Why does the United States not have mandated paid maternity

Page 4 of 11 [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,033
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

16 Apr 2021, 2:34 pm

AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
How is it difficult to comprehend that without regulation, employers do what's profitable, not necessarily what's right? Why allow employers to be the gatekeepers that decide whether you get healthcare or maternity/paternity leave when it can simply be required and provided to all?

It's even worse than that. Without regulation businesses have to be a cheap as possible to compete. It takes one bad actor to spoil the rest. Everyone likes to single out the worst people, like Jeff Bezos, but the problem isn't specific to any individual CEO. Every single one of them will do whatever they can to cut costs. Having rules is the only thing that can stop them. That or unions, but the US decided to destroy unions now that the baby boomers are on the way out. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you!


I read an article or two saying that the USA is about to see the biggest labour movement it's seen in a generation as huge sectors of the economy begin to organize & unionize. Especially order fulfilment places like Amazon, delivery services, Uber drivers and other gig economy workers etc -> all the major businesses that have been abusing people by underpaying them for their labour.

Could happen. 8)

The mountains in Mexico are quite beautiful. Let the employees have the companies. Let the unions take over completely. Get CEO's and dedicated employees to buy land in Mexico, move there, open new businesses, and see what happens in the USA when unions have no creative ideas to leech.


Very strange to me that you're a corporate cheerleader instead of pro fair pay & benefits for labour services rendered.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,265
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Apr 2021, 4:08 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
How is it difficult to comprehend that without regulation, employers do what's profitable, not necessarily what's right? Why allow employers to be the gatekeepers that decide whether you get healthcare or maternity/paternity leave when it can simply be required and provided to all?

It's even worse than that. Without regulation businesses have to be a cheap as possible to compete. It takes one bad actor to spoil the rest. Everyone likes to single out the worst people, like Jeff Bezos, but the problem isn't specific to any individual CEO. Every single one of them will do whatever they can to cut costs. Having rules is the only thing that can stop them. That or unions, but the US decided to destroy unions now that the baby boomers are on the way out. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you!


I read an article or two saying that the USA is about to see the biggest labour movement it's seen in a generation as huge sectors of the economy begin to organize & unionize. Especially order fulfilment places like Amazon, delivery services, Uber drivers and other gig economy workers etc -> all the major businesses that have been abusing people by underpaying them for their labour.

Could happen. 8)

The mountains in Mexico are quite beautiful. Let the employees have the companies. Let the unions take over completely. Get CEO's and dedicated employees to buy land in Mexico, move there, open new businesses, and see what happens in the USA when unions have no creative ideas to leech.


Very strange to me that you're a corporate cheerleader instead of pro fair pay & benefits for labour services rendered.

I believe that individuals and businesses are perfectly capable on their own to set what value they are, 1. willing to sell things for, and 2. willing to buy things for. Somewhere in between is an actual value that allows both buyer and seller to win. This is called trade.

Individuals and businesses don't need help in setting prices for goods and services, nor do they need any help deciding how much any amount of given labor is to them. If that is what it's worth to an employer, then it is fair. Employees, likewise, don't need any help setting a value on the work they are capable of providing. Employees might say their labor is worth more. Employers might say that labor is worth less. Somewhere in between is the ACTUAL value that both parties can agree on. If pay at one company is not what a potential employee expects, he can seek work elsewhere. If an employer thinks he can find cheaper labor, he should go looking for it. If no employee is willing to work for less than a certain amount, then the employer has to decide how much his business is worth to him. Does he want to stay in business or not? And THEN he may find that the real value of employers is higher than he thought to begin with. That's because employers and employees exist in this thing called reality, and that reality allows people to set their own worth and negotiate an agreement on actual value.

The result is what both agree on is fair and works best in the interests of both. There's no need for bully unions to represent a collective and tell the employer how to run his business. There's no need for the government to interfere and set wages. An employer may freely CHOOSE to allow unionization as a cooperative effort to offset the responsibility of having to keep employees happy, but it is not the place of unions to make administrative decisions that affect company direction. Besides, HR departments and personnel can accomplish the same thing.

It's just so ridiculously simple. You don't like how a company treats employees? Don't work for them. You don't like an employee's attitude? Fire him. If you want good employees to keep coming back to work, pay them well and include paid parental leave.

As far as paid parental leave goes...another problem with it is that it's going to end up costing the company in lost productivity no matter how you play it. So you can make salaries and commissions more attractive by offering more of it but NOT allow for parental leave. This puts management of money squarely in the hands of the employee with complete control over how/when the employee requests leave along with maintaining an emergency fund. Or the company can offer a lower wage but offer paid parental leave. It's smarter and more effective for the employee to maintain control over his money and keep about 3 months to a year of expenses in a savings account or an investment. Then you can take off work any time you want and you don't even have to worry about how you're going to pay for everything. Why make the government and the taxpayers by extension responsible for something individuals are really supposed to do for themselves anyway? Wouldn't leaving what employers and employees together consider what is fair pay and benefits actually be more fair and beneficial?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 75,057
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Apr 2021, 4:32 pm

No matter what anybody says, I believe "paid maternity leave" is something an enlightened society should do.

Economically, women have to work these days. When a woman works and has a kid, she has to get expensive childcare. Or she has to leave the kid with relatives or whatever. Working women frequently don't have enough time to be really nurturing to their kids.

Yes, I do believe "paid maternity leave" is the way to go.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,033
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

16 Apr 2021, 5:30 pm

We also have paid paternity leave here. My friend just had nearly 1 year of paid paternity leave. I'm not sure if both people are allowed to take leave or if only one of the two. His wife is a full time mother of 3, so doesn't work an outside job anyways.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,033
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

16 Apr 2021, 6:02 pm

I do wonder if part of the reason some Americans oppose maternity/paternity leave is because they're attitude is "Well, I never got to be home with my baby, so, F all these younger/other people! Why should they get what I didn't?? F maternity/paternity leave!"


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 627

17 Apr 2021, 2:44 am

AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
How is it difficult to comprehend that without regulation, employers do what's profitable, not necessarily what's right? Why allow employers to be the gatekeepers that decide whether you get healthcare or maternity/paternity leave when it can simply be required and provided to all?

It's even worse than that. Without regulation businesses have to be a cheap as possible to compete. It takes one bad actor to spoil the rest. Everyone likes to single out the worst people, like Jeff Bezos, but the problem isn't specific to any individual CEO. Every single one of them will do whatever they can to cut costs. Having rules is the only thing that can stop them. That or unions, but the US decided to destroy unions now that the baby boomers are on the way out. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you!


I read an article or two saying that the USA is about to see the biggest labour movement it's seen in a generation as huge sectors of the economy begin to organize & unionize. Especially order fulfilment places like Amazon, delivery services, Uber drivers and other gig economy workers etc -> all the major businesses that have been abusing people by underpaying them for their labour.

Could happen. 8)

The mountains in Mexico are quite beautiful. Let the employees have the companies. Let the unions take over completely. Get CEO's and dedicated employees to buy land in Mexico, move there, open new businesses, and see what happens in the USA when unions have no creative ideas to leech.


Very strange to me that you're a corporate cheerleader instead of pro fair pay & benefits for labour services rendered.

I believe that individuals and businesses are perfectly capable on their own to set what value they are, 1. willing to sell things for, and 2. willing to buy things for. Somewhere in between is an actual value that allows both buyer and seller to win. This is called trade.

Individuals and businesses don't need help in setting prices for goods and services, nor do they need any help deciding how much any amount of given labor is to them. If that is what it's worth to an employer, then it is fair. Employees, likewise, don't need any help setting a value on the work they are capable of providing. Employees might say their labor is worth more. Employers might say that labor is worth less. Somewhere in between is the ACTUAL value that both parties can agree on. If pay at one company is not what a potential employee expects, he can seek work elsewhere. If an employer thinks he can find cheaper labor, he should go looking for it. If no employee is willing to work for less than a certain amount, then the employer has to decide how much his business is worth to him. Does he want to stay in business or not? And THEN he may find that the real value of employers is higher than he thought to begin with. That's because employers and employees exist in this thing called reality, and that reality allows people to set their own worth and negotiate an agreement on actual value.

The result is what both agree on is fair and works best in the interests of both. There's no need for bully unions to represent a collective and tell the employer how to run his business. There's no need for the government to interfere and set wages. An employer may freely CHOOSE to allow unionization as a cooperative effort to offset the responsibility of having to keep employees happy, but it is not the place of unions to make administrative decisions that affect company direction. Besides, HR departments and personnel can accomplish the same thing.

It's just so ridiculously simple. You don't like how a company treats employees? Don't work for them. You don't like an employee's attitude? Fire him. If you want good employees to keep coming back to work, pay them well and include paid parental leave.

As far as paid parental leave goes...another problem with it is that it's going to end up costing the company in lost productivity no matter how you play it. So you can make salaries and commissions more attractive by offering more of it but NOT allow for parental leave. This puts management of money squarely in the hands of the employee with complete control over how/when the employee requests leave along with maintaining an emergency fund. Or the company can offer a lower wage but offer paid parental leave. It's smarter and more effective for the employee to maintain control over his money and keep about 3 months to a year of expenses in a savings account or an investment. Then you can take off work any time you want and you don't even have to worry about how you're going to pay for everything. Why make the government and the taxpayers by extension responsible for something individuals are really supposed to do for themselves anyway? Wouldn't leaving what employers and employees together consider what is fair pay and benefits actually be more fair and beneficial?


Theory, theory and more theory. Youre a lot like Karl Marx. A genius, no doubt, but everything you say is just theory. Nothing you said has been verified empirically.


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 627

17 Apr 2021, 2:46 am

AngelRho wrote:
salad wrote:
I applaud your effort but none of what you wrote changed my mind because everything you said was purely theoretical. What happened historically practically shows that before these laws and bills and government initiatives took place segregation, discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant. You can try again to change my mind, but counterfactuals and hypotheticals dont change my mind when the record of history shows otherwise.

Everything I said IS fact. You are completely ignorant of history. What IS theory is that the change from discriminatory practices to voluntary inclusion driven by competition and innovative people would inexorably happen, and it remains theory ONLY because government policies refuse to get out of the way. MOST individuals and businesses prefer diversity in the marketplace, regardless of sexual orientation (you can buy a wedding cake), race (I never see black people mistreated at the grocery store), or religion (I’m an outspoken Southern Baptist, my wife was raised United Methodist, and I’ve had very good, close friends among Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and even Wiccans). If discrimination doesn’t happen, then discrimination is pure fantasy, plain and simple. And it is that fantasy that drives the push towards MANDATORY parental leave. You don’t need a government regulation for that. All you need is a company offering paid parental leave as a perk, you snipe the best and the brightest from comparable businesses using this perk to lure them out, and that alone will force other companies to offer the same or better perks to keep other businesses from stealing their best employees. This isn’t simply theory. Companies already do this with existing benefit systems.

The only drawback is that industries in the US cooperate rather than compete, which, again, is supported by excessive government interference. In a competitive market, company policies would naturally achieve an equilibrium, and established companies could mutually agree not to offer benefits that would cause movement among employees. All it would take would be one innovative individual to recognize a need, pull employees together among all companies in the industry, offer a unique and attractive set of benefits the others don’t, and the rest of the industry would be forced to adapt until they reach a new equilibrium or one or more competing businesses is forced to shut down.

Discriminatory policies are the result of a society and culture struggling to keep up with change. Jim Crow laws are/were LAWS established by the government to institutionalize racism. Jim Crow laws functioned to marginalize personal freedoms and were at odds with the founding principles of the United States. They are the result of government interference, NOT government protecting its citizens. Overturning Jim Crow laws are a matter of government walking back its grip on human life, not a matter of increasing its control. Affirmative action, on the other hand, operates on the fiction and fantasy of victimhood.


Calling me ignorant doesnt change the fact that what you wrote is just as valid as communism: works great on paper, backfires historically and practically never works.


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


NoClearMind53
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

17 Apr 2021, 9:24 pm

salad wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
How is it difficult to comprehend that without regulation, employers do what's profitable, not necessarily what's right? Why allow employers to be the gatekeepers that decide whether you get healthcare or maternity/paternity leave when it can simply be required and provided to all?

It's even worse than that. Without regulation businesses have to be a cheap as possible to compete. It takes one bad actor to spoil the rest. Everyone likes to single out the worst people, like Jeff Bezos, but the problem isn't specific to any individual CEO. Every single one of them will do whatever they can to cut costs. Having rules is the only thing that can stop them. That or unions, but the US decided to destroy unions now that the baby boomers are on the way out. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you!


I read an article or two saying that the USA is about to see the biggest labour movement it's seen in a generation as huge sectors of the economy begin to organize & unionize. Especially order fulfilment places like Amazon, delivery services, Uber drivers and other gig economy workers etc -> all the major businesses that have been abusing people by underpaying them for their labour.

Could happen. 8)

The mountains in Mexico are quite beautiful. Let the employees have the companies. Let the unions take over completely. Get CEO's and dedicated employees to buy land in Mexico, move there, open new businesses, and see what happens in the USA when unions have no creative ideas to leech.


Very strange to me that you're a corporate cheerleader instead of pro fair pay & benefits for labour services rendered.

I believe that individuals and businesses are perfectly capable on their own to set what value they are, 1. willing to sell things for, and 2. willing to buy things for. Somewhere in between is an actual value that allows both buyer and seller to win. This is called trade.

Individuals and businesses don't need help in setting prices for goods and services, nor do they need any help deciding how much any amount of given labor is to them. If that is what it's worth to an employer, then it is fair. Employees, likewise, don't need any help setting a value on the work they are capable of providing. Employees might say their labor is worth more. Employers might say that labor is worth less. Somewhere in between is the ACTUAL value that both parties can agree on. If pay at one company is not what a potential employee expects, he can seek work elsewhere. If an employer thinks he can find cheaper labor, he should go looking for it. If no employee is willing to work for less than a certain amount, then the employer has to decide how much his business is worth to him. Does he want to stay in business or not? And THEN he may find that the real value of employers is higher than he thought to begin with. That's because employers and employees exist in this thing called reality, and that reality allows people to set their own worth and negotiate an agreement on actual value.

The result is what both agree on is fair and works best in the interests of both. There's no need for bully unions to represent a collective and tell the employer how to run his business. There's no need for the government to interfere and set wages. An employer may freely CHOOSE to allow unionization as a cooperative effort to offset the responsibility of having to keep employees happy, but it is not the place of unions to make administrative decisions that affect company direction. Besides, HR departments and personnel can accomplish the same thing.

It's just so ridiculously simple. You don't like how a company treats employees? Don't work for them. You don't like an employee's attitude? Fire him. If you want good employees to keep coming back to work, pay them well and include paid parental leave.

As far as paid parental leave goes...another problem with it is that it's going to end up costing the company in lost productivity no matter how you play it. So you can make salaries and commissions more attractive by offering more of it but NOT allow for parental leave. This puts management of money squarely in the hands of the employee with complete control over how/when the employee requests leave along with maintaining an emergency fund. Or the company can offer a lower wage but offer paid parental leave. It's smarter and more effective for the employee to maintain control over his money and keep about 3 months to a year of expenses in a savings account or an investment. Then you can take off work any time you want and you don't even have to worry about how you're going to pay for everything. Why make the government and the taxpayers by extension responsible for something individuals are really supposed to do for themselves anyway? Wouldn't leaving what employers and employees together consider what is fair pay and benefits actually be more fair and beneficial?


Theory, theory and more theory. Youre a lot like Karl Marx. A genius, no doubt, but everything you say is just theory. Nothing you said has been verified empirically.

Not even theory. Just wordy propaganda. Marx wasn’t perfect, but his criticisms of capitalism were astute.



NoClearMind53
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

17 Apr 2021, 9:31 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Because Americans don't demand it & American politicians have been good at selling citizens their corporate donors' lies about how providing for them would lead to communism blah blah blah.

Meanwhile we have maternity/paternity leave as well as universal healthcare and other things here in Canada.. that apparently the USA, with all it's money, can't afford.

Probably has something to do with all the money you guys spend on bombing other countries instead of building up your own.

The US doesn’t actually have money. What it doesn’t borrow from other countries in bonds it borrows against future taxes. If another global conflict broke out and the US was actually defeated, other superpowers would find themselves without a revenue stream and the world economy would be destroyed. The US economy is in a remarkably similar position as pre-NAZI Germany after the First World War. It’s just nobody is calling us on it. I wonder if the US national debt is the biggest deterrent since the nuclear bomb.

The last 4 years have been a blessing in that we’ve MOSTLY kept to ourselves militarily, which is as it should be. Our new administration doesn’t have quite the scruples as Trump did for avoiding international conflict, so we’ll just have to wait and see whether we can continue minding our own business. Odds favor getting involved in someone else’s war in the next 8 years. I say we annex Quebec and see if we can’t persuade Canada to throw in Alberta for free.

The immigration problem will meanwhile cause a significant drop in Mexico’s population. I think we should get together and independently start a colony somewhere in the mountains and bring in gangs from El Salvador as a security force. Not sure how we’d convince Mexico’s government to grant us a tax-free, free state, but I suppose that’s just a minor growing pain of a micronation. One thing’s for sure, though...you have a higher likelihood of a business operating there voluntarily offering paid maternity leave than you would in a nation that DEMANDS it.

I don’t want to say “I have to grant maternity leave.” I’d rather say “I get to grant maternity leave.” If the employees are valuable to the company, they are worth investing in even when they are unable to work. If you love them, you take care of them. You return value for value, and that means investing in them and their families. A new business that lacks a steady income stream won’t be able to do it. But companies that generate enough wealth to support parental leave for all employees can also afford to snipe employees from companies that don’t offer leave even when they can afford it, which means competition, not government, forces companies to offer incentives for employees to stay with them.


So, you're saying the newborn baby of a highly valued employee deserves a better start at life than one you're simply abusing for their labour? :chin: And only IF the employer wants to grant them leave? They could decide they're too valuable & needed at work and not let them have their leave.

Companies don't pay out of pocket for maternity/paternity leave. It's paid out via government - through Employment Insurance - which is paid into by every employee And every employer in the entire Province via payroll deductions & employer contributions, much like any group insurance policy.

Because all babies deserve parents around during their earliest days. USA doesn't comprehend this - same same for healthcare. Too much "I gots mine, F everybody else!" mentality going on down there.

People have this rugged individualist survivalist mindset that’s completely divorced from reality in modern capitalism. They decry public services as “handouts” when they apply directly to individuals, but don’t even pay attention to all the collectivism that must go on behind the scenes to keep a capitalist economy functioning.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,265
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Apr 2021, 11:25 am

goldfish21 wrote:
I do wonder if part of the reason some Americans oppose maternity/paternity leave is because they're attitude is "Well, I never got to be home with my baby, so, F all these younger/other people! Why should they get what I didn't?? F maternity/paternity leave!"

No, because the usual pattern in American society since the Depression has been “MY children will never have to experience what I went through. They’re going to have a better life than I did.” One generation goes bankrupt, bank takes the farm, families moved into subsidized housing, Daddy took a job with the TVA. They pushed their own kids off the farms and into colleges after which they qualified for professional jobs and moved to the suburbs. Their kids had a fairly easy life, but were heavily disciplined if their grades slipped. So their attitude (closer to my generation) was MY kids aren’t going to have parents who abuse them. So when a little talking to doesn’t get results from Johnny, they get him tested for ADHD, which at this point is a novel thing treated with Ritalin. Millennials aren’t any different with their own kids, it’s just more of the same. The difference is a lot of enabling combined with an utter lack of responsibility. Back in the 80’s, rich kids had it SOOOOO HAAAAARD because dad didn’t buy his baby girl the right color sports car. Nowadays kids are actually comparing anti-anxiety meds and complaining about changing doctors. And, of course, they’ll eventually say MY kids will NEVER have to go through what happened to me because I’ll make sure MY kids see the best doctors and get the right pills.

Same goes for paid maternity leave. First it’s about giving mothers special treatment...which, honestly, any kind of medical ordeal will be understood as requiring leave, such as major illness and surgery. No one is disputing that maternity leave is necessary. It’s a question of how long and who pays for it. So when you have politicos making mandated maternity leave a campaign plank, young adult mothers are going to think, “It’s illegal to fire pregnant mothers and women who’ve just had babies, insurance can’t refuse L&D claims, you can take up to a year, and your company HAS to hold your job for you? Heck yeah! I don’t want MY daughter to go through what I went through.” If the pattern holds, those daughters will begin to think that paid, state-subsidized, maybe even indefinite leave is an entitlement. And while that won’t be a problem for them, there will always be something else to get mad about.

If women get maternity leave through the state, isn’t it only fair that men get parental leave, too? So rather than, say, at worst 50% of the labor force out of work at any given time, it’s logically possible that you could have up to 100% of the labor force staying at home for a year and saying they believe it’s their God-given right to not work and still get paid, anyway.

That is harmful to the job market in the long run because if everyone is getting paid and nobody is working, that means the only employable people are older people who are already parents and/or over childbearing age. You can say there are laws against age discrimination and that companies have to have a quota of young people at a certain ages, but that won’t stop businesses from having hiring freezes. Then there’s no law anyone can pass to force compliance when a company literally CANNOT hire another worker.

The day will eventually come when governments are stretched too thin to enforce mandates. When government becomes too unreliable to provide programs and services and enforce manifold laws that cannot work in the long-term, individuals and companies will rely on themselves to offer attractive incentives to keep the best workers.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,033
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

19 Apr 2021, 2:29 pm

Blah blah blah blah blah. :roll:

No maternity/paternity, no healthcare, $7.25 min wage in 2021, record cash in corporate accounts & stock market valuations.. yep, unchecked capitalism determines a fair equilibrium point for all! :lol:

I heard some faux news talking head say that some European countries were “experimenting,” with giving families with children $x/month to see if it helps families and the economy.. ummm, hello?? Canada is right next door and we’ve had this since 1944.

Americans are just convinced that their tax dollars can only pay for corporate subsidies and endless war vs the betterment of citizens lives for some reason.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,780
Location: The Oort Cloud

19 Apr 2021, 3:07 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah. :roll:

No maternity/paternity, no healthcare, $7.25 min wage in 2021, record cash in corporate accounts & stock market valuations.. yep, unchecked capitalism determines a fair equilibrium point for all! :lol:

I heard some faux news talking head say that some European countries were “experimenting,” with giving families with children $x/month to see if it helps families and the economy.. ummm, hello?? Canada is right next door and we’ve had this since 1944.

Americans are just convinced that their tax dollars can only pay for corporate subsidies and endless war vs the betterment of citizens lives for some reason.


Yeah, the level of brainwashing is pretty epic.

I've heard it said that the U.S. is an "undeveloping nation." I tend to agree, especially since so many of my countrymen are convinced that our taxes should never be invested in the welfare of our people.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,653
Location: Adelaide, Australia

20 Apr 2021, 7:00 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah. :roll:

No maternity/paternity, no healthcare, $7.25 min wage in 2021, record cash in corporate accounts & stock market valuations.. yep, unchecked capitalism determines a fair equilibrium point for all! :lol:

I heard some faux news talking head say that some European countries were “experimenting,” with giving families with children $x/month to see if it helps families and the economy.. ummm, hello?? Canada is right next door and we’ve had this since 1944.

Americans are just convinced that their tax dollars can only pay for corporate subsidies and endless war vs the betterment of citizens lives for some reason.


Yeah, the level of brainwashing is pretty epic.

I've heard it said that the U.S. is an "undeveloping nation." I tend to agree, especially since so many of my countrymen are convinced that our taxes should never be invested in the welfare of our people.


Is there any hope you can develop again?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,265
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Apr 2021, 11:05 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah. :roll:

No maternity/paternity, no healthcare, $7.25 min wage in 2021, record cash in corporate accounts & stock market valuations.. yep, unchecked capitalism determines a fair equilibrium point for all! :lol:

I heard some faux news talking head say that some European countries were “experimenting,” with giving families with children $x/month to see if it helps families and the economy.. ummm, hello?? Canada is right next door and we’ve had this since 1944.

Americans are just convinced that their tax dollars can only pay for corporate subsidies and endless war vs the betterment of citizens lives for some reason.


Yeah, the level of brainwashing is pretty epic.

I've heard it said that the U.S. is an "undeveloping nation." I tend to agree, especially since so many of my countrymen are convinced that our taxes should never be invested in the welfare of our people.

Oh, I absolutely do believe that taxes should be invested in the welfare of a nation's people. My problem is what often passes for welfare often isn't. I've told this same story in detail a few times before when we applied for a program to help with paying for housing when we were both out of work. The short version: After about two months having our paperwork rejected on technicalities and unreasonable deadlines, we were told not to come back because we're white and married.

The only sympathy I ever got was when I took our kids to the health department for vaccinations. The way that processed worked was you made an appointment, showed up early, made sure you brought coloring books, toys, and extra diapers/formula for the little one, and waited 3 hours for a nurse to come out and say they were out of time and please reschedule for tomorrow...which you couldn't do because the next day was always already booked up. So you'd reschedule, rinse and repeat, and if you were LUCKY you'd get all your shots for your kids. So on this particular day when I succeeded in getting my kids vaxxed, I went to pay for the shots. The lady at the desk told me how much it would cost, which was significantly more than I'd planned for. I told her I needed to go back out to the van for a second to get enough cash to make up the difference. She asked, "Wait...you pay taxes, don't you?" I said, "Of course, I do. Why?" She said, "Don't worry about it, you've already paid for it." I was confused because I really did have the money. But she was insistent and I chose to be grateful.

It's frustrating because it's against the law to discriminate based on race, yet what happens in the real world actually is racist. I don't want to stray off topic... It's just that the welfare system itself is inequitable and enables the same abuses that it purports to remedy. Mandated parental leave has the effect of rewarding people for not working. You can make the case all you want that you're trying to protect workers, but if government is going to protect workers, then who is going to protect employers? I don't think protecting poor people of one race or another is mutually exclusive with protecting another group, and I don't think protecting employers AND employees is mutually exclusive, either. But as long as someone is being excluded as the result of regulation, employers will always fall victim to greedy and envious people. The main thing we need to be concerned with when it comes to protecting people is protecting ALL people, and that manifests any time a crime is committed or a nation is invaded. As long as programs are used to protect perpetual victim classes, you're always going to see high crime, racism, sexual discrimination, and violence. Why? Because these so-called victims have government protection from reprisal from actual victims. Justice that is separate but equal is not justice. And mandated parental leave has the effect of forcing the will of perpetual victims on employers and diminishing their power to act.

Seriously, if you knew your employer NEVER WANTED to offer parental leave and only allows it because of a government mandate and not because of genuine interest and concern for your well-being and the well-being of your children/family, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK FOR THEM? Without the mandate, businesses can independently, willingly demonstrate how much they care for parents and how much they want to keep them in the workplace. That only makes sense. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Force people to do what they don't want and you get resentment. Freedom to act results in a genuine investment, and employees will compete more for those they know value them the most. Take away the value of a job and employees have no reason to apply.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,033
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

20 Apr 2021, 11:24 am

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CORPORATIONS!! ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

He who holds the gold makes the rules.. employers don't need special protections from the employees they hold power over. When they don't have to do something due to no regulations, employers will all just screw workers as hard as they can.. and people will work for them because they need to eat & there's no better option elsewhere.

Hence the existence of both government regulations and labour unions.

It's still weird af that you're defending terrible employer practices in the name of the free market economy as if you yourself have some equal moonshot at becoming a multi-Millionaire/Billionaire based on those lax rules. Brainwashing is uber strong in this one. Get the poor people to argue against other poor people not being poor in hopes that maybe one day they might not be so poor as they come up through the ranks and join the oppressor class themselves.. only that almost never happens - the thing that happens is some suckers believe it could happen so they help perpetuate the game played against their fellow plebs.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


King Kat 1
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2020
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 162
Location: NW Ohio

20 Apr 2021, 3:38 pm

The USA is The Mississippi or Alabama of the industrialized country's. So ass backwards. No maternity leave, no universal healthcare, no mandated sick/vacation time. However, there are more pressing matters. Such as bathroom bills, voter ID laws, and "religious freedom laws". :roll:


_________________
Strange is your language and I have no decoder, why don't you make your intentions clear?- Peter Gabriel