SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Tuesday, August 4th, Neflix announced on their blog that they would begin offering new parents a progressive parental leave policy:
...Today we're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
The Boston Globe picked up the story earlier today and compared Netflix's new policy to Google's, which offers 18 weeks of paid maternity leave and 12 weeks of "baby bonding" time. The Boston Globe also notes:
The US and Papua New Guinea are the only countries among 185 nations and territories that hadn't imposed government-mandated laws requiring employers to pay mothers while on leave with their babies, according to a study released last year by the United Nations' International Labor Organization.
This new policy "covers all of the roughly 2,000 people working at [Netflix's] Internet video and DVD-by-mail services, according to the Los Gatos, California, company."
However, not all media voices are pleased with this change. Suzanne Venker, author of the recent book The Two-Income Trap: Why Parents Are Choosing To Stay Home, writes for Time :
Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.
What does Soylent think? Should companies offer new parents lengthy paid leave after they bring a new bundle of joy into the world, or do generous policies do more harm than good?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Alfred on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:00PM
I am a sucker for the marketing of my youth and haven't grown past it.(do you still want to paint your car like the Dukes of Hazard too?)
It is the failure of the "system" that I don't have a house.
I make more than my dad but don't realize that means nothing, because inflation.
I am out of work but refuse to change my lifestyle and reduce expenditures by moving somewhere else.
If I am forced to move, because I am unemployed, it will get in the way of something I am doing all day, which isn't a job.
The US is screwed because it doesn't cater to my expectations.
I don't like the renting paradigm but refuse to make the effort to change.
The system is broken. (Well yes but not why you think it is.)
60 and 70 year olds with bad planning are proof of something unrelated.
Dude! You are unemployed and single, you don't need a house, go live in a van with a membership to a health club and a PO Box. Pinch your pennies. Optimize for your situation and be flexible. If you are stubborn your funds will disappear faster and life is stressful. Stop drinking expensive coffee. Be responsible for yourself.
Now, maybe, you have done some or all of that but quit your entitled whining and do something. Maybe I have misjudged you (I know your internet comments are not a comprehensive biography) but I am trying to make a point. Humans have thousands of years of civilized living and complaining about whatever they could. The happy ones are not the whiners.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:22AM
we don't have the time or space to go into the details, but you really don't know much about me and your 'ideas' are borderline offensive.
I do blame the country. we are supposed to increase our standard of life as generations progress. it WAS the american dream and for decades, it was a reality.
the ceo's and governments all got together, decided to burn the country down (slowly) and that was the start of the end.
you ask me to live like a dog. I'm highly offended by that. I paid my dues, I paid my taxes, I worked all my life, got good grades, did my time in companies and yet I have nothing to really show for it. you really think its my fault that the country has screwed the middle class?
damn. you're harsh.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Friday August 07 2015, @07:46AM
I disagree with you that the Illuminati got together and decided to form a cartel to destroy America. But that's not important. What's important is that blaming the country is not going to fix the situation you're unhappy about, because you can't fix the country. Vote for whoever, sure, but realize that you really can't fix things on your own unless you want to go into politics. And even then, you'll have limited power.
What you can do is try to get a job quickly and to adjust your expenses as much as possible in the meantime. No one is asking you to "live like a dog" - except maybe the OP, or maybe he was exaggerating; it's hard to tell. But yeah, cutting Starbucks while you're out of the job is not a bad idea.
If you have nothing to really show for decades of work, you are doing something wrong. Real wages haven't grown for the bottom 80% of the population, but they haven't really gone down either, nonsense about 2-income families being mandatory aside. Maybe you should look into accepting a longer commute or working in an area with a lower cost of living.
I'm not "blaming" you for your situation -- I don't know your situation and I don't know you. I am only saying that you have more power to change your own life than to change the economic system of the US. It's probably more productive for you to spend your time fixing your life rather than railing against all the people you think are messing it up.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday August 07 2015, @01:43PM
yes and yes. To quote myself:
Some people don't see options. I have used these examples with others so I am not picking on you by design. Someone in a big house may not realize they can downsize so I say "live in a van" as an extreme hoping they get the idea they could do with a smaller house or even an apartment. For your specific case in the bay area you are probably already paying for an overpriced tiny apartment.
All the statements are given to be like a slap to the brain to think a little different and realize there are possibilities not considered before. Maybe I should have toned down the hyperbole to be less offensive. But I don't know you, maybe the hyperbole was needed. When I feel cornered in my options I need an outside view to expand my view sometimes.
Yes it is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to live comfortably on a single income in a normal family. This is a case where the way to beat the system is to not play its game and its rules are 2 incomes to keep more money moving so they can make more money off of you. No one says you have spend money but they are experts at suckering you into it. To do a single income with a family you just have to adjust your expectations accordingly. If you try to run your Honda with the dragsters you will always come out behind.
Financial planning has not been taught or sought much in this country. This gives an advantage to those who do know finances. The only wholesale outlet of good financial advice I know of is Dave Ramsey. I could only listen to his show for a week before I got it but everyone should do that.