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: 3, Insightful) by Anne Nonymous on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:59PM
New Parents are pretty useless at work for the first month anyhow, so it's not as though the business is losing much.
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:31PM
Clearly, we need to give the parents at least 18 years of paid leave, maybe more if they wind up raising a basement-dweller.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:11PM
Not only is maternity leave a deep subject, but under the surface, there are a myriad of hazards waiting to trip you up.
The two-wage family for starters. Today, mothers almost HAVE TO WORK to make ends meet. No one is out there offering jobs to young men that are adequate to support a family above the poverty level. Women's lib has it's good points, but it was a trap. It's not longer a "right" to work, now it's a necessity.
Oh. The value of women in the workplace. A corporation values people differently than people value people. The bottom line is, "How much profit can we make off of this person?" Pregnancy interferes with the corporation's profit, making the female less valuable than the male. Guys graduate from high school, expecting to work for the rest of their productive years. Women, on the other hand, often expect to work until they start a family. If they don't stop working, they often need time off that men aren't as likely to need. So - the "value" placed on women is, and will remain, lower than the value of men.
Is it "right"? No, I don't think so, but those seem to be the facts.
So, what happens if government mandates paid maternity leave for women? Well, you can bet that corporations will just about stop hiring women. High profile companies in Sillycone Valley will still be searching for women, but nationwide? Nope - women aren't going to get as much consideration for positions as they do now. It will backfire on women's rights activists, with fewer employable women.
Bottom line: don't expect to see mandatory leave in the US any time soon. It would just be one more bucket of worms that no one can sort out.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:24PM
you are correct that in many areas of the US, you HAVE to have both people work to be able to afford a house, etc.
I'm single, live alone and have never been able to afford to buy a house (in the bay area). I'm over 50 and yet have never owned a house. if that's not a statement of FAILURE of the american system, I don't know what is. my father who was not in technology, had a 'regular boring old job' WAS able to afford to keep 3 kids alive, in a good house, in a good neighborhood, and put us thru college, as well. single income; my mother never worked a 'paid job'. and yet, they had most of what we call the american dream.
me, I make 2x of what my father did, but I may never afford a house in a tech-center of the country. not on a single income.
draw the line and see when society will crash. not sure when, but the decimation of the middle class WILL cause us to have either a collapse or revolution. things don't look good here. seeing people in the 60's and 70's working every day just to make ends meet should tell everyone how broken our system is.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:56PM
Home ownership was never something that could just be expected. The amount of space in places that people would actually like to live is limited and unless you want to see all the forests near cities torn down to make room for houses, building enough isn't really an option.
Personally, I don't plan on buying a house, most of the time it's cheaper to rent, and if it happens to be less expensive to buy, that tends not to last very long.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:02PM
growing up (60's and 70's) it was taught to us that you should EXPECT to own a house. if you have a reasonable job/income, you should be able to buy a house.
one thing I hate about being a renter: there is no security in it! each year, I have to worry if the landlord is going to raise the rent or even renew me. and if they don't renew me, I have 30 or maybe 60 days to find a new place, which means 'stop everything!' and make that your #1 prio. its a lot of stress and if you are picky about what kind of place you live in (quiet, safe, no shared walls, etc) then you have quite a job ahead of you to find a new place.
even worse, if you happen to be out of work (like I am right now) and if your lease is not being renewed, you are ROYALLY SCREWED! at least in the bay area. not a single landlord will rent to you, even if you have a good amount of savings, if you are not employed RIGHT NOW. does not matter if you've held stable jobs or if your occupation has times where you are between jobs. landlords will not bother with you and there were 30 people competing for the place I'm in now (!) and with that competition, they don't want to deal with people out of work (right now). you can be homeless if the timing is wrong.
the US is fucked. we really truly are. if it has not happened to you, you have been lucky or have not lived long enough to have it happen to you. yet.
renting sucks. and having to live with strange rules by strange landlords is no fun, either.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:23PM
Renting is a matter of tradeoffs.
How long do you plan to stay? Do you mind giving equity to someone else for that period.
I currently own. I also paid it off ASAP (8 years). I now have well over 200k in equity and no payment. I live basically for 'free' in my house. The day I paid it off was like giving myself a 1500 dollar per month raise. I doubled my net income with that one move. At the time I bought I was paying 900 a month (a figure that was set to go up 50). That was 15 years ago. That means I would have given someone 160k in equity and still have to find a place to live. For basically 100k I bought a place to live AND have 200k in equity. At the 1200 the place is asking for today that would be about 90 months from today that I paid extra. I pay a dude 50 bucks a month to mow my yard it looks like a putting green. I only pay for it because he is a master at it. I can do it myself but looks 'crummy'.
My ROI was years ago.
For anything longer than 2-3 years you are almost always better off buying. If that option is not available because of the price of land there then you should not live there. You can not afford it. You never will unless you come into lottery money (and that is stupid rare).
I am looking at the high end of 800k in total assets right now. When I started I had 4k in cash to my name and 2k in student debt. I *always* buy if I can. Then use the hell out of it (my car is 14 years old and I bought it new). At worst I have to resell it. Buy used, then resell, you usually ROI very quickly on everything.
People who advocate renting always make simple chores look like infomercial level drama problems. They are not that bad. Just consider it a ROI problem.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:48PM
That doesn't really work out so well. There are no rent controls in most markets and developers aim for the top income earners leaving everybody else to fend for themselves over a dwindling number of units. The only places where that isn't happening tend to be places that are dieing. No jobs or poor quality jobs and people not wanting to move there. Think places like Detroit where there's few people moving in and people who have a chance elsewhere are taking it.
Around here, moving out of the city limits introduces a gap. I can get a bus pass for about $100 a month for most of my transportation or I can be paying $400 or more for the cost of owning a car. If I move out of the city limits, I would have to own a car, which means that the savings that I'd have by moving would largely evaporate. And as more and more people are priced out of the local market they have to move somewhere, and you wind up having to move further and further away in order to make it affordable.
What really needs to happen is that there needs to be some rent control enacted. There's a vicious cycle where landlords raise their rents and then find people willing to pay, so they raise invest in things that will further increase the amount they can ask the few people remaining to pay. Without some form of rent control, you see that go and go until only the well off can afford to pay and everybody else has to live far away. Around here, we've had decades of people from California moving in and paying too much money for real estate driving the prices up. Many of the apartments that existed when I was a child are now condos and there's more interest in building condos than in building apartments.
It just makes for a shit situation. And this is becoming the norm in places that actually have a growing economy and jobs.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
Cheaper? Not in the long run, because my house is paid off and that's less money I need to pay monthly. I plan to stay for a long time. Renting simply wouldn't have been a good idea in my case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:50PM
The hilarious thing as soon as baby boomers started to finish paying off the 30 year mortgages EN MASS, all of a sudden the property taxes started to go up to a point where now your taxes are almost exactly what your mortgage plus taxes used to be.... wow what a COINCIDENCE!
Now imagine trying to get a house where your TAX BILL will be as much as your 30 year mortgage payment... It's robbery. It's like paying rent for your own home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @03:16AM
Clearly, we need to raise taxes on the poor even farther, while ignoring that the effective tax rate on the rich is very small.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:08PM
"Home ownership" does not necessarily mean single-family home, the suburban ideal. It can also mean an apartment or condo in a multi-family dwelling. You can stack a lot of those in a smaller footprint. If you've ever been to Tokyo you've seen what that could look like in the United States and elsewhere. Sadly, however, even those apartments and condos are out of reach for a great many, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdccdevel on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:47PM
From what I've seen around here, renting vs owning often works out to be almost the same, month to month, maybe a little more to own. That's really short sighted though, you need to think long-term. (if you can afford to....)
The difference is equity. When you own, the portion of your mortgage payment that goes towards the principle is really going back into your pocket. You can think of it like "Rent with a built in savings plan". The interest on the mortgage is your true "rent", and the rest is just going into a "house savings".
It can be a bit of a gamble. If the housing market crashes and you have to sell, you will probably take a hit. That said, if you are smart and didn't over-extend yourself, you will still have something even then. On the other hand, if you do it right, you can make a decent profit when you have to sell. (That's how people make a living flipping houses, after all.) And as long as you can make your payments, you don't HAVE to sell.
It's a 20+ year investment. Once you've stuck with it long enough, you've paid for your mortgage, and you don't have to pay anymore! Also, when you're old an can't work anymore, you can use your house equity to support a decent lifestyle until you die.
Using any windfalls to pay off your mortgage quicker is also one of the safest long term investments you can make, since the mortgage rate is always tied to inflation. Through the magic of compound interest, anything you can apply against the mortgage principle will pay itself back many, many times over.
Most people already know all this though, and would love to buy something. The problem is they're living paycheque to paycheque, and can't save up enough for a down payment.
That's the big problem, for far to many. Lots of people can't even save enough to bootstrap their lives out of perpetual poverty, no matter how hard they work.
These are the "Working Poor", and their ranks are growing.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @10:34PM
You're right on about the location. In some places it's cheaper to buy a house, so if you can get the loan and down payment there's little reason to rent. However, in other places the rent is less than the mortgage would be, so you can rent the apartment, stash the difference between the rent and the mortgage into some sort of interest paying securities and make a massive downpayment or even just buy it outright. If you're willing to wait long enough, sometimes there's an economic downturn and you can pick up some property for less.
I'm not personally interested in owning a house, I'd probably go the condo route. A decent condo sometimes comes with perks like better parking, a pool or club room.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday August 07 2015, @07:30AM
Renting is almost always more expensive. You have to pay the mortgage plus professional maintenance that you could do more cheaply yourself plus profit for the landlord. You can't even switch utility supplier to get a better deal. It will always be more than you would pay to own the same property yourself, otherwise the landlord would be losing money.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @08:57AM
you must not have had the kinds of landlords I have had.
they put NO money into maintenance. what 'maint' they did, they did themselves, they fucked it up and ruined things. one time, the landlady tried to bilk me for over $400 on 2 items that had no damage at all. but oh - during the winter, the heater failed, it costed $400 to fix, and when I moved out 6mos later, yeah, I got a mystery $400 bill for things that were entirely fabricated (false, fraud).
if you live in a large complex, it might be maintained professionally. if you live in a house that a private owner is renting out, oh man, you are mostly on your own and those landlords tend to be unwilling ones (ie, they 'had' to move to put their little snowflakes into a 'better school' and they found they could not sell their first house, so they rent it out. but they have no rental property experience and they often don't even know basic US laws and customs.)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 07 2015, @01:08PM
What savings do you have when student loans you incurred to get that job siphon all of it away? What margin do you have when you're living in a market that pays salaries high enough to clear anything over your student loan payments, but then siphons it away again in higher cost of living?
I'm frankly surprised to see so many giving TheGratefulNet so much flak for what he's said. The only thing I can figure is it's coming from millenials who still believe the marketing hype. It's tragic that given how much inflation occurred in the cost of higher education over the last 20 years, they're even more screwed than the generations that immediately preceded them.
What TheGratefulNet is saying resonates because he's talking about something systemic. It's not his individual fault that his circumstances are what they are. He, like millions of others, have played by the rules and has even gone above and beyond by tackling a technical career that most couldn't manage or even want to try at. Yet, here he is.
Other posters have doubted there is an Illuminati somewhere planning the destruction of the American middle class (and the middle classes of other countries as well), but there is. I have seen it. I have been in the salons and the private clubs of the ultra-wealthy on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I have sat in meetings at the top echelons of government and the UN (with American presidents, no less). I have heard their conversations and felt their attitude drip from everything they say and do. It's not as formal and defined as a meeting of Dr. Evil with his minions; it's more accurate to describe it as an Illuminati culture. You can watch the deals being cut with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that echoes with the sound of 100,000 innocent civilians having their lives and fortunes vaporized. In everything they do there's an undercurrent of rapacious greed, lust for power, and evil. And it would shock and disillusion the thousands of starry eyed kiddies out there to know that all sides, right-wing, left-wing, whatever, all take exactly the same actions while speaking honeyed words of "doing the right thing."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:31PM
The bay area is not the American system. Sometimes people seem to choose to live in really expensive areas and then complain that things cost too much. Moving elsewhere may help.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:28PM
Precisely this. I live in Phoenix and make a comfortable living. If I were to take a job in the bay area for 2x my current salary, I wouldn't be able to afford a house. Maybe a small townhouse or condo, but nothing close to the single family home with a decent sized yard that I have here.
Seriously, move out of the major population centers in California. It's too expensive to live there. And if you don't like Phoenix, good. There are a lot of other options and I don't want any more people to move here anyway.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:29AM
so, I'm supposed to leave the concentration of the whos-who of tech companies to move to - where, again?
I really don't understand that kind of thinking. if you don't want to live in the middle of computer-tech-ville, fine. that's your choice. but I do prefer to be in the middle of the action and for the first 20 years of my stay here, it was keeping all of us alive. I only have started seeing this decimation of the working class during the last 15 years. before that, it was heaven here. great jobs, great companies, good incomes, people had disposable income, life was good.
things changed. it was not We The People who made the change. I fail to see why We The People are not being told 'well, this place is for the 1% now; you must leave you middle class scum, you'.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday August 07 2015, @05:57AM
It's simple market economics, not some sort of conspiracy. Yes, being near a concentrated hub of economic activity has its benefits, but that comes at a price. One that you seem to be finding out is too high right now. Twenty years ago when Silicon Valley was just starting it was reasonably affordable and then those tech companies outgrew the local supply of talent. It was a great opportunity for educated people to move in and they did. That increased the demand for housing and that started to drive up the cost of living with incomes keeping or exceeding pace, which made the area even more attractive. Now the demand is so high for housing that it's outpacing what even those tech giants can afford to pay their workforce, therefore lowering the net affordability. Essentially its an overshoot after a rapid growth phase. That problem will eventually resolve itself. Some of the companies are going to decide that the area is too expensive and move out or smaller ones may just close up shop. It will likely still be a tech center for decades to come, but it'll never be quite like it was at the peak of the boom. I guess you can try to ride it out paying that high cost of living until the area stabilizes, but there's a risk that it will last too long and you won't have much opportunity to save for retirement.
I think moving somewhere with a decent (and more diverse) job market with a much lower cost of living is a safer bet. If you think otherwise, that's fine. Your priorities and mine are likely not the same and for you it might make sense to stay. Just understand and prepare for the risks associated with whatever choice you make (which applies to every other major life decision as well).
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:27AM
moving. so, its 'ok' to leave your home area because the system can't (wont!) support the middle class lifestyle?
I'm a computer hw/sw guy. why the fuck SHOULD I move from the bay area? and what would that solve? I'll have even less companies to pick from, then, I'll have to leave my home and start all over again and I'm not sure WHY that is considered an ok option.
go tell a ceo that he has to leave his home. go ahead. see if he's willing.
so, why is it ok to ask ME to leave the area I now consider my home?
sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm not taking the blame for a broken economy where I'm not the only one in this situation. our middle class is being robbed and yet you put the blame on us, somehow?
"just move away!"
yeah, like that's really going to fix this economy. that's no solution! and its asking too much of people. we have - this country - made a lot of progress over the last 200+ years. why is it ok to start going backwards, now? I don't get that thinking.
I wish there was just a wee bit more compassion for those who were fucked by the system instead of saying 'sucks to be you!'.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Friday August 07 2015, @05:48PM
Yes, absolutely. I have family that live in a long term impoverished area of the country. The branch of the family that left ~60 years ago is better off (financially, anyway). I don't know where you (and others) get the idea that you can dictate that every region of the country is equally affluent, but it doesn't work that way. You happen to live in a place that has a high cost of living, the inverse problem my poorer extended family has. I do actually have compassion for you, it's just that my having compassion for you isn't actually any help at all to you or me. You can't make housing in the bay area cheaper. You can move. You don't like that housing is expensive, and you don't want to move. I'm not sure what you think anyone can do for you.
What I see is actually that happening all the time. The non-managment people can typically just find another job locally. The director level and above typically move to another state when finding a new job.
No, it's exactly the solution. The bay area is expensive because it's in high demand. If people aren't willing to pay the high cost of living, it'll come back down.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:57PM
You write: "I make 2x of what my father did, but I may never afford a house in a tech-center of the country"
In another reply to your post, an AC points out: if you cannot afford to buy where you are (the Bay Area), you could always live somewhere else. It's not about what you make, it's the bit about "...afford a house in a tech-center of the country".
We used to live in a desirable city center. As you say, prices were pretty crazy. Now we live in a little town about 45 minutes away from the city. Housing prices are maybe 1/3 as much; the trade-off is the commute. It's a choice that anyone can make. You can carry it even farther, and change jobs. Move to New Mexico, or Montana, or Ohio. The pay will be somewhat less, the living costs are vastly less.
tl;dr: Living in a high cost area is a choice.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:34AM
lets talk about what else you have to change when you move.
I hear a lot of talk about moving to 'red states'. I'm a very progressive liberal person. how well will it work out for a guy like me to move to a conservative red state?
you think that sounds good to me? move to a place where, if you're not christian and white and some other things, you're not accepted?
I live in the bay area for many reasons, but one main one is that acceptance of those who do NOT believe in god. it is not a step-up for a guy like me to move to the deep south or midwest, for example. people do not accept you if you are not one of them. I see no good reason to live there among folks like that.
but I'm told to 'just move' because its cheaper.
no. I do not want to live in such places. and being forced out of your chosen area is NOT in ANY WAY an acceptable solution for an industrialized and modern (and still VERY RICH) country like the US.
I'm mad because we are going backwards. well, some of us are. the 1% are going forward at the highest rate in history. but its because WE are being forced to pay for them and send our income their way. transfer of wealth is evil and telling me to 'just accept it and leave' is not a solution anyone should be proud of.
this is not the fucking third world!!!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by OwMyBrain on Friday August 07 2015, @03:01PM
you think that sounds good to me? move to a place where, if you're not christian and white and some other things, you're not accepted?
I live in the bay area for many reasons, but one main one is that acceptance of those who do NOT believe in god. it is not a step-up for a guy like me to move to the deep south or midwest, for example. people do not accept you if you are not one of them. I see no good reason to live there among folks like that.
You act as though states are a homogeneous group of hive-minded group-think drones. Are you telling me there are no conservatives in California? I'm an Atheist and I've lived in Atlanta for over 20 years. Your fear of not being accepted for not being a Christian fundamentalist is extremely ignorant. Sure, there are people like that, but they're easily ignored. I'm also sure you'll find those kind of people in CA as well. After all, large geographical areas are diverse and full of many different kinds of people.
Even in the deep south, we get the same 4chan and reddit and Internet debauchery that you do. Plus, you have the advantage of being in the tech industry. Most people I work with as a programmer tend to lean left (maybe there's some correlation with logical thinkers and liberalism ;)
Really, I don't see any reason why you'd have a hard time being an atheist here unless you're walking up to random people and saying "Your God is dead" or whatever. Sure, you may be a minority, but aw hell, just don't be afraid to be around people that aren't just like you.
And the cost of living is pretty attractive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
That's exactly right, and a parallel trend line is student loan debt which is destroying the ability of the young to ever build equity. That's equity that could be used to anchor families, neighborhoods, all the things we associate with a stable, functioning society. It's also equity that could be used to start new businesses that generate new advances and jobs.
All that gets thrown away so that the financial system can extract all wealth from everyone and secret it away in numbered accounts offshore to keep a very, very small handful of bankers in hookers and blow.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:59PM
The big advantage post-women's lib is that no a woman without a man is truly like a fish without a bicycle. In 1950, it was basically impossible for a woman to support herself, but by 1990 it was quite possible for a woman to support herself and a child or two. That meant that, among other things, women were less likely to be trapped in relationships with abusive men because they could now afford to leave.
Also, women's lib was mostly between 1950 and 1975, whereas the complete stagnation of wages was mostly 1975-present, so the timeline doesn't really add up.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:28PM
I am not sure you can say that the timeline does not add up. As more women entered the labor pool in the 70's, wages stagnated due to increased supply. Now that families had two incomes, the could afford to pay more for a home, so home prices started to jump. In the 90's the government gave out more loans so that more families could buy a home, thus putting more money into the system, increasing home prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:58PM
Yup, it looks a lot like cause an effect relationship. Those tend to take time.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:43PM
The timeline? The result of women's lib had to take effect, before the "benefits" of low wages could come into play.
BTW - the stagnation you mention didn't really start until about 1990. I made more and more money up until about '93 or so, and since then, I've made less and less money. It all depends on how you define the wage stagnation.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 07 2015, @01:24PM
I was defining the wage stagnation by this graph [wikimedia.org], which is wages versus productivity (there are lots of variations from a bunch of different sources, but they all show basically the same story). For the "women's lib caused it" hypothesis to be correct, we should have seen the split between wages and productivity begin to happen by the late 1960's when women's lib began to take hold and start having effects on the work environment.
Of course, you personally would likely have had a different career trajectory, particularly as you gained experience and bargaining power (I certainly did - I currently pull in about 4 times what I did starting out). But an apples-to-apples comparison would be your current earnings with somebody else with approximately the same level of experience in approximately the same location in the same field, adjusted for inflation. I'm lucky in that I can actually do that - my dad was also a software developer, so I can see that his salary 30 years ago was about the same as mine today (if it had kept up with productivity, mine would be about twice as much as his was).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 07 2015, @06:22PM
Ahhh - I see . . . .
That graph is probably more accurate than my memory. Funny, how closely that graph matches the ever-increasing impotence of unions. I suppose that because the stagnation of wages didn't affect me personally, I just don't remember it happening in the '70's and '80's. Only when it began to affect me and people I know did I take real notice of it.
As for my step-dad - he loved the holidays, because he could go to work, take the next shift for the other turn foreman who called in, and SOMETIMES take the FOLLOWING shift for the remaining turn foreman. It was nothing for him to bring home $1000 for a day's work, or if he worked three shifts in a row, around $1400. (that's take home pay now, not gross) Me? The only time I have ever earned $1000 or more in a day, is when I signed a reenlistment contract. The few "bonuses" I've ever been given were only in the hundreds of dollars.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:45PM
Surprisingly then, this isn't the experience of those (the majority) countries that already have legislation covering maternity leave.
You are correct that women are valued less, rightly or wrongly, than men but the opposite side of the coin is that they earn less too. Many companies find it advantageous to employ women on a lower wage if the work that they produce is not significantly different than that produced by men. Some jobs are more suited to women by virtue of dexterity or specific skills. Yes, the companies know that they might lose them at some point, but there are plenty of others out there who can fill the post either temporarily, or permanently if the mother decides that she wants to stay at home for longer than is covered by existing employment legislation.
The workforce doesn't always want to work at the same place permanently, nor do they all have the same expectations and dreams. The knack is to provide a mixed bag of employment opportunities; some permanent, some temporary, some that you can leave and return to later, some that you can do from home, part-time, school-hours only or whatever. That way, there is something for those that want/need to earn an income can find to meet their needs. The problem is that getting that balance is not easy and requires changes in both the way a company views its workforce, the expectations of the that workforce and the economy under which they both must exist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aclarke on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:16PM
In Canada even the idea of discussing "maternity leave" sounds antiquated. We have "parental leave". I may get some of the details wrong, but parents of naturally born children get one year they can take off between them. The father can only take up to nine months of that, due to the idea that the woman bearing the child should have at least three months to recover. Similarly, parents adopting a child can take up to nine months between them.
No system is perfect, including ours. For example, my wife and I were self employed when we had kids, so we weren't covered. I know a guy who works as an engineer, and his boss informally said something like "no male engineers here have taken parental leave...", with the unspoken (and illegal) connotation following "... and if you value your career here you won't either."
However, just mentally leaving the idea of "maternity leave" behind frees one up to looking at the issue very differently. A stable, well-functioning society has tremendous value. In my opinion, a society that refuses to care for its weakest and most vulnerable members is a seriously dysfunctional society. To me, the concept of six weeks of maternal leave sounds almost barbaric.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:14PM
For my wife and I, this did not turn out to be true at all. My wife had a VERY GOOD part-time job, but she recently gave it up, and we're better off now than we were.
The problem was daycare. It was costing us almost her entire monthly wage to pay for decent child care for our two kids (Age 5 and 3). We did the calculations, and figured out that she was working 8 hours a day, 3 days a week, for less than $300 take home. Once you count the cost of commute, etc, she was working so someone else could raise our kids, not for any amount of money more than pocket change.
The situation would be different if they were older, and in school. Then we wouldn't have to pay for full time child care. Once they're older working might actually be worth it, and she probably will get a job again in a few years.
Full time daycare is priced almost exactly the same way here, so that unless you have a really, really good job, it makes more economic sense to stay at home. (If you have the right temperament, starting a dayhome is probably the best bet. Stay home with your kids, socialize them, and get paid to do it!)
If employers or governments want to retain both parents in the workforce, the simplest way to do that is to make early child care more affordable. Otherwise one parent ends up working for almost nothing for the first 6 years or so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:12PM
yet again, those who choose not to be parents get one less benefit.
how about just treating everyone equally? you want to give parents a benefit, then offer a similar one to the rest of us. no one has pensions anymore and people cannot afford to retire. maybe put some money to match in our 401k? or re-create the pension idea again?
that said, hats off to netflix for at least moving FORWARD on something that the US is too far behind on, compared to the rest of the modern world. such an embarrassment that the US treats its workers just about the worst in the world! essentially no time off, no vacation anymore (since companies found a trick to deny you sick time and vacation time; they call it something else and make it hard for you to even TAKE it when you need it). pay raises are not even at the cost of living increase (I've gone 10 years without ANY increase and I'm not making a big salary, so I really am left behind money-wise, compared to the rate that costs are going up). when you get to a 'certain age' you can't get fulltime offers anymore; they only offer you contract work (if even that) and they shoo you out as soon as they numbers need tweaking (some manager needs a new boat...)
work life in the US SUCKS SUCK SUCKS. so, hats off to netflix for at least using their wealth to help the worker bees, at least a little bit.
companies are at an all-time high in terms of profits; and yet workers are at a nearly all-time low in keeping up with cost of living. unions from 50 yrs ago improved life much more than we have now. how have we let things get SO BAD???
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:19PM
If you want that benefit, it isn't hard to figure out what you'd need to do to earn it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:18PM
You should not need to be a parent (and therefore likely contribute to overpopulation) to get these benefits. More time off should be the standard for everyone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:45PM
I don't think it's fair that my childless colleagues have so much more free time and disposable income than I do.
Where's my benefit??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:00PM
Indeed, please mod parent up. Your benefit is that you don't spend $500K raising a child for 25 years (probably a conservative estimate in the Northeast).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:39PM
I also hate how employers give additional paid time off to childless employees based on their life decisions.
Wait, what were we talking about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @03:24AM
How did this garbage get modded up? More time off is needed for everyone because people are worked to the bone. It's not merely an issue for parents.
Free time and disposable income are personal matters, not employer policies. Irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 07 2015, @01:13PM
You're right. The solution for society to make more money is to stop having any children.
That is not the long-term solution you think it is.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:18PM
That's what appeals to me in the idea of a basic income -- unemployment, disability, parental leave, etc etc, all those arrangements which create huge administrative overhead can simply be tossed in the trash.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday August 07 2015, @02:07AM
Partly, because we destroyed the unions. On the one hand, we allowed them (or their respective leaderships) to become parasitic and self-serving rather than taking the time and effort of participating and governing them ourselves; on the other hand, we allowed them to be crippled by corporate and legislative interests, rather than standing up for our own and for each other in solidarity; and on the gripping hand, we allowed ourselves to be convinced that unions and other forms of collective organization and action are EvilBadCommunistSocialism (TM), something to be reflexively abjured, rather than realizing that, properly used and controlled, they are tools, something to be used to protect ourselves from and to balance out the powers of corporation and/or government.
Disclaimer: I am not a union member currently, but have worked non-union, partial-union and full union shops and been a member of both dysfunctional and properly functioning unions (sometimes in the same organization).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:28PM
What exactly does Ms. Venker want, then - 18 years of parental leave?
The thing is: you choose to have children. Your company may value you as an employee and offer to let you take time off, and that's great. However, like so many things, mandating this is counterproductive. It means that companies will be more reluctant to hire women in their prime childbearing years, because they are expensive: it's not even just the salary, it's hiring a temp while keeping the job position open, knowing that there is an excellent chance that the woman won't come back for long, or at all. Add in the gender-equality laws in many countries (which make no sense in this case, since it's never the man who's pregnant), and you have a right mess.
If you want to help the companies afford this, you can go the way of Germany. Which is a nice country to live in (I spent 5 years there). But you take home less than half of your pay, and what's left gets nailed with 19% VAT. That's the price of generous social services. I wonder: wouldn't Germans really rather have twice the money, and then privately decide if they want to take unpaid leave / pay for child care / whatever? Certainly I was very glad to move to Switzerland, where taxes are less than half as high, even though we had two small children at the time.
Personally, I would rather see paid and unpaid leave policies decoupled from any particular reason, and left for the individual company to decide. From the company's perspective, it doesn't matter why you will be absent: whether your are enlarging your family, trekking in the himalayas or just taking some time to recharge. I also object to government subsidies, because it isn't free. You pay for it one way or the other, and paying through the government is probably more expensive, because of all the bureaucrats between you and the final service.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:00PM
The solution to that is to eliminate maternity leave completely and replace it with a similar leave that applies to all new parents. It appears that Netflix went that route, the leave applies to everybody, so anybody of the age where they're likely to have children will be treated the same way in this regard.
As far as the Germans go, the actual difference is probably less than you'd think. A lot of the things we have to pay for here are paid for by the government or the company. Focusing on take home pay ignores that a lot of that take home pay that we have has to be spent on things that the German government takes care of. Then you have things like mandatory vacation, everybody gets at least some vacation, so you actually have some time to enjoy what you've worked for. In the US, many people get no vacation at all, and they might not even get holidays off, so they get weekends and not really any other time.
It's really about time that workers start to demand to be treated better as profits are way up and a part of that is that workers are being shorted.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:16PM
Yes, I thought I said that. The high taxes in Germany come back to you in the form of excellent social services. The question in my mind is: is this efficient? By the time the government has paid a child care worker, they have also paid half-a-dozen bureaucrats to approve the paperwork. I expect it would be a lot less expensive to let people keep their money and purchase child care directly. The unspoken benefit is egalitarianism: everyone gets the same quality of social services, regardless of their income level. That is an important benefit for German society, but is has quite a price tag attached to it.
The same for vacation: there is really no reason why someone in the US can't negotiate with their employer for more vacation, in return for a lower salary. The problem seems to be that decent vacation in the US is unknown, so no one does this. That's actually weird, because government workers do get a lot of vacation [federaljobs.net] (after three years, you get 10 paid holidays plus 4 weeks of vacation every year). I think most people in private industry have no idea that this is true, or they would ask for the same from their employers?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:35PM
A big problem in the U.S., when considering social benefits or re-distributive policies, is that there are so so many people that want a cut. Not just bureaucrats, although that's a big problem (no federal government programs ever actually get cut. When they say they are cutting, what they mean is they are cutting back on the planned increases), but it's also all the cronyism. Food stamps are not coupons mailed by a government agency - they are "EBT" cards managed by large banks (that get a cut). Welfare is handled the same way, and most unemployment benefits. Medicare and medicaid are full of for-profit corporations (insurances and health providers) that are all getting more payment than they would if people were paying out of pocket (and the fraud and abuse is rampant).
And trying to cut down on the fraud and abuse is typically just another layer of bureaucracy with its own attendant bloated administration and political wrangling, all costly. I would say that AFDC and EITC are better, but the IRS is now very corrupt, and refund fraud is now costing about $20 billion a year.
A lot of this is enabled by the incredibly complex tax code. The tax code is now over 75,000 PAGES! Full of crony perks and loopholes for all the buddies of everyone that has had a modicum of influence on Capital Hill for 15 minutes during the last 30 years. Money flows to the wealthy and well-connected, some crumbs of it is passed out to the poor to try to get support from constituents, and the middle class are squeezed all the time. About 1% of the politicians that get sent to Washington are actually interested in doing anything about it, and if they start to get anywhere they can look forward to a visit from the NSA about all the dirt they have collected...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:26PM
The answer is Basic Income: everyone gets the purchasing power to obtain these services directly, and the entire bureaucracy can be eliminated wholesale (except for a small contingent whose job it is to disburse the basic income).
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:23PM
The solution to that is to eliminate maternity leave completely
While at it, might as well eliminate pensions, unemployment handouts, disability handouts, etc. and replace everything with a Basic Income.
Greatest way to cut out the huge bureaucratic overhead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @02:25AM
A basic income would eliminate the need for unemployment insurance and food stamp programs, and paired with single-payer healthcare it would significantly improve everyones' lives and the consumer economy (buying products) and worker economy (buying labor), however pensions are something you earn through work, so there's no legitimate reason to scrap them. Disability pay probably couldn't be eliminated entirely because even with a basic income, people will want to work for extra money, however certain disabilities render people completely unemployable so there should still be some kind of way for them to earn extra compensation (in addition to already covering the biggest cost in their lives - medical costs). It could be argued that people unable to work due to mental disabilities could be said to not have the mental capacity to need additional funds, however if physical disabilities are the reason, there should definitely be a way to earn extra money.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:07PM
I wonder: wouldn't Germans really rather have twice the money, and then privately decide if they want to take unpaid leave / pay for child care / whatever?
The answer is no. They're aware that the option exists and have chosen a different way to organize their society. They have political parties that are against the welfare state, and they consistently lose elections.
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:12PM
you choose to have children
Exactly! I have chosen to have eight, and I can't imagine expecting other people to bear the burden of that.
Your company may value you as an employee and offer to let you take time off, and that's great. However, like so many things, mandating this is counterproductive.
It's amazing how people make the leap from "this is good" to "mandate it." They have a club in their hand and will gladly swing it to make people do what they think is right. We need to put down the club.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:55PM
It's not amazing. Most publicly owned corporations routinely act against their own best interests in order to get marginally better results for the current quarter. And it's hardly unheard of for companies like Kodak and GM to just about run themselves out of business doing it.
Things like healthcare have been going away for ages now because the cost of employees being sick doesn't have a line item on the budget. Same goes for sick days, employees that don't have sick days have to choose between coming into work and losing the pay. So, they'll generally come into work, do a shit job and make other people sick who themselves come back to work and do a shit job.
In an ideal world, companies would do things that were in their best interest, but they don't. The frequently screw over the employees for a short term boost in share price even when it means they have problems with efficiency and productivity later.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday August 07 2015, @12:20AM
Things like healthcare have been going away for ages now because the cost of employees being sick doesn't have a line item on the budget.
I feel that it's more complicated than that.
In an ideal world, companies would do things that were in their best interest, but they don't. The frequently screw over the employees
I believe the greatest cause of deviation from the ideal is the wielding of the club. Just putting the club down would make the world much closer to ideal.
I say this as someone who has personal been screwed over a few times and has had a lot of friends and coworkers screwed over as well.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @02:31AM
Sorry, but no. The club has been picked up because its necessary due to far too many actors actively fucking people over. Putting it down, as has been happening over the past few decades through massive deregulation of everything, has done nothing but destroy the economy and make everything worse for everyone, except for a tiny number of people who benefit greatly by fucking over everyone else.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:39PM
Yeah, I know this is flamebait and off topic but I am so sick of words like "akin" being over used in the media and subsequently by the general public. It just seems akin to a pretentious buzz word to me.
What's wrong with saying:
?
That and "poster child". Any time a journalist needs to introduce a person in the context of an interest group, they're always a fucking poster boy, poster girl or poster child. Journalists have become as bad as business types for their over used buzz words.
Yeah, now mod me to oblivion. I'm sick of this shit.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:21PM
That is not a new phenomenon. How do you think the word "okay" came in to being and entered common use?
Whether this is good or bad I do not know and have no opinion.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:38PM
I don't think there's much inherently bad about it. For some reason I just find it very irritating. Dilution of the meanings of words would be a bad point as would the fact it might make the text harder for some readers to understand. These phrases generally bloat out an article as well which wastes RAM, time and sometimes paper. Ah that's probably one of the reasons they do it. It stuffs their word count whilst avoiding repetition of words.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:52PM
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
You have my last mod point for a well deserved Touché janrinok. My dislike of such phrases is irrational and doubtless hypocritical, but still my irritation remains. I should probably see the doc about that too.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:19PM
"tantamount to"?
I do hear where you're coming from. I despise the use of "impact" to mean "affect." The transitive verb "to impact" means to physically strike an object so as to leave a mark, as in, "The meteor impacted the Earth and left a crater." "This change in the market will impact our sales strategy," however, conjures images of someone wearing a t-shirt that says "change" walking up to the projector screen showing the powerpoint deck and punching a hole through it.
You and I and those like us are fighting a losing battle. For too many, we're fighting a loosing battle.
Wouldn't it be funny to run a public service campaign where an iconic grammarian sees such terrible misuses of the language and sheds a silent tear?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:38PM
Yes, I much prefer "tantamount to", thank you.
Yes indeed! I also despise the reduplicative copula and sometimes daydream of a website featuring a Bonfire of the Is featuring animations of the word "is" spiralling out of video clips of its superfluous usage into the flames. Another page might display millions of closing parentheses to help out those who have inadvertently left theirs open for eons. I think it would be something of a niche site though so I'll just stop there.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:28PM
Nah, who knows? You might develop a small but fierce audience who'll be enough to keep you in soda and cheetos.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:50PM
Once it became the norm for both parents to work simultaneously, it meant as a household they had more income, which meant a slightly reduced wage needed per head, allowing employers to pay less, or at least delay pay rises. Then it becomes a vicious circle. Based on this, the fairest thing for Netflix to do would probably be just to give everyone a slight raise instead. Over the longer term those with children would benefit from that too probably just as much anyway.
Coincidentally I only just made a very similar comment [soylentnews.org] on the VR thread.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @02:34AM
Wages haven't been reduced, they've just failed to keep up with inflation for decades. There is no "vicious cycle" to it - both parents started working because they had to, not because they wanted to for extra money, because wages have been stagnant for decades.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday August 07 2015, @08:21AM
I meant a reduction in real terms. If wages don't keep pace with inflation, then the inflation adjusted wage is reducing. It is a vicious circle because when a majority do something, it becomes the expectation. It's a vicious cycle because employers will often pay the minimum applicants will accept, so the need to pool resources with a partner becomes permanent and people start to look for other ways to save money. A race to the bottom.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:51PM
To me this is taking an issue of several dimensions and flattening it out to make it overly simple.
Of course children need more from their parents than just care for the first year. It does not follow from that that Netflix or anyone else must bear the burden of subsidizing these parents to spend all their time with their children. If Netflix wants to be generous and give their employees this gift when they are parents, then that is wonderful. I can't believe that the response to that would be to condemn them for not being more generous.
I have seven children with another on the way. I've taken two weeks off of work when each child was born. I would certainly love to take more. Heck, if somebody would just pay for all my needs while I sit around and raise my children for eighteen years, that would be wonderful. But in the end it is up to me to provide for myself and my family. I don't deserve to live my dream at the expense of anybody else.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:54PM
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?
These two questions don't go together. People can be as generous as they choose to be, and they should decide for themselves if they are harming themselves or others by their generosity. If Netflix can really afford this kind of generosity or more, more power to them. Maybe I should look into changing employers.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:02PM
You are oversimplifying things too.
Consider Finland, which has been consistently one of the top educational systems in the world. Both parents are required to take at least 4 months off of work, and then there's an additional 4 months which the parents can split however they choose. In addition, new parents are sent home from the hospital with books to read and information on how to care for their child as well as access to somebody employed by the government who can stop over and provide advice and assistance. The goal is to have a healthy well-cared-for infant, so that by the time the child enrolls in the day care/early childhood system (not mandatory, but almost everybody does, in part because that's at least partially paid for by taxes) they are already doing much better than their more-neglected American counterparts.
Regardless of whether you deserve to have more time with your child, the point there is that your children deserve the best care you can give them, and it's silly that America as a society is too cheap to help you manage. The result is that your kids are not quite as smart as they could have been (that isn't to say you have bad kids, but that they might have done better with more of your time and attention early on in life).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:11PM
Consider Finland, which has been consistently one of the top educational systems in the world.
Since all of the educational systems in the world are abysmal, that isn't saying much. Sure, being better than garbage is a start, but it's not good enough. One-size-fits-all rote memorization 'education' designed to create factory workers has to go. But it is cheaper, easier, and creates more subservient citizens, so it's unlikely it will vanish in the near future.
Also, they determine this based on extremely flawed standardized tests (such as simplistic multiple choice tests), not anything that truly tests understanding of the material.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday August 07 2015, @12:22AM
and it's silly that America as a society is too cheap to help you manage
That's just not how I think. I don't expect "America" (which is an abstract entity to which I hold little attachment) to give me or owe me anything.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Friday August 07 2015, @04:08AM
You don't expect your government to give you protection against hostile nations?
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Friday August 07 2015, @12:43PM
You don't expect your government to give you protection against hostile nations?
The most hostile nation I know is my government.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 07 2015, @01:51PM
See, I believe the US government owes me the rights and privileges protected in the Constitution, and beyond that owes me the policies decided upon by the majority of the population as a whole as represented by the folks in Congress. Now, I'm OK with the idea that the majority of population holding different opinions than I do, but the deal in the US government going back to James Madison et al was supposed to be "the population pays taxes, the population decides what we're going to do."
As far as how little your attachment is, as somebody with what seems like a libertarian outlook you surely are well aware of the fact that you pay a significant percentage of your income into the US treasury. That certainly qualifies as an attachment to me, and makes me think you'd prefer to get your money's worth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by skullz on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:00PM
Heard about this from an NPR story ( http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/429911928/netflixs-parental-leave-plan-is-groundbreaking-and-unlikely-to-spread [npr.org] ) where they mentioned that Netflix folks get a substantial amount of vacation as well and that they treat their employees like adults, not kids. They want them to be exceptional: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-12/how-to-set-your-employees-free-reed-hastings [bloomberg.com]
So this is not really anything new at all except it is "paid parent time" vs "paid vacation time".
And why a quote from Suzanne Venker? Really? A "cultural critic" who, as far as I can tell, only appears on talk TV and shills for her books? Why not have Rush weigh in on the moral implications of Netflix's internal company policies? Or an herbal rock physic?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 06 2015, @11:10PM
And why a quote from Suzanne Venker?
At first I was going to go with a USA vs. the rest of the industrialized world angle, but then I happened on that piece in Time, which made me ask some of the questions that others have posed about what she was on about. So then I found myself at suzannevenker.com (trigger warning!), and hoo boy! I haven't been to mainstream news sites years (until I decided to do a few submissions) so I had no idea who she was, but I decided to keep a mental note of her in case anybody ever wants to try to tell me that there are no real women who want traditional gender roles.
I remembered seeing the odd comment here and there right here on Soylent that echoed her sentiment, and she does have some actually valid MRA¹ stuff, so I figured, why not stir the pot a little?
(Here's a recent example [soylentnews.org], with the exception that my take-away wasn't necessarily that the AC was arguing for traditional gender roles like Venker seems to be, but against the idea that feminism is the way forward.)
¹ Like feminism, the MRM (men's rights movement) does have some valid concerns, and it also has its own fair share of gender lunatics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:36PM
Suzanne Venker writes "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."
This can really only be interpreted two ways that I can see:
1) "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee. I wan't n years of maternity leave, where n is some ridiculously large number (like 6, 12 or 18)"
2) "Getch yo bitch ass back into the kitchen woman, and don't you go back to work until your little brat is done raised already."
A year paid leave is incredibly generous, and would be a wonderful baseline if made mandatory by law. Want to raise your kid from zygot to adult? Then adjust your lifestyle to live off of one income for the next 18 years (you've got a year to do it ... plenty of time for planning, selling a house, downsizing or what have you). Oh, you don't want to give up your 4000 square foot McMansion, your second car, your flatscreen TV or your cable subscription? Then be glad you got your year, and get back to work.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
Uh, flat screen TVs are a lot more affordable today than they use to be. They'd hardly require you to continue a 2-salary lifestyle to maintain... :p
The cable subscription should go though. Regardless of if you're going 1 or 2 salaries.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:04PM
Expensive cellphone plans need to go, too. People need to buy more food in bulk from warehouse stores, if possible.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 06 2015, @11:14PM
Look up her blog (mentioned above in a comment I just posted) and prepare to be amazed. The correct answer is #2.