There is NO paid maternity leave in the US. Thus, no system. What's realistic? I think paid maternity leave should depend on what your employer can handle, and it should be tied to a tax rate. No leave at all? Higher taxes, because society foots the bill for unhealthy kids. The more generous the leave package, the lower the taxes, because maternity leave can be correlated to healthier kids.
Another thing I think we are missing on this discussion is that parenthood, along with the joys and difficulties that go along with it, is a choice. The tax code gives some benefit to those who choose to have children and while I think it is good, as others have pointed out, for a parent to take time off and spend it with their child I don't think the rest of us should pay for it. As a small business owner I cannot afford to pay for someone to take a year off, or even much time at all (following up on Juice's post). If that is offered by the company and they can afford it I applaud that company for making that decision and the parent for being totally involved in the early days/months of their child's life. My thought is if a family cannot afford to take that time off they may want to think about waiting to have children until they can. After all, it is their responsibility to pay for their child, not mine.
Atleast in Canada the business doesn't pay anything for maternity leave. You just collect EI(employment insurance) for the time you are off. And some places offer a top up. My wife work place doesn't offer a top up, my work place does. So after the first 15weeks, she could go back to work, I could take paternal leave, and get topped up, but we aren't, she is taking the full time off. I just don't get the hate towards a paid year off. I would much rather see stronger restrictions to welfare(drug test/must work/...) and stronger restrictions to EI(people who just work seasonal summer jobs, so they can collect EI all winter and go skiing).
I don't see a problem, at all, with paid maternity/paternity leave, it's just who pays for it. As a (previous) small business owner, there's no way in hell I could afford to do it. I think it's one of those things where it's a "devil's in the details" things, and it's the implementation that would be the issue.
Wow... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suicide-rate-alberta-increase-layoffs-1.3353662 Suicide rate in Alberta up 30% in the wake of the recent oilfield layoffs.
Ok, this is kind of spooky. The exact same room that the San Bernardino shooting took place was used in Fall 2014 for that same group of people for....active shooter training. It's unknown if Farook attended. I kind of wonder if this is when the seed for the attack was planted in his mind. http://www.wtva.com/news/The_Latest_Active_shooter_training_held_in_room_attacked.html
There are 3 states that currently offer paid family leave. This article sums up how the programs work in NJ and California. Each offer 6 weeks paid, fully financed by a tax on workers. In NJ, workers pay a maximum of $29 a year and get up to 2/3 their weekly salary up to $595. In California its 55% up to $1,067 per week. From what the data has shown, paid family leave has not resulted in poorer performance or less profit for employers. Many large employers offer competitive paid family leave because they actually want to retain their employees. This op ed by Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki cited a stat from Google that when they increased paid maternity leave from 12 to 18 weeks, the rate which new moms left the company fell 50%. This actually helped Google since, per the op ed, they were able to avoid high turnover. I would generally agree with Kampf that there is probably an amount of time off where it becomes counterproductive, but we have concrete data here in the US that some form of paid family leave can work without having ill effect on businesses. Also, it's probably a good idea to allow mothers and fathers to be with their newborn for the first couple months of its life, especially for lower income workers. Let's not forget that most companies that offer generous paid family leave also pay their employees much higher salaries. But that's how taxes work. If you don't have kids, do you think you shouldn't have to pay property taxes which go to public schools? Sometimes you pay for something that doesn't directly benefit you because you are part of a society and taxes are the price we all pay to participate in that society. Plus, I'd argue you still benefit even if you don't have kids. It's beneficial for society to have people having kids. Someone's got to pay for my social security when I get older. So we should make it at least a little bit easier for families to have kids (not arguing unlimited kids), which paid family leave does. I mean, you say it yourself that you think it is good for a parent to take time off and spend with their child. But unless you are solidly middle class (depending on the area, I'd even say upper middle class), it's pretty difficult to take a couple months off unpaid.
First bolded section, I have no issue with my property tax and that is what I'm willing to do so that some of the kids won't grow up to be a burden on society. I never said I didn't like kids or that I shouldn't pay taxes. Second bolded part. I'm not sure we should offer a ton of incentives for people to procreate. Yes we need a future work force, but to act like we aren't overpopulated already would be disingenuous. I'm not willing (as an employer) to pay for that leave and again, if you can't afford kids and to take care of them properly maybe you should be waiting. Only rational people will think like that and that is why we see so many lower income and less intelligent people having a lot of children (no, i'm not saying smart people don't have kids. just that they wait longer and have fewer). I know that the income tax deduction isn't much in comparison to what a child costs but you don't have to have a child. That was my point, its a choice. If you choose to have kids you need to pay for them.
Yale couple flees classroom amid free speech chill http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/0...lassroom-amid-free-speech-chill/?intcmp=hpbt4
Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up. Convert who protested outside Parliament over Syrian airstrikes with poster saying 'I am a Muslim... do you trust me enough for a hug?' now faces jail for threatening to bomb MP's house Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hreatening-bomb-MP-s-house.html#ixzz3tklugzoU
I would love it if all the profs had the balls to walk off the job and say, "fuck it, we're done... we demand an unsafe space environment or we're not coming back", and then see how that goes for them.
I don't think the students are coming up with these ideas in isolation. There have to be other teachers and faculty members that are encouraging this line of thought.
I'd be very interested to see some stats on this line of thinking... my gut feeling is that it's only a very small minority of profs that align with this mentality. At least in my limited experience, every prof I've had contact with pushed for challenging and provocative discussion/ideas, and while this "safe space" concept wasn't around, I can't help but think it would go against what the advocated for. University was a place to learn, not just learn things that you were comfortable with.
It isn't stats, but it gives some insight to the mindset. Go here and read the comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-halloween-email_566705a9e4b08e945ff0f2bf
First, let me start off with a great quote. Before you get to the rest of my post, go read the full article and the student letter that was written in response. Read the whole thing, slowly. Ok. This shit at Yale is getting ridiculous. First the Intercultural Affairs Committee sends out an email that asks students to avoid wearing "culturally unaware and insensitive" costumes that could offend minority students. Specifically calling out: feather hairdresses, turbans or black face. Which really boils down to "Don't be assholes to minority students." Perfectly fair requests. Now they didn't callout Hitler/Nazi stuff, but they should have. Then this educated college professor comes out and says "Why can't they wear whatever they want? Even if it offends people?" "Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or yes offensive?" ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Costumes involving feather hairdresses, turbans or black face are not "a little bit" anything. Notice how none of that shit is racially offensive to white people. There are concrete historical reasons those 3 things are NOT okay. There is a difference between making an off color joke, being a little obnoxious and crossing the line. There isn't a debate or conversation or any intellectual knowledge to be gained by a white person wearing any of those 3 things. Especially since Halloween isn't some magical time that everyone reflects on what their costumes represent. If a bunch of black kids wore Nazi costumes at a school with a few Jewish kids, the world would fucking implode. This isn't even a conversation. There is no chilling of free speech. It is telling stupid people, who are saying things that are holding this country back, to shut the fuck up so the smart people can move forward. Anything that is pro feather hairdresses, turbans or black face isn't something that needs to get talked about. We're basically saying with this shit that EVERYTHING is okay and acceptable. If that is the case, then nothing is okay and acceptable. Certain things are fucking wrong. This is one of them. Maybe we should open up the conversation that the Sun revolves around the Earth? I mean, come on, let's not just shut down the other wise of the debate and step on the freedom of speech. Why are we silencing the people who believe the Earth is flat? I don't give a shit about this whole safe space thing, I just want a space where fucking idiots ideas aren't put on the same level as smart people's ideas. Smart people think that people shouldn't be fucking racist assholes. Just don't wear feather hairdresses, turbans or black face, how fucking hard is it NOT to do that? THERE ARE A MILLION OTHER COSTUMES THAT NO ONE IS BOTHERED BY!!! How fucking hard is it not to insult large groups of people who have been institutionally shit on by people who look like you? How fucking hard is it? These students call bullshit and now they're the bad guys? Fuck you. Fuck you and your entitlement that it is okay to tell other people their views don't matter and you can shit on them. Fuck you for playing victim every time people say "You can't shit on us." Who the fuck are these people? And FUCK that Fox News article. Anti-Free Speech protesters? Claimed scalps? Neither of those professors got fired and on their own volition, decided to take time off. None of them were physically attacked or assaulted.
There seems to be some logic missing here; explain the Wayans brother's movie White Girls or Chappelle's use of white face on the Chappelle show and the reaction to it in the same context because that is essentially lampooning white people for their whiteness, is it not? If this is as big a deal as you make it, why don't people lose their minds when this happens too?
"I'm offended by that!" Good, good for you. "But you should..." No, no I shouldn't do anything. Being offended doesn't equate to being a victim, nor does it make you right. It's...a choice and you can always choose to not give a shit, which is what most non-assholes do. The Yale kids choosing to be offended means fuck all. I can appreciate passion and being socially conscious...but direct that energy towards something tangible, useful and....realistic?
What's the deal with this? Why is it not ok to dress like a Plains Indian (or Native American, which I prefer, but Wikipedia disagrees). I can see if you also dragged around a bunch of scalps, but folks do realize that making fun of a culture or group isn't the only reason people dress up as that culture or group, right? People who dress up like cops for Halloween aren't making fun of cops. I know that there is "blackface baggage" in our society but I wasn't aware of "feather hairdress baggage".
Wearing a feather hair dress isn't the same damn thing as dressing up as a Nazi. Dressing up as an 1830s US soldier smeared in bloody feathers would be the same thing. Basically what you're saying is anything that could be related to Judaism is the same as dressing as a Nazi and that's fucking retarded. Same with any costume involving darkening your face = slavery and any turban = kill all the sikhs. YOU ARE NOT ALONE THERE. That could only be interpreted as celebrating the murder of innocent black Americans you insensitive cunt mother fucker.