- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,702
- Reaction score
- 58,405
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
And that my friends is how it's done. Don't ever concede BS talking points put forth by your opponents... own it yourself.
And that my friends is how it's done. Don't ever concede BS talking points put forth by your opponents... own it yourself.
Hm. Firstly, its' interesting to see how the people he thinks should be paying for all these family benefits are not the families, or even the taxpayers, but third parties (it's always easier, I suppose, to sell something, when someone else has to pay for it). I'd take Sanders more seriously on this if he was willing to gouge his own ox on it.
I'm on the fence about maternity leave. We need more children being born, that's true. It is indeed good for the women, good for the babies, and good for the families. Mandating maternity leave, however, unfairly advantages women in the workplace, as it means that hiring a woman comes with greater costs than hiring a man, and it means that investing time, training, promotion, etc. in a man is likely to have higher returns than investing those same resources in a woman. I'm all for women staying home with kids when they are little (I think kids need a parent at that age), but that still strikes me as somewhat unfair.
I believe what he's getting behind on Gillibrand's proposal is parental leave. Not a women's only maternity leave.
...“He then outlined three family-oriented policies that would be at the center of his “Family Values Plan”: making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and 10 days a year of paid vacation time....
Hm. Firstly, its' interesting to see how the people he thinks should be paying for all these family benefits are not the families, or even the taxpayers, but third parties (it's always easier, I suppose, to sell something, when someone else has to pay for it). I'd take Sanders more seriously on this if he was willing to gouge his own ox on it.
I'm on the fence about maternity leave. We need more children being born, that's true. It is indeed good for the women, good for the babies, and good for the families. Mandating maternity leave, however, unfairly advantages women in the workplace, as it means that hiring a woman comes with greater costs than hiring a man, and it means that investing time, training, promotion, etc. in a man is likely to have higher returns than investing those same resources in a woman. I'm all for women staying home with kids when they are little (I think kids need a parent at that age), but that still strikes me as somewhat unfair.
From the Article:
The rest of the world does it... so why do you not think it does not work? We have laws here protecting women against discrimination.
The only candidate so far who is addressing real issues and offering real solutions is Bernie Sanders. God, the guy is a breath of fresh air. Who doesn't support the family values Sanders is talking about?
Every time I hear him talk I agree with him.
Go Bernie!
I didn't say it doesn't work - I said it has negative effects on women in the workplace, as it makes them a greater risk and more expensive to hire, train, and promote.
Hell I'm on the Bernie bandwagon and I am Canadian! The points he brings up are no-brainers to me. I just learned a few months ago that the US does not have a national parental leave time law and I couldn't believe it. Here in Canada, we get one year.
Here... have another:
Bernie Sanders Takes It to Wall Street With Financial Transactions Tax
Last week, Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont and only announced challenger to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, took a strong stand for everyday people. He proposed a financial transactions tax (FTT), effectively a Wall Street sales tax, and to use the revenue to make public colleges tuition free.
:shrug: as a "good for babies" policy I understand the benefit for that. As someone who thinks you have to also understand unintended consequences, I also know that introducing that here will result in many fewer work opportunities for women. There's a reason if you're in the Reserves or the Guard you spent the previous 10 years carefully leaving that off resume's.
:shrug: as a "good for babies" policy I understand the benefit for that. As someone who thinks you have to also understand unintended consequences, I also know that introducing that here will result in many fewer work opportunities for women. There's a reason if you're in the Reserves or the Guard you spent the previous 10 years carefully leaving that off resume's.
Not if you have the proper laws in place.
I've seen that one. Once again Sanders makes sense. Meantime Hillary is riding around in her van, faking a Southern accent and saying not a lot of the things that have no real value. Sanders continues to hit them out of the park.
Hillary and GOP candidates don't want to debate him.
When I went into the reserves at 18 I had that all wrong. I thought, "well hey... now I have marketable skills and some training... employers are gonna love me." Didn't really work out that way.
So now take that and instead of it being you in the reserves (which you can get out of), make it you being a woman of child-bearing age (which you can only age out of). The impact on employers is comparable and so their response will be the same. :shrug:
Are you saying that it doesn't work in Canada and that it is detrimental to Canadian women?
Hm. Firstly, its' interesting to see how the people he thinks should be paying for all these family benefits are not the families, or even the taxpayers, but third parties (it's always easier, I suppose, to sell something, when someone else has to pay for it). I'd take Sanders more seriously on this if he was willing to gouge his own ox on it.
I'm on the fence about maternity leave. We need more children being born, that's true. It is indeed good for the women, good for the babies, and good for the families. Mandating maternity leave, however, unfairly advantages women in the workplace, as it means that hiring a woman comes with greater costs than hiring a man, and it means that investing time, training, promotion, etc. in a man is likely to have higher returns than investing those same resources in a woman. I'm all for women staying home with kids when they are little (I think kids need a parent at that age), but that still strikes me as somewhat unfair.
It still works fine with the right protections in place.
:shrug: define "work fine". If by "work fine" you mean that it doesn't push women fully out of the workforce and allows them to have better family time at critical junctures, I agree. If by "works fine", however, you mean that employers don't make rational decisions about the relative costs of hiring men v women....
Well, maybe in Magicland where everyone follows the intent rather than the letter of the law, perhaps. In the rest of the real world (feel free to go research this yourself or click on the sources I gave you) not so much.
It isn't really "third party paying for it", it would simply be a mandated part of any compensation package for workers.
Employers would be able to make up any cost from other parts of the compensation package.
I am not saying it is a good idea, I am not sure but kinda unsold at this point. I would like to hear what the arguments against it are at the very least before I would make up my mind.
And while he calls it maternity leave, I think he intends for both parents from the way he words it.