Microsoft Will Require Business Partners To Offer Paid Parental Leave (washingtonpost.com) 165
Microsoft has unveiled a new paid parental leave policy on Thursday that will affect the more than 1,000 firms it does business with across the U.S. An anonymous reader shares the report from the Washington Post: Technology giants in the United States offer some of the country's most generous employee benefits, but the workers who mow the lawns or serve lunch in the company cafeteria -- jobs that are often staffed by outside firms -- tend to get far smaller packages. Microsoft announced a new policy Thursday that it hopes will shrink that gap, pledging it will ink contracts only with service providers who give their employees 12 weeks of paid family leave. Per the requirement, mothers and fathers who perform work for Microsoft -- biological and adoptive -- must receive 12 weeks of leave at two-thirds of their wages or up to $1,000 weekly. The announcement comes as Washington state, where the company is based, prepares to introduce paid family leave for workers, the fifth state to do so. Microsoft currently offers its direct employees 12 weeks of paid family leave at full pay, and birth mothers receive an additional eight paid weeks for physical recovery.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention how parental leave screws the workers who don't have children.
How is not getting a benefit because you don't qualify getting screwed? Sam is no worse off if Joe and Susie get paid parental leave, and he's no better off if they don't. I'd say he's probably better off if they do, because their tired asses won't be making stupid mistakes he has to clean up.
Sam could be single, or he could be married with he and his wife both sterile.
Single people have been known to get married and have kids, and sterile couples have been known to adopt. Just because Sam isn't getting the paid leave right now doesn't mean he won't later on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every full time job I had - even being an usher for Regal Cinemas 20 years ago - gave paid vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you "rugged individualists" can't band together and demand better treatment from your employers. In the rest of the West, at least 4 weeks is standard.
How can we be rugged individualists if we band together? First it's better treatment, next it's better pay, and you know where that leads ... COMMUNISM!
Re: (Score:2)
The E.U. Working Time directive mandates a minimum of 20 days paid leave a year. This includes any public/bank holidays.
Some nations have gone above this so for example in the U.K. it's 20 days *PLUS* bank holidays. In fact that was always the government's intention but they lost a case at the ECJ where some tightfisted employers said according to the directive it was 20 days including bank holidays.
Having lost the case the UK government simply changed the law to make it 20 days plus bank holidays. The dire
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you sure spend a lot of your time on slashdot bashing the "lefties". Check your comment history. It's all leftie this and leftie that. Oh, and what's this tidbit:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I say let the market sort it out. Not total lassiez faire, but only as much regulation as necessary to prevent criminal activity. To keep and eye on things, as it were. I don't even think there should be a minimum wage. ...
Furthermore, you assholes have actually decided that two grown adults of sound mind can't come to an agreement to exchange labor for wages if that agreement is below what YOU have decided is reasonable
Well here you go. The market is sorting it out for you. Microsoft has decided how they want to spend their money, and they choose to spend it supporting companies that pay their employees what they think is fair, not just in wages but in time off. That's certainly Microsoft's right to do. They are grown adults
Re: (Score:2)
You live in the wrong country.
The right country would perhaps be Somalia.
Or go to Antarcitca?
But you can do mankind a favour: just take a shovel and dig a ditch for yourself ...
Re: (Score:2)
Countless studies have shown benefits across the whole family when BOTH parents get time off to raise the child at birth.
Everyone benefits when they get more time off. School age kids benefit when they have a stay at home mom and when their dad is around more. Elderly benefit when they have a relative around. Dogs benefit when they have someone home more. Single people benefit when they get more vacation time. The USA has some of the worse paid time off of any developed country. I'm not sure why we are singling out new parents.
Everyone also benefits from more money. Maybe we should just give everyone a raise.
On a more
Re: (Score:1)
"MS is willing to accept an additional cost"? You mean "MS is willing to pass on the additional cost to its customers, with an appropriate markup of course". Next time the government support contracts are up for negotiation, prices needs to up, but at least they will have a good PR excuse. If you think they will just eat the cost, your are mistaken. Nothing is free, someone has to pay for it in the end, the question is who will pay for this.
Whenever you hear someone is getting some benefit, think who is pay
Slowly going forward (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well,
in Gemany you have parental leave for up to 36 month - 12 to 14 payed - not 12 weeks.
And the couple, assuming both work, have to decide who of them takes how many months.
Of course the payment is not done by the employer but by the state.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like the time for my fur babies (Score:1, Redundant)
Twelve weeks is a good amount of time to properly train a puppy. I'll happily take it.
Re: (Score:1)
What about the childless singletons? Do they, too, get time off for having to sit and listen to their co-workers talk about their kids? /only a little bitter /still waiting on the comp time I deserve since I dont smoke cigarettes lol
Re:I would like the time for my fur babies (Score:5, Informative)
I would like the time for my fur babies
Twelve weeks is a good amount of time to properly train a puppy. I'll happily take it.
Man, this "fur parents" stuff needs to be killed with fire. Right up there with actual furries, if you ask me!
Re: (Score:1)
You know, I would be joking, but I took off about six months to train my puppy (self-employed, so zero pay) and my friend has a completely untrained puppy, with no time to train it.
So, maybe I'm not joking.
Really, I'm laughing at the concept that any lifestyle choice gets job consideration in the first place. I'm not going to pay my employees to stay at home and not generate any revenue. That's insane. With what would I pay them?
Also, last I checked, employers aren't allowed to keep employees working in-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a simple way to double the number of jobs, and therefore double the average salary -- only one adult per household can work full-time. subsequent adults would get their salaries significantly limited. Oh wait, you used to have exactly that. Maybe we tripped over that one.
otherwise, we'll live in a world where families who choose to have four generations in a single household would have eight adults earning full salaries. You'd never be able to afford a house as a regular two-adult family.
Oh wait,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. I wasn't offending "you". I was showcasing that every "solution" just makes things worse -- which generally suggests that there is no objective problem in the first place.
Why would you say that one "owes" anything to any future anyone? The universe won't implode without you. Or it will anyway, and another will take its place just the same.
additional eight paid weeks for physical recovery (Score:2)
And anyway, if something did go horribly wrong during pregnancy wouldn't that be covered by long
Re:additional eight paid weeks for physical recove (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
And don't forget that next on the docket is paid Menstrual leave. https://www.self.com/story/pai... [self.com] .
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
So here we have a person getting 3 months off of every year that she decides to have a child, and then an extra 12 days of leave every year that she doesn't.
Folks, we really need to look at the reality of the situation. This sort of thing tends to be well meaning, but eventually backfires. So you have a young woman of childbearing age and a young man interviewing for the same job. They are both similarly qualified. By law, you cannot ask her many questions. I had a big list of verboten questions, and often had to ride herd over a co-worker who tried to sneak them in.
Who are you going to hire?
It is actually an important question, especially for demanding positions that require a lot of training. If, as one of the women where I worked had several children over a short period of time, her replacements were putting in more time than she was for several years. Side note - every time she came back to work at her guaranteed job, another woman - the replacement - lost her job.
I wonder though if Microsoft's demand includes paid maternity leave for the replacement workers filling in while the first worker is out on maternity leave.
But back to that question of how much time off is to be expected, it will come into question, because there will be a tendency to hire the person who is going to cost your company less. Single men will have a big advantage.
another note: several women candidate interviewees would quickly blurt out their marital status, and that they didn't intend to have children or already did, so that they could sidestep the issue of our not being allowed to ask anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, they tended to be more qualified and worked out well when hired. Seems like the understood that workplace omertà wasn't working in their favor. third note. I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Re: (Score:2)
Single men will have a big advantage.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
Re: (Score:1)
Single men will have a big advantage.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
I'm not certain if you didn't read that right or not, but a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave. So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
So is this leave forced or something? There is no way I could take off three months.
"Sorry, but the lead person on the project just had a baby, so your project is going to be delayed by three months at least. I'm certain that you understand!"
And no, not all jobs can have anyone in the office or a temp replace them.
Re: (Score:3)
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's an
Re: (Score:2)
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's another thing which should probably change, and giving him the opportunity to be involved in that upbringing is one part of that.
Allow me to try once again, I must be really poor at communicating tonight.
A man who is not married and has no children will not take 3 months of leave. He has no children, therefore no paternity leave applies.
Why might this be an advantage? A person who does not take as many as 3 mandated months off every year for a number of years is probably going to be available to come into work during the time a new father or new mother is taking that three months off. Now is this person taking the leave time
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
Most certainly not the Bachelor.
So anyhow, remember you lose your job if the project doesn't go out on time. Who do you hire that you have the best possibility of seeing the job through?
Best candidate would be the married man. If he so far could manage his job and his family he probably can cope best with the new challenge.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project? Most certainly not the Bachelor.
Interesting. My experience has been different.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire the bachelor for a life and death project: you are an idiot.
Perhaps. Not that I am in a hiring position any more, but your concept of the weak unreliable bachelor kinda went out the window some years ago. But hey, you want to brand me an idiot, by all means do. Looks like you've reached the condescension stage. Peace out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water."(sic)
Actually, your legal analysis is wrong. Asking ANY candidate about potential children or marriage is a violation of EEO laws (at least in the US). You would be discriminating on the basis of sex and/or parental status. hence the questions about such are illegal for all candidates. The potential savings you seem to expect from hiring the single male with no children (who could actually lie and/or adopt---note in the article, it mentions for both natural birth and adoption as being eligible for the leave).will be offset by the legal costs for defending your actions (may be hard to do and/or the settlements you'll pay to resolve the case before a jury award bankrupts the company.
You realize of course, that only makes the situation worse. Which makes the single male or the post menopausal woman the better candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
And what would be that advantage?
Re: (Score:2)
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off. And what would be that advantage?
Unless a person's job is sitting around doing nothing, that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it. Unless a person is working a job where they simply plug one person into another person's job, you have to spend time training the replacement.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will. Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Quality of life is a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. That's ok. But to spend hours of your time arguing that it's not a thing that other people should value seems really odd to me.
Fam
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Do you have arguments in your head with people? I'm 40 years married, and retired at 55 to be livin the dream, Raised a responsible successfil son. So much for your narrative.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will.
Nah. Only people with mental issues need mental health days. Then they should see a professional.
Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the people my age that didn't retire when I did will be working an extra 22,000 hours.
Work is only horrible and onerous if you want it to be. Too many people have been trained to look at work as s
Re: (Score:2)
that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it.
He is payed for the parental leave, too.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not complaining now, I was compensated very well, and the maxxed out vacation and sick leave checks at retirement made a nice deposit in my TDA.
And:
a) how many job
Re: (Score:2)
that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it.
He is payed for the parental leave, too.
Yeah, he is. That's my point. He's paid for not working. A person with the same job who is working during that three month period is accomplishing more for the same amount of money.
So point is, if you are paying a person who is working for you for nine months the same as a person who is working for you for 12 months, Who is going to get more done for you? If the person you are paying for nine months can have plug in worker foro that three months, you are paying that person, the plug in, and if you have
Re: (Score:2)
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
Re: (Score:2)
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
Sir, no I'm not. You can't be certain about any hire. But you can play the odds. Your logic is compelling. Since every person on earth was an infant at one time, it does not mean that everyone is an infant. Think before you post silly stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Re: (Score:2)
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Of that, there is no doubt. But what are you going to do about that single guy that has no children and doesn't plan to? Or me. After a attempted week, my wife didn't want me at home all day with her and the child.I'm one of those poor souls who is better liked and loved from afar. Now it is true that I got several calls a day with one panic or another. But sitting around the house all day didn't add muuch value on my part. I'm not very good at breast feeding.
I wonder, does the new setup force time off f
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter whom you hire.
It is called "parental leave" for a reason. Otherwise it would be called "mothers leave" ...
The father can take leave and the mother can.
And because some people in hiring positions are to "anti social" it is exactly the reason why it applies to both parents.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months?
Hiring a part time replacement.
I work as a freelancer in software engineering. I happily do a 3 month project. And no, there are not many domains that require 3 month to get used to, to be productive.
Then again:
You know quite in advance that a parent wants to take a leave. As far as I remember a typical pregnancy is 9 month. If the employer waits till month 9, I agree we would have an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months? Hiring a part time replacement.
I work as a freelancer in software engineering. I happily do a 3 month project. And no, there are not many domains that require 3 month to get used to, to be productive.
Then again: You know quite in advance that a parent wants to take a leave. As far as I remember a typical pregnancy is 9 month. If the employer waits till month 9, I agree we would have an issue.
So tell me - are you capable of being the lead on say, a hundred million dollar project as a temp?
Re: (Score:2)
The lead of a 100million dollar project wont tell you 1 month before birth that he is going on parental leave.
But to ask your question: yes, I would. However would the team(s) accept a 3 month temp? Probably not.
Usually the "lead" has assistance, and there most likely is one who can replace him for such a short period, or you have a second project in the 50 - 200 million range, and that lead and his aides can support your project.
No idea why you are nitpicking ...
If you like to research, I was technical lea
Re: (Score:2)
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
Re: (Score:2)
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
I remember fondly the days when I breast fed my son.
Yes, I have a son. No, my wife didn't think that I had to be there every moment. Funny how people seem to have a far right wing "This must be like this! All people must be like this! And if you are not like this, you must conform or be cast out!" thing going on, when the entire concept of the man having to be there 24/7 is most certainly a left leaning thing. Go figure, amirite?
Y'all have a dictatorial idea of what a good father does. We perhaps did a
Re: (Score:3)
I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Differently Justin Trudeau has a Slashdot account. Sexist twat bending over backwards to try and not look sexist.
Nope. The field most of the office worked in had a lot of women candidates. So there were going to be qualified women. My experience was that if there was few women compared to men, they would tend to feel overwhelmed, and oppressed. If there were a large majority of women, there was a remarkable amount of infighting with each other. This was over some 30 years, and no doubt serviscope_minor and Animojo will chime in to call me a sexist male along with you calling me Justin Trudeau.
Slashdot is funny that
Re: (Score:2)
So since I have a cock, I can go fuck myself if I want to have some time off to spend with my new baby in a way that doesn't cost me all my yearly vacation time? Spoken like an ignorant asshole who doesn't have kids. Good, stay that way.
U mad Bro? Sorry but I'm married and have one kid. The whole way from birth through high school I spent a lot of time with him. Look - I'm not even saying you have to work. I'm not saying that you cant take a year off, or become a stay at home dad. By golly, it's a free country, amirite?
But know this. Taking three months off of a job as often as once a year for a number of years might work for a job at McDonald's, or if you are part of a whole herd of programmers all doing the same thing.
But if you can
Re: (Score:2)
If a father has nothing more to offer than moral support, he's a shit father.
Whoosh. I asked the moral support question.
Re: (Score:2)
So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
Yet here in the UK statutory maternity leave where you receive pay at some level is 39 weeks and other countries in the EU are even more generous.
Please put "12 weeks" in the title of this article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I skipped over this article and only later found it on Twitter. Yes, it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners, using it substantial economic power to help this happen ... but it's quite significant that they're demanding twelve weeks of paid parental leave for all partners, even landscapers, janitors, and cafeteria workers.
I think it's called Windows, Maternity Edition.
And could you imagine hiring the Duggars? 3 lost months from each person every year.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners,
No it isn't. They using their market position to act as a bully.
They are trying to act as a de facto government entity. They are pretty blatantly trying to be Robber Barons.
This is the worst kind of corporate fascism possible.
Yet you gits eat it up because today's abuse of power suits you. You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications.
Re: Please put "12 weeks" in the title of this art (Score:2)
Re: Please put "12 weeks" in the title of this ar (Score:1)
I think it's hilarious that you idiots see this as progress. First you upend traditional values to the point that "stay at home mom" is seen as some shameful betrayal of feminism. Then you fuck up the male/female dynamic so that fewer people are getting married an having children. Thanks to both of those things you guarantee that the economics of our societies change to the point where single-income families are no longer possible for the vast majority of couples. And then you ry to fix this by making e
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, at least until age 16, kids need someone at home. Nannies can handle somethings for a few years, but after that -- you need a mom, dad, or grand parent at home. All the time. And, having children should be something has been planned for a few years...there shouldn't be any surprise.
I'd be happier if employers offered more generous vacation and parental leave options for their employees. But, this should be their decision, not the government.
The best the government can do is to promote an econ
Re: (Score:2)
You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications.
What is wrong with happy families and happy kids?
Re: (Score:2)
You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications. What is wrong with happy families and happy kids?
They give people the idea that happiness is a good thing, and that society has a role in facilitating people's pursuit of it. Like that's in the country's foundational documents or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this include offshore contractors? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Six wives, 14 kids. Pajeet hasn't been in to work for years.
hmm (Score:2)
The more reason to kill off contracting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
It's standard here to have up to 17 weeks pregnancy leave and up to 63 weeks of parental leave (by either parent). It's all unpaid with employment insurance covering 52 weeks of it.
12 weeks is an insult to parents.
Re: (Score:1)
We're rugged individualists and our kids are born quite ready to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, so we don't need that kind of time off. Plus: socialism. And Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
Everything has to be paid for.
Americans hate paying for stuff.
That's a double edged sword. On the one hand, I have to pay for my own little one month "vacation" in the hospital. On the other hand, I make a better salary and keep more of it.
So I probably made out better in the end.
it was bad enough getting back in the grove after a mere month away from the office. Don't even want to contemplate 3 months or a whole year.
Do you even get anything done i
Re:whooooooooo cares (Score:4, Informative)
GDP Per Capita (USD):
Canada - 51,315.89
US - 53,128.54
We're gettin'er done and enjoying the benefits along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Your number is a bit off for Canada, it's around $48k/year right now. Been a long time, decades that the GDP-per-person has dropped like this. On top of that we pay ~43% in taxes, and everything that's supposed to be covered becomes less of every year. We're getting less for our money and paying more for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]
Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]
As to the "less every year", it's different from year to year as priorities change. Just because the things you may use seem "less" does not mean other more important things aren't being covered elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from
I grabbed mine from stats canada.
Way off means 1% [nationalpost.com] oh no.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thanks for that link.
I looked up the US rate to compare... 48%
https://www.thebalance.com/cur... [thebalance.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to knock off the 30% for devaluation if you live in Canada vs the greenback.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers were in US$ so that had already been accounted for.
Basically the takeaway is Americans pay 6% more tax and instead of things that make their lives better they get a giant military complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c [tradingeconomics.com]... [tradingeconomics.com]
As a matter of fact, his numbers are accurate. Your link only shows Income Tax. You forget that every dollar you take home after that is taxed again with sales tax. Then there's gas, booze and cigarette taxes. I'd bet 43% is actually a bit low.
Re: (Score:2)
The link shows sales tax too if you bothered to look.
If you want to delve into that minutia then the US has some of the highest taxes in the world due to most of the services being offloaded to municipalities. Property taxes there are insane in comparison. Because the cities are doing the work it's far more costly than if the state/feds provided it due to overlapping bureaucracies
Re:whooooooooo cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada - 51,315.89
US - 53,128.54
Of course we only have 59 weeks or parental leave (at 80% salary or 49 weeks at 100%) following the 12 week maternity leave. Oh and it has none of these silly $1000 a week caps. So, if you're a CEO and you have $500,000 a year salary, you'll receive that the whole time you're out.
Though I'll admit, the job offers I get in D.C. (typically about $300K+) or in S.V. ($250K+) or in NYC ($200K+) are considerably more than the $128K base salary I make now. Though I do get overtime and I have side work for an extra $50K. I do pay A LOT more taxes here than I would there. But the standard of living is substantially higher here than over there. I didn't have to spend month interviewing day care nannies to ensure they won't diddle or beat my children. I didn't have to spend months applying to private schools to keep my kids away from the school shootings. I didn't have to put a penny in the bank for my kids college educations. I didn't pay for the lenses in my childrens glasses. I've never paid for a doctor or dentist appointment for my kids. Honestly, I take home a lot more in the end than my American counter parts.
My daughter dreams of going to MIT one day... I'll have to pay something for cost of living, but I won't spend a dime on the school itself. And she's well on track to get there too. If I lived in the U.S., I'd have to plan taking a second mortgage to cover her education even on those high salaries.
Re: whooooooooo cares (Score:1)
"I didn't have to pay for..."
Yes, you did.
You and everyone else paid for it, every day of your lives, regardless of how much you wanted to. Other people without children were forced to pay for your children.
At gunpoint and under threat of prison.
And you're the more free and more advanced one here, right?
You are a slave bound by chains you can't even acknowledge, sniveling and begging your master for more, so dependent on the Nanny State that you would be completely lost without it.
It's disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
My daughter dreams of going to MIT one day... I'll have to pay something for cost of living, but I won't spend a dime on the school itself. And she's well on track to get there too. If I lived in the U.S., I'd have to plan taking a second mortgage to cover her education even on those high salaries.
Why wouldn't you have to spend a time on the school itself? Are you assuming she'll have a full scholarship, or does Norway pay for its citizens to attend universities in other countries?
Re: whooooooooo cares (Score:3)
The "and I'm probably better off in the end" is the mass lie that Americans tell themselves. No, you are not. Source: Math.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's standard here to have up to 17 weeks pregnancy leave and up to 63 weeks of parental leave (by either parent). It's all unpaid with employment insurance covering 52 weeks of it.
This is paid leave, though. Why should you get paid for not working, ever?
The answer of course is that the US native reproductive rate has fallen below sustaining. If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids. Not to mention that both parents are generally pretty damn useless until the kid starts sleeping through the night, so you might as well deal with that reality.
We sure need to do something to keep professional parents from waiting until
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Importing people is much lower cost than bringing up children. The other country invests all that time and effort into education and healthcare only for the person to leave.
It's not so bad though, because those people tend to keep ties with their original country and help it develop too.
Re: (Score:3)
1) The company doesn't pay the 17+63 weeks. They generally pay about 2 weeks. The government pays the rest.
2) It's amazing how societies that have this kind of empathy at a government level don't have the mass shootings problems. The government sets an example that you mean something to the country and the world from the moment you are born.
3) Packing formula or breast milk like a bagged lunch and coming home exhausted after working a full day to a baby who has a lot of needs is the
Re: (Score:2)
In a first world country, we believe that a good neighborhood is when you don't need a metal fence or a security guard because we have improved the lives of everyone to a standard that makes them just like us.
Bravo! Exactly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids. "
It always sounds like a strange reasoning to me. I never understood why people want to "survive as a society". I don't even understand what it really means...
We have already reached a point where we would need two planets to be sustainable, why adding more and more "local" people instead of making existing ones (world wide) more comfortable ?
"Surviving as a society", as I read it, simply means: for
Re: (Score:2)
It always sounds like a strange reasoning to me. I never understood why people want to "survive as a society". I don't even understand what it really means...
All surviving societies are descended from people who wanted to survive as a society, just as all creatures are descended from ancestors that wanted to reproduce. That's what it really means.
If you think your society is good, even though imperfect, you should want it to survive. If you don't think it's good, you should move to someplace good, and mostly leave your old society behind. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids.
That, or people could get over their aversion to immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
Much of America isn't so poor or desperate that they need such a measure. They can stay out of work indefinitely and have as many kids as they want. They might not even go back to work ever.
I know a girl who was a COBOL programmer who did this.
I don't blame her one bit.
COBOL would drive me into permanent retirement.
Thanks to the level of economic opportunity that liberals will tell you doesn't exist, I could leave the rat race entirely if I wanted t
Re: whooooooooo cares (Score:2)
Re: whooooooooo cares (Score:3)
But he's absolutely correct. The vast majority of Americans are very well off. It's only the rich that are struggling.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what reality you live in, but you must be really lonely there. It sure as hell doesn't reflect the vast majority of Americans.
Although the OP might be a bit of an exaggeration, where I live most women still leave the workforce almost entirely after they start having kids. They might get a part time or work at home job once the kids go to school but there are still a bunch of single income families where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
But to be fair, in my house I'm the bread winner. I make about 3-4 times as much as my wife does. There are many reasons for that, but the most important is that I've chosen a career path that lets me sell myself. She chose to be a nurse which more or less is a fixed price market.
I calculated about a year ago how much money we have and how much money we would have if she simply stopped working and instead took up a career as a proper house wife... WAIT!!! I did
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
additional $10,000 a year disposable income if my wife didn't work as a nurse, but instead took up housewife as a career.
the trick to such a decision is first to plan it, so she knows what kind of work ("balancing the finances, refinancing the mortgage every second year"??) is expected and then secondly: pay her for it!
If you pay your wife, she has a job, she has her own money, can decide how to use it and feels respected. Bottom line you most likely still have the $10,000 more income.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't expect you to procreate.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't dictate how another business is run,
That is literally what a contact us for. And yes they can. And no, refusing to do business with someone because you don't like the way they operate is 100% legitimate.
And it's not socialism you moron. It's private contacts between private companies which is a feature of capitalism.