Father only benefits are bold but may be too 7th-level-chess to survive public opinion
They seem to work just fine already. AFAIK several places have them. Basically, you give out X amount of leave/cash and divide it between the parents. I don't think most places do half-and-half but I think it's totally viable.
I said this before, I don't see how the same principle is supposed to be applied to paying parents to stay at home. Can you elaborate?
You mean like a cash-for-childcare system? I guess you could do something like the payments topping out at a certain point per parent. If you want all the money you need to evenly split it between both. There's probably more clever schemes out there then that.
This is similar to how some parental leave schemes work. If you have paid maternity leave and then paid parental leave that can be split any way you want, generally the women ends up taking all or most of both pots. So instead you have paid maternity leave and then paid paternity leave and basically force the father to take the leave themselves or they lose it all. I believe .. I wanna say Sweden or Norway? actually went through this whole example.
If you really wanna poke this problem in the eye and get deep into some policy-based reshaping of behaviour I believe what some policy experts on this stuff think is the best way is actually to force parents to take the cfc payments or leave or whatever non-simultaneously. Because if both the father and mother take the time off together the mother ends up doing most of the work and the bonding and all that anyway.
We are talking about a system that allows a parent to go "Instead of free/subsidized daycare I would like to be paid for staying home to take care of my kid(s)". I'm not clear on how splitting the payments between both parents would work. Do they both stop working? Do one or both work but only part-time? Each one only gets a job every other year?
I think you just need to accept that this is an unintentional externality of an otherwise more equitable system and the cultural forces driving some of it are best adressed in culture. Have prominent role models for stay at home dads. Try to potray being a stay at home dad positively in media. Etc.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I just finished up my 10 weeks of paternity leave that I took as Thursdays so my wife could go into the office one day a week. I only had to watch a baby. I love spending time with my daughter and am grateful for the opportunity to do so, but fuck I was exhausted.
Last night I woke up at 3:00AM because my son wet the bed. Our bed. He came into our room about an hour earlier, cuddled up next to dad and sometime later, pissed all over me. So my wife and I had to wake up. Strip the bed. Thank Christ we have a mattress cover. Throw down baking soda anyway. Get into a minor exhausted fight over putting the baking soda down. Calm down a wailing 4 year old. Take a shower. Then go to sleep in our new stations (couch for me, twin bed with Captain Pisspants for her) and wake up at 6:00 to start the day.
But yeah. Parenting. Easy Peasy throwing frisbees all day.
Normal everyday stuff you'd probably already do. Like trying to feed antibiotics to a miserable two year old that gags himself refusing to swallow and now is both still ill and now covered in vomit.
+4
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Several people have given examples. I don't even have kids and I could describe the difference between cooking with and without children.
I cook with my son. half the time is spent getting him to wash his hands again because he did something that you'd prefer that someone preparing your food didnt.
Its not a lie, and every parent will agree, "If you think you're prepared for kids, you aren't", folks have been trying for millennia to explain what it's like... and they've all failed to fully convey what it is like, and we're never gonna be able to distill it down to a digestible post here. It is a topic so extensive we have multiple threads about it. The real honest truth is that unless you've been exposed to raising children or being employed in childcare you really aren't gonna understand the mental toll it takes or how children change every task they are involved in.
When the scale goes from "a little" to "a lot" to "???" it's hard to determine things that must be given numbers, like leave times or frequency of wellness checks or workload. I don't know how much of my time I should donate or how much I should expect parents to be able to do, and that unfortunately creates tension. Even between different parents each advocating for their own time with their kids, I see rifts forming in my department with leave and call competition.
This sentiment that you have is shared with my colleagues, and I know that as long as I don't have kids, I won't ever be fully trusted. I've accepted that. I just think there's some plane I can reach, having no attachments of my own, to help resolve this strife.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Last night I woke up at 3:00AM because my son wet the bed. Our bed. He came into our room about an hour earlier, cuddled up next to dad and sometime later, pissed all over me. So my wife and I had to wake up. Strip the bed. Thank Christ we have a mattress cover. Throw down baking soda anyway. Get into a minor exhausted fight over putting the baking soda down. Calm down a wailing 4 year old. Take a shower. Then go to sleep in our new stations (couch for me, twin bed with Captain Pisspants for her) and wake up at 6:00 to start the day.
But yeah. Parenting. Easy Peasy throwing frisbees all day.
Normal everyday stuff you'd probably already do. Like trying to feed antibiotics to a miserable two year old that gags himself refusing to swallow and now is both still ill and now covered in vomit.
Or the time my youngest nephew got intestinal worms and gave it to everyone else in the family.
Father only benefits are bold but may be too 7th-level-chess to survive public opinion
They seem to work just fine already. AFAIK several places have them. Basically, you give out X amount of leave/cash and divide it between the parents. I don't think most places do half-and-half but I think it's totally viable.
I said this before, I don't see how the same principle is supposed to be applied to paying parents to stay at home. Can you elaborate?
You mean like a cash-for-childcare system? I guess you could do something like the payments topping out at a certain point per parent. If you want all the money you need to evenly split it between both. There's probably more clever schemes out there then that.
This is similar to how some parental leave schemes work. If you have paid maternity leave and then paid parental leave that can be split any way you want, generally the women ends up taking all or most of both pots. So instead you have paid maternity leave and then paid paternity leave and basically force the father to take the leave themselves or they lose it all. I believe .. I wanna say Sweden or Norway? actually went through this whole example.
If you really wanna poke this problem in the eye and get deep into some policy-based reshaping of behaviour I believe what some policy experts on this stuff think is the best way is actually to force parents to take the cfc payments or leave or whatever non-simultaneously. Because if both the father and mother take the time off together the mother ends up doing most of the work and the bonding and all that anyway.
We are talking about a system that allows a parent to go "Instead of free/subsidized daycare I would like to be paid for staying home to take care of my kid(s)". I'm not clear on how splitting the payments between both parents would work. Do they both stop working? Do one or both work but only part-time? Each one only gets a job every other year?
I think you just need to accept that this is an unintentional externality of an otherwise more equitable system and the cultural forces driving some of it are best adressed in culture. Have prominent role models for stay at home dads. Try to potray being a stay at home dad positively in media. Etc.
We aren't just talking about that specific system, as evidenced by the post you are responding to talking about different ones. Hell, this entire thread begins with a criticism of the very system you are talking about and suggesting alternatives should be used.
And given we already have parental leave policies that split the time/money between both parents I don't think these kind of policies are as unworkable as you seem to be trying to imply.
Sounds more like a case for UBI than parental assistance. I don't want kids. It looks like a lot of work and I'd rather have the spare resources. UBI lets everybody make the choice that's right for them without putting one group ahead of another.
I mean, presumably in a UBI the children would also get benefits, which would be paid to the parents... so the parents would still be "ahead".
Not that I agree that parents come out ahead in this or any other system. Kids cost a shitload both in real dollars and opportunities lost, and subsides will only partially offset.
But...I don't have a kid. Like, are we just going to pretend it's all negative here? You get to have kids. And to be clear, when I said "ahead", I was referring to order of importance, not numerically ahead in cash dollars. I've got no problem with a family of 4 getting 4 UBI payments, even if it goes straight to the parents, that's still 4 people being treated equally. It's the fact that 1 choice is considered more valid that I take issue with. Opportunities lost? I'm going to be childless forever. Opportunity has been lost.
Father only benefits are bold but may be too 7th-level-chess to survive public opinion
They seem to work just fine already. AFAIK several places have them. Basically, you give out X amount of leave/cash and divide it between the parents. I don't think most places do half-and-half but I think it's totally viable.
I said this before, I don't see how the same principle is supposed to be applied to paying parents to stay at home. Can you elaborate?
You mean like a cash-for-childcare system? I guess you could do something like the payments topping out at a certain point per parent. If you want all the money you need to evenly split it between both. There's probably more clever schemes out there then that.
This is similar to how some parental leave schemes work. If you have paid maternity leave and then paid parental leave that can be split any way you want, generally the women ends up taking all or most of both pots. So instead you have paid maternity leave and then paid paternity leave and basically force the father to take the leave themselves or they lose it all. I believe .. I wanna say Sweden or Norway? actually went through this whole example.
If you really wanna poke this problem in the eye and get deep into some policy-based reshaping of behaviour I believe what some policy experts on this stuff think is the best way is actually to force parents to take the cfc payments or leave or whatever non-simultaneously. Because if both the father and mother take the time off together the mother ends up doing most of the work and the bonding and all that anyway.
We are talking about a system that allows a parent to go "Instead of free/subsidized daycare I would like to be paid for staying home to take care of my kid(s)". I'm not clear on how splitting the payments between both parents would work. Do they both stop working? Do one or both work but only part-time? Each one only gets a job every other year?
I think you just need to accept that this is an unintentional externality of an otherwise more equitable system and the cultural forces driving some of it are best adressed in culture. Have prominent role models for stay at home dads. Try to potray being a stay at home dad positively in media. Etc.
I think Kramer vs Kramer pretty much tells it like it is, and anything sweeter isn't going to be bought by the public
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Last night I woke up at 3:00AM because my son wet the bed. Our bed. He came into our room about an hour earlier, cuddled up next to dad and sometime later, pissed all over me. So my wife and I had to wake up. Strip the bed. Thank Christ we have a mattress cover. Throw down baking soda anyway. Get into a minor exhausted fight over putting the baking soda down. Calm down a wailing 4 year old. Take a shower. Then go to sleep in our new stations (couch for me, twin bed with Captain Pisspants for her) and wake up at 6:00 to start the day.
But yeah. Parenting. Easy Peasy throwing frisbees all day.
What's the deal man you take showers every day. Same thing right.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The public already has this system in Norway. It is fairly popular.
+2
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Last night I woke up at 3:00AM because my son wet the bed. Our bed. He came into our room about an hour earlier, cuddled up next to dad and sometime later, pissed all over me. So my wife and I had to wake up. Strip the bed. Thank Christ we have a mattress cover. Throw down baking soda anyway. Get into a minor exhausted fight over putting the baking soda down. Calm down a wailing 4 year old. Take a shower. Then go to sleep in our new stations (couch for me, twin bed with Captain Pisspants for her) and wake up at 6:00 to start the day.
But yeah. Parenting. Easy Peasy throwing frisbees all day.
What's the deal man you take showers every day. Same thing right.
If you don't get the difference between me getting baked and going to throw disc with my friends, and a half asleep parent covered in literall shit getting dragged to the park by an 8 year old that's gonna throw disc for at best 5 minutes before they move over to every other piece of equipment in the park (that you're really hoping they don't break their head open on), I'm really not sure there's any way for you to grasp the context here.
I'm not sure either, but we've got to try, else there will never be equity been parents and childless people.
There won't be till parents are compensated because of the key central fact:
for real if you have kids literally every little thing about your life is harder than it would be without children. Fuckin going to your normal 9 to 5 job is harder after children than before. Once you have a kid you won't even be able to take a shit in your house the same as you used to for like 5 or more years.
It literally cannot be explained the full scale life change that having kids is. You have to get actual exposure to the world of raising children to have any grasp of it.
Like I'm only even just pulling from all the experiences around me so I just kinda barely get it, and I've really only been catching on to it in the past few years. Im still only approaching this academically and the only result I come to is this: I will never fully understand the strife of raising children till I do it myself. I've just had a little bit of childcare experience and been watching friends raise kids while it remains economically unviable for me. It's given me a slight understanding of their situation but not a full comprehension because any kid I've had to take care of so far has been someone else's, on their best behavior for me, and I could hand them back to their parents and go back to my relaxed life when I was done helping. There's a psychological component im not gonna experience correctly till it's my kid and I'm one of the two that's totally responsible for it.
Skipping forward to the practical aspect, let's consider an area where a decision involving numbers must be made: new parents in a training program. How much leave do they get, and how long do you hold them back before they graduate to their actual salary? Every year they remain a trainee is a year they're held at a frankly embarrassing salary level. That and the amount of work they do and job hours they must give is increased.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Skipping forward to the practical aspect, let's consider an area where a decision involving numbers must be made: new parents in a training program. How much leave do they get, and how long do you hold them back before they graduate to their actual salary? Every year they remain a trainee is a year they're held at a frankly embarrassing salary level. That and the amount of work they do and job hours they must give is increased.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
The decision is actually the couple having the children, who make a call on who stays working and who stays home, and for how long. Usually based on which is more economical.
My boss doesn't choose when I decide to have kids. My wife and I do.
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
Skipping forward to the practical aspect, let's consider an area where a decision involving numbers must be made: new parents in a training program. How much leave do they get, and how long do you hold them back before they graduate to their actual salary? Every year they remain a trainee is a year they're held at a frankly embarrassing salary level. That and the amount of work they do and job hours they must give is increased.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
The decision is actually the couple having the children, who make a call on who stays working and who stays home, and for how long. Usually based on which is more economical.
My boss doesn't choose when I decide to have kids. My wife and I do.
Your economic and career situation, which is in a large part determined by your boss, strongly influences when or even if you have kids.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Skipping forward to the practical aspect, let's consider an area where a decision involving numbers must be made: new parents in a training program. How much leave do they get, and how long do you hold them back before they graduate to their actual salary? Every year they remain a trainee is a year they're held at a frankly embarrassing salary level. That and the amount of work they do and job hours they must give is increased.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
The decision is actually the couple having the children, who make a call on who stays working and who stays home, and for how long. Usually based on which is more economical.
My boss doesn't choose when I decide to have kids. My wife and I do.
Your economic and career situation, which is in a large part determined by your boss, strongly influences when or even if you have kids.
Sure, it influences the when and if. It doesn't determine it, though. And it certainly doesn't determine if I give up career opportunities. My boss doesn't look at me and say "you don't get a promotion, now go have a kid," even if that is the outcome of me choosing to be a stay at home dad and take parental leave. I make that choice, based upon the circumstances of my situation. Saying otherwise is backwards.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
Skipping forward to the practical aspect, let's consider an area where a decision involving numbers must be made: new parents in a training program. How much leave do they get, and how long do you hold them back before they graduate to their actual salary? Every year they remain a trainee is a year they're held at a frankly embarrassing salary level. That and the amount of work they do and job hours they must give is increased.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
The decision is actually the couple having the children, who make a call on who stays working and who stays home, and for how long. Usually based on which is more economical.
My boss doesn't choose when I decide to have kids. My wife and I do.
Your economic and career situation, which is in a large part determined by your boss, strongly influences when or even if you have kids.
Sure, it influences the when and if. It doesn't determine it, though. And it certainly doesn't determine if I give up career opportunities. My boss doesn't look at me and say "you don't get a promotion, now go have a kid," even if that is the outcome of me choosing to be a stay at home dad and take parental leave. I make that choice, based upon the circumstances of my situation. Saying otherwise is backwards.
You kind of do get denied a "promotion" if you must meet certain established criteria for advancement - training milestones. If you don't meet that competency at the end, you don't get to advance, and this is not a 6% promotion I'm talking about - this is doubling to quadrupling your salary and halving your work hours while the kids are young. If you aren't able to communicate your actual workload to your boss, you increase the risk of a nasty surprise out of control of both of you.
Effective communication for understanding is in this case more effective than throwing leave and money at the problem. If you can't make your boss know how things are, they will be harder for you to juggle by yourself.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Could someone explain to me why population growth being based on immigration is a bad thing? Seems like it's all positives to me: more diversity, and more people getting a better life. I don't see any downsides, honestly.
It's not a bad thing at all. Saying no one should have biological children and that population growth should only be via immigration is a bad thing. Because that robs people of access to part of the human condition. Choice should remain paramount.
You might want to think very, very carefully about the implications of what you are saying there.
I have said:
Population growth by immigration in the US is fine. It's been that way since the 1950s and hasn't really impacted the economy or required us to limit births in any legistlative way for our population.
I think parents should be able to decide if they want to have kids, rather than have someone say "you don't get to have kids" as a law due to income or some sort of bullshit Malthusian argument.
What exactly is the negative implication here?
How about the constant implication that people who don't have kids are not fully humans and are broken.
Quite a few people don't have any opportunities to choose whether or not they have kids. This does not in any way reduce their humanity. They were not fucking robbed of part of their humanity.
Having constraints on that decision, including people disagreeing with it, is not an attack on human dignity, quite the opposite.
So the thing nobody has actually said?
Not in this thread no, but it has come up in real life a bunch of times. My partner got the worst of it, especially in her late 20s. Less so now.
To be fair, I get the same thing when people find out I don't drink alcohol. Any deviation from what people see as the norm gets questioned and prodded. I don't think most people are even trying to malicious with it.
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
There are certain professional careers where a valiant effort to make it work is 1000x better than switching careers and you would have an insignificant chance of success if you tried to do it alone.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
There are certain professional careers where a valiant effort to make it work is 1000x better than switching careers and you would have an insignificant chance of success if you tried to do it alone.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your career (and its advancement) is your own responsibility, not your employers. You mention a training program, so is there a specific career path that you have in mind where an employer or a union would have more hold over a person?
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
Also worth keeping in mind that kids are very different. Some kids have (relatively) easy natures and just sit around drawing on paper-and-not-walls, others are setting fire to the cat because it makes a funny sound.
My parents found me pretty easy to raise, even with bully attacks and horrible ear infections, but they were not at all prepared when my spitfire baby sister came around almost a decade later, and she has very healthy, normal psychology, and I was backing them up.
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
There are certain professional careers where a valiant effort to make it work is 1000x better than switching careers and you would have an insignificant chance of success if you tried to do it alone.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your career (and its advancement) is your own responsibility, not your employers. You mention a training program, so is there a specific career path that you have in mind where an employer or a union would have more hold over a person?
Any employment during a certification process is like college, except you have real responsibilities your advancement is guaranteed by you and your employer because the employer has already chosen you, just as you have chosen your employer.
Like, let's talk healthcare. There are a few professions in it where the only way to train you is by giving you real world experience, but continuing to demand you pay for the experience is borderline criminal, so you're a training employee. Different professions have different versions of paid internships.
You can only stay in this phase for a short amount of time before the financial and demand repercussions start to hit, and so you're really between a rock and a hard place: go too fast, get burnt out and hurt someone, go too slow, get burnt out from the protracted training conditions and delays. Give up, and everyone gets hurt big time.
You are not in control of your advancement, and neither is it totally in your employer's hands in cases where accreditation is managed by a third party agency. In these cases, your employer must have some sort of understanding about your individual situation to prevent you from having to make a terrible choice that really can be avoided with good teamwork. This has to go beyond more pay and leave.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I think he meant that the decision that having a child often involves stifling ones career is a decision that’s made by employers, and isn’t necessarily a physical inevitability inherent in having children
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
There are certain professional careers where a valiant effort to make it work is 1000x better than switching careers and you would have an insignificant chance of success if you tried to do it alone.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your career (and its advancement) is your own responsibility, not your employers. You mention a training program, so is there a specific career path that you have in mind where an employer or a union would have more hold over a person?
Any employment during a certification process is like college, except you have real responsibilities your advancement is guaranteed by you and your employer because the employer has already chosen you, just as you have chosen your employer.
Like, let's talk healthcare. There are a few professions in it where the only way to train you is by giving you real world experience, but continuing to demand you pay for the experience is borderline criminal, so you're a training employee. Different professions have different versions of paid internships.
You can only stay in this phase for a short amount of time before the financial and demand repercussions start to hit, and so you're really between a rock and a hard place: go too fast, get burnt out and hurt someone, go too slow, get burnt out from the protracted training conditions and delays. Give up, and everyone gets hurt big time.
You are not in control of your advancement, and neither is it totally in your employer's hands in cases where accreditation is managed by a third party agency. In these cases, your employer must have some sort of understanding about your individual situation to prevent you from having to make a terrible choice that really can be avoided with good teamwork. This has to go beyond more pay and leave.
Your learned helplessness in the job market doesn’t make this true for others or germane to the conversation. If you want to start a new thread on determinism as a workforce philosophy i’d be happy to disagree with you there, but this is my last response to this here.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Sure.
Nationalise all the things, including housebuilding.
That is, where the market fails and it falls on you to build your house despite a lack of experience, it is the duty of government to step in and either legislate or redistribute wealth in order to produce better outcomes.
So, you can tax the employers to pay the parents, on whom the cost of child rearing had been externalised.
Just like maybe you should be paid by the government so your shanty isn't built of two bits of cardboard and a stick, even if you can't afford a house.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Sure.
Nationalise all the things, including housebuilding.
That is, where the market fails and it falls on you to build your house despite a lack of experience, it is the duty of government to step in and either legislate or redistribute wealth in order to produce better outcomes.
So, you can tax the employers to pay the parents, on whom the cost of child rearing had been externalised.
Just like maybe you should be paid by the government so your shanty isn't built of two bits of cardboard and a stick, even if you can't afford a house.
But the cost of child rearing hasn't been externalized. Unless the employer issued the kids to the parents.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Sure.
Nationalise all the things, including housebuilding.
That is, where the market fails and it falls on you to build your house despite a lack of experience, it is the duty of government to step in and either legislate or redistribute wealth in order to produce better outcomes.
So, you can tax the employers to pay the parents, on whom the cost of child rearing had been externalised.
Just like maybe you should be paid by the government so your shanty isn't built of two bits of cardboard and a stick, even if you can't afford a house.
But the cost of child rearing hasn't been externalized. Unless the employer issued the kids to the parents.
The cost of not having a life outside work has.
Which falls heavier on those with obligations outside work, such as parents and other carers.
.. perhaps that wording is too superlative.
And I'm stretching the meaning of externalised.
But the point is, there is an opportunity cost being borne when working that gets heavier when a person has other heavier obligations.
Yet the employer expects the same work from the parent, for the same pay, whilst also attempting to squeeze pay rates down, and working hours up in general.
So perhaps those with other obligations should be paid by the government to assist with this.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
That work has financial value for the household.
So the government should additionally compensate the people who do that work.
I'm content with saying businesses benefit quite a bit from the work put in to raising children. All of society does.
Exactly. Having and raising children is what creates the workforce. It creates the entire value of all labour, because without that work there would be no labour. It's absurd to suggest it doesn't create value.
Our system's ability to extract enormous amounts of unpaid, absolutely crucial labour from women is how it generates enormous wealth (which it then funnels to the top), and there is a powerful latent interest in keeping it that way. If you don't consider it work, if you instead make it a calling, a fundamental human duty, a passion, then you can continue to draw from that workforce without worrying about compensation for labour. Which is, you know, a popular tactic lately in general.
I think it's very interesting that the right supported this measure in the OP's context. It suggests a tension between economic and social/religious interests on the right.
I'm content with saying businesses benefit quite a bit from the work put in to raising children. All of society does.
Exactly. Having and raising children is what creates the workforce. It creates the entire value of all labour, because without that work there would be no labour. It's absurd to suggest it doesn't create value.
Our system's ability to extract enormous amounts of unpaid, absolutely crucial labour from women is how it generates enormous wealth (which it then funnels to the top), and there is a powerful latent interest in keeping it that way. If you don't consider it work, if you instead make it a calling, a fundamental human duty, a passion, then you can continue to draw from that workforce without worrying about compensation for labour. Which is, you know, a popular tactic lately in general.
I think it's very interesting that the right supported this measure in the OP's context. It suggests a tension between economic and social/religious interests on the right.
Not really. Or not anything beyond the standard tension between the plutocrats and the rest of the right you always see. You will see the same shit in the US right now if you are reading the people who follow what the right is up to. You will see shit like Tucker Carlson praising this or that left-wing idea in ways that are not isolated because there is a degree to which some policies can intersect with right-wing populism and social conservatism.
Specifically in this case both people on the left and social conservatives are interested in supporting families. Both are interested in making family units stable and prosperous. It's just the right restricts their idea of what a "real" family unit is along socially conservative lines (ie - man + women + kids and the father as the main breadwinner) and generally values the cohesiveness of that unit over the needs of any individual within it (eg - divorce is bad). To them the point is to support a specific kind of family unit that conforms with their moral outlook. "Society is better when good clean child-rearing god-fearing heterosexual families are the norm" or the like.
That this can sometimes conflict with the plutocrats desire to exploit the fuck out of people to get even richer is, well, it's there but it's also pretty standard for right-wing coalitions.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
Posts
We are talking about a system that allows a parent to go "Instead of free/subsidized daycare I would like to be paid for staying home to take care of my kid(s)". I'm not clear on how splitting the payments between both parents would work. Do they both stop working? Do one or both work but only part-time? Each one only gets a job every other year?
I think you just need to accept that this is an unintentional externality of an otherwise more equitable system and the cultural forces driving some of it are best adressed in culture. Have prominent role models for stay at home dads. Try to potray being a stay at home dad positively in media. Etc.
Normal everyday stuff you'd probably already do. Like trying to feed antibiotics to a miserable two year old that gags himself refusing to swallow and now is both still ill and now covered in vomit.
I cook with my son. half the time is spent getting him to wash his hands again because he did something that you'd prefer that someone preparing your food didnt.
When the scale goes from "a little" to "a lot" to "???" it's hard to determine things that must be given numbers, like leave times or frequency of wellness checks or workload. I don't know how much of my time I should donate or how much I should expect parents to be able to do, and that unfortunately creates tension. Even between different parents each advocating for their own time with their kids, I see rifts forming in my department with leave and call competition.
This sentiment that you have is shared with my colleagues, and I know that as long as I don't have kids, I won't ever be fully trusted. I've accepted that. I just think there's some plane I can reach, having no attachments of my own, to help resolve this strife.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Or the time my youngest nephew got intestinal worms and gave it to everyone else in the family.
Precious moments. :P
We aren't just talking about that specific system, as evidenced by the post you are responding to talking about different ones. Hell, this entire thread begins with a criticism of the very system you are talking about and suggesting alternatives should be used.
And given we already have parental leave policies that split the time/money between both parents I don't think these kind of policies are as unworkable as you seem to be trying to imply.
But...I don't have a kid. Like, are we just going to pretend it's all negative here? You get to have kids. And to be clear, when I said "ahead", I was referring to order of importance, not numerically ahead in cash dollars. I've got no problem with a family of 4 getting 4 UBI payments, even if it goes straight to the parents, that's still 4 people being treated equally. It's the fact that 1 choice is considered more valid that I take issue with. Opportunities lost? I'm going to be childless forever. Opportunity has been lost.
I think Kramer vs Kramer pretty much tells it like it is, and anything sweeter isn't going to be bought by the public
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What's the deal man you take showers every day. Same thing right.
They're usually less golden.
There won't be till parents are compensated because of the key central fact:
for real if you have kids literally every little thing about your life is harder than it would be without children. Fuckin going to your normal 9 to 5 job is harder after children than before. Once you have a kid you won't even be able to take a shit in your house the same as you used to for like 5 or more years.
It literally cannot be explained the full scale life change that having kids is. You have to get actual exposure to the world of raising children to have any grasp of it.
Like I'm only even just pulling from all the experiences around me so I just kinda barely get it, and I've really only been catching on to it in the past few years. Im still only approaching this academically and the only result I come to is this: I will never fully understand the strife of raising children till I do it myself. I've just had a little bit of childcare experience and been watching friends raise kids while it remains economically unviable for me. It's given me a slight understanding of their situation but not a full comprehension because any kid I've had to take care of so far has been someone else's, on their best behavior for me, and I could hand them back to their parents and go back to my relaxed life when I was done helping. There's a psychological component im not gonna experience correctly till it's my kid and I'm one of the two that's totally responsible for it.
This isn't really solved by expanding leave and current salary, because you're delaying their career and life advancement by a really significant amount if you do that. We say that people give up career opportunities when having a kid, but who decides that? The answer is, a lot of the time, their bosses that don't have kids. So if they have no measure of relative burden, even a well meaning boss may quantitatively make the wrong call.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The decision is actually the couple having the children, who make a call on who stays working and who stays home, and for how long. Usually based on which is more economical.
My boss doesn't choose when I decide to have kids. My wife and I do.
Your economic and career situation, which is in a large part determined by your boss, strongly influences when or even if you have kids.
Sure, it influences the when and if. It doesn't determine it, though. And it certainly doesn't determine if I give up career opportunities. My boss doesn't look at me and say "you don't get a promotion, now go have a kid," even if that is the outcome of me choosing to be a stay at home dad and take parental leave. I make that choice, based upon the circumstances of my situation. Saying otherwise is backwards.
He's wrong on that count. It absolutely is not up to the employer. If you exit the workforce for a period of time or move to a role with more flexibility/work-life balance, you're probably hurting your own career.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
You kind of do get denied a "promotion" if you must meet certain established criteria for advancement - training milestones. If you don't meet that competency at the end, you don't get to advance, and this is not a 6% promotion I'm talking about - this is doubling to quadrupling your salary and halving your work hours while the kids are young. If you aren't able to communicate your actual workload to your boss, you increase the risk of a nasty surprise out of control of both of you.
Effective communication for understanding is in this case more effective than throwing leave and money at the problem. If you can't make your boss know how things are, they will be harder for you to juggle by yourself.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Not in this thread no, but it has come up in real life a bunch of times. My partner got the worst of it, especially in her late 20s. Less so now.
To be fair, I get the same thing when people find out I don't drink alcohol. Any deviation from what people see as the norm gets questioned and prodded. I don't think most people are even trying to malicious with it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
There are certain professional careers where a valiant effort to make it work is 1000x better than switching careers and you would have an insignificant chance of success if you tried to do it alone.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your career (and its advancement) is your own responsibility, not your employers. You mention a training program, so is there a specific career path that you have in mind where an employer or a union would have more hold over a person?
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
My parents found me pretty easy to raise, even with bully attacks and horrible ear infections, but they were not at all prepared when my spitfire baby sister came around almost a decade later, and she has very healthy, normal psychology, and I was backing them up.
Any employment during a certification process is like college, except you have real responsibilities your advancement is guaranteed by you and your employer because the employer has already chosen you, just as you have chosen your employer.
Like, let's talk healthcare. There are a few professions in it where the only way to train you is by giving you real world experience, but continuing to demand you pay for the experience is borderline criminal, so you're a training employee. Different professions have different versions of paid internships.
You can only stay in this phase for a short amount of time before the financial and demand repercussions start to hit, and so you're really between a rock and a hard place: go too fast, get burnt out and hurt someone, go too slow, get burnt out from the protracted training conditions and delays. Give up, and everyone gets hurt big time.
You are not in control of your advancement, and neither is it totally in your employer's hands in cases where accreditation is managed by a third party agency. In these cases, your employer must have some sort of understanding about your individual situation to prevent you from having to make a terrible choice that really can be avoided with good teamwork. This has to go beyond more pay and leave.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Your learned helplessness in the job market doesn’t make this true for others or germane to the conversation. If you want to start a new thread on determinism as a workforce philosophy i’d be happy to disagree with you there, but this is my last response to this here.
Sure.
Nationalise all the things, including housebuilding.
That is, where the market fails and it falls on you to build your house despite a lack of experience, it is the duty of government to step in and either legislate or redistribute wealth in order to produce better outcomes.
So, you can tax the employers to pay the parents, on whom the cost of child rearing had been externalised.
Just like maybe you should be paid by the government so your shanty isn't built of two bits of cardboard and a stick, even if you can't afford a house.
But the cost of child rearing hasn't been externalized. Unless the employer issued the kids to the parents.
The cost of not having a life outside work has.
Which falls heavier on those with obligations outside work, such as parents and other carers.
.. perhaps that wording is too superlative.
And I'm stretching the meaning of externalised.
But the point is, there is an opportunity cost being borne when working that gets heavier when a person has other heavier obligations.
Yet the employer expects the same work from the parent, for the same pay, whilst also attempting to squeeze pay rates down, and working hours up in general.
So perhaps those with other obligations should be paid by the government to assist with this.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
That work has financial value for the household.
So the government should additionally compensate the people who do that work.
Exactly. Having and raising children is what creates the workforce. It creates the entire value of all labour, because without that work there would be no labour. It's absurd to suggest it doesn't create value.
Our system's ability to extract enormous amounts of unpaid, absolutely crucial labour from women is how it generates enormous wealth (which it then funnels to the top), and there is a powerful latent interest in keeping it that way. If you don't consider it work, if you instead make it a calling, a fundamental human duty, a passion, then you can continue to draw from that workforce without worrying about compensation for labour. Which is, you know, a popular tactic lately in general.
I think it's very interesting that the right supported this measure in the OP's context. It suggests a tension between economic and social/religious interests on the right.
Not really. Or not anything beyond the standard tension between the plutocrats and the rest of the right you always see. You will see the same shit in the US right now if you are reading the people who follow what the right is up to. You will see shit like Tucker Carlson praising this or that left-wing idea in ways that are not isolated because there is a degree to which some policies can intersect with right-wing populism and social conservatism.
Specifically in this case both people on the left and social conservatives are interested in supporting families. Both are interested in making family units stable and prosperous. It's just the right restricts their idea of what a "real" family unit is along socially conservative lines (ie - man + women + kids and the father as the main breadwinner) and generally values the cohesiveness of that unit over the needs of any individual within it (eg - divorce is bad). To them the point is to support a specific kind of family unit that conforms with their moral outlook. "Society is better when good clean child-rearing god-fearing heterosexual families are the norm" or the like.
That this can sometimes conflict with the plutocrats desire to exploit the fuck out of people to get even richer is, well, it's there but it's also pretty standard for right-wing coalitions.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
Why not?
Because that's not what the word means.