But, but, they're doing it in Europe. It must be stylish and civilized. We're falling behind the Brits, the French, even Spain. Life in these American colonies can be such a struggle. Sigh.

Cue the sputtering.
I have actually seen someone become abusive at the suggestion, made in public, that if the "73¢ on the dollar" meme about women's wages were true, then no man could ever be hired.

Some people must see someone else lose for them to feel like a winner. Others must feel victimized to function; it can't be them, it has to be a conspiracy against them!

I remember some time ago, I offered a challenge. I asked the participants to imagine they were a hiring manager of a large corporation whose success depends upon long-term relationships with their clients. And they are tasked with choosing between two equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, bearing in mind which one of them is more likely to quit their job to start a family, require maternity leave, stay home when the kid is sick, need to leave early to pick up the kid, etc.

Some intellectual giant replied that she would hire the woman because it's a known fact that a woman has to work ten times as hard as a man to get where she is. (I should have qualified my challenge by stating that morons need not respond.)

Simply ask those that employ others (maids, Hillary, etc.) why they have not put this into practice on their own as an example.

There are some expenses that are investments in our future. Schools are one example, taking care of infants and new parents is another. It may cost us more short-term but enhances our quality of life over the long-term. It has been shown that the more resources a parent has the better off the child is and the better off the child is, the more they contribute to society.

Let's be real: a child may be a drain on our resources. Not all grow up to be world-changing scientists.

And though my educating myself may benefit others, I'm not expecting the public to send me to science conferences, etc.

Unfortunately, Jen, your logic, applied to more than mommies, is a big fail.

I deem myself pregnant, and demand my leave. I'll be back in 12 weeks.

I was tempted to write the following (it's true, but not helpful for some/many):

One of the solutions, is to educate oneself and gain enough experience and qualification before becoming pregnant, that your employer would rather pay for your maternity leave than drop you and hire someone else. You'd be that valuable.
If you do that, it's likely that the pay gap is close to non-existent also.

But

As much as I hate to channel Hillary, with the village thing... We in the US see things differently from other countries. Raise yourself up by your bootstraps and all. There are many benefits to that paradigm. However it doesn't work as well when an individual needs some temporary help. Individuals tend to fall down at some point in their lives - either through sickness or pregnancy or the vagaries of the financial markets. I don't think it's a good thing (at a macro level, in society - not as a bleeding heart softie) to let individuals lie in the gutter when something like this happens, just because it might happen early on so there are no savings, or because more than one happens all at once and depletes savings. As I get older I see things differently. I see the value in "Social Security" (not the US government implementation of it, but the concept). Whether it's an Elks Club thing, or a Catholic Charities thing, or whatever - it's an important safety net. If an employer provides it, great - presumably they'd get a better quality of employee that would show some loyalty, or maybe they feel that it's just the right thing to do.

But even given that slightly left-leaning perspective, it's the wrong thing to do, for the government to require that of an employer in this manner, for exactly the reason Amy mentions. There are frankly some jobs that don't need loyalty or much skill - and it's a business model to see the majority of their employees as replaceable. The high-skill potential mom doesn't need this, and the low-skill potential mom won't get hired at all.

There are some expenses that are investments in our future. Schools are one example, taking care of infants and new parents is another. It may cost us more short-term but enhances our quality of life over the long-term. It has been shown that the more resources a parent has the better off the child is and the better off the child is, the more they contribute to society.

Posted by: Jen at June 23, 2015 6:02 AM

Spoon fed pablum directly from the teacher's union....

Hmm. . .Equal Pay for Equal Work means Equal Pay for the same AMOUNT of Work. As Amy noticed. . . But hey, Liberal policies are not ALLOWED to have a downside. . .

I'm not even taking it to the level of a life changing scientist. I'm talking about at least keeping kids off of welfare. Being self-sufficient, making an educated vote, and paying taxes is a contribution to society.

I'm not even taking it to the level of a life changing scientist. I'm talking about at least keeping kids off of welfare. Being self-sufficient, making an educated vote, and paying taxes is a contribution to society.

Agreed. It's also baseline behavior — about the least one can do, and has nothing to do with parental leave policies.

You can't have it all. If you devote yourself to work, you should outpace a co-worker who's taken off months and months to stay home with Dyllyn or Khaytlynne. Conversely, you get all the rewards of doing so. (Rewards being in the eye of the beholder.)

I'm not even taking it to the level of a life changing scientist. I'm talking about at least keeping kids off of welfare. Being self-sufficient, making an educated vote, and paying taxes is a contribution to society.

Posted by: Jen at June 23, 2015 8:38 AM

Yes, and so far, the government and the public school system has failed miserably at these goals.

I say, let's turn it back over to the parents, and the private sector.

Being self-sufficient, making an educated vote, and paying taxes is a contribution to society.

Yes, that's all well and good. Where, pray-tell, is that actually occurring? kids who grow up in houses that are subsidized by section 8 money, that get WIC, AFDC and EBT monies see that as the norm. They're also being educated in craptastic schools where the teacher's union (hat tip to Isab) is busy making sure the teachers are put first. The students? maybe fourth or fifth.

Also, when they see that getting more back from various government entities than you might have to pay in taxes as not only being a way of life, but a better way of life than you suckers out there paying taxes.

And they vote for politicians that promise to not only continue the gravy train, but to load it up with ever more goodies. This stuff will continue until it can no longer be supported.

Well Jen... we have decades of info on that public school thing... prolly close to a CENTURY in most places.

So how's it working out for ya? Coupled to 50 years of "great society" we should be able to find some metrics on how it all works.

Course when you ask about them metrics, you'll get the standard:

"well, it could'a been worse." so, we got that goin' for us.

Magically a good company figures stuff out WRT maternity leave, and like any other perk of a good company, you can shop for that.

Ultimately, perverse incentives rule the day... and while a leave law would make sense in a way, especially for those who make hourly instead of salary...
the incentive will be to take the leave into account when hiring, as Amy said. This is certainly no slam-dunk question, though there are many who will insist it's self evident.

I'm very much for charity -- but the voluntary kind.

IRA-DA:
That "village" thing: it wasn't all that long ago that family, neighbors and churches would provide those things for the truly needy. Then along came "government", taking more $$$ from the working folks to handout. Now the workers have less to be charitable with, so more turn to gov which takes more....

As an aside, Labor Dept stats from 2011 show that men worked 146,322 million hours with women working 111,782 million, or women work 76% as much as men.

Maybe this is what Jen means. The lady obviously is self-sufficient per a liberal perspective and knows what is best for her kids.

http://truthuncensored.net/welfare-queen-i-dont-need-a-job-i-get-full-benefits-check-from-the-government-video/#sthash.S7V4EHtP.dpbs

I would feel more comfortable with this if a successful non gov't funded business showed this to be profitable.

Not too much ask of the Clinton Foundation, Huffington Post, a Virgin enterprise, or even a hospital.

I can see a large business using a large temporary work force for clerical/"follow the company mandate but don't think" positions making this work but not how it can be profitable.

Otherwise I suspect the only successful aspect of this is a vote.

When I say self-sufficient, I am saying someone who pays more taxes than they get in benefits.

PS. My boys both scored in the top 6% on the SAT and they went to public schools with no outside tutoring or SAT prep. Our eldest also played college athletics. We have done all right in the public school system.

When I say self-sufficient, I am saying someone who pays more taxes than they get in benefits.

PS. My boys both scored in the top 6% on the SAT and they went to public schools with no outside tutoring or SAT prep. Our eldest also played college athletics. We have done all right in the public school system.

Posted by: Jen at June 23, 2015 10:55 AM

So we have moved the debate to a personal anecdote.

Glad you were happy with the public schools. We were not. And who cares?

I don't want my worth as an individual judged by how much the government can steal from me, to support the unions, welfare, and other socialist schemes. (Including mandated maternity leave) which someone has to pay for. Usually the consumer.

Although the net effect will be to drive more businesses off shore where they do not have to comply with these senseless mandates.

Jen, some specifics about HOW a company can do this and be profitable please.

Of course if you were going to really honest you could always say that the taxpayers should cover this cost and not the company if that's what you really mean.

How are those countries (Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc.) doing that do provide subsistence funds for everyone (welfare if you will)? HINT: SEE BELOW

http://www.cityam.com/218598/rising-inequality-dampened-growth-and-poor-prospects-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew

In related news, the SCOTUS' Kelo came about 10 years ago. Why bring this up in this thread? it speaks to government planning and how successful it is.

Taking property for the "public good", to help the village. How'd that work out? read the article. I'll give you a hint, tho: not so good.

And mer makes a really great point:

That "village" thing: it wasn't all that long ago that family, neighbors and churches would provide those things for the truly needy. Then along came "government", taking more $$$ from the working folks to handout. Now the workers have less to be charitable with, so more turn to gov which takes more....

Pay attention to this. Especially the church part. Many churches advocate for more government spending on social issues, instead providing services to meet the needs of community. Just pay attention to your local city/county politics and you'll probably see it momentarily.

I don't recall Jesus saying Render unto Caesar so that Caesar can take care of the poor. How did I miss that?

The churches are not capable of handling the poor because there are dwindling numbers of people and money in the local church. Especially in low income areas where you see the need and would love to be able to do something, there is little to no money left after paying a church's bills. The government is definitely doing the job that should/would be handled best by those who know their communities best, only because they have the checkbook.

"How fair is it that one category of employee -- parents -- gets some generous paid leave for their priority, having children, while other employees (like single employees) does not? And why should your employer pay for your choices, whatever they are?"

While I'm against mandated leave, I'll take this on: it's because someone has to create the next generation that will pay all the bills that are coming due, including the retirement bills for all the single people. Even if you didn't have Social Security and Medicare and everyone relied on private investments, those investments are worth nothing if there's no people to work.

You really want to grit your teeth and make people who are so free with your money pucker?

Ask them what Chinese hiring and employee policies are.

That's where ALL OF YOUR STUFF WILL BE MADE AND ALL OF YOUR JOBS WILL GO WHEN THE US GOVERNMENT MAKES IT TOO EXPENSIVE TO DO ANYTHING HERE.

We are already partway there!

"There are some expenses that are investments in our future. Schools are one example, taking care of infants and new parents is another. It may cost us more short-term but enhances our quality of life over the long-term. It has been shown that the more resources a parent has the better off the child is and the better off the child is, the more they contribute to society. "

Nope. Nope nope nope. I have 4 kids-double the US average. I stayed home with them till the youngest hit elementary. No one paid me to do so, no one paid my hubby for HIM to take off the time he did, for each birth/sick kid/what have you that came up in OUR life for US to deal with. Know how we managed that? Making choices with our money. No cell phones for a good chunk of that time (believe it or not, one CAN function without them, even nowadays), cheap cars, small house in a less expensive area of central texas, no eating out.....see my point? No one but us had to pay for our life choices, and that is how is should be. I should not (now that I am working, too) have to shell out my money so some other mom can get paid to stay home. No way in hell. She wants to stay home? She and her husband can make the decisions and cuts in spending necessary to make that happen.

Notice I said no one "had" to pay. I'm all for companies providing that if they so desire. Hubby's company provides him with a car, because he is worth it to them. No different than a company providing paid maternity leave. (But wait, I can hear the argument forming in liberals brains....all employees need transportation! Paid company vehicles for all employees is a social good! If people don't have to worry about how they are getting to work, they can.......blah blah blah)

And before people say "not everyone can afford to stay home blah blah blah, infants and parents need more resources available blah blah blah (you know government paid daycare is next on the list of what women "need") when hubs and I married 12 years ago he made $35k a year. He was fresh out of the military with a 2 year degree. Fortunately, he'd been trained in a field with high demand, and his income has tripled in the intervening 12 years. And I managed to get my RN degree going a class or two at a time, then with scholarships once I had to go fulltime, all without putting our kids in daycare or taking other people's money to do it. But when starting? We had damn few resources, other than ambition and hard work, and we managed just fine. If we can do it, others can and should, too. People just don't want to have to work for things, or not have every damn thing they want Right Now, nowadays. I don't spoil my kids and I damn sure don't intend to spoil grown-ass women and men.

end rant.

+1000 momof4

"The churches are not capable of handling the poor because there are dwindling numbers of people and money in the local church."

That is bullshit Gooseegg. Do you even realize how much most priest are paid? How about where the church spends it's money? Churches have shown over and over when they spend their money poorly attendance drops and funding with it. But when they reach out to their communities and actually start helping and fulfilling needs they usually thrive.

"The churches are not capable of handling the poor because there are dwindling numbers of people and money in the local church."

That is bullshit Gooseegg. Do you even realize how much most priest are paid? How about where the church spends it's money? Churches have shown over and over when they spend their money poorly attendance drops and funding with it. But when they reach out to their communities and actually start helping and fulfilling needs they usually thrive.

Posted by: Ben at June 24, 2015 5:34 AM

Not only that, but the structure of the tax code has changed to discourage donations to churches and charities. Their revenues started drying up, about the same time government started implementing their massive social assistance.

Churches and organizations like the Salvation Army are best because they not only provide really basic necessities, but also have rules you must follow in order to receive assistance from their organizations.
This is what addicts, and the mentally ill need. Not the government handing them a check.

... it's because someone has to create the next generation that will pay all the bills that are coming due, including the retirement bills for all the single people

This is COMPLETELY wrong.

First, there's what you said about it being the next generation's job to pay the retirement bills of the current generation(s). The complete immorality of this takes my breath away. You're saying, make more people to keep the Ponzi fraud going???

But your idea doesn't work, anyway.

There is no shortage of young people. As Crid once famously pointed out, "staffing ain't our problem." Even if you thought it was a great idea to breed more people to cover your future hip replacements and write your monthly checks, these hypothetical young people would have to have good jobs to be able to PAY for those programs.

As it is, we've got all these young people who can't find work, because there are already too many of them to begin with, and they are just as likely to wind up being drains on the system as an old person.

Sure you'll have SOME young people who find good jobs and pay their taxes like good little donkeys. But they're going to be paying for food stamps and Section 8 housing for all the people IN THEIR OWN AGE COHORT who exist thanks to six generations of welfare. They won't make enough money to cover all the old people, too. There are fewer and fewer jobs available all the time - technology eliminates some, and others go overseas.

If you want young people working to take care of the old, you need full employment among the young people. As it is, the number of working-aged people added to the potential labor pool is fast outpacing job creation and has been for some time.

If you have limited means and want to be taken care of in your old age, skip having kids, save your money, and take care of your damn self.

Don't have kids unless you have enough resources to take care of yourself, provide for yourself in your old age, and still have surplus left over to raise children. And why not leave them something, while you're at it? That's what rich people do. They don't start their kids out in life burdened with debt, and they sure as hell don't plan on using them as ass-wipers.

Also, another +1000 to what momof4 said.

Why yes, Ben, I know how much my local pastor is paid. I also know how the money that comes in is spent, to what charities the church gives, and have sat on its board to vote as to how that should be divided up. I am not Catholic and the region I live in is not primarily Catholic but Protestant. In fact there are more churches than bars around here and trust me that the bars are plentiful in this section of the South. Because there are so many little churches, the money is spread out. In a megachurch scenario in large cities, you get the big bucks, but in little towns across America, the money is not what you assume it is. If you doubt my account, attend a church's business meeting and review the accounting for yourself. Over the last 10 years as the recession has gone, so has the ability of congregations to give.

That may be true of your individual church Gooseegg, but it is not true of churches in general. Even small protestant churches. Even very small poor churches typically pay their pastors in the good six figures. Additionally you talked about what charities the church gives to. Why is the church giving to a charity instead of doing charity? You talk about limited financing. And I fully understand that. But money is not the solution. Even if your congregation doesn't have money they do have time. The church should provide leadership and organization to use what time people can volunteer to work good in their community. And that leads to my last quibble (all be it not with you). A church should support it's own community. Don't expect much benefit helping people in far off lands. Churches experience real benefits when they server and support their local community. When people see someone doing good a few of them want to join in and also do good.

Interesting discussion. I don't know how all companies do it, but mine uses short term disability insurance to cover maternity leave. The insurance is part of the benefits package and the employee receives 2/3 of their pay for a set amount of time. It is combined with FMLA which doesn't guarantee pay but does guarantee the job. Even though I am benefiting from this (I am about to go on maternity leave sometime in the next six weeks), this does put the company in tight spot. I like to think I have built enough value to the company but the truth is I will exchange career prospects for the family. I don't have a problem with it as I will no longer be able to keep up the hours so the people who can/will should be rewarded.

"If you have limited means and want to be taken care of in your old age, skip having kids, save your money, and take care of your damn self."

Uh-huh. And who's going to produce the electricity to run your home? Who's going to produce the food you eat? Who is working for the companies you've invested in that your retirement income comes from?

Honestly, this is not controversial. A society having children at below replacement level has serious demographic problems. Just ask Greece.

YEAH!!!!

My personal anecdote.

I was in 7th grade, I had math 2nd period, pre-algebra.

My friend and I shared the first two classes of the day. At the bell we would race each other to the math class room and see who could finish that nights homework assignment first while the teacher was teaching the lesson to everyone else in the class.

The teacher wanted to bump us both up to algebra as we obviously didnt need to be in his class.

Problem is the algebra class had about 35 8th graders in it. And "it would be unfair to disrupt their education experience" by having a couple of 7th graders in the class where 25 of the 35 8th graders ended the year with a D-

So, yeah, most public schools suck

Additionally you talked about what charities the church gives to. Why is the church giving to a charity instead of doing charity?

Becuase then they can claim all their "proceeds" are going to good causes and no one need to see how much was taken for salaries first.

It why I refuse to donate to "charities" like the Pat Tillman foundation.

They revived 2.5 million in 2014
Their "expenses" 2.1 million

They had less than 370,000 do use towards actual charitable works

More than 85% of the money they collect goes to line their salaries and the pockets of vendors they hire

A society having children at below replacement level has serious demographic problems. Just ask Greece.

Mike, Greece is in trouble because its government is corrupt and it borrowed too much money. (Sound familiar?) Nothing to do with birth rates.

The problem isn't that there aren't enough young people. It's that those young people cannot find work. The reduced population will be an absolute boon to Greece eventually.

I mean really, producing the electricity to run your home? They don't have children running on treadmills in the power plants. It honestly does not take that many people anymore. It doesn't take that many people to grow food, either, or really to do much of anything.

If you really think there is ANY occupation that needs lots and lots more people, where they just can't find enough workers, please provide a good example - aside from war.

End of growth. If the environment withstands the population overshoot we are experiencing now, and people can be smart enough to have fewer children, eventually things might get better in another 100 years.

It doesn't really work that way Jo. You are right that no kids is hardly the cause of Greece's problems. Their government corruption completely masks the problems of sub replacement rate reproduction. But sub replacement rate is a problem. Same with the environmental issues. Population growth doesn't really cause that. But government corruption sure does.

In the end those who breed and transmit their values to their young determine the direction a society takes.

Actually, PirateJo, the answer would be for some couples to have lots of kids, and many others to have none, from a pure resources standpoint. Of course, then you eventually run into an issue with lack of variety in genes. So you can't look solely at whats best "for the planet" which is no where near carrying capacity.

Now, I frequently wish for a pandemic plague, because I don't like people or crowds, and for some reason-no matter how they mock TX in the news-it seems everyone and their brother wants to live here and we are getting crowded. But that's personal preference, we aren't actually too overcrowded on earth at all.

Actually, PirateJo, the answer would be for some couples to have lots of kids, and many others to have none, from a pure resources standpoint.

I don't disagree, momof4! There are a lot of people who would call you a Nazi eugenicist for saying something like that. But you are absolutely correct. What you'd have would be a population that decreased in quantity and increased in quality until it reached an equilibrium where it maintained a steady replacement rate.

Unfortunately, the opposite is what's happening. As Ben points out,

In the end those who breed and transmit their values to their young determine the direction a society takes.

I know, right? And how's that working out?

Anyway, as to this:

But sub replacement rate is a problem.

HOW is it a problem? Please support this. Take Greece and Japan. Eventually their populations will diminish to the point where they finally have full employment and people's lives will start to improve. (As a side benefit, their environments will improve.) At which point the replacement rate would start to increase again. Sub-replacement rates don't just go on forever and ever. They go up and down until there is a balance between people, the environment, the economy, and the resulting quality of life those people can have. Greece and Japan just happen to be countries where the people are smart enough to limit their offspring to the number they feel they can start off in life with a decent future to look forward to.

Sooner or later, I suspect, we will just have to start teaching kids to Work For AND Save Their Own Money, starting from when they can walk. (Of course, it's easier to save money, psychologically speaking, when you actually have to WORK for it.) This, after all, was pretty typical parenting a hundred years ago in the US.

Amy Dacyczyn said she would have done just that had any of her babies asked for disposable diapers, since such luxuries would have been the kid's idea, not hers. The point, of course, was to get them into the habit of earning money instead of begging for luxuries all the time; give kids unearned junk food and they eventually start demanding unearned entertainment centers and cars.

BTW, I don't know why so many predict that the global population is going to drop at some point, unless what's really meant is "when he hit 9 or 10 billion, we'll finally come to our senses, panic in every country and start conserving what few resources and food we have left." After all, the global population didn't drop even during the Depression - OR World War II! Not to mention so many honestly believe that "God will provide," no matter how many stupid decisions people make.

Also, from what I see, the most likely growth patterns are:

1) we will increase by 1 billion every 12 years (maybe fewer), just as we've been doing since 1987, so we'll reach 10 billion by 2047 at the latest

or

2) global population will DOUBLE every 45 years or fewer, just as it has since 1930, and we will hit 10 billion by 2032. E.g., we had 3 billion in 1960, near the end of the baby boom, but it only took 39 years to double that number. So we should be looking at 7.5 billion by the end of this year - and 8 billion by the end of 1919.

Ben, I agree with what you're saying. I just think more people should vet the churches they attend and be sure the way they deal with money is what they agree with. Too many people have no idea what kind of shape their church is in, and too many don't know what happens with the money. Mine grossed $140,000 last year and still managed to, on top of salaries and other special events, take care of its children's and youth ministries and send them to camps; give to missionaries in Africa, Guatemala, and to the infirmary/school in Congo; and also support its local ministries that include a home for abused women who need shelter and their primary one, a resale shop that also serves as a food bank to the needy.

Alas, the senior pastor has retired this year and I am quietly waiting to see what the new leadership will do now.

In the big scheme, good churches do more with the little money they have than government ever could. But it's up to churchgoers to be sure they stay "good" churches.

Jo,

Support your claim too!

Greece and Japan's issues with job creation are independent of population size. They are purely a function of regulation. As their populations dwindle their job creation rates also dwindle. There is no pendulum swing here. The same with environmental issues. There are ample resources for many more people on this planet. The key issue is developing and exploiting those resources. Look at which nations have the greatest and the least natural resources. There is nil positive correlation with wealth. Look at nations that have depopulated like you propose. The environment doesn't get better. Often it gets worse! Europe as a whole has depopulated as you propose since WW2. Guess what, they are farther from full employment than when they started.

The pendulum swings back from sub replacement growth when either the local culture changes it's ways or when a new group takes over by force.

Just to expand a bit.

When a nation hits zero population growth that number is not spread evenly. I.e. not all segments of society are at zero population growth. Some are above and some are below. The religious typically breed more than the secular. And in societies with a robust welfare state the poor and ignorant breed more than the wealthy and educated do.

So when you hit sub replacement rate reproduction you typically see a demographic shift. For European nations which are almost entirely secular the shift is mainly poorer and less educated. So you are replacing those who pay for society with those who can't. Hence unemployment doesn't go down. It in fact goes up. The environment doesn't improve and often degrades as you have more people who don't think long term. Criminality also increases.

Now, that doesn't mean that high population growth is some magical panacea. You actually see the same problems caused by the same demographic shift in high population growth nations. The poor and the ignorant are the most susceptible to short term rewards for having a child. Governments that aggressively encouraged procreation typically ended in revolution after 1-2 generations.