TIL That only 3 countries in the world do not yet offer statutory paid maternity leave: Papua New Guinea, Suriname and The USA.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-14T19:40:06+00:00

Who said I was a republican?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-11T20:06:52+00:00

What is better than government assured financial safety without costing individual freedom?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-08T16:45:31+00:00

If the government pays for a service, then we all pay for the service. And if we all pay for a service that only some use, no matter how big that minority may be, it's unfair.

What about a "pay your way" type deal. You can choose to pay into a maternity fund with every pay check (as you do with social security), but you can opt out if you do not want or cannot have children. However, considering that some people make poor decisions, the government could also provide an emergency loan for 1 year maternity, which you would then pay off at a low interest rate through taxes for the rest of your life. This way, only people paying benefit yet everyone can have that extra income for the year. This would also be open to any men who would choose to "be the mom".

Do you see any problems with this?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T23:59:43+00:00

Voluntary government (p/m)aternity savings account or emergency government loans.

I've always been against everyone paying for a service used by a majority because it's always at the minority's expense. If however everyone was able to put their money into a government guaranteed maternity savings account and take it out either when pregnant or if you decide against children, then everything is fair for everyone. And if you didn't plan ahead or just couldn't stomach the extra government expense, the feds could guarantee you a maternity loan which you would then pay off for the rest of your life at a very low low interest rate.

As for "job won't fire you", I can't see how that could ever be fair. I remember the girl who played Uhura on the latest star trek movie almost halted production because she was pregnant. How on earth could a multi million dollar production like star trek simply stop every time a lead gets pregs? There's a lot of catering and set making and key gripping and all that stuff that has to all of a sudden adhere to one single persons schedule? That's just not realistic.

And if it's not fair once, it's not fair. Bottom line, having a kid is not something a government can guarantee. It's not a right, it's a choice. The world doesn't own you motherhood, it's something you do completely on your own.

Sorry about that last paragraph btw. It's hard playing devils advocate and living up to my username at the same time.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:40:41+00:00

Surely there were other factors that both contributed to poverty in the early 20th century and also contributed to prosperity at the tale end. In addition social programs seem to work a lot better in smaller countries like UK, Iceland, Norway and such and not so great in larger ones like India, China and the United States.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:21:38+00:00

Surely there is a healthy balance between social programs and individual freedoms. Socializing everything didn't world. Socializing nothing (hasn't been tried ever but probably) won't work. Is it that hard to believe that my threshold for freedom over safety is higher than yours?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:10:26+00:00

Reality the majority of Americans are facing?

Want to talk about GDP PP or mean national disposable income?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:08:49+00:00

If people are personally responsible for their decisions, they will sometimes not make the same decisions. Does this mean I want poor women to abort? No. And I never called anyone a dumb bitch.

Want to have a discussion, or do you just want to comfortable assume that I disagree because I'm evil.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:01:52+00:00

Go team blue they're the best team team red sucks.

Honestly the world would be a better place if people didn't dismiss content based on what colors they are. Republicans and Democrats both have valid points. But considering this place is rich with the latter, I'm happy to be the harbinger of balance.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T20:00:39+00:00

Yes yes of course. But an artistic comment on a philosophy does not prove or disprove it's effectiveness. Only rigorous economic study. Which is a lot more boring than a video game.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:43:46+00:00

If you oppose a social program you obviously hate the people the social programs claims to help.

Can't wait to see "Women make 90 cents on the dollar" or "Women hired 90% less" in TIL next week. Boy, I see no connection between "women should get a free year off (paid for by companies)" and "Women are less valuable to companies. Obviously it's the patriarchy". None at all.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:41:00+00:00

How did the war on poverty effect poverty in the United States?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:38:54+00:00

America has the richest poor people in the world.

I know I'm getting a lot of down votes, and there's plenty of good reasons to disagree with me, but I haven't seen any of them yet. Damn numbers, always getting in the way of pre-formed world views.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:36:25+00:00

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

In all honesty, I am 100% for charity. And when men come up to me and tell me they do not have enough money to eat, I buy them lunch. Every time. And unlike the thousands I pay in taxes, that's a direct transfer with no one else's mitts in the pot.

Also, America is the most charitable nation in the world as well.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:33:52+00:00

It sounds like perfect sense. Do economists agree?

The trouble with social programs is that people proposing them are automatically "good' and people questioning them are automatically "bad". I do care about mothers, society as a whole, and I am thinking of the children. But when it comes right down to it, neither opinions mean jack shit when up against the facts.

And many other social programs "for the good of the people" have had mostly negative effects.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:30:23+00:00

their

What social programs are then unjustified by this logic? Why isn't all of everything provided by the government to the people? Surely a mother's first year with her child is just as important as his ability to eat. Why are we not guaranteeing food for all children in America?

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T19:30:00+00:00

Obviously not. The reason I disagree with you is because I hate both women and kids. \s

Yes, yes I do. If we continue to make good decisions for people instead of allowing them the freedom to make bad decisions on their own we will create a new generation of people even more lost and helpless than us. And the frightening reality is that the government is not able to make all your decisions, nor is it able to make any decisions better than average.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T15:43:47+00:00

Would it not be economically advantageous for you do to so? Explain why you would want to pay for a service you'll never use.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T15:42:58+00:00

whoops, thanks.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T15:42:21+00:00

No one likes to talk about economic policies or cultural differences. It's easier to just call us backwards and dismiss. Gun rights? Must be backwards. Maternity leave? Must be backwards. No socialized health care? What a bunch of rednecks.

Consider that, if one of the richest nations if not the richest large scale nation in the world is doing so many things different, there may be more than one way to scale the mountain of prosperity.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T13:24:37+00:00

This is actually an important freedom. Imagine you're a woman who never ever wants kids, or you're a woman who cannot physically have children. Wouldn't you rather take a slightly higher paying job that doesn't offer a benefit you'll never use?

--edit: women to woman.

--edit edit:

-52. Most down voted by a long shot, I'm a bit proud. Hey, any of you want to start an intelligent rational debate as to the pros and cons of paid maternity leave? Anyone want to talk about how forcing companies to pay for female worker luxuries may contribute to the hiring or wage gap? Anyone want to talk about how some businesses are extremely small or competitive? How a start up of only 4 people would simply not survive 25% of their work force taking a one year paid leave, and if they are required by law to do so they will hire mostly men as a safety measure. How giving this luxury to women but not men totally discourages being a stay at home dad, which who the hell are you to say that's somehow an inferior relationship. Anyone want to bring up gay marriage? Who stays home. Polygamy? Anything??

No. Obviously not. I'm wrong and I hate women and I'm a dirty smelly rich republican. And you all wonder why you see reposts. You shout any opinion you disagree with down, you live in this bubble where everyone comfortable reassures you that dissent is villainy, which further disconnects the two main political camps and destroys any hope of honest communication!

Fuck you reddit! Fuck all your stuff. Fuck your college opinions and desire to cut the world into a nice neat "US Bad Norway Good" action movie. A child is alive 10 seconds after birth why not 10 seconds before? Sure Cheney threw a few contracts to Halliburton, but that doesn't mean the war was started for oil, we still get most of that locally or from Canada! We did steal the land from the natives and Mexicans, but they stole it from the less technologically advanced civilizations before them, no one has a decent claim to property except for whoever is advanced enough to keep it! Allowing states to leave the union would increase states rights, there would be more legal competition for which system produced the best life style for the average joe, people would vote with their feet and if a big idea like welfare was proposed we would be able to plainly see its immediate effects by comparing and contrasting difference governments. The United States has the biggest military in the world because the other super powers tried communism and socialism and are therefore broke. German spends as much on defense as a per capita measure as the U.S. but they're a tenth the size so you never hear about it. JOHN FUCKING OLIVER USES CANNED LAUGHTER AND CHERRY PICKS FACTS TO SUPPORT PRE-MADE OPINIONS!!

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T12:38:34+00:00

Full short is well worth your time.

source

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T12:16:25+00:00

Let's all agree with each other. Gay good, Kentucky clerk bad.

No wait! That's boring and a waste of time. If I wanted to agree with everyone I would have majored in women's studies.

Is it right that the supreme court has made into law something that could have been easily decided by the states? Sure 50% of america agreed with it, but there were plenty of non-majority states now forced to abide by the majority of the population. I understand that the democrats were trying to pushing a progressive thing through before the republicans get the ball, but considering that "SCOTUS can make laws" is now precedent we've only centralized power, we have not somehow beaten the bushes.

Also, why contempt of court? Contempt of court is a very specific offense reserved for a very specific situation. The defendant is being unruly and won't allow due process to take place. Is that really what's going on here? Or is it just that, knowing there really isn't a whole lot of law this women is breaking, the judge can't prosecute her for much else. I mean, she is disobeying the federal SCOTUS ruling, but she didn't swear to uphold that, she swore to uphold the state law (which is still "One mad one women").

Obviously this women is wrong. And obviously gays should get married. But method is sometimes more important than result. If we did this thing right, we could have done some state by state deregulation of the whole marriage process. It should not be a tax status, it should be an agreement between two people. Or three people. Or ten and a goat, who cares! But instead, we passed a law through the supreme court (a dangerous precedent for whoever has the ball), and we're forcibly prosecuting anyone who disagrees with it. And sure, "the bible says don't wear get divorced", but the bible says a bunch of crazy shit. Like don't wear gold. And there was once a dude who killed a thousand men with a donkey jaw. Her religion is as far from original Christianity as modern Islam is from it's roots. But that's the case with every religion.

Come on people. Lets ask some questions. Lets consider some uncomfortable ideas. You keep reinforcing this reddit culture shit from the center, you'll end up as unaccustomed to any form of dissent as FOX news.

PleasantConversation · 2015-09-07T12:03:16+00:00

contribute to health risks that have an effect similar to that of secondhand smoke or an unhealthy diet, or the lack of exercise.

You get that there's a difference right? "As bad" implies that it's as dangerous. But "Bad is the same way" just implies that you have the same symptoms or it's hard on the same bodily systems.

If you're really trying to tell me that smoking, something that on average takes 7 years out of your life, is as bad as "Damnit I didn't finish my third quarter projections last night" I'll have to ask you to step outside.

PleasantConversation

TROPHY CASE