Noone is demanding that. If the company can't get it done without the person taking parental leave they simply have to sink or swim.
Like with any other law regulating worker benefits and worker safety. But companies know that starting out and have to plan and act accordingly. That's the cost of doing business.
It's only the "cost of doing business" because of man made arbitrary laws. It doesn't have to be the cost of doing business. Why do you claim "noone is demanding that", when in the next sentence you just shrug it off as "they'll just have to sink, whatever". If the alternative for the business is to go out of business, it is "demanding".
Businesses are not at fault for their employees getting pregnant, so why should they have to shoulder the risk? If society wants to protect mothers, society should pay up, not the individual businesses.
Are you saying people shouldn't run childcare facilities? Or only huge childcare facilities are allowed, which certainly wasn't the intention of the laws for maternal leave?
> If the alternative for the business is to go out of business, it is "demanding".
Then don't hire employees in a region/country that has good employee protection laws/regulations. If businesses want to operate in such a region/country they will have to comply with ALL the laws and regulations there. If they don't, they should operate in a (in this respect at least) third-world country like the US.
> Businesses are not at fault for their employees getting pregnant, so why should they have to shoulder the risk?
Reproduction is integral to society. I businesses don't want to have that "risk" they should only hire people old enough that they can be sure they're barren/impotent but then they're discriminating in their hiring process AND get employees that are already relatively close to retirement (i.e. not a good idea).
> If society wants to protect mothers, society should pay up, not the individual businesses.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe_and_Cent... -> Germany since it would to me if I had children. 14 weeks maternity leave with full pay, 14 months parental leave with up to 67% or the maximum (1800€ per month according §2 (1) BEEG) specified by the law. In Germany this monetary responsibility is mixed (social security AND employer).
> Are you saying people shouldn't run childcare facilities? Or only huge childcare facilities are allowed, which certainly wasn't the intention of the laws for maternal leave?
???, this was never part of my argument. Going back to your comment I originally replied to, many many businesses and branches of business have difficulty hiring people but that doesn't really matter here.
"Then don't hire employees in a region/country that has good employee protection laws/regulations."
Not very practical for childcare facilities?
" If businesses want to operate in such a region/country they will have to comply with ALL the laws and regulations there"
The point is that laws can be changed. Here in Germany especially, we are very aware that laws are not automatically good. We went through this period of time where a lot of bad laws were in place.
"they should only hire people old enough that they can be sure they're barren/impotent"
Or, you know, men? Which is exactly what the feminists governments want to avoid, but they bring it about with their paternity laws. Also, what you suggest is technically illegal in most Western countries (discrimination).
Sorry, but I get the impression you haven't really thought much about these issues yet.
"14 months parental leave with up to 67% or the maximum"
Yes, the government pays mothers, but it doesn't compensate businesses for the losses they incur when women they hired leave for motherhood. They just have "punishing" laws like the job position has to be kept open in case the mother wants to return. That is a punishment for businesses, who are not at fault for women having children.
"this was never part of my argument."
You just dismiss it if certain types of businesses struggle. I explicitly mentioned childcare facilities because I have experienced the problem firsthand.
The point is that laws can have unintended consequences. And those don't go away by simply saying "the business should just go bankrupt or operate in another country".
"many many businesses and branches of business have difficulty hiring people but that doesn't really matter here."
Of course it matters, it means the cost of hiring women is even higher, because replacing them is expensive.
In my opinion, the best protection is to have valuable skills. I personally see no good reason for employment protection. I live in Germany, however, as a freelancer I get no protection at all. Why do some people deserve it, and others don't? What makes an "employee"?
I can understand having to "insure" against the risk of becoming too specialized. Like if you work for one company for years or decades, it might be difficult to find employment elsewhere. However, that insurance should be factored into the contracts "employees" are willing to accept. Likewise as a freelancer, I have to ask for a certain minimum amount of money to cover my risks.
Even for employees the protection might have downsides. They are stuck with inefficient coworkers who can't be fired.If you are young, you'll have to leave before people who are older. And employees might stick to jobs where they are not doing their best for too long. And overall, creation of business is hampered, which hurts everybody.
Never fail to mark a net gain for humanity as financially ineffective obstacle. You know there exist some middle ground between dysfunctional socialism and brutal capitalism? Those places are comparably a paradise for common folks like most of us.
To be treated with respect like a human being and having overall a good life is still a privilege in 21st century.
> You know there exist some middle ground between dysfunctional socialism and brutal capitalism?
This is so far from the point of my comment, it really illustrates how people will view and comment based on the their preconceptions and worldviews before any attempt at rational thought.
I am not saying that the social program is bad. What I did try to point out is that there is no real "giving" of anything. That is all. We cool?
What do you mean by "taking double in taxes"? Yes, parents also pay taxes, although usually less than single people because of the "split income". It is still a net transfer of money from single people to parents. (Not only for parental leave, also schools for example, or even free childcare in many places).
I mean that literally. OP said that the govt pays up to 20000 EUR in Elterngeld, and I can show you tax returns where I paid almost double that in a single year.
I don't get what is so difficult or controversial about my statement here. Whether Elterngeld or "free" childcare, there is no "giving" by the government of anything, that is all.
I don't understand your logic. You would have paid those high taxes regardless of Elterngeld. You didn't pay those high taxes because you received Elterngeld. Therefore, if you receive Elterngeld, you receive it from other people.
Yes, the government doesn't "give" money, it redistributes it. Some other people are paying for your Elterngeld. Even if in your head you assume that it is paid from the taxes you paid, the money you received for Elterngeld is now missing for other things, they are a loss for the rest of society.
I think we are in agreement for most of the things. I am glad to see we agree that the money from the Govt is not "given" to the people. This was the point of my first comment.
I just want to disabuse you from this idea you seem to hold that the money I received is from "other people".
It is not. It is from the Government. Sure it was taken from all of society via taxes, but once it is taken it is no longer yours or mine to determine what to do with it.
There is no point in trying to argue who-paid-for-what in this redistribution made by the Government. If there were a choice for tax payers to say where they want their taxes to go, sure let's go and talk about "Who is paying for my wife's Elterngeld". But there is no such rational and efficient resource allocation method in any Big Welfare State, is there? There is no way to pull apart who is "me and my family" and who is "the rest of society", is there?
There is just - like you said - one big redistribution of wealth driven by bureaucrats who are (allegedly) working in the best interests of the people. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think you can certainly say that some people benefit more than others from the "redistribution", even if you don't account for every single spending. There are certainly people who pay more than they receive.
In the case of family support, it is clear the non-parents receive less than parents. If there are no things (or fewer) things that non-parents benefit from that parents don't benefit from, then it is a net loss for non-parents. (Non-parents could for example benefit more from government sponsored care of the elderly, which might in part be taken care off by children of parents).
I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it seems you are either venting your frustration for feeling like you are not getting back what you put in (you probably aren't) or completely missing the point of what I was saying up-thread.
So, let me try different words: of course this redistribution is uneven. The point of socio-political programs is never to be "fair", no matter how much they say it is. So stop worrying about it.
No. My comment was just an ironic way of saying that there is nothing "given" by and from the Government. Whatever is "given" is actually taken from someone else and redistributed. I thought that was clear already.
"to get fathers to spend time with their children"
I'm all for fathers spending time with their children, but this kind of framing annoys me.
The feminist narrative, which governments seem to swallow, is that fathers don't want to spend time with their children, and force mothers out of their careers.
The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in most cases. Not only is the compensation usually lower than the salary, many dads also fear disadvantages in the job when they stay away for too long, which would also result in less money for the family.
And yes, there are also reasons why it is expected primarily of fathers to provide for the family. It is not just an arbitrary social construct.
> The feminist narrative, which governments seem to swallow, is that fathers don't want to spend time with their children, and force mothers out of their careers.
I think that is all in your head because you are so anti feminism.
Look we have been through this in Norway for years now. Reality is that many men felt uncomfortable making that choice because there was an expectation in society that staying home with your child was a mothers job and a silly indulgence for men.
Once we made part of the leave reserved for men, they suddenly had a simply argument for the boss "sorry man, we got to take it or we loose it."
It reduced the stigma for men to stay home with the child. It also changed how bosses viewed it. You could say it was a bit of clever social engineering.
> The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in most cases.
When you get full pay during leave as in most Nordic countries, that is not the issue. The issue was the stigma attached to men being home.
There are not many countries where you get full pay. Full pay makes it a different matter.
And again, I am all for fathers taking time off to spend with their kids. I just think the narrative is harmful.
Harmful to women, actually, who tend to be forced out of their motherhood privileges by well-meaning laws.
As for "fathers feeling uncomfortable", I am not buying it. That is just in people's head and could be remedied with a little propaganda (some TV shows telling people it's fine to take time off as a father). Finances on the other hand are a real world issue.
Seriously, you would forego spending time with your children because it makes you uncomfortable that society might frown upon it? There are no real repercussions, just a mild feeling of uneasiness?
Think whatever you want but the statistics is very clear on this. When time got reserved just for men it significantly increased the number of dads taking parental leave and who extended it.
For countries who have tried this it is very popular and it has been considered a success.
Parents really like it.
It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career repercussions to prioritize family. I know many Nordics who while living in the US who experience that they are not taken serious by their boss if they priority family.
You can even find plenty of Americans living in Nordics who can attest to this. If you prioritize family you are considered as not taking your career serious.
I mean American bosses freak out when people are away for more than 1-2 weeks.
"It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career repercussions to prioritize family."
Yeah, that is exactly the worry about "finances" that I mentioned. Why are you hellbent on disagreeing with me?
I also get the notion that the repercussions may now be less for women because when you hire men, you will now also risk losing them to parenthood. But parental leave is just a small dent. The bigger impact is that women will tend to work only part time or not at all once they have children.
Also, as for the alleged "frowning": doesn't it contradict your theory that fathers actually did take parental leave when they were given time allotted especially for them? Imo it rather confirms my theory, that the reason fathers rarely do it is because it is a female privilege that mothers would have to give up (or would be forced to give up by such new laws). The frowning by society must have still been in place, but the mother privilege was not, because she had no claim on that period of parental leave (it was only for fathers).
Unfortunately I seem to have the passed the point of no return: I can't focus long enough to read an article on how to learn to focus for longer times :-(
> No, I think "writers" just write because they are paid to, so they use 10000 words instead of being precise and getting to the point.
There is validity to this - "brevity is the soul of wit." but some things need deep, long thought to properly comprehend. Combine this with the attention deficit that it is all but obvious modern media has pushed us towards, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some articles, particularly articles that address this problem.
Edit: Upon gathering my attention and finishing my read of TFA, I concur with your analysis. I further postulate that it appears to be a teaser for the author's book.
One issue is that the vast majority of our writing education is intended to teach language skills more than it is to teach effective communication of ideas. You get points for writing with rhythm, provoking emotion, using interesting new words.
Writing for sport and writing as a means to transmit an idea are very different practices.
I took one class in technical communication in college which was radically different than any English/writing class I had taken before it. I had to throw out a lot of my academic writing habits and focus on brevity and clarity above all else.
? The original poster said 'how do we stop toxicity', and I am saying how can we tell the toxicity isn't at least somewhat down to bots and shills, the presence of either of which is hardly controversial, is it? I mean we've had people trying to convince us for years that it was the Russian bots that put Trump in the White House, unless I've seriously misunderstood.
"I mean we've had people trying to convince us for years that it was the Russian bots that put Trump in the White House"
Just because people have been trying to convince us of that theory, doesn't mean we have to believe it. Ask yourself who is doing the convincing and what might be their motive.
Anybody who has ever used Social Media knows that in general, bots don't simply get access to your timeline. First they would have to get you to follow them, a much harder problem than running thousands or millions of bots.
Likewise for shills - first you have to get people to follow you.
The notion that we would all be happily in love with each other, if it weren't for bots and chills, isn't really worth investigating.
People are angry online because there are fights over real issues. It's not just Mac vs PC anymore, it is about money, land ownership, power, control... People tend to get angry if you try to take away their stuff.
As a simple example: many people like video games. Other people came around claiming video games are sexist, and try to get game makers to change the games. That is some serious meddling with something many people hold dear. Of course that makes them angry.
* a VC-funded business is looking to maximize user base and then get sold, so as a customer you are likely looking at a time horizon of ~3-4 years: plan accordingly
* if a niche B2B SaaS offers pricing below $40/month, it's not sustainable and will disappear, so plan accordingly
* if anybody offers you stuff for free, something is wrong, so take advantage at your own peril
But most people do not realize all that, and expect things to be free forever, pay for software once, or for complex B2B applications to be available forever at $5-$19/month.
I get how it works. I just dislike it. Did you have to compete against any VC funded companies?
My biggest issue with the whole model is that by offering a free tier or by subsidizing everything for "~3-4 years" the VC funded companies make it difficult for anyone to build a business that charges fair value from day 1.
It's hard to deal with because so many people are choosing the "free" option that if you try to pick something that charges fair value, you could end up picking a losing side. Or, even worse, there aren't any alternatives and you get to choose between dying on a hill or running to the slaughterhouse along with the rest of the herd.
Look as Visual Studio Code vs Visual Studio Online. Watch as VSO slowly gets more features than VSC. It'll happen slowly, and intentionally, but VSO will eventually be significantly better than VSC. Then start to think about the integration MS can do with GitHub and Azure to streamline the development process and you get to the point where everything else is an inferior product.
Now we're paying $1k+ per year for a code editor that used to be "free". Right now it's possible to sacrifice time in place of money for almost everything, but I'm worried we'll hit a point where a lot of the development process has been usurped by SaaS offerings and the only way to play will be to pay.
I'm in a small niche, which is likely too small for VC funding. That said, it's something I worry about all the time: getting a competitor who can burn cash for several years and not worry about sustainability is my nightmare.
I agree that VC funding makes it difficult to charge reasonable fees. It hurts everyone: both businesses and customers in the long term.
I would not mix a discussion of SaaS into this. I personally believe that subscriptions are the only sustainable way to develop and maintain software these days. "Buying" software, "owning" it forever and using it on rapidly changing operating systems and environments is fiction.
That's across "all time", not just the last 7 days.
But for the last 7 days, Firefox has over 300%, and Windows over 285%. Gecko is over 700%. Screen left of 0 is 250%. -- I'm guessing some kind of calculation error?
Example: our childcare facility employs two people, and replacements are VERY difficult to find at the moment.