Pay
- Thread starter Whispered
- Start date
I don't know. That's kind of a poor argument. That's like saying, raise the minimum wage because people can't survive off of minimum wage. Well that's nobody's fault but their own. I do agree that they should still be paid, but definitely not as much as if they were working. Then again, I am a firm believer of earning what you receive. If the women truly can't survive, maybe she should consider going on food stamps.
Yes. It's important to take stress off new parents. Raising a baby is hard enough as it is, but doing that without the mother's income is just a whole new level of difficulty. Paid leave ensures that mothers (and fathers, for that matter; paternity leave should be encouraged) are there to provide for their children at such a pivotal stage.
The United States is embarrassingly far behind on maternity leave. Even China, a country with some of the world's worst labor laws, requires 12 weeks of full paid leave. That's not a lot on a global scale, but it is an infinity percent increase over what is required in the good ol' US of A. The same China that hardly allows its people to have children is beating us on maternity leave.
If I recall correctly, Norway has a sweet maternity/paternity leave system. Mother gets six months, father gets six months, and another six months goes to whichever parent wants it.
Obligatory Devil's advocate: one cannot get a better job unless offered a better job. What with the political gaming involved in getting a promotion in many companies, it is possible that more deserving workers get shrugged off to the side as, um, bosses' pets take those promotions.
Capitalism assumes that companies always act rationally. They don't.
Side note on minimum wage: I seem to recall studies that said a minimum wage increase would grow the economy. Wealth equality in general fuels growth, but in this specific case, there's something even more magical at work which companies ignore: the cost of worker turnover. Higher paid workers stick around longer, and so training costs drop off. Again, companies don't always naturally act in their own best interests.
The United States is embarrassingly far behind on maternity leave. Even China, a country with some of the world's worst labor laws, requires 12 weeks of full paid leave. That's not a lot on a global scale, but it is an infinity percent increase over what is required in the good ol' US of A. The same China that hardly allows its people to have children is beating us on maternity leave.
If I recall correctly, Norway has a sweet maternity/paternity leave system. Mother gets six months, father gets six months, and another six months goes to whichever parent wants it.
Obligatory Devil's advocate: one cannot get a better job unless offered a better job. What with the political gaming involved in getting a promotion in many companies, it is possible that more deserving workers get shrugged off to the side as, um, bosses' pets take those promotions.
Capitalism assumes that companies always act rationally. They don't.
Side note on minimum wage: I seem to recall studies that said a minimum wage increase would grow the economy. Wealth equality in general fuels growth, but in this specific case, there's something even more magical at work which companies ignore: the cost of worker turnover. Higher paid workers stick around longer, and so training costs drop off. Again, companies don't always naturally act in their own best interests.
Last edited:
Are you insane? so people working small time jobs shouldn't be able to live off of the money they earn? then what's the point in working? Corporations can AFFORD to pay their workers as much as required to live. And a majority of those minimum wage workers are working 2-3 jobs and still barely making ends meet. but that's besides the point. I think they should be paid the same amount when they take leave especially since minimum wage jobs cut you loose without batting an eyelash and make sure NOT to hire when they're a couple weeks pregnant.
Unfortunately you are forgetting the major issue of inflation. When employers are forced to pay their employees more, then they are forced to raise prices on their goods, which is not good for anyone, especially those trying to get by on minimum wage. Again, I am a firm believer in earning what you receive. I'm sorry, but patty flippers do not work nearly as hard as doctors lawyers etc, and you need close to no skill level for a minimum wage job, so they really shouldn't be earning any more than they deserve. I don't believe in entitlements, no one is entitled to extra pay, they need to work for what they get. I just simply think that these women should not be receiving as much money as they did when they were working, because they didn't really earn it working their job.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the entire purpose of minimum wage is that its supposed to be something that the person working that job can live on. A surprising majority of people lack the opportunity completely to be a doctor, or a lawyer, on no fault of their own. Are they any less deserving of being able to at least function comfortably?
There are only so many openings for those high up positions. We have a GDP of $16 trillion. We can afford to support a population of 320 million. It doesn't have to be a situation where most people live fine, a small handful have houses built of gold bars, and the rest are scraping by or living on the streets. There's simply no need to compete with each other. Working together would work out much, much better in the long run.
Take a look at crime. A lot of that is class motivated at its core. You can tell people, "earn your money," but that's really a naive way of looking at things. There aren't enough opportunities for that to be possible for every single person, and so the people who are left out have to find a way to live. They'll turn to theft to get what they need; they'll end up somehow entangled in illegal drugs, whether as a coping mechanism or as a means to make money; they'll even get caught so they end up in a taxpayer supported prison.
You can preach social Darwinism as a means to a perfect economy, but that ignores the realities of Darwinism: it a harsh and violent system in economics just as it is in nature.
Chinese manufacturers often work 70+ hour workweeks in giant factory compounds (complete with gorgeous below-window nets!) to make ~$3 an hour. (Based on a $690 monthly salary at the end of 2012.) Wages aren't fair.
Take a look at crime. A lot of that is class motivated at its core. You can tell people, "earn your money," but that's really a naive way of looking at things. There aren't enough opportunities for that to be possible for every single person, and so the people who are left out have to find a way to live. They'll turn to theft to get what they need; they'll end up somehow entangled in illegal drugs, whether as a coping mechanism or as a means to make money; they'll even get caught so they end up in a taxpayer supported prison.
You can preach social Darwinism as a means to a perfect economy, but that ignores the realities of Darwinism: it a harsh and violent system in economics just as it is in nature.
Chinese manufacturers often work 70+ hour workweeks in giant factory compounds (complete with gorgeous below-window nets!) to make ~$3 an hour. (Based on a $690 monthly salary at the end of 2012.) Wages aren't fair.
Last edited:
It's no one's own fault that the cost of living is too high and the minimum wage is a pittance in comparison. Also take in to account how minimum wages vary by state. In Washington it's $9.32 an hour, in New Jersey it's $7.25. The cost of living also varies by season, for example in New Jersey May - September is tourist season because we have various beaches and tourist attractions (like Six Flags) here, and the cost of gas skyrockets in New Jersey in the summer every year, but the wages stay the same. It's not the wage earner's fault that their wages are low vs. the cost of living in their environment.
I think the wages for women that goes on maternity leave should stay the same. It's essentially a paid leave. When my father went out on back surgery, he received the same wages he earned when he was working. The cost of living doesn't go down just because your wages do. And considering my father having major spinal surgery didn't mean we had to buy extra things that cost more vs. having a child and having to purchase various baby items (which can be very expensive), he could have taken a pay decrease while he was out and it wouldn't have made a difference, but someone on maternity leave needs that money.
It all depends on your job, but if in my experience someone has surgery and receives the same wages while out on leave for medical recovery, someone on maternity leave should as well.
I think the wages for women that goes on maternity leave should stay the same. It's essentially a paid leave. When my father went out on back surgery, he received the same wages he earned when he was working. The cost of living doesn't go down just because your wages do. And considering my father having major spinal surgery didn't mean we had to buy extra things that cost more vs. having a child and having to purchase various baby items (which can be very expensive), he could have taken a pay decrease while he was out and it wouldn't have made a difference, but someone on maternity leave needs that money.
It all depends on your job, but if in my experience someone has surgery and receives the same wages while out on leave for medical recovery, someone on maternity leave should as well.
That is also false. For example, I worked as a studio photographer, and I earned the same wages as a coworker of mine that was lazy, complacent, and did nothing but sit in the backroom and eat and text on his phone, while I was taking appointments one right after the other and editing photos in between while he sat by doing nothing.
Your wages aren't based on how hard you work, your starter wages are meant to be an amount that would allow you to survive based on the cost of living, that's why they're "minimum" wages. Your wages increase via raises because you're supposed to get an employee evaluation and based on your performance, your wages will change.
It wasn't until our employee evaluations that my wages were raised and his were the same because he does nothing. But our starter wages were the same for a year.
----------
You spend hours at your job everyday, and work annually (hopefully, if you kept that job). You put the time in and earn money. When you take a leave, depending on the perks of your job, some jobs offer paid leave/maternity leave.
Just because you aren't working at that time because you had a child, doesn't mean you didn't put the time in prior to to deserve paid leave. It's not free money, it's your wages, you just earned the time off and the ability to continue collecting your paychecks.
Free money is welfare, not paid leave.
Your wages aren't based on how hard you work, your starter wages are meant to be an amount that would allow you to survive based on the cost of living, that's why they're "minimum" wages. Your wages increase via raises because you're supposed to get an employee evaluation and based on your performance, your wages will change.
It wasn't until our employee evaluations that my wages were raised and his were the same because he does nothing. But our starter wages were the same for a year.
----------
You spend hours at your job everyday, and work annually (hopefully, if you kept that job). You put the time in and earn money. When you take a leave, depending on the perks of your job, some jobs offer paid leave/maternity leave.
Just because you aren't working at that time because you had a child, doesn't mean you didn't put the time in prior to to deserve paid leave. It's not free money, it's your wages, you just earned the time off and the ability to continue collecting your paychecks.
Free money is welfare, not paid leave.
For the time being, no. We just don't have to live as though my prosperity banks on the failure of my neighbors. If I take on a job as an engineer, there's one other person who can't have that job. That hypothetical person doesn't deserve to struggle to survive by making minimum wage.
As automation takes hold, a Marxist-esque system might become necessary, but I'm not exactly certain of that (and even if it is necessary, it is likely a ways off.)
As automation takes hold, a Marxist-esque system might become necessary, but I'm not exactly certain of that (and even if it is necessary, it is likely a ways off.)