• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama pushes for paid family leave

Wakeforest22890 said:
Maybe this is an extreme point of view but I think that in a wealthy industrialized nation that it is a basic human right to receive health care.
Click to expand...
So citizens in a poor country don't have those "basic human" rights, but citizens in rich countries do? Wow. Do the 1%ers deserve even more basic human rights? I don't think the founders believed rights were dependent on wealth.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure healthcare is exactly "pissing away money."
 
WFU Lurker said:
I don't think CEO pay multipliers are unquestioned; I think what is questioned is the government's ability to regulate CEO pay. I personally feel that CEO pay is absolutely out of control. I also feel that it has happened as a result of board of directors failing to perform their duties diligently and any regulation reforms should focus on increasing board effectiveness and independence, therefore indirectly solving for the CEO pay issue.

That said, in the grand scheme of things, CEO pay, to my earlier point, rarely significantly impact's a company's bottom line (at least in the case of large public companies). It simply isn't a big issue.

From a macro sense, I don't think maternity or paternity leave is really a big issue either (if someone averages 2-3 children, that's going to be <7% of his or her career on leave). That said, in the age where many people change companies every 4-5 years, one could imagine that stringent requirements would create both age and gender discrimination because who wants to pay a woman from ages 25-30 if she's only going to work for 3 of those 5 years?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so it does all get back to my original point. Companies that can afford exorbitant CEO salaries can afford family leave. It's just not a matter of profit margin for those kinds of companies.

Regardless, the whole subject of the OP is federal jobs, and profit margin is a completely different topic.
 
pourdeac said:
So citizens in a poor country don't have those "basic human" rights, but citizens in rich countries do? Wow. Do the 1%ers deserve even more basic human rights? I don't think the founders believed rights were dependent on wealth.
Click to expand...

No they do. I was just pointing out that it's particularly egregious in a country like America (and because we're talking about the US here).
 
pourdeac said:
So citizens in a poor country don't have those "basic human" rights, but citizens in rich countries do? Wow. Do the 1%ers deserve even more basic human rights? I don't think the founders believed rights were dependent on wealth.
Click to expand...

Speech is becoming increasingly dependent on wealth.
 
WFU Lurker said:
I don't think CEO pay multipliers are unquestioned; I think what is questioned is the government's ability to regulate CEO pay. I personally feel that CEO pay is absolutely out of control. I also feel that it has happened as a result of board of directors failing to perform their duties diligently and any regulation reforms should focus on increasing board effectiveness and independence, therefore indirectly solving for the CEO pay issue.

That said, in the grand scheme of things, CEO pay, to my earlier point, rarely significantly impact's a company's bottom line (at least in the case of large public companies). It simply isn't a big issue.

From a macro sense, I don't think maternity or paternity leave is really a big issue either (if someone averages 2-3 children, that's going to be <7% of his or her career on leave). That said, in the age where many people change companies every 4-5 years, one could imagine that stringent requirements would create both age and gender discrimination because who wants to pay a woman from ages 25-30 if she's only going to work for 3 of those 5 years?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're stuck on CEO pay. All that post was about was to show that the profits are there to cover maternity leave.

Can somebody explain why it's more important to protect American lives from terrorists than disease?
 
WFFaithful said:
Speech is becoming increasingly dependent on wealth.
Click to expand...

Not only that. Wealth is considered a form of speech.

I'm not what point Wrangor and pour are trying to make with the whole some countries don't have basic human rights argument. "Human rights violations" are something we all know about and should be working to address.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
It's strange to me that people divorce quality affordable healthcare from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief.

Anybody can tie anything into life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they want, from the fucking of 4 year olds to overdosing on crack. That's probably why that whole spiel about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not found anywhere in the Constitution and was very specific to the DOI, which is an entirely different animal.
 
This all seems pretty simple to me. If you want to have a baby, plan for it. If you get pregnant on accident, you have 8-9 months to save up both leave and money. If you're relegated to bedrest, then the father does. It should not be incumbent upon your employer to shell out money for production that isn't there and was "earned" only because somebody busted a nut in somebody else's pussy. And then to make this whole absurd idea more "equal", we give the same rights to men, essentially doubling the problem. That people actually think this should be a workplace right is asinine. If the Euros do it and you want it so badly, move to Europe. We need to step back from the attitude of getting shit for free and get back to focusing on actually earning rewards.
 
It's not just "the Euros do it and we want it." It's "the Euros did it and it's shown to increase labor participation rates for women thus increasing overall productivity and improving the domestic labor market."
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oh good grief.

Anybody can tie anything into life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they want, from the fucking of 4 year olds to overdosing on crack. That's probably why that whole spiel about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not found anywhere in the Constitution and was very specific to the DOI, which is an entirely different animal.
Click to expand...

That escalated quickly.
 
Milhouse said:
not in my experience, nor the experience of coworkers back when i worked there. the benefits were the best part about working at that godforsaken place and everybody i worked with took full advantage.

what is/was your experience? perhaps the people who were transferred or canned were shitty employees in the first place, and taking leave had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

then how do you explain your continued employment?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's not just "the Euros do it and we want it." It's "the Euros did it and it's shown to increase labor participation rates for women thus increasing overall productivity and improving the domestic labor market."
Click to expand...

Of course it increases labor rates, because someone has the "job" of getting paid to stay home with their kid, so the employer has to hire someone else to do the actual job. That is an artifical increase, it isn't actually adding another job. How does that in any way increase productivity? You still only have one person doing the actual job - the other person is being paid not to work. If that is the logic, then everyone receiving unemployment should be considered in labor participation rates.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's not just "the Euros do it and we want it." It's "the Euros did it and it's shown to increase labor participation rates for women thus increasing overall productivity and improving the domestic labor market."
Click to expand...

[Euro-bashing]Easy for them to afford paternity leave when nobody's even making babies there[/Euro-bashing]
 
ImTheCaptain said:
he's talking about the fact that superwealthy donor's words carry more weight than the plebeians who can't buy off politicians. idiot.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I understand. Perhaps you could show me where in the Constitution everyone is afforded a right to have their speech given equal weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top