Post: #26

^
@Enigma
I think we are going to disagree on how much money a family can live on comfortably in america.

However,

Quote: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:

On this I agree with you. If a business expects wants to run on a model of dedicated and loyal employees, they have to be paid a wage they can actually live on. Stupid shit like EITC tax credits, food stamps, subsidized daycare etc undermine that need ie. you can pay someone $8/hr full time because their grocery bill, child care, health care and some extra cash is being covered by the government. The companies can be irresponsible because the government has put in a safety net.

On the second part, about punishing 'bad' employers. Thats not going to happen. ALL employers will be punished equally under any mandatory scheme. Remember, its not that maternity leave is illegal right now, there are commenters on this thread that have employers that offer it.

I support government intervention for minimum working age to exclude child labor and minimum wage. After that, it should be the employers choice what benefits to offer and the employees choice as to how to spend their paycheck.

Mandatory maternity leave is like employer mandated child support. As an employer, I didn't fuck that girl and make her pregnant. Why should I have to pay to support her child? I pay her to work, thats the deal. If the government says I have to pay her a higher minimum wage to work thats an easier pill to swallow because then I am paying every gender and age the same, not treating pregnant women like special snowflakes that deserve more money. I didn't fuck that pussy, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Anyway, a better living wage/higher minimum wage is something you and I do agree on though.

Post: #27

At the end of the day, whether the government pays to subsidize maternity or your company does, we all pay, no? Government through taxes or your employer through lower wages to accomodate paid leave for women?

Post: #28

(05-15-2015 05:44 PM)Repo Wrote:  At the end of the day, whether the government pays to subsidize maternity or your company does, we all pay, no? Government through taxes or your employer through lower wages to accomodate paid leave for women?

I'm going to assume you meant higher wages? If so, there is a specific difference in means.

Scenario a) I pay higher employer taxes on everyone wages for maternity cunts that can't manage their own lives. Now I have to

• Cut Jimmy, single and 22's wage by a dollar to cover the new tax
• Have betty take 12 months off after cutting her wage by a dollar an hour to cover the new tax
• Have Porsche have kid after kid after kid and be forced to hold her job open while she scams the system on top of her ETIC, food stamps and housing scam she already has going on
• scrap profit sharing bonuses because I have to pay more tax.
  

Scenario b) I simply pay higher wages to my lowest paid employees because of a government minimum wage edict to support a better standard of living

• I already pay well above min wage...so no one gets a raise but if they did
• Jimmy the 22 year single man would have $5/hr more to put towards a trip to the phillipines
• Betty could save an extra $5/hr more so betty could take more time off with the baby
• Porsche would have $5/hr more to spend on a new weave while still putting her new baby in subsidized daycare at 6 weeks old because she's a bad mother and hates her own kids to start with.
• everyone loses their year end profit sharing bonuses because the gov't forced me to pay them more
  

Lets also throw in Scenario c) I have no new laws requiring me to do any different than I'm doing now.

• Betty, who is an excellent employee is going to have a baby, because I value her service I give her a cash bonus and allow her to work part time from home for 6 months.
• Jimmy still gets his year end bonus
• Porsche is a garbage employee anyway, that is only filling her minimum wage job until I find a replacement and fire her. Her getting pregnant gives me that opportunity.
  
  Remember, I already pay my employees better than minimum wage and I already have the opportunity to give an employee maternity leave if I wanted to. Jimmy doesn't have to sacrifice under a free choice option, and neither does Betty.
  
  Under the mandatory scenarios, someone has to pay for it and inevitably someone gets fucked over as a result. When it is voluntary it allows employers to be good employers, and employees to be gracious employees. Goodwill makes for a positive, mutual risk environment wheras entitlement just makes enemies.
  

Post: #29

Being The_CEO here's scenario: d)

CEO takes 17m$ in annual compensation instead of 18m$. Covers raises for employees and modest maternity leave benefits.

Post: #30

(05-15-2015 09:29 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Being The_CEO here's scenario: d)

CEO takes 17m$ in annual compensation instead of 18m$. Covers raises for employees and modest maternity leave benefits.

There are tens of thousands of small businesses in America who are barely getting by. The notion that every owner /CEO is making tens of millions of dollars is stupid. You are repeating the liberal narrative that every business is a bunch of fat cats just fucking over everybody.

Why not just start their own business, be their own CEO, and pay themselves maternity leave? that's right it's not possible to generate revenue if youre not working. Everyone has the freedom to start their own business. To get a job and start demanding your employer cater to your lifestyle is a sympton of socialism.

In any case they would avoid hiring women as it would be more expensive than hiring a man.

Post: #31

(05-15-2015 09:45 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:29 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Being The_CEO here's scenario: d)

CEO takes 17m$ in annual compensation instead of 18m$. Covers raises for employees and modest maternity leave benefits.

There are tens of thousands of small businesses in America who are barely getting by. The notion that every owner /CEO is making tens of millions of dollars is stupid. You are repeating the liberal narrative that every business is a bunch of fat cats just fucking over everybody.

Why not just start their own business, be their own CEO, and pay themselves maternity leave? that's right it's not possible to generate revenue if youre not working.

In any case they would avoid hiring women as it would be more expensive than hiring a man.

First off: cool down.

Secondly, the notion that it's a possibility for everyone to just start their own business is also, as you say, "stupid".

Post: #32

(05-15-2015 09:29 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Being The_CEO here's scenario: d)

CEO takes 17m$ in annual compensation instead of 18m$. Covers raises for employees and modest maternity leave benefits.

Just for perspective, the bank of america CEO makes 13 million and has 233,000 employees. So, but that virtue, you generosity would give each employee an extra $4. That would buy what? a 1/4 a box of diapers...its so nice that you were so generous. To put it another way, lets say everyone got a modest $1000/year raise that would be $233 million dollars, your 17 mil salary barely touches that.

Either way, I am sure giving 1 mil of your salary to the other employees would be a better feeling than getting a call from the board of directors saying 'CEO, we are laying you off entirely to pay for the new maternity tax' Also. Your assistants are both pregnant and are going to be gone for a full year but we can't replace them under the new law. Enjoy the bullshit temps that we are going to have fill in for them.

I am with Disco, that I am tired of all of this bullshit that people somehow feel like every business owner must be a multi millionaire and they should be mandated to give their money away to make things more fair. Why not just have everyone line up and fuck my hot wife too because its not fair that I'm the only one that gets to bang her pussy. No, thats not how it works. I put in the work, I put up with the bullshit so only I get to bang her. If you want to fuck a hot girl, you go and find your own. If you want to have a baby, pay for its care for yourself and get out of my pockets.

Post: #33

From Forbes (Not exactly a bastion of socialism):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/...e-earners/

Also, @Dr. Howard, I specified a hypothetical CEO not a "every business owner".
And often there is a difference between a CEO and business owner. They are not one and the same (The CEO is an employee not an owner in many cases).
I'm not sure who made the assertions you're responding to. Such as "mandating giving money away".

Some companies have elected to reduce excessive executive compensation and pass it on the consumer in the form of lower prices because it's a good business practice. And to be clear, not all executive compensation is excessive. Frequently it's indeed merited based on performance.

Sometimes these things make for good business practices (Costco)

1. The company pays a living wage. Costco's CEO and president, Craig Jelinek, has publicly endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and he takes that to heart. The company's starting pay is $11.50 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour, not including overtime. Most other big box retailers start their employees at minimum wage.

2. Workers get benefits. About 88 percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance, according to David Sherwood, Costco's Director of Financial Planning and Investor Relations. "I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” Jelinek told Bloomberg. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.”

3. The CEO makes a reasonable salary. Costco's CEO makes far less than most executives, with a total compensation package of about $4.83 million in 2012. In contrast, Walmart CEO Mike Duke made roughly $19.3 million during the same year. Walmart's CEO earns as much as 796 average employees, according to CNN Money, compared to Costco's CEO making 48 times more than the company's median wage.

4. Costco helped its employees weather the recession. When the economic crisis hit and other retailers laid off workers, Costco's CEO approved a $1.50-an-hour wage increase for many hourly employees, spread out over three years.

5. Costco doesn't kill Thanksgiving. While many of its competitors are forcing employees to work on Thanksgiving Day, Costco will buck the trend and stay closed.

6. It also doesn’t waste money on expensive advertising. The company doesn't advertise nor does it hire a public relations staff. Meanwhile, Walmart dropped $1.89 billion on ads in 2011.

7. Its prices aren't horrendously high. Costco never marks up products by more than 15 percent, while most retailers commonly mark products up by more than 25 percent.

8. It embraces equality. Costco scored extremely well (90/100) on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, an assessment of LGBT policies in the workplace.

9. It hires from the inside. More than 70 percent of its warehouse managers began their careers working the register or the floor.

10. Costco's employees are loyal. For employees that have worked at the company for more than one year, the annual turnover rate is below six percent, according to Sherwood. For executives, the turnover rate is less than one percent.

Post: #34

^ Excellent example CEO. Thats the kind of example I was looking for.

The start of this discussion was "Does America need mandatory aka legislated maternity leave". I asset that it does not as many employers, like myself, realize that scraping the bottom of the barrel for compensation gets you bottom of the barrel employees. Enigma was asserting that 'corporations' treat their employees poorly and should be forced to treat them better.

The proof is in the Costco examples you've provided. They treat their employees well and get loyalty and low turnover. They didn't need to clumsy hand of government to intervene and say "Hey, do this or get fined" and add more government overhead in the process.

I am going to retire my arguments here. We've got 2 or 3 examples in the thread of employers treating employees well of their own accord already and the results are positive for the business. Employers that provide minimum compensation get minimum employees and I assert that employees that don't want minimum compensation need to out compete other employees.

Post: #35

I do think paid maternity leave is a good idea.

Do we want to encourage women to have kids, or not?

If a woman is with a man wealthy enough to support her, great she can have kids.

For the big majority of couples, this situation is impossible or very difficult.

As Scandinavian countries show, more generous maternity leave means fewer women work, and more dedicate themselves to raising their families. I think that is a good thing.

However it should probably be a direct payment from the government, not the company. Just another form of cash transfer.

For poor women, if they have kids and can't support themselves because they're not working, they'll just go on some form of welfare anyway. For the middle class maybe they'll just go into debt to support themselves.

We often complain about cuntish women who act like men. Being forced to work at the expense of being able to start a family is one factor contributing to this. Encouraging family formation is one way to avoid this.

Post: #36

(05-16-2015 09:45 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I do think paid maternity leave is a good idea.

Do we want to encourage women to have kids, or not?

If a woman is with a man wealthy enough to support her, great she can have kids.

For the big majority of couples, this situation is impossible or very difficult.

As Scandinavian countries show, more generous maternity leave means fewer women work, and more dedicate themselves to raising their families. I think that is a good thing.

However it should probably be a direct payment from the government, not the company. Just another form of cash transfer.

For poor women, if they have kids and can't support themselves because they're not working, they'll just go on some form of welfare anyway. For the middle class maybe they'll just go into debt to support themselves.

We often complain about cuntish women who act like men. Being forced to work at the expense of being able to start a family is one factor contributing to this. Encouraging family formation is one way to avoid this.

Feel free to start a fund where you donate some of your money so women can raise kids that aren't yours.

Just leave me out of it.

Post: #37

(05-16-2015 10:29 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:45 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I do think paid maternity leave is a good idea.

Do we want to encourage women to have kids, or not?

If a woman is with a man wealthy enough to support her, great she can have kids.

For the big majority of couples, this situation is impossible or very difficult.

As Scandinavian countries show, more generous maternity leave means fewer women work, and more dedicate themselves to raising their families. I think that is a good thing.

However it should probably be a direct payment from the government, not the company. Just another form of cash transfer.

For poor women, if they have kids and can't support themselves because they're not working, they'll just go on some form of welfare anyway. For the middle class maybe they'll just go into debt to support themselves.

We often complain about cuntish women who act like men. Being forced to work at the expense of being able to start a family is one factor contributing to this. Encouraging family formation is one way to avoid this.

Feel free to start a fund where you donate some of your money so women can raise kids that aren't yours.

Just leave me out of it.

Well you're Canadian and I'm American so, congrats, you'll have nothing to do with a hypothetical American National Maternity Leave Tax

Post: #38

(05-16-2015 12:24 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Well you're Canadian and I'm American so, congrats, you'll have nothing to do with a hypothetical American National Maternity Leave Tax

Does this mean you are starting a fund?

You seem to feel rather strongly about it.

Post: #39

John Oliver has officially turned into a mangina bitch. Newest episode includes him wanting a woman on our money, agreeing with antigamergate, and talking about catcalling.

Snowden and a few other topics of his kept me watching. This shit tonight was a fucking disgrace.

Post: #40

(06-21-2015 11:06 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  John Oliver has officially turned into a mangina bitch. Newest episode includes him wanting a woman on our money, agreeing with antigamergate, and talking about catcalling.

Snowden and a few other topics of his kept me watching. This shit tonight was a fucking disgrace.

Dude I actually walked out on that shit. Literally got the fuck up and went outside. First I saw that cunt Anita who threatens herself and gets rich, then that guy Brianna Wu (Who cut off his white penis, If you saw the show you know why I said white penis specifically) once Amanda Hess and her boy hair cut came on the screen, I put the TV on mute and told my girlfriend I was going for a drive and she could watch the rest without me. I do not know if I will watch Mr. Oliver's show again, I am voting with my eyeballs and feet- I am just going to go for a walk when his show comes on and look at the sites in downtown Miami.

Post: #41

Having a kid is a lifestyle choice.

Perhaps boat ownership - another lifestyle choice - should be subsidized by a person's employer.

Is having a kid good for our culture? Sure, if families were still intact and dad was allowed and encouraged to be actively involved in his offspring's upbringing. But this is not the case. Women wanted to be in the workforce and to be single moms. Guess what cupcakes (and new single moms), the workplace sucks ass and is competitive given our capitalistic economic structure.

Ladies, if you don't like this, fuck you. You wanted it. Deal with it.

Post: #42

This is one of the few times I disagree with him





I actually think it's worth it for it's own thread, because I think people might miss out on this.

"If you don't want to get burgled, don't own a house"

*shakes head* No.

Ironically he says, "Victim blaming" is hardwired into culture- when recently it seems like the opposite is true.

Post: #43

(06-22-2015 12:55 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  "If you don't want to get burgled, don't own a house"
*shakes head* No.

Isn't it more like saying, "If you don't want to get burgled, lock your door."? Would he have a problem with police telling people to lock their car? Is it victim blaming to tell people not to leave their wallet on a sidewalk in a bad neighborhood?

I don't get the mentality that says people should be able to engage in any risky behavior they want with no consequences. Or I guess I understand it, I just strongly disagree. At it's core, it's basically the surgical removal of responsibility from one's life.

Post: #44

(05-16-2015 10:29 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:45 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I do think paid maternity leave is a good idea.

Do we want to encourage women to have kids, or not?

If a woman is with a man wealthy enough to support her, great she can have kids.

For the big majority of couples, this situation is impossible or very difficult.

As Scandinavian countries show, more generous maternity leave means fewer women work, and more dedicate themselves to raising their families. I think that is a good thing.

However it should probably be a direct payment from the government, not the company. Just another form of cash transfer.

For poor women, if they have kids and can't support themselves because they're not working, they'll just go on some form of welfare anyway. For the middle class maybe they'll just go into debt to support themselves.

We often complain about cuntish women who act like men. Being forced to work at the expense of being able to start a family is one factor contributing to this. Encouraging family formation is one way to avoid this.

Feel free to start a fund where you donate some of your money so women can raise kids that aren't yours.

Just leave me out of it.

If you're from Canada that's a boat that sailed a long time ago. We've had paid maternity leave here for decades. We're already all paying into the system.

Post: #45

(06-22-2015 12:55 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  This is one of the few times I disagree with him





I actually think it's worth it for it's own thread, because I think people might miss out on this.

"If you don't want to get burgled, don't own a house"

*shakes head* No.

Ironically he says, "Victim blaming" is hardwired into culture- when recently it seems like the opposite is true.

Women cant handle the internet. Now women try to control the internet. Good luck with that!

Post: #46

If I wasn't on my phone I would make a more detailed post on this but an interesting thread popped up on KotakuInAction. It showed this clip and how John Oliver is vehemently against online harassment (against women). What the thread did was dig up an older segment where he calls for his followers to harass the President of Ecuador on twitter after he complained about online harassment. He even said, "What this man needs isn't less abuse but more."

Post: #47

To add to EuphoricWizard it's interesting that 30% of the youtubers DOWNVOTED the video. Nearly all of the other videos are 95%+ in his favour. Also it's been pointed out in the comments that most of the people that get harassed online ARE MEN.

Post: #48

Here's the video I was talking about

Post: #49

I would be fine with maternity leave as a trojan horse to lure women away from the cubicles.