Odd, these French

[Orwell]

I'm interested in the "biological needs" argument. Granted, there are some people who simply cannot get by (i.e. survive) on a single income, but that's not many. The other people who "need" the second income are so they can live extremely comfortably, or some might argue, opulantly. I've heard some colleagues make the 2 income argument. They have 2 cars, a large house, satellite (or cable), broadband, play golf regularly, and go out to eat lunch almost daily.

So, does the need to own a Lexus trump the need to breed?

I realize I might be a bit extreme, but just to prove a point.

ETA: I consider myself to be in the "average middle class" bracket, same for the people I work with.

That sounds like upper middle class to me. The median income for family households in the US is about 54 000 bucks. For married couple families, it's about 62 000 bucks. Ok, ball park numbers arguments here, but... Lets say, for simplicity's sake, that half of that is brought in by the women (in reality, it's usually less than that, since on average women make less then men): 62 000/2 = 31 000 bucks. By the way, female householders, no husband present, make, on average about 29 000 bucks, while male householder, no wife present, a rare breed, make 42 000 bucks. I couldn't find any numbers for married couples with one income earner. Besides, they wouldn't mean much: I'm willing to bet that married couples with one income earner can afford to be that way i.e. the single income earner makes quite a lot.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html

 

[Orwell]

If an employer agrees, without duress, then I have no problem, providing of course that seniority does not advance and that there is no guarentee that the person will come back to thier old job.

I also think, for the sake of equlity that this should be termed a "lifestyle sabbatical" and that if it is offered to parents it must be offered to anyone else that feels a personal need to expand their horizens.

Is this unreasonable? I think not!

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

That sounds like upper middle class to me. The median income for family households in the US is about 54 000 bucks. For married couple families, it's about 62 000 bucks. Ok, ball park numbers arguments here, but... Lets say, for simplicity's sake, that half of that is brought in by the women (in reality, it's usually less than that, since on average women make less then men): 62 000/2 = 31 000 bucks. By the way, female householders, no husband present, make, on average about 29 000 bucks.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html

So how far should we dissect brackets? "Upper middle", "middle middle", "middle upper middle middle lower middle"?

And with the whole "no husband" argument: it sounds like there's a lot more to worry about than maternity leave. If the husband is an a-hole and splits that's one thing, I do believe in a "hardship" allowance. If a single woman chooses to have a baby while single that is a choice, and it shouldn't be her employer's responsibility to compensate. If a single woman "accidentally" gets pregnant, why should her employer have to be responsible for her irresponsibility?

I don't want to come across as an elitist a-hole. I have couple of female friends in such situations, and they are making due. My wife is also 6 months pregnant and is planning on quitting (not taking leave) when it's time, and I support her in that. Granted, the money would be great too, but she wants to stay home with the baby. We will make due. Her employer is scared sh**tless that she'll want to take leave and further weaken already struggling production, and I don't blame them.

P.S. I don't know what happened, but in my browser your original post ended at "bucks". I didn't see the rest until I hit the quote key, so I quoted the whole thing.
P.P.S. Love your avatar. I'm in Europe for a few weeks and that's one of the few DVDs I brought. F-ing genius!

Edit: I suck at spelling.

 

[BPSCG]

Can't someone on the right be in favour of extended maternity leave? I mean, many conservatives like to talk about "family values".

Okay, I will. I see nothing wrong with an employer's agreeing to give an employee 24 weeks' maternity leave. Hell, if they agree on 52 weeks, what business is it of mine?

But why is it the government's business to decide that an employer must give that employee 24 weeks? What if the employer and employee are both satisfied with six weeks? Must the employee take the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to? If not, then why must the employer give the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to?

And what if most of the people in a given country believe that six weeks is enough? Should the government force the 24 weeks on them?

 

[toddjh]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course kids are lifestyle choices. In fact, that's exactly why my wife and I decided not to have any -- having children requires a lifestyle that we simply do not want.

What's the alternative? Children are a social necessity? Maybe, if you live in a region where people reproduce at below replacement levels. Even then, I don't think having children is mandatory, so it would still fall under the category of a choice.

That said, naturally no country wants its population to decline sharply, so it's going to be a fact of life that those with sustainability problems will offer incentives for having children, regardless of the resulting inequality. It's a case of what the government perceives to be the lesser of two evils.

Jeremy

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, I know that. But these days an average middle class family can't afford to lose the proportion of its income brought in by women.

I submit that if a family's finances are so close to the edge that they would face financial ruin if one of them lost a job, they should not be having children.

I've never heard anyone from the "family values" crowd mentioning income supplements for stay at home moms.

And who would the "income supplements"* come from? Presumably from taxes paid by people who were still working, which means, disproportionately, men, and by people who have higher incomes, which also means, disproportionately, men. You sexist pig.

*Gotta love that term, "income supplements." Why don't you just call them what they are - cash rewards for having a baby?

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

I would also like to add, on the topic of needs, that once one has (or finds out they will) have a baby there's a tremendous urge to improve one's situation for a number of reasons. I work 40+ hours a week, I attend night school to get my MBA, and I try to make time for my wife and to improve our living situation for our child (temporarily known as "Stinker", since we're not finding out the gender).

In a moment of über-ironism, we want to move to Europe (well, back to Europe for her) - how's that for full circle? As anti-social-welfare-state as I am, I'm willing to make (huge) sacrifices to do so. Since I found out she was pregnant, I've put my schooling on the fast track (by the way I'm concentrating in International Management in order to make myself more marketable on the continent...hence the school part).

I'm doing this all for my family. I am/we are making the sacrifices for our choices. I don't expect anyone else to, and I don't know why they should.

 

[Giz]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course having kids is a choice.

Presumably you feel that in most instances people should be responsible for their actions, why not in this case?

Why is it moral for people who are having kids to make childless people pay for them?

(Not being sarcastic but an honest question, why do others morally owe you this?)

(Also this refers to non-essential benefits like extending maternity leave to 24 weeks . No-one is suggesting that mothers should have to give birth during their lunch break or that poor babies should starve)

 

[Orwell]

Okay, I will. I see nothing wrong with an employer's agreeing to give an employee 24 weeks' maternity leave. Hell, if they agree on 52 weeks, what business is it of mine?

But why is it the government's business to decide that an employer must give that employee 24 weeks? What if the employer and employee are both satisfied with six weeks? Must the employee take the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to? If not, then why must the employer give the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to?

And what if most of the people in a given country believe that six weeks is enough? Should the government force the 24 weeks on them?

Because the government might decide that it is a good long term policy to encourage women to have kids and to encourage mothers to be around their kids during some very important developmental years.

 

[Orwell]

Of course having kids is a choice.

Presumably you feel that in most instances people should be responsible for their actions, why not in this case?

Why is it moral for people who are having kids to make childless people pay for them?

(Not being sarcastic but an honest question, why do others morally owe you this?)

(Also this refers to non-essential benefits like extending maternity leave to 24 weeks . No-one is suggesting that mothers should have to give birth during their lunch break or that poor babies should starve)

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

 

[Ed]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course it is a lifestyle choice. It is a choice and it impacts your lifestyle. Seems self evident to me.

And, yes, for us it was a lifestyle choice. It seemed to us that our photographic christmas cards lacked a certain *something* that kids would add. We are now thinking of a dog.

***true derailing story. The woman that we bought our previous house from in a sorta upscale area of CT had a Lab because it "looked good in front of the house. No joke***

But, on topic, it seems to me that a volintary act that impacts one's ability to perform against commitments has consequences. The "for the children" argument sucks when it comes to porn, guns, dope, or violence on TV. I won't give them a pass on this one. And as somebody pointed out, if you can't afford it, don't do it.

Why do people have such a problem with personal responsibility?

 

[Orwell]

I would also like to add, on the topic of needs, that once one has (or finds out they will) have a baby there's a tremendous urge to improve one's situation for a number of reasons. I work 40+ hours a week, I attend night school to get my MBA, and I try to make time for my wife and to improve our living situation for our child (temporarily known as "Stinker", since we're not finding out the gender).

In a moment of über-ironism, we want to move to Europe (well, back to Europe for her) - how's that for full circle? As anti-social-welfare-state as I am, I'm willing to make (huge) sacrifices to do so. Since I found out she was pregnant, I've put my schooling on the fast track (by the way I'm concentrating in International Management in order to make myself more marketable on the continent...hence the school part).

I'm doing this all for my family. I am/we are making the sacrifices for our choices. I don't expect anyone else to, and I don't know why they should.

You know, I think that it is more important for a kid to have his parents around than to have all kinds of neat toys and comforts. I have friends who work long ours to pay for all kinds of neat things for themselves and their kids. But they never have the time to enjoy them, and their kids are turning into spoiled brats.

 

[Giz]

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

You make it sound like a pyramid scheme.

Surely any future shortfall in workers could be solved by bringing in immigrants? (and that way you'd have more control over the number & skills that you get).

 

[toddjh]

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

This assumes that these incentives will actually cause the birthrate to increase. Is there good evidence that this is the case? Do you know many people who say, "Honey, let's have a kid so we can get a few months off work and pay lower taxes?"

I think the real reason governments subsidize children is more obvious and less idealistic: parents are a powerful voting bloc in any country.

Jeremy

 

[Orwell]

Of course it is a lifestyle choice. It is a choice and it impacts your lifestyle. Seems self evident to me.

And, yes, for us it was a lifestyle choice. It seemed to us that our photographic christmas cards lacked a certain *something* that kids would add. We are now thinking of a dog.

***true derailing story. The woman that we bought our previous house from in a sorta upscale area of CT had a Lab because it "looked good in front of the house. No joke***

But, on topic, it seems to me that a volintary act that impacts one's ability to perform against commitments has consequences. The "for the children" argument sucks when it comes to porn, guns, dope, or violence on TV. I won't give them a pass on this one. And as somebody pointed out, if you can't afford it, don't do it.

Why do people have such a problem with personal responsibility?

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility. I don't have a problem with rewarding people for being responsible. I do have a problem with penalising people for being responsible, though.

 

[Ed]

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility. I don't have a problem with rewarding people for being responsible. I do have a problem with penalising people for being responsible, though.

Not being able to afford a child is not responsible. Asking me to contribute, against my will, is not responsible.

 

[BPSCG]

Because the government might decide that it is a good long term policy to encourage women to have kids and to encourage mothers to be around their kids during some very important developmental years.

And if the government decides that brushing your teeth and flossing and exercising regularly and rinsing fruits before eating them and not sitting too close to the television and staying abreast of current events and voting on election day are good long-term policies, should it enact laws to enforce them?

And while it may be a good long-term policy to encourage women to have kids (that's part of the reason you get a tax exemption for each kid in this country) and be around them during some very important developmental years, is it not also a good long-term policy to encourage mothers to avoid having children they can't afford, and to encourage them to avoid deliberately engaging in actions that will have them sucking at the collective teats of the rest of the taxpayers?

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

You know, I think that it is more important for a kid to have his parents around than to have all kinds of neat toys and comforts. I have friends who work long ours to pay for all kinds of neat things for themselves and their kids. But they never have the time to enjoy them, and their kids are turning into spoiled brats.

I agree. That's why I'm so supportive of my wife's choice to stay home.

 

[Ed]

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

And make abortion first degree murder?

If it is a "good" and a biological urge that cannot be avoided it seems to me that you cannot favor abortion under any circumstances.

 

[Orwell]

You make it sound like a pyramid scheme.

Surely any future shortfall in workers could be solved by bringing in immigrants? (and that way you'd have more control over the number & skills that you get).

I started this line of reasoning because I was pointing out the contradictions of the "family values" crowd. Last time I checked, the family values crowd doesn't like immigration much.

If a society decides that economical gain is more important than raising a family, hey, who am I to argue against that? It's their choice. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The family values crowd usually supports economic policies that don't help people have families, while at the same time they keep giving lip service to the "family values" rhetoric. I wanted to point out that progressive policies can be more family friendly than the "family values" stuff. That was my initial intention.