Does FMLA not already cover this? And it is for caring for children, spouses, or parents. While it's mostly used by new mom's, at least it offers something to single employees. It is unpaid leave but an employee absence with healthcare coverage and guarantee of job is a pretty big benefit.

This is not medical leave to care for an unexpectedly direly sick relative; it's three months of medical time off for a life choice -- one that not everybody makes.

Some businesses -- especially those with only 20 employees -- can't do without the employee who's taking off (in whatever their position is) and imagine that a number of employees take this at the same time.

"Why should some parents get short shrift based simply on the number of people on their companies' rosters?"

Company probably can't afford it. So if you force it on them they go under. It doesn't matter if your job is guaranteed when the company that guaranteed it doesn't exit anymore.

Of course those surveyed said that leave time improved things--so would a raise and a pony. Any benefit that you offer people they will be happy to take, but when they are presented with a tradeoff, such as more leave that will mean a cut in pay, they change their minds. Government entities seem to think that businesses are just pots of money with bosses who have a private jet. Most small businesses are barely making it or are trying to grow (which requires making a profit). Adding another burden means they may go under or not hire new people.

California state lawmakers act like all the businesses in the state belong to the state.

Amber's novel won't be paying for my Social Security 20 years from now.

Neither will anyones children

Lujlp,

We can easily amend dee nile's comment in a number of ways to make it more applicable.

"Amber's novel won't be eligible for the draft to defect our country in 18 years..."

"Amber's novel won't be paying taxes to support our infrastructure in 20 years..."

"Amber's novel won't be paying for medicare in 20 years..."

You get the overall idea.

The point that dee nile is making (and it is a valid one) is that future generations take care of previous ones in a number of ways.

If childless folks want to avoid providing any benefit at all to folks raising and financially supporting the next generation then the first thing they need to do is divest themselves of all future benefits of those children.

In other words, they need to be fully self supporting until they die.

"The point that dee nile is making (and it is a valid one) is that future generations take care of previous ones in a number of ways."

This one won't. Look at what they are inheriting: a nation in decline, with a flat economy, an overlord ruling class having near-unlimited power, few opportunities, and a lifetime burden of student loans. As soon as there are enough of their cohort to form a political working majority, they will vote to rid themselves of those obligations. In a way, I can't blame them.

Cousin Dave,

So you believe that infants born today will "vote" to not have to pick up trash for elderly childless folks... or "vote" to not have to pull them out of a burning building... or "vote" to not have to admit them into the emergency room?

At the end of the day, people who are childless by choice today and complaining how "unfair" it is that new parents might get any benefit at all to help bring those children into the world are still planning to parasite off of those children when they are in their 80's and those kids are in their 20-30's.

They want all of the perks that come with a communal society when they are elderly and childless... but don't want to invest in the community while they are working.

If they want to talk about life choices then they need to deal with their own life choices as well and be willing to live on the fringes of society with no external support whatsoever when they retire. If they are unwilling to do that then maybe they should be more aware of what they are intending to gain from other peoples children in the future.

Only a hypocrite demands community in one instant and every person for themselves the next depending upon what is most beneficial to them in each circumstance.

I'm not going to tackle most of the issues here. Just wanted to say that:

1. When you're 80, of course you don't want the people who fly the planes or drive the buses you use to be YOUR age. So of course future generations deserve support whenever it's reasonable to give it, especially in a society where well-off couples often have fewer than two children (i.e., they are not replacing themselves) - and children in the largest families are also likely to be the poorest and most neglected.

2. On average, childfree or childless people understand the need to save big-time for old age, since they cannot count on free help from cousins or other relatives. So if they wind up homeless, it's often due to other factors than not having children to sponge from.

Lenona,

Just to clarify so that there is no misunderstanding here.

My primary point is this:

There are generally 2 periods in life when we are all essentially helpless and require the communal assistance of the rest of society in order to thrive.

The first is when we are extremely young and the second is when we are extremely old.

If we have any expectation at all that society will provide us some measure of care when we are elderly and infirm... then we must as a matter of principle contribute to the support of the extremely young when we are in our prime.

If instead we bitch and moan how "unfair" it is that the extremely young require our communal support when we are the ones in our prime then we have no right to expect those same young folks to provide us any care or consideration at all when we are the ones in need of assistance when we are old.

This isn't about sponging off children, it is about paying our future debt to the next generation while we are in a position to do so.

This is an unfortunate side effect of having both parents expected to be in the work force now... it means each parent is only earning half a family salary. So you need both salaries. But realistically someone's gotta take care of the kids.

And it isn't just taking care of the kids, pregnancy and labor are a major physical experience and many people take a long time to recover.