Author Topic: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care  (Read 45133 times)

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2015, 05:13:36 AM »
I just love when people blame housing costs for their ridiculous spending.  I have a cousin who lives in San Diego.  He bought a very modest home for $180K.  He showed me the real estate market and he could have spent $480K for the exact same size house 12 miles from where he bought.  Oh and by the way, the taxes were also 3.5 times more than his taxes.  And the public school system in his district is still rated excellent.  I just cannot understand people.  I guess they don't like to drive 12 miles to the beach because that's just ridiculous.

Choices people.  There are affordable homes just about everywhere but you have to make a few sacrifices....like Starbucks isn't within walking distance.  I hear it all the time about how you just cannot find a house for less than 1/2 mil in certain parts of the country.  Well, you CAN you just don't want to.

This. 

Because surely the childcare worker is living in less costly housing. 

Sofa King

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2015, 10:18:34 AM »
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

Mod Note: Avoid personal attacks and keep it on topic, please.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 10:53:14 AM by swick »

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4610
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2015, 10:41:11 AM »
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

"Mostly reliably, if done perfectly."  But still with a non-zero failure rate.  Throw in normal human issues with doing something perfectly every time, and it has a significant enough failure rate to be not actually as good as it's claimed to be.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2015, 10:12:33 PM »
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

"Mostly reliably, if done perfectly."  But still with a non-zero failure rate.  Throw in normal human issues with doing something perfectly every time, and it has a significant enough failure rate to be not actually as good as it's claimed to be.

Indeed. Stuff that manipulates human hormones is not an exact science. I know too many people who got pregnant while using "reliable" birth control perfectly, simply because the proportions of the chemicals they were prescribed didn't have the desired effect on their bodies.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2015, 06:36:11 AM »
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?

Watch the Youtube segment, it's very enlightening. All these arguments were made in the past, and in practice the effect of allowing women maternity leave is negligible on companies and creates a more stable work environment where as someone said, women can flourish.

Your avatar is Ron Swanson, yet you want more Big Government? :confused:

Anyway, if there was mandated parental leave (why should it only be offered to women?) it would have to be paid with higher taxes, and the same with cheaper daycare. So in the end we'd all be no better or worse off. Taxes in the US are lower than in places with government forced parental leave, so here people can save up that extra money and take unpaid time of. Same difference. Why is that so hard?

We pay more than most mortgages in daycare cost, but I don't demand that the government go out and take other people's money to subsidize it. We made a choice to have a child and if we didn't want this expense we wouldn't have had one. But making the government take from others on your behalf is much easier than personal responsibility isn't it..?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 06:52:20 AM by Scandium »

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2015, 06:46:39 AM »
Your avatar is Ron Swanson, yet you want more Big Government? :confused:

Actually yeah I do favour more governmental intervention, personally. I'm not very Swansonian to tell the truth.

Quote
Anyway, if there was mandated parental leave (why should it only be offered to women?)

It shouldn't; not at all. When my children were born I was entitled to 2-3 days off in SA, which is ridiculous.

Quote
it would have to be paid with higher taxes, and the same with cheaper daycare. So in the end we'd all be no better or worse off.

Since when does supporting human welfare through taxation leave us 'no better or worse off'? What else are the taxes for?   

Quote
Taxes in the US are lower than in places with government forced parental leave, so here people can save up that extra money and take unpaid time of. Same difference. Why is that so hard?

Unpaid time off sounds fine unless you're already living at the breadline, and if your job can be guaranteed to still be there when you return from your leave of absence. In fact, no, wait a second, nothing about unpaid maternity leave seems okay to me. Why should you be penalised for having a family?

Quote
We pay more than most mortgages in daycare cost, but I don't demand that the government go out and take other people's money to subsidize it. We made a choice to have a child and if we didn't wont this expense we wouldn't have had one. But making the government take from others on your behalf is much easier than personal responsibility isn't it..?

Off the topic of daycare which I'm quite ignorant of, do you really think it's acceptable that the US lags the entire rest of the world in the standard of entitled maternity/paternity leave? It's such a pro-corporate stance, and so ignorant of the ramifications of maternity leave, which are negligible in real terms - and everyone else seems to get by just fine, so why run to the side of the corporates? The tax burden of mothers on maternity leave is miniscule.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 07:04:57 AM by cerebus »

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2015, 07:04:35 AM »

Off the topic of daycare which I'm quite ignorant of, do you really think it's acceptable that the US lags the entire rest of the world in the standard of entitled maternity/paternity leave? It's such a pro-corporate stance, and so ignorant of the actual ramifications of maternity leave, which are actually negligible in real terms - and everyone else seems to get by just fine, so why run to the side of the corporates? The tax burden of mothers on maternity leave is miniscule.

I don't really have particularly strong opinions on the issue, and as a non-voting immigrant my opinion wouldn't really matter even if I did. But having moved from a country with mandated leave to the US I don't really have a big problem with it (and by the way; many of the upper-middle class people who whine the most about this could do the opposite of what I did and move to a country that has it but I don't see much of that..)

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple. I don't care about value, cost/benefit whatever, only freedom and fairness. These boards are largely about taking charge of your own life and being independent (the I in FIRE), relying on government force I find anathema to that. We saved money, had insurance and live frugally to cover my wife staying home with our baby. I'm proud of managing that on our own, I wouldn't want the state to take that over.

And before you go there; I do support a lot of government assistance to genuinely poor people. But that does not include time off for lawyer couples etc. Government assistance should help those in need, not remove all options for poor decision making from everyone.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2015, 07:17:37 AM »

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

eyePod

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
    • Flipping A Dollar
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2015, 07:25:19 AM »
16% of my income to pay for my child per year... wow do their kids have a lot of special needs.  My kids cost no where near that much.  A couple of hundred a month for food and clothes... the rest I would have anyways... and they are teenagers... wow!!!

It's because of daycare.

We're going to be in this boat in the fall. We're having a 2nd baby but my wife is also getting a pay doubling (post-doc). This will more than cover the 2nd child in daycare but it's also not what we want long term. We'll have to keep discussing this as we move forward in life or if we have another kid.

dplasters

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2015, 07:36:41 AM »
Wow, and last I was aware we subsidize children cause you know, having an aging and shrinking population is really hard on the economy.  I guess we gotta draw the line at the idea that someone should be entitled to some paid time off for squeezing out the future tax base of this country.

But yeah, no, hormonal sterilization of the poor or fiscally unsound seems like the moral, ethical and economically sound choice.  Totally.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2015, 07:59:39 AM »

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave. And I believe it guaranties the parent's job once they return too. In addition the states have separate requirements. Where I live the father could also use sick time to stay home for two weeks for instance. Naturally california have stronger requirements.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2015, 08:03:40 AM »
I am not sure why it is so hard to grasp the fact that while having a child is (sort of) a choice for many women, the result of not subsidizing family leave penalizes the innocent child more than anyone else, who has no voice in whether he/she chose to be called into existence.  Once the child exists, it is on the best interest in a modern society to make sure the child is well cared for, and that includes the early months, when the child is completely dependant and needs a lot of care.

Here is what I mean by "sort of" a choice for women and birth control:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=1

As you can see, birth control is a pretty inexact science, even if you able to afford all the methods.  The typical "cheaper" methods have very high failure rates in a 10 year period.  Even a woman with a tubal ligation has a 5 out of 100 chance of conceiving a child in that 10 year period.  Many of the other options that have low failure rate have a lot of complications.  Many women are intolerant to hormones, the hormonal implant (essure) has had some serious issues and if you are allergic to nickel, like many people are, including me, forget it.  IUDs are very good, but women can have issues with insertion, heavy bleeding, and hormones. 

Looking at those charts, maybe it makes more sense to have all men get vasectomies at age 13 and then if they decide to have children, they can get a reversal.  However, I think if that happened, the human race might be extinct in a few generations.  :P


cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2015, 08:06:51 AM »
Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

I'm actually a full US (and UK) citizen and recently we've been talking more and more about returning there for the future of our kids and family. My own family is there too, and I spent a good part of my childhood in Texas.

Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd. 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 08:11:29 AM by cerebus »

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2015, 08:23:40 AM »
Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

I'm actually a full US (and UK) citizen and recently we've been talking more and more about returning there for the future of our kids and family. My own family is there too, and I spent a good part of my childhood in Texas.

Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

Really? Why? If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.

also; my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2015, 08:34:41 AM »
Really? Why?

Because 3 months of salary is a buttload of money to most people. It's the value of a car, in cash, upfront. Or, it's a chunk out of retirement. Or, in most people's cases, it's a year of rent, and they DO NOT have that kind of money to hand. And as young people, to wait until they do have it, they may be in the mid-30s before it becomes financially feasible. So your suggestion is, they just have to suck it up, rather than the state simply legislating it as they do bloody everywhere else. But nope, you gotta have your imperial system and paid maternity leave is for Europeans, right?

Quote
If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.

You're advocating unpaid leave as a form of liquidity crucible to test whether parents can bear to support a child?

Quote
my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..

You'd be shocked to find out how unplanned our own lives were in this regard, yet we survived and our children continue to be fed and maintained. But now I find out we shouldn't have had our children to begin with so maybe a postnatal abortion is in order?

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4610
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2015, 08:51:34 AM »
Looking at those charts, maybe it makes more sense to have all men get vasectomies at age 13 and then if they decide to have children, they can get a reversal.  However, I think if that happened, the human race might be extinct in a few generations.  :P

Eh, free high speed internet is cheaper and accomplishes the same thing.  High speed streaming porn and tube sites have neutralized the past ~5 years of teenagers to the point that a lot of them can't get it up in bed with a woman.  YBOP and other sites cover this in detail, but it's pretty bad.  :/

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

And, yes, I think having a few months of income set aside before having a child is reasonable.  The hospital bills aren't free either.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2015, 08:53:19 AM »
Really? Why?

Because 3 months of salary is a buttload of money to most people. It's the value of a car, in cash, upfront. Or, it's a chunk out of retirement. Or, in most people's cases, it's a year of rent, and they DO NOT have that kind of money to hand. And as young people, to wait until they do have it, they may be in the mid-30s before it becomes financially feasible. So your suggestion is, they just have to suck it up, rather than the state simply legislating it as they do bloody everywhere else. But nope, you gotta have your imperial system and paid maternity leave is for Europeans, right?

what? Trying to ad-hominem me with the imperial system?! You're the US citizen. I'm European AND an engineer! SI FTW!

Not sure I follow you're math how three months of 1/2 a couple's income is equal to a car or a years rent ($12,000?). Median income is $50k per household, so half that for 3 months is $6,000. And that's before tax. And half the country make more than that. You're saying saving up $5,000 is an impossible task for most people? There are obviously a too-large number of poor people in the US who would struggle, but there are many more who should be able to save up 5 grand.. (IMO, but clearly not in yours)

Quote
If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.
You're advocating unpaid leave as a form of liquidity crucible to test whether parents can bear to support a child?
I'm not advocation that it should be, I'm saying it already is, naturally. Not like child expenses stop after the one year leave.
Oh the government provide for your leave, but now daycare is so expensive. Maybe they should cover that too? These babies sure do use a lot of diapers, this is really a burden on middle class families I think we need help. Wow, Jr. need more clothes, this is really expensive..
Quote
my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..

You'd be shocked to find out how unplanned our own lives were in this regard, yet we survived and our children continue to be fed and maintained. But now I find out we shouldn't have had our children to begin with so maybe a postnatal abortion is in order?
Maybe a form of Goodwins rule should apply here. Once someone (falsely) imply their opponent mandated infanticide all rationale is clearly out the window..
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 08:55:11 AM by Scandium »

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2015, 08:54:24 AM »
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2015, 08:57:44 AM »
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

Important: FIRE achieved through your own badassity. Sure, I could also retire yesterday if the government decided Warren Buffed don't need all that money and I should get a million or two..

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2015, 09:00:58 AM »

what? Trying to ad-hominem me with the imperial system?! You're the US citizen. I'm European AND an engineer! SI FTW!
:D I would never ad-hominem you.

Quote
Not sure I follow you're math how three months of 1/2 a couple's income is equal to a car or a years rent ($12,000?). Median income is $50k per household, so half that for 3 months is $6,000. And that's before tax. And half the country make more than that. You're saying saving up $5,000 is an impossible task for most people? There are obviously a too-large number of poor people in the US who would struggle, but there are many more who should be able to save up 5 grand.. (IMO, but clearly not in yours)

In many cases not; in the cases where it is a struggle, you're suggesting that they simply shouldn't be able to have children.

Quote
I'm not advocation that it should be, I'm saying it already is, naturally.
Childbirth for us was free and my wife was home. We managed it on an exceptionally frugal budget.

Quote
Not like child expenses stop after the one year leave.
Oh the government provide for your leave, but now daycare is so expensive. Maybe they should cover that too? These babies sure do use a lot of diapers, this is really a burden on middle class families I think we need help. Wow, Jr. need more clothes, this is really expensive..
I would suggest that looking at the European model of the extent of governmental contribution could be instructive. There's obviously a limit of what they should do to assist, but right now the US is far below standard. 

Quote
Maybe a form of Goodwins rule should apply here. Once someone (falsely) imply their opponent mandated infanticide all rationale is clearly out the window..
Lol I'm certainly not implying that, just being sarcastic. We had children without that kind of money; only lately we've gotten our finances into a better order and begun saving in earnestness; but to have waited till this age would have made the entire process much more difficult.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3311
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2015, 09:31:14 AM »
Interesting read. Thanks for that theGrimSqueaker.

Incidentally, ever since taking roman civ in HS, I've come to despise notions of 'the golden age'. (In your example - the golden 50s).  Every generation everywhere holds nostalgic notions of an age 50-100 yrs prior. This sterilized and gilded idea of what-once-was is held up as something we're owed, something we've been robbed of.  It's always smacked disingenuous to me.

(That said, Romans living under Caligula amd Nero maybe had a point and were justified in longing for the old days)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 09:41:52 AM by Malaysia41 »

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2015, 09:54:48 AM »
Interesting read. Thanks for that theGrimSqueaker.

Incidentally, ever since taking roman civ in HS, I've come to despise notions of 'the golden age'. (In your example - the golden 50s).  Every generation everywhere holds nostalgic notions of an age 50-100 yrs prior. This sterilized and gilded idea of what-once-was is held up as something we're owed, something we've been robbed of.  It's always smacked disingenuous to me.

(That said, Romans living under Caligula amd Nero maybe had a point and were justified in longing for the old days)

I recommend seeing the movie "Midnight in Paris."

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2015, 10:36:00 AM »
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

What makes you feel entitled to 3 months of free money? Having a child is a choice, part of that choice is knowing that for the first part of the childs life he/she will be heavily dependent on the mother. You choose to have a child knowing you will not be able to work in the same capacity for some time. What your arrangement with your employer is, be it termination, unpaid/paid leave and length of leave, is between you and your employer. How you address any change of income during that period is between you and your partner. Everything is negotiable and you control your choices and the the resultant outcome.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 11:02:38 AM by GetItRight »

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2015, 10:57:34 AM »
Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

What makes you feel entitled to 3 months of free money?

I'm done with having kids, this has nothing to do with me. But just generally it's considered in the overwhelming majority of countries to be a part of the social contract and a human, specifically female, right. Here in a 3rd world country women get 16 weeks leave. You're the black swans here, not me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2015, 11:10:59 AM »
I'm done with having kids, this has nothing to do with me. But just generally it's considered in the overwhelming majority of countries to be a part of the social contract and a human, specifically female, right. Here in a 3rd world country women get 16 weeks leave. You're the black swans here, not me.

The "overwhelming majority" would like others to rain free money on them. It is entirely irrelevant to any sort of discussion on what should be or what it ethical. Blind conformity to what others, be it an alleged majority or a minority, does not tend to lead to positive outcomes in my experience. Your ad hominem certainly does not make for a well thought out discussion point.

Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4610
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2015, 11:17:16 AM »
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

I'll let you know once we've spent anywhere near that on our kid. She's been quite cheap so far...

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2015, 11:28:19 AM »
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2015, 11:32:33 AM »
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2015, 11:36:07 AM »
To the best of my knowledge . . . Oral sex is pretty safe regarding pregnancy.  Much lower pregnancy rates than penile-vaginal + any sort of contraceptive.  I've always wondered why this isn't really pushed as an alternative.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2015, 11:40:29 AM »
To the best of my knowledge . . . Oral sex is pretty safe regarding pregnancy.  Much lower pregnancy rates than penile-vaginal + any sort of contraceptive.  I've always wondered why this isn't really pushed as an alternative.
Gay sex too. I think the government should push teenagers to at least try it.. Especially in rural areas in the south with the highest teen pregnancy rates.

CoreyTheMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2015, 11:55:15 AM »
I am super impressed and entertained by the conversation that took place between Ron Swanson and Scandium!! Both are making good points and i am thinking that a good solution lies somewhere in the middle between the two view points.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2015, 11:59:37 AM »
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

I'll let you know once we've spent anywhere near that on our kid. She's been quite cheap so far...

Good for you; it sounds like she's healthy with no major issues, and it sounds like nobody was injured or picked up an infection during the birth. That's not the norm; according to some reading I've done the rate of "complications" in American births is greater than 50%, although not all complications are life threatening or expensive. So a complicated birth of some kind is actually the norm and the C-section rate is sitting at around 30%. It also sounds as though your particular health care provider didn't push a lot of extra services on you or bill you for products or services not received. That's not the norm in the USA either.

Medical care providers aren't exactly forthcoming about cost estimates, nor are they disposed to honor the estimates they give. It's not unusual for extra services to be loaded up, for over-the-counter medicine to be marked up by a factor of 10 or more, or for patients to be billed for care or products they don't actually receive. Budgeting for a birth is extremely difficult when nobody will be honest about what they're going to charge you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That "2-3 months of income per birth" figure sounds like it might be an average of some sort. I wonder whether it's the mean, or the mode. It might be worthwhile to find out, because if there are a handful of super-expensive cases (extreme preemie or severe preeclampsia, for example), it might be mathematically practical to plan for the norm but purchase insurance for the extreme situations.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2015, 12:00:43 PM »

The "overwhelming majority" would like others to rain free money on them.

Yeah and all those sick workers who expect time off work are shirkers, and holiday takers are sponges. And weekends are a proletariat conspiracy to undermine the great capitalist engine.

Quote
It is entirely irrelevant to any sort of discussion on what should be or what it ethical. Blind conformity to what others, be it an alleged majority or a minority, does not tend to lead to positive outcomes in my experience.

Maybe so, but I remind you that we are talking about the rest of the world versus the USA. It's quite germane I think, and it behooves you to consider whether you're sitting on the right side of the ethicality divide when your only company is sub south African states and a minor island country.
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2015, 12:07:43 PM »
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy.

It depends on how often they hit it.

For a 1% failure rate resulting in pregnancy and a sample size of 100 boinkings, the expected value E would indeed be 1 pregnancy. Early in a committed relationship where two young, healthy people are going at it like a couple of bonobos due to the honeymoon effect, that sounds like less than a year's worth of mattress dancing.

But the statistic does include some assumptions about correct use of the technology. It seems to me that people who have more practice will be make fewer mistakes, whereas people with less practice or with limited access to the technology will be more likely to make mistakes or have failures.

mamagoose

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Location: FL
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2015, 12:13:52 PM »
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.

^This IS a status symbol where I live. Or the other status symbol is the mom who chooses to return to work and can afford a full-time nanny in her home.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2015, 12:59:52 PM »
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy.

It depends on how often they hit it.

For a 1% failure rate resulting in pregnancy and a sample size of 100 boinkings, the expected value E would indeed be 1 pregnancy. Early in a committed relationship where two young, healthy people are going at it like a couple of bonobos due to the honeymoon effect, that sounds like less than a year's worth of mattress dancing.

But the statistic does include some assumptions about correct use of the technology. It seems to me that people who have more practice will be make fewer mistakes, whereas people with less practice or with limited access to the technology will be more likely to make mistakes or have failures.

Those pregnancy failure rates are annual. So with a 99% success rate, of 100 average active women using it perfectly, one would get pregnant annually.

Good point about the failure rates - most charts have a perfect use rate and an average use rate. And those that are using it averagely are probably less likely to be able to handle having a child.

Also, I'd like to point out that only 50% of american workers are covered by FMLA and receive any guaranteed unpaid leave. Workers not covered by FMLA may or may not be covered by state law to allow maternity leave. If you're not covered by FMLA, a state law, or a company policy/reasonable manager, your only option for maternity leave is to be fired and hope you find another job when you're ready to go back to work. 

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2015, 01:01:42 PM »
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.

How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?

I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2015, 01:08:39 PM »
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.

How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?

I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.

are we still arguing about this?

these same arguments were used against, sick leave, vacation, weekends, an eight hour workday, unemployment insurance, pensions....pretty much anything that doesnt allow corporations to work people into the ground.

sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair'  you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.

its anti mother because it forces people, mainly the female people, to jump through extra hoops for doing things that are completely natural.

although you make think not getting paid for 3-6 months up to her. men dont have the same onus put on them of deciding whether to work or have a family.

to be honest i think there should be paternity leave as well, just not as long.. cause lets be real why should only the mother have this opportunity to bond and help out around the house.

having kids is natural and working is natural, why should you have to choose one over the other?

sure you could make the argument that its between an employer and employee, cause we all know how well that's worked in the past.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2015, 01:17:35 PM »

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

I guess I'm kind of confused. Are you referring to paid leave entitlement or just leave entitlement? According to FMLA all employees of companies with 50 or more employees are entitled to 12 weeks off for family or medical related issues, which includes having children. In your post you just mention leave entitlement and say it is not a policy in the US and thus why we are primitive.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2015, 01:21:59 PM »

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

I guess I'm kind of confused. Are you referring to paid leave entitlement or just leave entitlement? According to FMLA all employees of companies with 50 or more employees are entitled to 12 weeks off for family or medical related issues, which includes having children. In your post you just mention leave entitlement and say it is not a policy in the US and thus why we are primitive.


Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2015, 01:30:48 PM »

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #91 on: May 18, 2015, 01:39:34 PM »

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

This is the major philosophical difference. I do not support the premise that the state should actively push what's "best for society". That is a recipe for oppression, although with good intentions. I've seen this in Scandinavia, where every limitation of liberties (for things that affect nobody but the individual) are justified, and supported by the majority, for the "social good". If this is the state's goal it can justify anything from taking candy from your hand, forced exercise, or saving for retirement for you (which of course occurs at a mandated 68.42 years old..). So except with a few exceptions (state parks come to mind) I do not support any "social good" excuse for meddling in the lives of individuals.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #92 on: May 18, 2015, 01:41:14 PM »

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.

Yes, a small employer should be able to cover for a 12 week leave of absence. That's just good business practice. Regarding where the money comes from, it is all country dependent, but the pay could be covered in something similar to unemployment insurance, which is paid in by both employer and employee or just employer, depending. Then the person taking leave draws from that fund. So an employer would hire a temp if they need to and their personnel expenses would not increase significantly because they wouldn't be paying for the employee on leave as that would come out of the fund.

The argument generally isn't for just women, but paid parental leave to bond with the baby and some amount of time just for the parent that birthed the baby to recover from the physical act of childbirth.

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2015, 01:43:48 PM »
sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair'  you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.

Would wealth inequality be lessened and society be better if we encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have less children?  Not providing paid parental leave could be one way to nudge this in the right direction.

I see it as a rich couple having ten children and each inheriting 1/10th of a fortune while a poor couple has one child in their mid 30s when they can afford it that has 2 parents and 4 grandparents sending whatever money they can down to lift this chosen child out of poverty.  Right now there are many more poor people than rich people, but if this pattern holds eventually there will be lessened inequality.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #94 on: May 18, 2015, 01:53:59 PM »

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.

Yes, a small employer should be able to cover for a 12 week leave of absence. That's just good business practice. Regarding where the money comes from, it is all country dependent, but the pay could be covered in something similar to unemployment insurance, which is paid in by both employer and employee or just employer, depending. Then the person taking leave draws from that fund. So an employer would hire a temp if they need to and their personnel expenses would not increase significantly because they wouldn't be paying for the employee on leave as that would come out of the fund.

The argument generally isn't for just women, but paid parental leave to bond with the baby and some amount of time just for the parent that birthed the baby to recover from the physical act of childbirth.

Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #95 on: May 18, 2015, 01:57:50 PM »
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #96 on: May 18, 2015, 02:02:12 PM »
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.

Neither are cheap or as effective as a full-time employee, and some aren't positions where you can just bring someone in and have them working. That's where there are exceptions for small business.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #97 on: May 18, 2015, 02:05:54 PM »
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.

Neither are cheap or as effective as a full-time employee, and some aren't positions where you can just bring someone in and have them working. That's where there are exceptions for small business.

Good thing it takes 9 months to grow a baby, then.

Edited to add:

That was snarky, sorry. Anyway, the point we should be arguing is not feasibility, because it is clearly feasible to require paid or unpaid leave for new parents. It's done all over the world. Really, this is a question of values. Clearly we're on different pages (different books?) when it comes to that.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 02:14:49 PM by KCM5 »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #98 on: May 18, 2015, 02:29:17 PM »
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; there's generally about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of notice to go find a temp or contractor to hire to fill that role for 12 weeks?

(Keep in mind that any of the employees in a small company could quit with two weeks notice, or indeed get hit by a bus and leave without any notice at all. If the business can't handle the sudden loss of an employee it's screwed anyway, regardless if FMLA is the reason for that loss or not.)

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #99 on: May 18, 2015, 02:58:03 PM »
Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; there's generally about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of notice to go find a temp or contractor to hire to fill that role for 12 weeks?

Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; it's a choice and comes with about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of time to get your finances is order to fund your choice of taking 12 weeks off work?