Maternity leave in the US - what do you think is reasonable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

What a lovely case you make to be a stay-at-home mom! I thought that's what day care centers are for?

You actually sound like a stay-home mom. If there were paid maternal leave there would be fewer stay home moms, not more. The point of paid maternal leave is to prevent women from leaving the work-force for long periods of time (or forever) by making it possible for them to leave for very short periods of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

Investing in the greedy employers is not investing in children
Mothers are people too, in other countries around the world, even in Swaziland, they have recognized the value of women and mothers and the benefit this has on infants. To them small children are a valuable resource worth investing in.

I cannot help but think US rules are because the conservatives do not want to see women in the work force. More like a prehistoric mind set from another era

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.[/quote

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

What a lovely case you make to be a stay-at-home mom! I thought that's what day care centers are for?

You actually sound like a stay-home mom. If there were paid maternal leave there would be fewer stay home moms, not more. The point of paid maternal leave is to prevent women from leaving the work-force for long periods of time (or forever) by making it possible for them to leave for very short periods of time.

Me? A stay-at-home mom? That's a good one. I'm actually a small business owner/ former large corp executive who, unlike many in this discussion, knows firsthand what it's like to make a payroll and budget work/ salaries/ benefits for employees. Six months paid maternity leave is a joke -- there is no employee that I've ever come across in 20+ years in business who is worth that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

What a lovely case you make to be a stay-at-home mom! I thought that's what day care centers are for?

You actually sound like a stay-home mom. If there were paid maternal leave there would be fewer stay home moms, not more. The point of paid maternal leave is to prevent women from leaving the work-force for long periods of time (or forever) by making it possible for them to leave for very short periods of time.

Me? A stay-at-home mom? That's a good one. I'm actually a small business owner/ former large corp executive who, unlike many in this discussion, knows firsthand what it's like to make a payroll and budget work/ salaries/ benefits for employees. Six months paid maternity leave is a joke -- there is no employee that I've ever come across in 20+ years in business who is worth that.

Apparently, your firm or the firms do not attract top talent. Which makes perfect sense - after you are the owner/senior executive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Again, all programs are meant to be self-funded because taxes are paid to cover the expenses. Taxes collected are often insufficient, so money gets borrowed. Your precious "social security" box is just an accounting gimmick - the only money you will get "back" (highly misleading because SS is very progressive) is the money collected from taxes at the time you draw your benefits.

And btw - women are not paid to have babies, but to maintain careers. It's not about encouraging women to have children, but rather encouraging them not leave the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Again, all programs are meant to be self-funded because taxes are paid to cover the expenses. Taxes collected are often insufficient, so money gets borrowed. Your precious "social security" box is just an accounting gimmick - the only money you will get "back" (highly misleading because SS is very progressive) is the money collected from taxes at the time you draw your benefits.

And btw - women are not paid to have babies, but to maintain careers. It's not about encouraging women to have children, but rather encouraging them not leave the workforce.

I am not excepting to collect much from social security that's why I am already taking personal responsibility for my retirement. Social Security for time being is self funded through a specific tax. And BTW, semantics aside,women would still be paid to have babies whether you want to believe that or not is your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

You can also take personal responsibility and save amount you need before you have kids. Why do you need to get government involved in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

You can also take personal responsibility and save amount you need before you have kids. Why do you need to get government involved in this?

To maintain the role of the employee i.e. career. I have plenty of money saved; however I would never take unpaid maternity leave. It has almost nothing to do with money. I want to be employed and I don't feel employed if I am not paid.