Post: #1

I like John Oliver and a lot of the topics he discusses. But as you can see, he (like John Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert) cannot fight their inner beta and are not afraid to show that they will go through great lengths to fight for more privileges of the holier than holy female sex.

Post: #2

Fuck this shit. Fuck those women's vagina's and the sperm they got pregnant on.

Pregnancy is voluntary in america. Though I don't agree with abortions, if a bitch doesn't want to have a baby she can have an abortion if she so chooses.

Furthermore, its not like a baby is a surprise like getting hit by a car. You've known this kid was coming for 9 long months and you could have prepared for it like my wife and I did by selling all of your cool shit and moving to a cheaper apartment with a longer commute (that last long sentence is why you don't get married or have kids fellow RVF'ers)

But no, women want to be able to get fucked by alpha dicks, get pregnant without a spouse to take care of them when they are a lactating ham beast and not take any steps towards fiscal responsibility in the 9 months leading up to having the kid. Of course being able to rape a dad with child support payments isn't enough, now they want to rape their employer as well by forcing them to pay for their time off to watch daytime tv.

The worst part of this is, is that it forces employers hands and prevents people from being kind. If I had a female employee that was a valuable asset to the company and she got pregnant or a dude who's wife was going to give birth I would a) give them a bonus and b) some time off/part time hours for a while because I believe in helping out good employees when their personal lives are shit. I don't believe in helping out yoga pants yasmine who calls in sick every friday after bar night, strolls in late with wayfarers on and gets accidentally pregnant at a gang bang. Fuck her, she was a shit employee anyway and I would love to give her job to someone else.

Last, fuck that chick crying about her premature baby. I don't feel bad for that bitch. She chose her job over her kid. Or at least she chose being a secular single mom over security. If you belong to a church and you drop out a premature baby you do not have to work, cook, clean or buy anything for that kid until they are out of the hospital and home. Church women and old women live for premature baby crises.

Of course its all for maternity as well. Whos advocating for government mandated paid leave when a player gets a herpes outbreak? Or how about for the 30 white knights Little Dark beat up to have paid time off to recover from their facial fractures? No body, its all about women and their desire to vaccum resources from beyond the bounds of their own families.

Last, I had a child that was born 3 months prematurely in America. It was tough but I was financially preparing from the first day that pee on a stick came out positive. I didn't blame the government because of my lack for foresight.

Post: #3

(05-14-2015 02:37 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Fuck this shit. Fuck those women's vagina's and the sperm they got pregnant on.

Pregnancy is voluntary in america. Though I don't agree with abortions, if a bitch doesn't want to have a baby she can have an abortion if she so chooses.

This is one of those issues where guys are going to cut off their own nose just to spite their face (women).

The government/these companies are the one who have pushed it to the point where it is necessary for both parents to work. So now I should have to sell all my shit just so my wife and I can afford to have a baby? Fuck that.

The lower classes are still going to have babies. The Philippines is simultaneously one of the poorest and youngest countries in the world.

Candy isn't going to stop getting knocked up by every guy in the trailer park because she doesn't get paid maternity leave at her minimum wage call center job. The government is going to pay her way regardless.

And most "career women" aren't having kids anyway.

The group who is truly getting the shaft, as usual, are the middle class men (and the few remaining family oriented women) who want to have kids but have had their wages cut to the point that they can't do it comfortably without a second income.

If employers can't afford it, well, there's another reason to hire more men.

Post: #4

Can't watch at work, what's the gist?

Paying mothers to care for children is a good idea, or a bad one?

WIA

Post: #5

Quote:Can't watch at work, what's the gist?

Paying mothers to care for children is a good idea, or a bad one?

WIA

US is one of 2 countries in the entire civilized world that doesn't support maternity leave. JO is all for maternity leave.

I watched half of the video and got the jist of it.

Another glaring example that you can't start a family AND be careerist at the same time. If you want to start a family then you need to get your priorities straight. Do I agree that working women should take time off to raise their a newborn child? Absolutely. Do I agree that it should be an employer's or government's responsibility to subsidize her income if she decides to have a child? Not exactly.

This is one of the major reasons of why their is a perceived "pay gap" between males and females. If you're a business owner, it does you no good to cut someone a check who isn't working for you, and it also doesn't do you any good to leave the position open for months while you wait for them to (maybe) come back. So what are the other options, rely on the government and have tax payers foot the bill?

I suppose I'm not necessarily against the idea of a government funded maternity leave, but I don't think it should warrant a raise in taxes as opposed to a restructuring of distribution. The slivers of tax money that goes to social aid are dismal compared to defense in the US. I mean shit, both parents of a newborn child are already paying shitloads to Uncle Sam, and the child will be paying when he/she grows up too. What's a few months worth of checks?

Post: #6

(05-14-2015 03:05 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:37 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Fuck this shit. Fuck those women's vagina's and the sperm they got pregnant on.

Pregnancy is voluntary in america. Though I don't agree with abortions, if a bitch doesn't want to have a baby she can have an abortion if she so chooses.

This is one of those issues where guys are going to cut off their own nose just to spite their face (women).

The government/these companies are the one who have pushed it to the point where it is necessary for both parents to work.

...

If employers can't afford it, well, there's another reason to hire more men.

I agree with where you are coming from in general, but disagree with what is in bold. It isn't necessary for both parents to work in America unless you buy into the 'average' standards. Lets simply compare the essential expenses of someone in 1980 vs. 2014.

1980 - Modest 3 and 2 bedroom home, sometimes sibling shared a bedroom, maybe or maybe not with a garage for the car. One count it, ONE land telephone line, over the air TV, no computer. One car if one parent worked.

2014 - 2000sq ft plus home, with bonus room, attached garage, every kid with own bedroom. 2 cars, max 5 years old. 3 iphones, 3 cell phone lines AND 1 landline. Internet bill, tits deluxe cable tv or satellite bill. Xbox live subscription and game console. Gym membership(s). Netflix. Multiple computers, laptops and tablets. If both parents work, then also $800/kid for daycare or after school care.

Yes there has been wage stagnation, but also families have vastly expanded their 'regular' expenses and base standard of living. The 1980 family standard of living is what I see 22 year old guys pulling off on their own. Adding another two bodies for groceries and health insurance isn't that big of a stretch.

Adding an entitled cunt that wants her own premium phone, clothes, uggs, wine and starbucks is a stretch and why people think they need 2 incomes.

Post: #7

It's funny because the USA has a higher female participation rate in the workforce than most Northern European countries with generous maternity leave. Yet many feminists in the U.S. act like this is something that is actually holding back women from working, whereas in reality it is driving more women to work.

Post: #8

He raises a pretty good point on paid maternity leave versus the rest of the world. I found the rest of the bit, poking fun at all the ridiculous advertising, pretty enjoyable.

Post: #9

(05-14-2015 09:03 PM)Gmac Wrote:  He raises a pretty good point on paid maternity leave versus the rest of the world. I found the rest of the bit, poking fun at all the ridiculous advertising, pretty enjoyable.

Well I know for a fact the third world doesnt give its women shit for having a baby. They get to sponge off their families if they are lucky.

Post: #10

(05-14-2015 08:24 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 03:05 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:37 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Fuck this shit. Fuck those women's vagina's and the sperm they got pregnant on.

Pregnancy is voluntary in america. Though I don't agree with abortions, if a bitch doesn't want to have a baby she can have an abortion if she so chooses.

This is one of those issues where guys are going to cut off their own nose just to spite their face (women).

The government/these companies are the one who have pushed it to the point where it is necessary for both parents to work.

...

If employers can't afford it, well, there's another reason to hire more men.

I agree with where you are coming from in general, but disagree with what is in bold. It isn't necessary for both parents to work in America unless you buy into the 'average' standards. Lets simply compare the essential expenses of someone in 1980 vs. 2014.

1980 - Modest 3 and 2 bedroom home, sometimes sibling shared a bedroom, maybe or maybe not with a garage for the car. One count it, ONE land telephone line, over the air TV, no computer. One car if one parent worked.

2014 - 2000sq ft plus home, with bonus room, attached garage, every kid with own bedroom. 2 cars, max 5 years old. 3 iphones, 3 cell phone lines AND 1 landline. Internet bill, tits deluxe cable tv or satellite bill. Xbox live subscription and game console. Gym membership(s). Netflix. Multiple computers, laptops and tablets. If both parents work, then also $800/kid for daycare or after school care.

Yes there has been wage stagnation, but also families have vastly expanded their 'regular' expenses and base standard of living. The 1980 family standard of living is what I see 22 year old guys pulling off on their own. Adding another two bodies for groceries and health insurance isn't that big of a stretch.

Adding an entitled cunt that wants her own premium phone, clothes, uggs, wine and starbucks is a stretch and why people think they need 2 incomes.

Nice work showing how much $$$ is diverted for total shit.

I miss the 80s...

Post: #11

California's law had no negative impact on businesses huh? Then why didn't businesses rush to extend it to 12 weeks, 36 - or even a year?

And it's disingenuous to suggest that businesses noticed no effect because A. Women already have the time off by law so any complaints about a missing employee are automatically discounted since they would have been absent anyway and B. the funding came from SDI, not employers, so anyone complaining about the financial problem of having to hire a temp are discounted too. If you throw out all of the negative responses, of course you're left with nothing but positive responses to the program.

Also, what are these women doing that they can stay away - unnoticed - for several months? I would target them for firing asap.

And why is it that almost every woman on TV has serious vocal fry? Listen to how deep and gravelly these women get toward the end of a sentence.

Post: #12

If it gets women out of work and into the home when they become mothers. . . hard not to support that. One year maternity leave and another year optional unpaid. Businesses will hire less women and the women who do get into it are more likely to drop out after spending so much time with their young as nature intended. Win-win.

Post: #13

(05-14-2015 08:24 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I agree with where you are coming from in general, but disagree with what is in bold. It isn't necessary for both parents to work in America unless you buy into the 'average' standards. Lets simply compare the essential expenses of someone in 1980 vs. 2014.

1980 - Modest 3 and 2 bedroom home, sometimes sibling shared a bedroom, maybe or maybe not with a garage for the car. One count it, ONE land telephone line, over the air TV, no computer. One car if one parent worked.

2014 - 2000sq ft plus home, with bonus room, attached garage, every kid with own bedroom. 2 cars, max 5 years old. 3 iphones, 3 cell phone lines AND 1 landline. Internet bill, tits deluxe cable tv or satellite bill. Xbox live subscription and game console. Gym membership(s). Netflix. Multiple computers, laptops and tablets. If both parents work, then also $800/kid for daycare or after school care.

I'm sorry, but this again shows how out of touch a lot of this board is with the "average" person in America.

What you just described is a family that's at least upper-middle to upper class. Most people do not live like this. And the people that do probably aren't the ones who are hurting from lack of maternity leave.

Like I said, it's the regular middle class who's getting screwed here. If you're making $50 to $75k household with two incomes, you're going to struggle to support a new family on one.

Also, notice that you've mentioned some of the biggest perpetrators as far as companies who line their pockets at the expense of the general public.

The entities that provide cell phone service, cable, and internet, i.e. Comcast, Verizon, etc., have made fortunes bending and breaking laws to make sure they get absolutely balls deep in the American people's ass.

Or look at the gym membership. Well, stop letting corporations poison people's food to increase their profit margins and maybe this wouldn't be such a necessity. Speaking of, if you want to feed your newborn child real food, expect an even bigger hit to your finances.

Post: #14

I thought this thread was going to be about John Oliver himself being on paid maternity leave.

Post: #15

(05-15-2015 04:54 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:24 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I agree with where you are coming from in general, but disagree with what is in bold. It isn't necessary for both parents to work in America unless you buy into the 'average' standards. Lets simply compare the essential expenses of someone in 1980 vs. 2014.

1980 - Modest 3 and 2 bedroom home, sometimes sibling shared a bedroom, maybe or maybe not with a garage for the car. One count it, ONE land telephone line, over the air TV, no computer. One car if one parent worked.

2014 - 2000sq ft plus home, with bonus room, attached garage, every kid with own bedroom. 2 cars, max 5 years old. 3 iphones, 3 cell phone lines AND 1 landline. Internet bill, tits deluxe cable tv or satellite bill. Xbox live subscription and game console. Gym membership(s). Netflix. Multiple computers, laptops and tablets. If both parents work, then also $800/kid for daycare or after school care.

I'm sorry, but this again shows how out of touch a lot of this board is with the "average" person in America.

What you just described is a family that's at least upper-middle to upper class. Most people do not live like this. And the people that do probably aren't the ones who are hurting from lack of maternity leave.

Like I said, it's the regular middle class who's getting screwed here. If you're making $50 to $75k household with two incomes, you're going to struggle to support a new family on one.

Also, notice that you've mentioned some of the biggest perpetrators as far as companies who line their pockets at the expense of the general public.

The entities that provide cell phone service, cable, and internet, i.e. Comcast, Verizon, etc., have made fortunes bending and breaking laws to make sure they get absolutely balls deep in the American people's ass.

Or look at the gym membership. Well, stop letting corporations poison people's food to increase their profit margins and maybe this wouldn't be such a necessity. Speaking of, if you want to feed your newborn child real food, expect an even bigger hit to your finances.

I appreciate the counter points Enigma. I enjoy a good debate.

I am only going to speak to my personal observations, but I would like to see statistics thrown on top of this as well.

In the two states that I've lived in, the suburban neighborhoods are split into 3 tiers. 1. Big sprawling homes where I see no one 2. 1700-2400 sq foot home subdvisions where I see kids 3. 1200 sq foot homes, multi family dwellings and/or trailer parks.

Those living in area #2 are the ones that I'm talking about. If I think about my neighbors they usually have 1 person that would be in a well paid full time job (nurse, accountant, gov't employee) and their spouse, if they work does equivalent work or something service oriented (admin assistant, hair dresser).

Lets, for the sake of argument, say that the spouses are equally employed at $62.5k/year and 'lose' an income because the wife is going to pop out a kid. They are now down to $31k. Time to struggle right? Hell no. It is now time to ride the government gravy train if you are making $31k and have kids in America. You can now get a couple thousand for your EITC tax refund, you can now get free healthcare through expanded medicare, you can get subsidized daycare, you can likely even get foodstamps. PLUS you are now in such a low tax bracket with standard deductions and exemptions your TOTAL federal income tax is $700 vs. the close to $4k you'd have on 61, PLUS the $1000 child tax refund you'll get for just popping out a kid.

So, the dual income family loses 31k/year in income, which is really 25k after social security and income tax. Which,is really $11k after expenses if we assume a 300/month car payment, 100/month car insurance, 40/month on lunches and 800/month on daycare. But, through the already amazing gov't gravy train they gain $13400 in tax refund benefits, food stamps and free health care. They are coming out AHEAD of where they were with dual income. There is absolutely no need to pay a bitch any more to stay at home with a baby.

Here is where the problems happen though. A single mom goes from 1 income to zero income and so that plan doesn't work for her. Also, for a husband and wife family that has a shitload of debt payments or expensive hobbies this doesn't work as well for them because you can't use your foodstamps card to pay for a starbucks coffee, or your overleveraged mortgage, or your gym membership.

Next point:
Don't bring the "but the evil corporations" bullshit into this. That is every hippies excuse to justify a point. Just because corporations employ people and make money doesn't mean that they should be forced to give more to their employees.

Last point:
"If you want to feed your newborn child real food, expect to take a big hit to your fiances" No. I disagree. Grocery expenses tend to be a function of quality and convenience. If you want to buy pre-made, pre-sealed organic baby food that all your lazy sack of shit wife has to do is peel back the top to feed the kid, you will pay out the nose for it. If your lazy sack of shit wife wants to save money, but still just peel back the top and feed your kid...you'll be buying garbage food like grade z baby food and canned formula. However, if you wife knows how to run a slow cooker, freezer and a blender and knows where the farmers market is you can provide good, real food for your kid for cheap.

I await your reply, again, don't do the 'evil corporation' blame game to justify more laws. My response to 'evil corporations' is that people should stage violent strikes and unionize like they did back in the day if working conditions are that bad.

Post: #16

@ Dr. Howard

So you essentially want the government to pay for maternity leave rather than employers?

Post: #17

(05-15-2015 10:32 AM)Repo Wrote:  @ Dr. Howard

So you essentially want the government to pay for maternity leave rather than employers?

No, I'm saying that the government is already directing a shit ton of aid to low income mothers as it is, they don't need more. I'm saying that no one except the mother and her family should be paying for her maternity leave. They are her children, she can be responsible for them, not me as her employer or me as a taxpayer.

In terms for employer vs. government my guess is that the government will be paying for maternity leave anyway, or at least cutting the checks. This is based on the assumption that paid maternity leave would operate like it does in Canada where the mother doesn't get an employer paycheck, but is paid out of the unemployment insurance fund. If thats the case, and all of a sudden 1000s of mothers are dumped onto those rolls, the FUTA tax rate for employers will have to rise.

Good point of clarification though Repo.

Post: #18

(05-15-2015 05:20 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about John Oliver himself being on paid maternity leave.

Me too.

And just to be pedantic: it's paternity leave if the father takes time off from work for a new baby

Post: #19

(05-15-2015 02:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 05:20 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about John Oliver himself being on paid maternity leave.

Me too.

And just to be pedantic: it's paternity leave if the father takes time off from work for a new baby

Would be nice to troll in support of paid "paternity leave". After all, doesn't the whole notion of maternity leave enforce gender stereotypes and roles?

Post: #20

(05-15-2015 02:24 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 02:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 05:20 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about John Oliver himself being on paid maternity leave.

Me too.

And just to be pedantic: it's paternity leave if the father takes time off from work for a new baby

Would be nice to troll in support of paid "paternity leave". After all, doesn't the whole notion of maternity leave enforce gender stereotypes and roles?

My business offers paid maternity and paternity leave. I knew one guy who used it.

Post: #21

(05-15-2015 02:27 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 02:24 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 02:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 05:20 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about John Oliver himself being on paid maternity leave.

Me too.

And just to be pedantic: it's paternity leave if the father takes time off from work for a new baby

Would be nice to troll in support of paid "paternity leave". After all, doesn't the whole notion of maternity leave enforce gender stereotypes and roles?

My business offers paid maternity and paternity leave. I knew one guy who used it.

Don't most gov't programs have both? If it didn't in the US you'd better believe gay parents would get it changed quickly.

Also, I think that it is good that your business offers paid maternity and paternity leave...as a voluntary benefit. Making it mandatory sours it, like if the government passed a law for mandatory christmas bonuses.

Post: #22

John Oliver was never meant to be a politically-neutral comedian. His set-pieces, pandering and viewpoints were all prototyped in the forms of Colbert and Stewart. The sole difference is that his British, condescending persona is appealing to people. His audience take pride in watching John Oliver because it makes them feel like they are politically savvy and progressive patriots. The British accent still seems more credible than Americans. If you let Rick Perry or Bill Clinton read Oliver's teleprompter, the percieved expertise is unequal. However, Oliver, Colbert and Steward follow the same steps of arguement:

1. Report the issue.
2. Create an emotion-based red-herring or straw-man.
3. Morph argument into ethical issue.
4. Skewer his own red-herring or straw-man.
5. Post ridiculous Photoshop image of cute hamster or naked Republican politician.
6. Wait for audience to "Awwww" then clap.
7. Rinse and Repeat

To be fair, his take on Ferguson/Police Militarization and Dangerous Amounts of Sugar in Our Food fairly addressed both sides of the argument. However, don't let the occasional rationale fool you. This man is Stewart, with a top-hat and monocle.

Post: #23

Yeah one of my friends works for Bank of America. They offer paid paternity leave.

Post: #24

Great post Dr. Howard (one of my favorite forum name/avatar)

(05-14-2015 02:37 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Pregnancy is voluntary in america. Though I don't agree with abortions, if a bitch doesn't want to have a baby she can have an abortion if she so chooses.

Not to turn this to an abortion thread (I'm assuming it won't), but this made me think. I'm generally pro-life politically, but since red pill, I don't see it so black and white. However, one fact still stands...

Abortion was a huge lynch pin for the feminist agenda. It told women they can choose whether to have a kid even after they'd already chosen, and even at the expense of an unborn child.

Anywho, again, I'm not a big pro- this way or that, I just realized reading your post why I'm against roe v wade, even without any moralism.

Post: #25

(05-15-2015 10:04 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I appreciate the counter points Enigma. I enjoy a good debate.

I am only going to speak to my personal observations, but I would like to see statistics thrown on top of this as well.

In the two states that I've lived in, the suburban neighborhoods are split into 3 tiers. 1. Big sprawling homes where I see no one 2. 1700-2400 sq foot home subdvisions where I see kids 3. 1200 sq foot homes, multi family dwellings and/or trailer parks.

Those living in area #2 are the ones that I'm talking about. If I think about my neighbors they usually have 1 person that would be in a well paid full time job (nurse, accountant, gov't employee) and their spouse, if they work does equivalent work or something service oriented (admin assistant, hair dresser).

I'm going off the definition of "middle class" as +/- 50% of the median income.

The lifestyle you described earlier is going to require a household income around six figures, which would put you in the upper-middle to upper class depending on the state.

A large house, multiple new cars, multiple new phones and lines, top-of-the-line consumer electronics, daycare, etc. is not the "average" person's lifestyle, by any means.

Quote:Lets, for the sake of argument, say that the spouses are equally employed at $62.5k/year and 'lose' an income because the wife is going to pop out a kid. They are now down to $31k. Time to struggle right? Hell no. It is now time to ride the government gravy train if you are making $31k and have kids in America. You can now get a couple thousand for your EITC tax refund, you can now get free healthcare through expanded medicare, you can get subsidized daycare, you can likely even get foodstamps. PLUS you are now in such a low tax bracket with standard deductions and exemptions your TOTAL federal income tax is $700 vs. the close to $4k you'd have on 61, PLUS the $1000 child tax refund you'll get for just popping out a kid.

So, the dual income family loses 31k/year in income, which is really 25k after social security and income tax. Which,is really $11k after expenses if we assume a 300/month car payment, 100/month car insurance, 40/month on lunches and 800/month on daycare. But, through the already amazing gov't gravy train they gain $13400 in tax refund benefits, food stamps and free health care. They are coming out AHEAD of where they were with dual income. There is absolutely no need to pay a bitch any more to stay at home with a baby.

First of all, a household income of $31k is going to be lower class or quite close to it, again depending on the state. Your argument is that two incomes are not required, yet in your example they quite clearly are.

And I see you addressed this point below, but I don't see how you're not advocating for the government to pick up employer's slack. Your argument is essentially paid maternity leave isn't needed because those people will get government assistance.

Also, I again have to assume you're out of touch with the group you're talking about.

Getting $x in food stamps is not equivalent to have $x in cash to spend on groceries. Having $x in government provided healthcare is not equivalent to having $x in paid medical insurance coverage.

Do you seriously think that someone on government assistance is "coming out ahead" of someone with a paying job, when it comes to quality of living?

Quote:Here is where the problems happen though. A single mom goes from 1 income to zero income and so that plan doesn't work for her.

Yes, that's why she just works a job, still collects benefits, and is an absentee mother for a child who then goes on to become a drain on society.

If you don't want to pay maternity leave, stop hiring women and pay men a liveable income so they can support their family. Boom, problem solved.

Quote:Also, for a husband and wife family that has a shitload of debt payments or expensive hobbies this doesn't work as well for them because you can't use your foodstamps card to pay for a starbucks coffee, or your overleveraged mortgage, or your gym membership.

I'm not saying people should overextend themselves, but the model you're pushing sees people who went to college, work full-time jobs, etc. -- all things that should basically guarantee you a middle class standard of living -- struggling to support a small family, in many instances.

Quote:Next point:
Don't bring the "but the evil corporations" bullshit into this. That is every hippies excuse to justify a point. Just because corporations employ people and make money doesn't mean that they should be forced to give more to their employees.

It's very relevant.

1. The price of goods are inflated.
2. Many people aren't being paid a living wage.
3. Many people can't find jobs.

The government and taxpayers should not have to pay so people can have basic necessities, like food and shelter.

Quote:Last point:
"If you want to feed your newborn child real food, expect to take a big hit to your fiances" No. I disagree. Grocery expenses tend to be a function of quality and convenience. If you want to buy pre-made, pre-sealed organic baby food that all your lazy sack of shit wife has to do is peel back the top to feed the kid, you will pay out the nose for it. If your lazy sack of shit wife wants to save money, but still just peel back the top and feed your kid...you'll be buying garbage food like grade z baby food and canned formula. However, if you wife knows how to run a slow cooker, freezer and a blender and knows where the farmers market is you can provide good, real food for your kid for cheap.

Definitely a good point, but do you know the percentage of farmer's markets that accept food stamps? I think it's just recently that they started accepting them, and I can't seem to find out how common it is.

Quote:I await your reply, again, don't do the 'evil corporation' blame game to justify more laws. My response to 'evil corporations' is that people should stage violent strikes and unionize like they did back in the day if working conditions are that bad.

Many in the manosphere consider the push towards two-income households and subsequent destruction of the family structure one of the critical problems in the West.

Yet I'm playing the blame game for talking about the same things.

The thing is, I'm not necessarily even advocating for paid maternity leave. Again, stop hiring women, pay men a livable wage: problem solved.

But if companies are sending jobs overseas, not hiring full-time employees, paying poor wages, etc., then I have no problem with them footing the bill for maternity leave, especially when the other option is:

1a. The taxpayers/government to pay for it.
1b. The child to grow up in a broken home.