And not having a child doesn’t free a person from the obligation of participating in a society that values children, or participating in a society that considers it valuable to give some assistance to parents. Society, including the childless, definitely has an interest in helping parents so children develop into somewhat responsible and productive members of said society.
Cite? You are saying that the ‘parasitic upper-class twits that ruled said regime’ (like Franco, who, presumably is still dead…and who would be right wingers/fascists, no?) and are able to still wield enough power to dodge taxes and enrich themselves to such an extent that 40 YEARS! after they are still able to bring down their respective governments, and that the ‘supposedly “socialist” governments that followed never really were willing to challenge this elite power structure’.
So, lets see you back this incredible assertion up with some facts.
That interest does not give parents the right to exploit the childfree. Obligations work both ways. If parents want paid time off to spend with their children, something which I very much believe does not produce responsible and productive members of Western society, they must be willing to offer similar benefits to the childfree for interests we value.
You don’t believe spending time with children produces responsible and productive members of Western society? Or is it just paid time off?
Since childfree people are already paying for schools and stuff, what do you think is your appropriate recompense for that undesired responsibility?
So, that would be a ‘no’, you don’t have anything but some drive by links that I’m supposed to pick through to figure out where the evidence is to make your case for you. Got it. Probably for the best, since we are probably hijacking the thread with this silly sideline and whacky assertion of yours.
No, those are all articles with either the evidence contained therein, or with links to it. I’m surprised you are challenging my point here, actually. You thought that the post-dictatorship governments actually “cleaned house”?
You had no point…just some links I’m supposed to puzzle through to figure out what the hell you are talking about. I skimmed them…nothing leaped out at me as relevant to your assertion with the possible exception of the one on Portugal, and that was tenuous IMHO. I think that you’d need a hell of a lot more to prove that the remnants of right wing/fascist governments and their elite caused some, most or all of the issues that happened in Greece, Portugal or Spain decades after they lost power and decades after the socialist/left wing governments gained power in each. No, I didn’t think that once the fascist lost power in Portugal/Spain in the 70’s (and in the 40’s in Greece) that they ‘cleaned house’ and got rid of every single one of them, but that’s very different than asserting, as you have, that those remnants have had a clear and meaningful impact so long after they had any real power in any of those countries.
However, this thread is not about any of this, so if you wish to pursue it further then I urge you to write up an OP on this topic in GD with what you consider to be good evidence (not drive by links hopefully where you expect others to dig through to figure out what you mean) and move the discussion there…before JC comes in starts blowing any whistles.
My point was that, when people say things like “those communist policies like family leave are causing all the problems in European countries” they are getting it precisely backward, and failing to account for why other European countries with broadly similar (or more generous) family leave policies aren’t having the same troubles. You asked for cites, to show that I wasn’t just making it up, and I went and found some. All over the West, the masses are being asked to pay for problems created by elites. In some Mediterranean countries the situation is particularly bad, and I’m pointing out why, as opposed to ignorant explanations about cultural laziness or whatever. The supposedly left-wing governments that sometimes followed the dictatorships never really broke with neoliberalism, and the still-dominant upper crusts that milked the dictatorships for wealth and privilege have fit in with the new order just fine.
As a childless person, I don’t begrudge parents for leaning on me. Because I make use of services that many people don’t. Like public transportation and libraries.
It would behoove all of us, not just the childless, to remember that our tax dollars go to all kinds of wonderful things. If you’re in support of a program that benefits you and people like you, you should be a good sport and support something that benefits your neighbor. We’re all in this together.
I don’t think the childless hold on a monopoly on thinking about taxes in a selfish way. I think deep down most people want to know that a government program will benefit them in SOME way. And I don’t there’s anything wrong with this tendency as long as it’s checked by a modicum of compassion.
An equal amount of Time off for their projects and needs. Employees should have a section of benefits called paid leave into which everyone accrues hours. Accrues them equally, no particular cause or pursuit entitles someone to hours at a higher rate. These hours can be used for paid time off for whatever purpose the employee needs whether that is a new baby, an elderly parent, a sick friend, etc.
You make a good point. Just as some families are using services you pay for but don’t use, you use services they pay for and don’t use.
And just like having kids is a choice for many, NOT having kids is a choice as well. Some people seem to want things both ways. They want all the advantages of being child free but none of the downsides, such as paying into a society that helps subsidize people who choose to procreate.
To be honest, no I have never encountered a child who spent a large amount of time with their parents who was a responsible or productive member of Western society though I have meet a lot of budding anti-social personality disorder criminals to whom this applies to. Children need some interaction with people yes, but those people do not have to be their parents. Most of the children I can actually stand have been raised if not by professionals (nannies, boarding schools, etc.) then in extended family situations with care very similar to the better formal professional institutions.
The moral and economic issues have been sorta covered by the thread, but the demographic issues have not.
Parental leave is a subsidy on having kids. It is other things as well, but it is a subsidy nevertheless.
Countries do best when they have a stable fertility rate that’s close to the replacement rate. This means zero or slow population growth and a fairly flat age distribution. Giant bubbles in the distribution (China), or sharply increasing (Niger) / decreasing (Japan) populations are all bad.
The US has a fertility rate of 2.01, which combined with immigration makes for a fairly stable population. The EU has a whole is only at 1.55, however.
It seems that the EU needs to do everything they can do promote childrearing to push the fertility rate closer to 2. Paternal leave and other subsidies seem to be good options here. The US doesn’t need to raise its fertility rate and so such subsidies could be counterproductive to long-term demographic trends.
The tradeoffs of not having children are quite numerous, and the childess are frequently reminded of them. I think it is perfectly understandable why a childless person–whether by choice or not–would prefer to not have their heads bashed in by yet another reason–one they can’t argue against without being called “selfish” or “jealous”.
The choice to have a child does not carry the same valence as a choice to refrain from having them. When someone has a child, they are implicitly agreeing to take on more hardship because they want to enjoy the benefits of child-rearing. A person who chooses not to have a child has decided they are ill-equipped to handle that hardship. I wouldn’t scold a resentful vegetarian for subsidizing the healthcare costs of my carnivorous diet by reminding them they’ve made a choice to be so health-minded and conscientious. I would instead tell them that without ready access to pork and chicken, I’d be a sad, bitter person who wouldn’t be a productive member of society. They should subsidize my meat consumption because society is better when everyone has access to things that make them feel good. I support family-friendly practices because I recognize that society is better when families are strong. And I expect families, in turn, to support those things that benefit the childfree so that we are made happy and strong (like supporting gay marriage.)
I think people lose the argument when they frame the argument in terms of altriusm and selfishness. People have kids for selfish and nonaltriustic reasons, and want to spend more time with them for selfish and nonaltriustic reasons. I don’t want to work more than I have to for selfish and nonaltriustic reasons. But both sides are still perfectly reasonable and fair.
Actually, I never thought of it like this. It’s a good point, or at least it seems that way to me.
I’m stunned by these comments that “childless employees will be resentful” of the new parents who take parental leave. What kind of crappy places/industries do y’all work? I have been a school teacher for more than two decades. I cannot imagine my coworkers getting bent out of shape if one of us needed leave for a new baby or adopted child. Granted, teachers tend to be service-oriented folks, but we can be just as petty as anyone else. But to gripe about Joe or Jane having a kid is just… I would be too embarrassed to air my gripe out loud. I would be outed as the biggest jerk in the school (and I work in a middle school, so that’s some stiff competition).
I sense a substantial amount of projection going on there. I’m childless and couldn’t give two shits. Better that the kid gets properly socialized before he grows up into some cretin and robs me.
There are, admittedly, factors that could work in the opposite direction. The US could do a better job when it comes to teen pregnancy, for instance. So it might be possible to come to a neutral change if other policies were enacted. However, these “knobs” seem coarser to me. They can’t be fine-tuned the way tax breaks and paid leave can be.
I can’t find the post anymore, but someone in the thread made the point that it’s a bit of a problem that we really want parents to be young, but people only start making good incomes until later in life. It’s a good point and has implications for lots of things, like health care expenses (which increase for older parents).
Maybe the answer is a “child mortgage.” It would pay for leave and other early expenses and then be paid off later in life. It would be a government-run program designed to be revenue-neutral. Repayment would scale with later income and subject to a cutoff (no payment below $35k, for instance). Interest rates would match long-term US Treasury rates with a small adjustment for those that never reach the income threshold.