount of programs people who are currently already on assistance have access to. I think those are a better target for pruning the tree than giving young families a thousand bucks a month for the first year of a baby's life.
The Canadian health care system is light years better than our own. No argument there, but DCC you make it seem like you can only choose between two extremes. The EU had 18 weeks of paid parental leave. If you ask me that's a little on the high end, but not a bad program. Cranking it up to a year, and then adding in flex time afterwards, full pay for antenatal appointments, shortening work weeks for the duration of motherhood, and so on is going too far. You act as if when the mother (or dad, we have more mommy bread winners these days) quits, the income for the other spouse remains the same, but that's just not true. Every first world government gives huge tax breaks for dependents, even the US. Like all social programs it needs balance and careful evaluation of the results, not just clapping for the intentions. Cutting defense is a no brainer. Defense and international security assistance makes up 18% of the federal budget. You think you're going to cut out the debt by slashing food stamps? Anyway, that's a whole other topic.
In other news: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/index.html It's not a foggy day after a long rain shower, that's what that city actually looks like. Oh. My. Fuck. I now feel bad for my friends that moved back.
That a system will be abused by a minority and inconvenience few is not justification for their to be NO system. 44 weeks is a lot but in countries with low birth rates (Japan, Russia) it can go into years. A lot of this debate centers on "deserve" as in they don't deserve to get paid for motherhood, or they don't deserve to have both options of career and family...can't say I agree with that. I will say that the incentives are fucked at the lower end of the employment spectrum. A Bojangles employee would abuse the system because the benefits of work are few and far between. An executive would be less likely to abuse it because they get other benefits from working (generally) and those skills erode with time. This is the problem with no living wage: some participants in programs are better off not working. Why is that the governments fault and not Wal Marts I have no idea.
My wife takes her full 50 weeks off. Because it is better for the child to be breast fed as long as possible and better for the child as a whole. But we take a huge fucking hit on income for that year. I don't get the hate for paid maternity leave, that would be at the bottom of my list of social programs to cut. Sure some people will abuse it, but so does every social program.
Find some data to back this up. Based on everything I've read this is wrong. This argument is NOT about hating paid maternity leave. Fucking stop. It's about what appropriations are realistic. Nobody ever said no system either.
America, here is your ultimate even e on why you should raise your voting age to 25. This is the student response to Yale professors who stood up for free speech and against safe spaces: So if that's not visible to you, these privileged little shits are saying teachers who work in STEM are out of touch with reality. STEM is the most important thing we as humans have going for us, but it's the geniuses that have it wrong. What we need is more gender studies and SJW bullshit. A teacher had to quit now because of this. Another victory for the retard Crybullies, who's next?
With anything, it should scale with the nature of the company. Walmart can take the hit for 6 months of full leave when a small business with a handful of employees, one whom is pregnant, may not be able to. Put the burden of companies that can afford to take the hit. People should know their benefits packages and how good they are when they seek employment. Don't be surprised when the boutique company you work for can't afford for you take a year off.