There is no Social Security anymore. It is bankrupt and broken along with Pension system and other Welfare systems. There is no money for retirement. All the money was used to buy votes and now comes the time of suffering.
I would sometimes watch the news with my parents in the evening (most likely just mom, as dad's been driving a truck for about three decades now) anyhow I remember watching him as a news anchor, and something about his style caught my attention even as a little kid. So, when I found him on YT, I was actually pretty happy about it.
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 it’s so weird how many people talk about how they liked him as a kid. Who are these kids lol. I don’t remember watching the news.
It's why I can't stomach republicans any better than I can stomach democrats. Neither would actually give a thimble of warm spit for the constitution, at best it makes a good prep rally cry. No one questions the constitutionality of government mandating such things, they just insist the other sides plan is terrible and their plan is great, they're both just the equal opposite of the other side. I fully believe that if the left became pro-gun over breakfast the right would be calling for gun confiscation by dinner.
Same at all the ones I've been to. Self checkout is always packed, then they have a handful of packed lanes out of ~20 closed lanes. Soon there won't be humans involved, just cameras. You'll just walk in, get your face scanned, take what you want, and the machines will bill you after you walk out the door.
@MR. Right I don't know about that when it comes to free speech. I'm pretty sure someone just got fined a ridiculous amount of money for for passing out flyers saying women arnt men or something along them lines
"Politicians are so arrogant." Stossel said but I think he understated it. I was an employer for 21+ years and now that I've been retired for 19+ years and reflect back I realize there is just one job description, just one reason to hire anyone: What can an employee do to help me earn a living, make a profit, keep the business functioning? If an employee can't do that, the job will no longer exist.
“Tap into” social security. It’s more like Raid social security today and let future generations deal with the aftermath of an empty well of retirement funds.
@Blind Squid bloodsuckers? You're talking about the government i hope, because that's 6000 dollars a year per citizen in the united states that we never see a dime of. Social security is currently the biggest racket in history, they rob us of money and we see nothing from it. Aside from that, anyone on social security deserves it, you fucking idiot. When social security promised to fix the idea of pensions, did it? Bloodsuckers, the nerve of you dude. jesus.
I'm sorry, but there is no well of retirement funds. There is simply a column in government account ledgers saying the left pocket owes the right pocket. There is nothing to "tap into" except current revenues.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Right. The government has a liability which it has to settle up now or later. The balance sheet of assets - liabilities remains unchanged. In other words, this giving people more choice about over how their dollars spent, which *is a good thing.* (Ideally, you have COMPLETE freedom to spend them however you'd like and get rid of Social Security but two choice instead of one is at least in the right direction.) There is a valid issue of liquidity, but holding onto liabilities for 40 years doesn't fundamentally make them go away. The government is just as poor with a liability of $10 (liability for future payment) as a liability of $10 (loan to cover payment now). Put another way....how would stop the Social Security program?
Businesses have employees because they have jobs that need to be done. Want to have kids, great, but don't expect someone else to pay for it. EVERYTHING the government touches it makes worse. WAKE UP!!!
@@Approx_99 There are already laws that require an employee with a certain amount of employees to provide health insurance. The difference in health care for a single person and a family is tens of thousands of dollars to the employer. That is directly paying for your children. So yeah, it isn't a stretch to imagine a day when the govt mandates that employees pay directly for employees children either by an escalating scale or some other means directly related to the amount of children you have. That is already in place via the tax code where a person with 3 kids pays thousands of dollars less in taxes than a single person with none. What makes you think that couldn't happen?
@@iironhide6209, like mandating employers pay overtime. No organization is needed to supervise employers because if the law isn't followed, the employee can sue for damages. Court costs are very expensive, so it's in everyone's best interest to self-regulate.
@@jamie49868, I don't quite understand your point. Yes, in the United States, employer-provided health insurance already includes individual and family plans, and yes, the family plans are more expensive for both employer and employee (very few employers pay 100% of costs). However, employers are already pay for the children of their employees; no bread winning parent is going to work for less than it takes to provide for their family. What specifically are you afraid of the fed doing?
Samuel Haines all incorrect. FDR lessoned the new deal in 1937 thinking the depression was over, it led to the Roosevelt recession, once he restarted the Nee Deal, the depression lessoned, so the New Deal di work. Clinton presided over a great economy in the 90’s. Obama pulled us out of a huge recession. Don’t believe the crap you hear on Prager University
I would be happy to get my "contributions" back, with appropriate interest... At standard mortgage rate of each year over all of the years between when the money was paid in and now. That goes back 45 years. With an appx average doubling of each dollar collected every 6 years since it was collected. (this is the power of simply compounding interest every year, not even every month, or continuously as is now the norm) At just minimum wage level contributions over that time, the amount the government would owe would be a few $million. This is the savings opportunity the government is stealing from every person, every year and has been stealing for over 70 years.
In my country, it is mandatory for the employer to re-hire you if you come back to work within 2 years(if your position still exists). And you have 2 years of paid leave if you worked for at least 1 year in the last 2 years before the child is born. And fathers can take maternity leave too. You can go back to work after 42 days(this is mandatory for the mother but I am not sure exactly about the number of days) and you will receive about half the minimum salary(~150$/month) until the child is 3 years old.
So this "12 dollars a week"...is that a tax? What if I never have kids? Am I going to be forced to pay into this program even if I never use it? Screw that.
@@DelbertStinkfester Ya, that's what I was thinking too, lol. I'll just identify as having a newborn baby...the government can't argue with what I identify as.😂🤣
I'm with you but we're already taxed for schools and such I our areas. At 35 i also plan on never having children but on my property tax every year that's a very specific charge for schools
Our birthrate is falling, population decreasing. America is having to get immigrants to keep our population steady. One reason people are having less kids is that the potential mothers don't want to give up pay (or possibly their job) to have a kid. A rapidly declining population is bad for our country. Even if you don't have kids, you still benefit from it just as you benefit from public schooling if you were home schooled. So it's a matter of how much it should cost society and who should be the ones to decide. Whether it's through taxes or higher businesses operating costs, the weight of it will still bear on everyone. Personally, I believe the government should provide a 6 week minimum paid leave, with a capped price, and allow the free market to naturally provide the rest of the paid leave a mother would need to bond with her baby.
"Were already 22 Trillion dollars in debt..." It's scary when you can age a video based on how many Trillions were in the national debt. It's $28 Trillion now, and will be substantially higher when people read this in the future.
At this point it may as well be 200 trillion. We have passed the point of no return. China's pushing the yen to become the global currency, when that happens we're Venezuela.
@@johnsharpe6411 okay I'm not sure where to start with you...1. Yen is the Japanese currency so i doubt China would push for it to go up 2. Debt is always taken into consideration in the context of the GDP increase it produces (i.e. is the debt used effectively to generate economic growth), spending on infrastructure projects provides jobs for low skilled workers and may be a net positive in the long run
Independent in the "independent woman" sense doesn't mean fully independent. We both know that. It means not dependent on a man as a provider. You now say a man as provider? Sounds sexist or something like that but....you know.... we both know what I mean. But if cause it is somewhat a valid point that government regulations seems not helping being independent. At least at first glance. But sometimes you need help from the government to be more independent than before. If you don't have to worry about surviving you can more easily create a thriving business. And that seems like what we want. Less surviving, more living and doing what is good for society and maybe even economy
@@YoloSWAGJude "But sometimes you need help from the government to be more independent than before." Independent... you keep using that word, but I'm not sure you know what it means :)
@@nathalie_desrosiers They don't care - it's not their money, it's someone else's. It's exactly like a politician selling a new program saying "Only The Rich Will Pay!", and the crowd roars its approval. Trivia fact: This was exactly how the Income Tax was sold to the public in the early twentieth century. And that marketing ploy still has legs a century+ later.
@Aswath Vishali Because paying taxes is not losing freedom. However, if you’re a US citizen I’d encourage you to do a lil experiment and not pay taxes for a couple of years. Let’s see how much freedom you get afterwards...
@Aswath Vishali So how are you free if your forced to pay? Are you still free even after you pay taxes? Anyway. The way vacations work in my country is that you get vacations only after a whole year of work and those paid days are already prorated in your salary, plus a part of that is being financed with the income taxes that you’re already paying. So in overall accounting, those paid days are not a complete extra burden for companies. Still, going back to your main point, it does not strip away freedom or liberty from anyone. Companies don’t have to hire you if they don’t want to. But if you feel that being forced to pay something (taxes, for example) is against your freedom, I would again highly encourage you to not pay for a few years and then let me know how that played out for your liberty.
@Aswath Vishali you just said “why would I, as an employer pay my employee of just taking care of HIS child?”, and then you said you’re ok with parental paid leave. Can you make up your mind, please? And again, I explained how it works in my country. The parental leave and vacations are already pro-rated in the annual compensation and it includes some financing from the same income taxes the employer is already paying. It seems like “extra” payment but it is not, at least here where I’m from. Anyway, can you tell me how that takes away your freedom? Or can we just already conclude that your initial statement is a fallacy?
In Brazil we have paid leave for mothers. A funny stuff is happening also because of it. Jobs that usually women did here, like been cashier in a supermarket is now been change and a great number of young homosexuals are replacing women, because business see them as polite as women but without the "extra cost".
exactly. women of child bearing age are a liability for employers when it's government mandated folr women to get a fixed time off when bearing children.
Finding a job while pregnant is so hard because even though I'm an extremely hard worker, no employer wants to give me leave and they think that I won't work as hard. If the government wants to make changes they need to help the employers and provide incentive.
Colorado state is giving parents paid leave at taxpayer expense instead of companies. Is one way. Even so when a woman is going to take off for childbirth the company still has to find someone to continue the work. So boring a pregnant woman is a bad deal given the cost of hiring.
@@strunchshag6129 Reagan inherited a horrible economy, sky-high tax rates, and a severely-weakened military. He had to work with a Democrat Congress for most of his two terms. To get lower tax rates, the Dems forced him to sign off on spending increases. Plus he had to spend to fix the military. Keep in mind that ALL media were leftist in those days. No Fox News or talk radio or internet. He certainly made some goofs, but he was one of our greatest presidents.
@@howardthurman3617 that SOUNDS great.....but then look at what he did to the national debt. If you say, 'SO'...then you are part of the problem. If I follow your logic then Hitler was great then...I mean he killed millions but so have other presidents and leaders in the past. Why quote a man who did the very opposite of what he was saying ?
@Hans How are you enslaved by your wealthy employer in America? Last I checked it's the employee that voluntarily chose to go apply and accept terms and conditions of employment. No employee is bought from their family. If employees don't like their pay or their jobs, they can easily quit and find another job. Constantly telling people that they're somehow enslaved to their employers is just plain retardation.
@Hans Lol, did you see the video? American women are twice as more likely to be in higher positions compared to European women. Mandatory programs like that have a negative impact. You can't just mention 24 weeks and conclude that those programs are good.
My husband was in his chief year of surgical residency and a fellow female chief had her first child. He had to cover her call shifts on top of covering his own, further neglecting his own 5 children and his wife. The personal choices his female chief resident decides to make in her off time should not be his or his family's responsibility. Women need to understand that to compete with men in the workplace, they need to be ready to truly compete. That means no paid time off. Businesses aren't charities or forms of welfare.
I’m sorry your husband had to do that but I can’t see how that’s the female chief’s fault. Appropriate arrangements should have been made at the workplace. It seems they just dumped it all on your husband’s head instead of bringing in someone to assist during that time. Employers in all sectors need to realise that children are the future and making it easier for people to start a family is ultimately investing in that future.
@@bobi6191 Unfortunately, this is the way it is in the medical field. I truly believe our culture disenfranchises families, most especially women and children. Especially in early development, the first 5 years really, it behooves parents and children to have one parent stay at home. This especially puts children first, truly investing in the future.
Stephen. I think that is a good idea. Let's just not have the government force us to do it. I believe I can do my job effectively with only 5 hours a day.
So she's out 6 plus weeks wants even more and employer is left short handed. Has to hire a temp and train them or the rest of the work force makes up for her getting to take off and they get no compensation for it. Ya sounds wonderful. NOT
It's not the woman's fault. Her body is litrally healing. Don't tell woman to have kids if employers are gonna treat them like shit when they do have kids!
Helping #2 son move from Iowa to Nevada, while gassing up in Nebraska, saw a funny novelty "road sign"...it was titled "Terms of Employment"..under "personal days", the reply was, "Yes1 You get 104 of them A YEAR...they're called SATURDAY and SUNDAY!". I like what old-timers in the Navy once said about marriage and family..."If the Navy wanted you to have a wife, you'd have been issued one at Great Lakes".
madwtube, yeah, if someone can allegedly “afford” something, it’s totally moral to force them to pay for it at gunpoint, right? Envy much? By the way, a “capitalist” is just someone who at root just believes in both sides consenting to any transaction. Sounds really evil!
@@f308gtb1977 I get what you're saying. Ultimately the consumer who also happens to be the employee is the 1 who foots the bill and pays higher prices for food and medicine. What I was saying McDonald's franchise A offers $12 an hour with 2 weeks paid vacation. McDonald's franchise B across town offers $13 an HR with no paid leave. Which do you pick? If company A didn't offer paid leave then they would increase pay to $13 an hour too.
@madwtube actually their money or worth is on paper in stock market. It's the value of the stock they own if they were to sell. But they have to sell to have the money. If they sell all the stock and spend the money they won't have any left then. People where I work quit cause too much work for the pay. Well that's why businesses close. Too much work for no more than owner makes. And it's always someone that never owned a business that's running their mouth about what companies should pay. How bout this. Business owners for a union and fix prices so they can make a higher wage. Oh wait that's anti trust. Or as you call it.....unionizing. Ok for 1 party to form a union for higher pay but not ok for others to form a union for higher pay? Welcome to murikkka
@madwtube you should pay more too. If they have to sell stock to pay higher prices you don't need food stamps. You can just sell your tv and kids toys and furniture to pay higher food prices. It's only fair. You liberals want equality. Well there it is. Sell your house and car if you are hungry and can't afford higher food prices if you want others that work harder than you to sell their belongings.
John Stossel is not right in this. No government should sacrifice 95% of women's interest for 5% who are on the top. And without decreasing tension between child bearing and female employment the USA will also have to face a plummeting fertility rate as some European or East Asian countries with a poor family policy. American TFR is aleady at a historical low at this moment. And yes, it is costly - but it would be better to spend on babies than on arms. The defense budget of the USA is enormously oversized in international comparison. And those plus babies who might be born because their parents were encouraged by paid parental leave to have them will pay more tax and social security contribution when they grow up. So, it is profitable even for the state in the long run.
When I was in the Coast Guard a female member who got pregnant ( and plenty did take advantage of that to get 'disability' which should not be service connected but they get benefits for it...) got paid leave and COULD take TWO YEARS off with a guaranteed job when they decided to return. No men EVER received that option.
I’d be content with my employer treating fathers the same as mothers. Moms can use their sick leave for maternity leave, but dads cannot. I don’t need a government program, just fair HR policies.
@EJ K FMLA allows the father to take unpaid paternity leave, correct? I'm not sure it protects you using whatever PTO you might have accrued so you can still make money while on FMLA. Maybe you or someone else can clarify
FMLA is a law that merely prevents your employer from terminating you. They must hold your job for 12 weeks. The law does nothing regarding pay. That's up to each employer. So yes, an employer certainly could offer paid pregnancy leave / mother's leave but force men to use up all their PTO, vacation, sick, etc. (Not saying they should, just saying that the OP's point is plausible.) Until recently, my employer offered short-term disability for new moms but dads got nothing.
@EJ K FMLA is for unpaid leave. Most corporations have policies in place that allow a mother paid time off, but very few extend those same policies to the men.
@@dugroz @jamie t In California, men and woman get 12 weeks protected FMLA with 6 of those weeks paid at 60% of your gross pay by the State of CA out of STD funds and not your by employer. Men and woman are free to supplement that 60% with paid time off AKA vacation time. On top of this, Woman also get more weeks of disability leave.
I always hear Social Security is in trouble. Most people don't know that SSI is capped. When a worker reaches about 139k in a year. SSI is NO LONGER deducted from pay. Why is that?
Here's one thing government should mandate. If an employer offers paid leave for women who give birth, then it should also offer paid leave for women who adopt a newborn. My wife's employer had a very generous maternity leave policy for women who gave birth. But there were no benefits for adopting a child. My wife had to take vacation and then use unpaid family leave. Her boss could not understand why my wife wanted leave. He thought maternity leave was strictly for recovering from labor and childbirth, especially for women who had C-sections. A friend of ours worked for what used to be a Big 8 accounting firm. Not only do women who adopt get paid maternity leave, but women and men who adopt get a bonus of several thousand dollars to help defray the costs of adoption.
With my job, I received a number of vacation days based on years of service. Additionally I accrued several hrs of sick leave each 2wk pay period. I rarely used my sick leave and was able to roll over the unused portion in case of long term or family illness. When my husband and I were ready to start our family I'd saved all my vacation leave for several years. I was able to combine these two leave benefits at half pay and stay home with my newborn son for 4 months before I returned to work. Three years later, I did the same thing again and stayed home to care for my 2nd child for 3 months. Often, if you plan with your employer, arrangements can be made without government mandates. It requires a little bit of self sacrifice and maximizing 3 day weekend vacations.
Sorry to hear that. When my wife gave birth i didn't have to use any vacation or sick time. Some people understand how important family is. Others don't seem to care.
nunayafb I think you miss his point. Paid parental leave is a benefit that’s mostly designed for women remember it’s taking some time for men fathers to be affected by this change too and it depends on the type of work the father has many he cannot leave and must remain at his job while his wife can leave and is alowed to stay home and take care of the child. He is pointing out that he didn’t get parental leave even if his wife was pregnant that’s the point no need to attack him and say he don’t care he is not the boss and if they won’t let him leave to stay with his child there is very little he can do as he is a man and these laws are mostly for women not for men.
I guess they want ALL the money and ALL the free time. Because fuck my employer, right...? Also: if I were a mother, screw my work. When I grow old, in my walls, I wanna have photos withy my babies - not the copies of paychecks and deals closed on behalf of my employer (something I already do even as a male: NOTHING comes first to friends and family. Outside my living expenses, everything is optional).
Mrs Here - When I was having babies, I had about 9 months to prepare for my time off. I figured out how much money we would need to tide us over and made the conscious effort to save out of every paycheck enough to sustain us while I was off work. Heaven forbid the current generation take on any responsibility or accountability.
Jim Bo you don’t make laws and programs fro the exceptions. Most women don’t have complications and can plan accordingly. Life’s not fair to everyone. Complications and unexpected things happen. That’s something that should be expected
I Will Not Comply. Having children is a two person job! And yet it seems that in America only women are penalised. Countries need children! Who will pay the taxes to help you out in old age if there aren’t any children. China is realising this now. Every country has realised the benefit of maternity time and pay other than America. 30 years ago in the UK I received 9 months of full paid leave and 3 months of partial paid leave. The rules of leave have changed slightly now. My niece recently took 6 months of paid leave and her other husband took the other six months. This is becoming increasingly common and we then lose the ability of companies to stop recruiting young women for fear of them having children. Companies will then just employ the best person for the job and the country will be the better for it. I feel so sorry for professional women who have returned to work after days or weeks because they feel that women should do this if they want to compete against men. I spent 9 months cuddling , kissing, nursing, loving, bonding with my child. If , as a professional woman you chose not to do this then I feel so sorry for you and your child. You cannot get this time back.Families have babies, not women. America appears to be the last developed country to understand that within a family it is not only the woman who raises the child.
Paying two people to do the same job because one sits at home "parenting" while someone else fills in is expensive. We didn't have these problems when women didn't work.
I remember when they wanted unpaid leave and I said, "Just wait. They will eventually want "paid" leave." I was right. Bottom line = I don't want to pay for your birthing with my time or my money. Take responsibility and pay your own way.
kommisar i watch a ton of Stossel’s shows. But with of all the waste of money government programs out there, parental leave isn’t one of them. Allowing a worker to take time off to bond with a child is something we should be for. It benefits child, parent and family. If someone is working, it means they are paying into the system. They should be able to have paid time off to bond with a child.
Mandating unpaid leave makes sense. Wouldn't that be something you'd do anyways, if you were an employer? I would. Paid is an entirely different story, though.
kommisar They aren’t proposing that the government pay for the time off. The government will just pass a law that says businesses have to give paid time off. The business will have to pay for it. It’s so easy for the government to be generous with other people’s money.
kommisar you pay into the system through an SDI tax, which we have to pay anyway here in California. Your benefits for parental leave (and other types of short term medical leave), are distributed from this. It’s actually a smart way to protect employers from having to foot the bill for medical leaves, while providing people some security during these times. I get the libertarian argument of no government involvement in private business at all. But I disagree with it here. As a society, we need to make sure we evolve to a point where we can take care of the things that matter most to us. Family, and child rearing are central to a productive, healthy society. So if we can figure out a way to allow parents to bond and raise an infant, while not going into financial ruin, then it makes sense to explore options on how to do that.
It's not fair for people who chose not to have children. They are not compensative for not leaving work with pay and have to cover for the people that take time off for children. It's not fair for all Americans.
In EVERY hood we have ourselves a sub-nation of Momy's on PERMANENT maternity leave called Section 8 & food stamps...yup, another genius government program!!
My auntie is a state worker. Been there for years. Does nothing but Facebook most of the day. Gets paid 80k+ plus CRAZY good benefits. She literally files all day. This is why a lot of states are in debt.
This seems like a capitalism issue. Employers decide if they want to offer extra leave, employees decide if they like a potential employer's policy and voila, everything works itself out, no government interference required.
Totally agree just because the rest of the world does it doesn't mean that we should be doing it!!! The government is so far beyond its constitutional power it is DISGUSTING 🤮
How's a small business going to pay an employee to not be there for three months? Every government regulation benefits big business at the expense of small business.
I work for a company with three employees. No there is no paid leave for anyone under any circumstances. A quarter of the year there's unpaid leave for at least one of us. These sort of laws are intended to protect the largest companies at the expense of everybody else.
Our company provides 16 paid weeks off for paternity and maternity leave. Out of 100 people on our floor there are suddenly 8 people getting ready to go out on leave. We’re still not sure who’s going to handle all the work. I’m not adding to MY workload because others decided to have kids.
Says a man. As a mom who worked in fast food it was extremely hard trying to recover from a c section and pay bills. I was almost out of the street. My second job refused to pay me on maternity leave and refused to have me come back till the 3 months were up. They “lost” my doctors note to come back sooner. Then told me to find another job after my 3 months were up. Mothers need aid and protection. My current job has a temporary disability benefit I pay monthly for. This will become my maternity leave when I have baby 3. I am happy this option is available.
Stossel mentioned higher unemployment for young women. Another problem with mandatory paid child leave is that it hurts small businesses more than corporations. If you only have two employees, and you're forced to give one leave for months, it can devastate you.
@@boredfangerrude Yeah, only they created those issues to begin with. It's the only kind of issues it can solve. And the means never justify it's ends. Period. Statetheism, the most dangerous, destructive, thieving and murderous religion in history.
How naive. The government has not created every issue it has solved, many arose on their own. Let's look at some actual facts. Fact 1: There has been many issues that governments have NOT created that they have solved. Fact 2: Under a government, we have been able to live much longer lives than we ever did without one. Fact 3: Under a government, innovation has been able to flourish. Fact 4: Under a government, ENTIRE industries have popped up that were not possible before. Fact 5: Under a government, there have been far less wars, less cultures being wiped out because there aren't thousands of tribes warring with each other, trying to wipe each other out. Fact 6: PEOPLE are destructive, governments are at the mercy of people and because of that, a government alone can never be destructive or thieving. Fact 7: People have stolen far more than any government has. Fact 8: Governments aren't religions.
The only legitimate functions of government are protection from aggression. Protection from criminals - Police (first responders or avengers, anything else is extortion) Protection from fraud - Courts Protection from external aggression - Military
Coming from a country that offers maternity leave for 6 months + 3 years of parental benefits... Gotta say everyone’s salary is so so so low that without this gov rescuing you wouldn’t be able to make it. As simple as that. I decided to work online in USA therefor I gave up on my maternity leave. I’m glad I took the decision because I made x4 times the money I would make here and I don’t need any economical help... People need to be responsible for their own life decisions and stop lingering to the gov.
As a young Republican, I am for required maternity AND paternity leave allowances. Gov’t will always make us pay taxes to do some things. The government’s job is to serve us and then otherwise leave us alone. When the blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut we shouldn’t poopoo is because the rest of the time he only found rocks. Giving leave to new parents is something I support because it is ridiculous we are the only country where you have to use PTO to get paternity leave and maternity leave is often unpaid. There are plenty of other stupid programs we could get rid of, but this is not one of them.
Sold, I will take all my SS money out now. I am probably only going to get retirement benefits if the gov starts to just print money. The paper might be worth more at that point.
Haha just like in Canada where its been said before our CPP (SS equivalent) is going to be dried up by the time I retire and jackass government keeps giving more and more to current CPP recipients when their value put in is much less.
I have oppened a business in 2009. Hired three ladies in late twenties. Within 3 months all three went on parental leave and I have never seen them again. Why? In my country you can get up to 26 months leave paid by government. But I, as employes, have to pay first month and then 5 weeks vacation salary for each year of leave. I ended up paying 4 full salaries to persons who were not working for me at the time. As a result I will never employ female under 40 again, and a lot of small business are having same attitude.
Tbh, not in the first few weeks to months of a baby's life. Although having a father in the home is most important to raising children. When it comes to the importance of bonding right after birth is crucial for the mothers as naturally the mothers are the childs life support in most cases and because of the hormonal imbalances of pregnancy and childbirth it is crucial for the mother to be able to bond with the baby to help reduce hormonal side effects and to induce the natural motherly instinct. Its a major help with post partum depression too. Fathers naturally and generally dont play a huge roll in the babys first stage of life and although its important to have bonding for fathers as well. Its not the same type of importance. Which is why no one should have children until they are able to have time off and a plan worked out instead of expecting the government or tax payers to pay for or regulate. Of course im not talking about all cases or single father situations. Im speaking in general.
@@kathryncastanares525 I think that is nonsense! It is every bit as important for a father to bond from the moment of birth to lifes natural conclusion! Both parents are equally important in that childs development and sense of security and emotional stability! Men are not just provider and protector of their offspring! But this is one of the fundamental parental breakdowns in our society! One parent being seen as more crucial during certain developmental points of a childs life or one parent not needed at all or only to a specified point such as financial support or for discipline! As a father I don't agree with you whatsoever!
To me, that were mother and father should work together. The father should be willing to work extra hours, move-in temporarily or nearby if they aren't together, or whatever needs to be done so that mother and child can have that time to bond-which by the way goes far beyond 12 weeks. So, what next, ask government to mandate 16 weeks, 2 years....?
@@lvteachme973 So essentially the father should bare ALL of the financial burden and work extra hard so the mother gets ALL the privilege of bonding with baby? No matter if the father bonds with baby? He should just do all the dirty work to ensure her bond with baby is great? Wow. Dad loves their child too ya know!
What's real is the gender hard work gap. When women gets jobs in physically hard work they end up getting the easy jobs while men need to bust ass on the harder shit. Not all but most I've come across.
Next they'll be mad their insurance costs more when they are constantly using it while I have paid for mine for 7 years and haven't seen a doctor once. But it's unfair ... ?
As Dr Thomas Sowell aptly points out, "the key to higher earnings is learning better job skills. And, with each boost in minimum wage, the lowest skilled workers are effectively blocked out of the job market", sometimes forever. That is forever the unintended consequence of a good intention. When a candidate cannot perform a job to be worth what they are required to be paid, they are not hired and consequently have no opportunity to advance themselves by proving themselves worthy of higher pay. In other words, they cannot even get a start, that entry level job.
I wish you had gone to some actual employers and asked they how they fund their maternity leave programs. It's not like they have a magical tree that grows maternity leave dollars. They calculate the amount necessary to fund the program, and then they subtract that from their wages budget. The company pays you less now while you work so you can pay you during maternity leave later while you don't work. In the end, you still make the same amount of money (if you take the leave), it's just that the boss only gives you some of the money now and the rest later. For those who don't take maternity leave, they're still paying for it through reduced wages now that they'll never recoup later. It's all a shell game that some of us win and others lose. OR ... we could all be responsible adults and if we're planning to have kids, start a savings account where we put money aside to cover expenses for when the kids arrive.
Yet, the UK provides paternaty leave and female employment is up. The idea that women won't be employed due to paid maternaty leave does not follow the numbers of employment.
One thing I noticed that isn't being mentioned is they say it's the price of a cup of coffee. That may be all well and good for one person but when you're talking about a hundreds or even thousands of cups of coffee that changes things
Yeah had an employee who would just get up and walk out of work every day at 5:40 to pick up her child from day care. Didn’t matter what was happening in front of her, customers, coworkers or meetings that were going on. She’d just get up and say “I have to leave, I have a child.” HR permitted this for 4 years because it was a “”life Choise”, but denied my life choice of having to leave work at the same time, to take a class that would have benefited the business, for only 8 consecutive Wednesday’s.
This constant begging for auxiliary policy is not gonna change until either universal vote or the state itself is abolished! We dug our own graves with the expansion of democracy, people vote with the absolute highest time preference and get bought out with promises of privilege policies such as maternity leave, pensions and welfare without giving second thought to consequence.
With technological advancement giving people the freedom and power to do things without being monitored or stopped efficiently, the state would end first.
@vin 950 democracy is a bad system indeed. I'd even go so far as to call it a tyranny of the mob that seeks to coerce those who disagree under the guise of a meaningless platitude such as "the will of the peoples".
12 months minimum. It is soo sad how US treats its people. In Canada we have up to 18months leave + 5 weeks for father + any sick leave on top of that. Conservatives are sooo wrong here and I am a conservative. We are pro life but won't support parental leave? Sad, just sad!
Just had my first kid. My wife took 3 months unpaid. Guess how? We planned ahead and saved up 3 months of her contributions to living expenses plus medical bills. Keep your government program to yourself.
I used to work for a company that has a very generous parental leave policy. The father of a new baby gets the first week off after the baby is born. The primary caregiver of the baby gets 16 weeks paid leave. And if the primary caregiver is not the employee, AND if at any time during the first 16 the (non-employee) primary caregiver can not continue as the primary caregiver, the employee can then take over as the primary caregiver (and take paid leave) for the balance of that 16 weeks. So...my wife got 8 weeks maternity leave from her company when our first baby was born, and I took weeks 1 and 9-16. It came as no surprise that I was laid off almost immediately upon returning to work.
It all went to shit when they brought it in, in Australia. You get bugger all for 12 weeks to 1 year, often way less than what they normaly earn so it makes life harder and forces mum's back to work before they are ready where employers are giving less flexibility because the government should take care of it.. Why don't they argue for an economy where a household can be comfortable on a single income which would free up so much time for all those things we rush through in life..
smeg head Because then they'd have to argue that a woman and mother's place is in the home. One earner households are no longer affordable because once women started working, they doubled the workforce which halved wages. You can't have your cake and eat it.
@@davelowe1977 that is no where near true.. life was far more expensive 100 years ago and didn't start becoming cheaper till way after the 60's.. more many numbers of reasons.. And my point has nothing to do with the idea that woman are ment to be in a particular place, it's an observation about how left wing parties such as the democrats are pushing stupid policies over practical policies in which people would accually make a difference in order to procure power. Achnologing this isn't saying that a woman's place is anywhere or that a particular way of life is the answer, it's the idea that we have a choice and they are refusing to let us see such choice.
Leonardokite What’s 12 weeks supposed to do for that kid anyway? After that he/she gets to go to daycare or be raised by a nanny for the next 5 years before they get turned over to the state. It’s just an excuse to take 6 years worth of vacations at once and for the dems to pretend that they ❤️ babies.
Just shows government has zero common sense. If I hire someone to make widgets and they stop making widgets but I still have to pay them...I am out their pay and I have no widgets to sell. So now I have to double my costs to get those same widgets made or just sell no widgets until the vacation is over. How does that equal a few dollars a year??
I could not afford ANY time off. I went back to work three days after I had my kid. Guess what? My kid turned out fine. You do what you got to do to make ends meet.
I love my unlimited PTO and some 12 weeks of parental leave, but that's the choice of the company I work for. I totally agree that the government should stay out of it.
What are you talking about? Which company gives unlimited PTO? I know of companies that give unlimited TO, but if there is a company that gives unlimited PTO I would like to apply and take it, so that I can get paid for a couple of years while I work on some private business.
I’m a father of two from Sweden. We get 240 days paid parental leave per parent per child. 90 days are tied individually to the mother, 90 days individually to the father. The remaining 150 days per parent are transferable to the other parent. The company that employs you does not have to pay you anything when you are on parental leave (but many companies with employees earning more than the $5 000 per month cap on state parental pay choose to voluntarily supplement the difference between an employee’s normal salary and their parental pay). I’ve personally used my full 240 days of paid leave for each of my children, but nationally there is a discrepancy between average male and female usage of parental leave. Males on average use about a third of the 480 days per child of paid parental leave, females on average two thirds. The cost of our paid parental leave to the Swedish taxpayer is about 0,7% of our GDP. As a high income earner I have certainly payed more in taxes to finance the system of state distributed paid parental leave than it would have cost me to pay for my parental leave with my own money. I still like our system, though, since it re-normalizes spending time with your children when they are young - something humans have historically done way more than we do today.
@@ledzeppelin1212 Not necessarily. Good tax-financed unemployment benefits are proven to increase willingness to quit your day-job and start a business for yourself - the fact that parental leave is not tied to any particular employer further bolsters people’s entrepreneurial drive. Our start-ups are doing great, especially since our corporate taxation rate is lower than, e g, the mean US corporate tax rate. Also, even though happiness, sense of purpose, individual freedom and perceived security have value beyond their effects on the economy, all four seem to also contribute to our working population’s ability to produce products and services that are highly lucrative - yielding profits that increase employment levels and both directly and indirectly pay for the worker benefits that contributed to their quality as well as to their initial conception. Working more hours doesn’t boost productivity by nearly as much as working harder while at work. Working more hours doesn’t boost productivity by nearly as much as working on fulfilling an entrepreneurial dream. Paid parental leave, at least in the Swedish context, probably increases our national income substantially - although given the somewhat strange way that BNP, specifically, is calculated I’m not sure about it’s effect on that metric.
I am so mad when I see the new taxes for MA paid family leave act come out of my paycheck. Leave my paycheck alone! And noooooo social security for younger people. That's crazy!!! I don't want to support everyone's life choices!
It's a sense of entitlement that usually goes hand in hand with low emotional intelligence: somehow, the world owes you; you should get as much as possible for free!
I dont think it has anything to do with emotional intelligence. I live in Denmark and if you want, you can stop working and get more money from government than some workers (I think it is ridiculous) but for some reason, people choose to work as much as they can. People dont want to be reliant on others once they hit adulthood (the people who stay childish seems to also be the ones on government payroll). I like the republicans giving the opportunity rather than mandatory since it otherwise hurt equality between man and woman. Interesting statistic that European women have less leaderroles, it is probably correct that mandatory leave is a big cause of this.
@@Munchausenification Perhaps each country, and even each culture, is different. It could be that Denmark has a high-average IQ, and homogeneous cultures; there is less of a sense of entitlement and emotional intelligence is high? In countries with a low-average IQ, South Africa, for example, where the average IQ is 70 (WorldData.Info), there is seemingly a sense of entitlement and low emotional intelligence (on the *laundry list of negative traits* that low IQ inflicts on society), that results in a *"the world owes me"* mentality; it's a mentality that can cripple the economy of any country VERY quickly!
@@macclift9956 Well to be honest, Im not an expert so I shouldnt really have any idea on how this works. But you are right on the mentality of low emotional intelligence. I just dont see how it is connected to paid family leave. Otherwise a lot of countries in the world must have below average emotional intelligence using your hypothesis. I dont think you meant it like that though.
@@Munchausenification It can be very confusing, and comparing one country with another is perhaps like comparing apple and oranges. The way I see it, in countries where the average IQ is reasonably high and cultures are homogeneous, perhaps all people pay tax, or have paid tax, during their working lives, so paid maternity leave is quite normal and is not open to exploitation, but in a country like South Africa, for example, where the average IQ is low, the birth rate *astronomically high,* and the tax base under 4 million in a population of over 50 million, the *paid leave* becomes the problem of the 4 million, and eventually that sense of entitlement of the masses to free "stuff," for want of a better word, cripples the economy of the country! If I can think of something to add to this, I'll get back to you in this comment section :)
Govt motto: "If it ain't broke, we'll fix it till it is!!"
That made me laugh
@@Rob.N. Made me laugh too.
😂
Lol....yep! Ridiculous.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👏👏
If the government wants to help the people, stay out of our lives!!!
This!
Who is this directed to?
Amen!
Amen!
Except it's not about helping the people its about control
I'd rather have the ability to withdraw all my social security and opt out of paying it altogether.
Absolutely, best comment ever
There is no Social Security anymore. It is bankrupt and broken along with Pension system and other Welfare systems. There is no money for retirement. All the money was used to buy votes and now comes the time of suffering.
Agreed!
Blu Orion thats the exact same shit ive been told 45 years old and i doubt ill ever be able to access any of that once i retire
@@bluorion4360 The left appears to be successful at tearing down everything!They'll be shocked,when it isn't going to be the utopia they think!
I love how he calls her out at the end. This is why I love John Stossel.
He calls her out, but with a legitimate reason and is very respectful, so as not to cause a major argument. I LOVE John Stossel.
@@SimSim-zf9if What?
Cause he knows she knows it's a big benefit for her. "Gimme my money now, I want it back."
I would sometimes watch the news with my parents in the evening (most likely just mom, as dad's been driving a truck for about three decades now) anyhow I remember watching him as a news anchor, and something about his style caught my attention even as a little kid.
So, when I found him on YT, I was actually pretty happy about it.
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 it’s so weird how many people talk about how they liked him as a kid. Who are these kids lol. I don’t remember watching the news.
Reagan said it best, the scariest words ever uttered, "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
And then he went on to increase taxes and increase spending. He was a fraud
@@MrVedude He was a very quotable president, not a good one
@Mrvedude He also heightened the war on drugs so he literally went against his own words. I love this quote but damn is he a hypocrite
Often this quote is true but not all the time. Its stupid to think that no government would genuinely try to help people
Wasn't he from the government too?
"Both parties are pushing government solutions" meaning both parties are trying to buy your vote at my expense.
That is exactly what came to mind when I heard that!
Not my kid, not my problem.
It's why I can't stomach republicans any better than I can stomach democrats. Neither would actually give a thimble of warm spit for the constitution, at best it makes a good prep rally cry. No one questions the constitutionality of government mandating such things, they just insist the other sides plan is terrible and their plan is great, they're both just the equal opposite of the other side. I fully believe that if the left became pro-gun over breakfast the right would be calling for gun confiscation by dinner.
@@dannybee6473 Alright sociopath.
And neither party cares what the "price per vote is"!!
I have never seen that many people working checkout at Wal Mart.... those must be paid actors.
Same ones they used at Sandyhook.
@DF AMO just a dumb joke about conspiracy theory people and crises actors.
Or at a diff Wal-mart, mine somehow plenty.
Same at all the ones I've been to. Self checkout is always packed, then they have a handful of packed lanes out of ~20 closed lanes. Soon there won't be humans involved, just cameras. You'll just walk in, get your face scanned, take what you want, and the machines will bill you after you walk out the door.
DOOM the funny part is that even if they were paid actors that’d still mean they have a job
So the moral of the story is let the company and employee work it out and keep government the hell out of it.
@MR. Right I don't know about that when it comes to free speech. I'm pretty sure someone just got fined a ridiculous amount of money for for passing out flyers saying women arnt men or something along them lines
Correct
Just get women to not work.
Seriously. If my company doesn't work with me I'll find another job.
So how exactly does the company "work it out".
"Politicians are so arrogant." Stossel said but I think he understated it. I was an employer for 21+ years and now that I've been retired for 19+ years and reflect back I realize there is just one job description, just one reason to hire anyone: What can an employee do to help me earn a living, make a profit, keep the business functioning? If an employee can't do that, the job will no longer exist.
“Tap into” social security. It’s more like Raid social security today and let future generations deal with the aftermath of an empty well of retirement funds.
@Blind Squid bloodsuckers? You're talking about the government i hope, because that's 6000 dollars a year per citizen in the united states that we never see a dime of.
Social security is currently the biggest racket in history, they rob us of money and we see nothing from it.
Aside from that, anyone on social security deserves it, you fucking idiot. When social security promised to fix the idea of pensions, did it? Bloodsuckers, the nerve of you dude. jesus.
I'm sorry, but there is no well of retirement funds. There is simply a column in government account ledgers saying the left pocket owes the right pocket. There is nothing to "tap into" except current revenues.
It's just their money that government is holding onto. They paid it.
Ideally, they'd get that money regardless of having kids.
@@pauldraper1736 The government is not holding on to money. It spends it as soon as it gets it. There is merely a column saying the govt. owes money.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Right. The government has a liability which it has to settle up now or later. The balance sheet of assets - liabilities remains unchanged.
In other words, this giving people more choice about over how their dollars spent, which *is a good thing.* (Ideally, you have COMPLETE freedom to spend them however you'd like and get rid of Social Security but two choice instead of one is at least in the right direction.)
There is a valid issue of liquidity, but holding onto liabilities for 40 years doesn't fundamentally make them go away. The government is just as poor with a liability of $10 (liability for future payment) as a liability of $10 (loan to cover payment now).
Put another way....how would stop the Social Security program?
Businesses have employees because they have jobs that need to be done. Want to have kids, great, but don't expect someone else to pay for it. EVERYTHING the government touches it makes worse. WAKE UP!!!
Bullshit. No passable legislation would/could require a business owner to directly pay for the children of their employees.
@@Approx_99 how would the legislation work then
@@Approx_99 There are already laws that require an employee with a certain amount of employees to provide health insurance. The difference in health care for a single person and a family is tens of thousands of dollars to the employer. That is directly paying for your children. So yeah, it isn't a stretch to imagine a day when the govt mandates that employees pay directly for employees children either by an escalating scale or some other means directly related to the amount of children you have. That is already in place via the tax code where a person with 3 kids pays thousands of dollars less in taxes than a single person with none. What makes you think that couldn't happen?
@@iironhide6209, like mandating employers pay overtime. No organization is needed to supervise employers because if the law isn't followed, the employee can sue for damages. Court costs are very expensive, so it's in everyone's best interest to self-regulate.
@@jamie49868, I don't quite understand your point. Yes, in the United States, employer-provided health insurance already includes individual and family plans, and yes, the family plans are more expensive for both employer and employee (very few employers pay 100% of costs).
However, employers are already pay for the children of their employees; no bread winning parent is going to work for less than it takes to provide for their family. What specifically are you afraid of the fed doing?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
~ Ronald Reagan.
Chris Cunningham no, the most terrifying words... Republican President
@@paulnadratowski3942 This country has prospered the most under Republicans.
BitBear not true. Clinton cleaned up Bush’s mess and Obama cleaned up W’s mess. FDR cleaned up the Depression
Clinton did poorly, Obama had the worst recovery, and only WW2 pulled us out of the depression that worsened under FDR
Samuel Haines all incorrect. FDR lessoned the new deal in 1937 thinking the depression was over, it led to the Roosevelt recession, once he restarted the Nee Deal, the depression lessoned, so the New Deal di work. Clinton presided over a great economy in the 90’s. Obama pulled us out of a huge recession. Don’t believe the crap you hear on Prager University
Give me my social security contributions back now and I would be fine.
Yah single payout of 100% of what you put in.
@@DurzoBlunts every paycheck
I would be happy to get my "contributions" back, with appropriate interest...
At standard mortgage rate of each year over all of the years between when the money was paid in and now.
That goes back 45 years. With an appx average doubling of each dollar collected every 6 years since it was collected. (this is the power of simply compounding interest every year, not even every month, or continuously as is now the norm)
At just minimum wage level contributions over that time, the amount the government would owe would be a few $million.
This is the savings opportunity the government is stealing from every person, every year and has been stealing for over 70 years.
@@DurzoBlunts plus interest! I could have saved that money on my own and earned a pretty penny by now.
@@fhuber7507 insanity.
Well if you took 12 weeks off and my company ran just fine without you I would figure I don't need you
Haha, nice
While paying you, uh, we kind of don't need you.
In my country, it is mandatory for the employer to re-hire you if you come back to work within 2 years(if your position still exists). And you have 2 years of paid leave if you worked for at least 1 year in the last 2 years before the child is born. And fathers can take maternity leave too. You can go back to work after 42 days(this is mandatory for the mother but I am not sure exactly about the number of days) and you will receive about half the minimum salary(~150$/month) until the child is 3 years old.
@@sylviur sounds terrible honestly as an American father. I couldn’t imagine just taking money for nothing.
@@loganthesaint Just remember some people get payed millions doing less than you, if that helps...
"I need votes and I'll SAY anything to get 'em".
Why not 52 weeks?
Sounds good to me.
...and that's for ALL Americans, not just parents.
Great joke!
Hear Hear! you've got my vote!
For real, breeders get time off in my office, what about us who choose not to have children?
Exactly! I'm sick of only certain groups getting all the breaks.
Daniel De Vall for someone who’s body just produced another human being? Sounds good to me.
So this "12 dollars a week"...is that a tax? What if I never have kids? Am I going to be forced to pay into this program even if I never use it? Screw that.
Just get a puppy and call it your kid...That should work
@@DelbertStinkfester Ya, that's what I was thinking too, lol. I'll just identify as having a newborn baby...the government can't argue with what I identify as.😂🤣
I'm with you but we're already taxed for schools and such I our areas. At 35 i also plan on never having children but on my property tax every year that's a very specific charge for schools
Or buy an old SSN, and use that for maternity leave and tax benefits.
Our birthrate is falling, population decreasing. America is having to get immigrants to keep our population steady. One reason people are having less kids is that the potential mothers don't want to give up pay (or possibly their job) to have a kid. A rapidly declining population is bad for our country. Even if you don't have kids, you still benefit from it just as you benefit from public schooling if you were home schooled. So it's a matter of how much it should cost society and who should be the ones to decide. Whether it's through taxes or higher businesses operating costs, the weight of it will still bear on everyone. Personally, I believe the government should provide a 6 week minimum paid leave, with a capped price, and allow the free market to naturally provide the rest of the paid leave a mother would need to bond with her baby.
Stossel is an American treasure
"Were already 22 Trillion dollars in debt..."
It's scary when you can age a video based on how many Trillions were in the national debt. It's $28 Trillion now, and will be substantially higher when people read this in the future.
Thought the same thing 💔
Money printer go BRRRRRRRRRRR
At this point it may as well be 200 trillion. We have passed the point of no return. China's pushing the yen to become the global currency, when that happens we're Venezuela.
What a difference 2 months makes. Now we are 30 trillion in debt!!!
@@johnsharpe6411 okay I'm not sure where to start with you...1. Yen is the Japanese currency so i doubt China would push for it to go up 2. Debt is always taken into consideration in the context of the GDP increase it produces (i.e. is the debt used effectively to generate economic growth), spending on infrastructure projects provides jobs for low skilled workers and may be a net positive in the long run
Sure... "Independent Women" who need benefits from the government. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
Independent in the "independent woman" sense doesn't mean fully independent. We both know that. It means not dependent on a man as a provider. You now say a man as provider? Sounds sexist or something like that but....you know.... we both know what I mean.
But if cause it is somewhat a valid point that government regulations seems not helping being independent. At least at first glance. But sometimes you need help from the government to be more independent than before. If you don't have to worry about surviving you can more easily create a thriving business. And that seems like what we want. Less surviving, more living and doing what is good for society and maybe even economy
@@YoloSWAGJude "But sometimes you need help from the government to be more independent than before."
Independent... you keep using that word, but I'm not sure you know what it means :)
@@YoloSWAGJude what a hypocrite
Woman dont need to be dependant on a man when they can be dependant on the goverment instead
What a joke
It's not free money. It's paid with our taxes.
@@nathalie_desrosiers They don't care - it's not their money, it's someone else's. It's exactly like a politician selling a new program saying "Only The Rich Will Pay!", and the crowd roars its approval. Trivia fact: This was exactly how the Income Tax was sold to the public in the early twentieth century. And that marketing ploy still has legs a century+ later.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Shane Keller Run when you hear that.
"You are being rescued. Please do not resist."
That's a true horror movie/story quote.
*whispers under his breath... my self...
If you expect the gov't to fix your problems, they'll be more than happy to do it- at the cost of freedom and choice.
@@SimSim-zf9if thats from ur company, not the government lmao. another sign of capitalism benefiting both the employer and employee.
That sounds like a fallacy...
@Aswath Vishali Because paying taxes is not losing freedom. However, if you’re a US citizen I’d encourage you to do a lil experiment and not pay taxes for a couple of years. Let’s see how much freedom you get afterwards...
@Aswath Vishali So how are you free if your forced to pay? Are you still free even after you pay taxes? Anyway. The way vacations work in my country is that you get vacations only after a whole year of work and those paid days are already prorated in your salary, plus a part of that is being financed with the income taxes that you’re already paying. So in overall accounting, those paid days are not a complete extra burden for companies. Still, going back to your main point, it does not strip away freedom or liberty from anyone. Companies don’t have to hire you if they don’t want to. But if you feel that being forced to pay something (taxes, for example) is against your freedom, I would again highly encourage you to not pay for a few years and then let me know how that played out for your liberty.
@Aswath Vishali you just said “why would I, as an employer pay my employee of just taking care of HIS child?”, and then you said you’re ok with parental paid leave. Can you make up your mind, please? And again, I explained how it works in my country. The parental leave and vacations are already pro-rated in the annual compensation and it includes some financing from the same income taxes the employer is already paying. It seems like “extra” payment but it is not, at least here where I’m from. Anyway, can you tell me how that takes away your freedom? Or can we just already conclude that your initial statement is a fallacy?
In Brazil we have paid leave for mothers. A funny stuff is happening also because of it. Jobs that usually women did here, like been cashier in a supermarket is now been change and a great number of young homosexuals are replacing women, because business see them as polite as women but without the "extra cost".
This is so funny
weird that anyone would want to hire a mentally ill person
exactly. women of child bearing age are a liability for employers when it's government mandated folr women to get a fixed time off when bearing children.
That's great and all but what if the homosexuals decide to get smart and demand they get maternity/paternity leave for adopting a newborn baby?
Finding a job while pregnant is so hard because even though I'm an extremely hard worker, no employer wants to give me leave and they think that I won't work as hard. If the government wants to make changes they need to help the employers and provide incentive.
Colorado state is giving parents paid leave at taxpayer expense instead of companies. Is one way. Even so when a woman is going to take off for childbirth the company still has to find someone to continue the work. So boring a pregnant woman is a bad deal given the cost of hiring.
John Stossel is masterful at pulling back the layers of the onion.
Ronald Reagan stated on this the best; "More government is not the answer . Government is part of the problem."
I don't like Reagan for a trillion different reasons. But he hit the nail on the head with this one.
And Ronald Reagan also tripled our national debt
@@strunchshag6129 So have other presidents in the past. They just keep raising the ceiling and print more money.
@@strunchshag6129 Reagan inherited a horrible economy, sky-high tax rates, and a severely-weakened military.
He had to work with a Democrat Congress for most of his two terms.
To get lower tax rates, the Dems forced him to sign off on spending increases.
Plus he had to spend to fix the military.
Keep in mind that ALL media were leftist in those days. No Fox News or talk radio or internet.
He certainly made some goofs, but he was one of our greatest presidents.
@@howardthurman3617 that SOUNDS great.....but then look at what he did to the national debt.
If you say, 'SO'...then you are part of the problem. If I follow your logic then Hitler was great then...I mean he killed millions but so have other presidents and leaders in the past.
Why quote a man who did the very opposite of what he was saying ?
Let's pay people for not working! Genius!
Hans Slavery? You're comparing a job where you'll most likely get maternity leave, but it isn't guaranteed by law, to slavery?
Just another Bird You see, that's your choice, and that's the whole fucking point. I would pay you parental leave, but making it law is ridiculous.
@Hans How are you enslaved by your wealthy employer in America? Last I checked it's the employee that voluntarily chose to go apply and accept terms and conditions of employment. No employee is bought from their family. If employees don't like their pay or their jobs, they can easily quit and find another job. Constantly telling people that they're somehow enslaved to their employers is just plain retardation.
@Hans Lol, did you see the video? American women are twice as more likely to be in higher positions compared to European women. Mandatory programs like that have a negative impact. You can't just mention 24 weeks and conclude that those programs are good.
Let's pay people to have babies. _YES!_
I'm still waiting for my free Obama phone.
You can get it at the food bank,if you are on SSI,or SSDI!...Seriously.
@ffsgdfSgDsv iyknavDdvsa You dont want those STDs...
You don't want that"free" Obama phone. They're mostly crap.
I had an Obama phone, it got me threw high-school; but I was mocked for it!
@@jamesshaw3500 Through*
Those American Highschools suck -_-
My husband was in his chief year of surgical residency and a fellow female chief had her first child. He had to cover her call shifts on top of covering his own, further neglecting his own 5 children and his wife. The personal choices his female chief resident decides to make in her off time should not be his or his family's responsibility. Women need to understand that to compete with men in the workplace, they need to be ready to truly compete. That means no paid time off. Businesses aren't charities or forms of welfare.
I’m sorry your husband had to do that but I can’t see how that’s the female chief’s fault. Appropriate arrangements should have been made at the workplace. It seems they just dumped it all on your husband’s head instead of bringing in someone to assist during that time. Employers in all sectors need to realise that children are the future and making it easier for people to start a family is ultimately investing in that future.
@@bobi6191 Unfortunately, this is the way it is in the medical field. I truly believe our culture disenfranchises families, most especially women and children. Especially in early development, the first 5 years really, it behooves parents and children to have one parent stay at home. This especially puts children first, truly investing in the future.
Mandated leave becomes a tax on all businesses.
productivity has gone up 200% over the last 30 years. Yet we need to work the same hours? Makes no sense. Don't increase leave, REDUCE HOURS.
Stephen. I think that is a good idea. Let's just not have the government force us to do it. I believe I can do my job effectively with only 5 hours a day.
So she's out 6 plus weeks wants even more and employer is left short handed. Has to hire a temp and train them or the rest of the work force makes up for her getting to take off and they get no compensation for it. Ya sounds wonderful. NOT
It's not the woman's fault. Her body is litrally healing.
Don't tell woman to have kids if employers are gonna treat them like shit when they do have kids!
Helping #2 son move from Iowa to Nevada, while gassing up in Nebraska, saw a funny novelty "road sign"...it was titled "Terms of Employment"..under "personal days", the reply was, "Yes1 You get 104 of them A YEAR...they're called SATURDAY and SUNDAY!".
I like what old-timers in the Navy once said about marriage and family..."If the Navy wanted you to have a wife, you'd have been issued one at Great Lakes".
They just pay a lower wage up front to offset the cost of paid leave
Joe Smith, no no, we’re supposed to raise pay AND provide paid leave because “magic.”
madwtube, yeah, if someone can allegedly “afford” something, it’s totally moral to force them to pay for it at gunpoint, right? Envy much?
By the way, a “capitalist” is just someone who at root just believes in both sides consenting to any transaction. Sounds really evil!
@@f308gtb1977 I get what you're saying. Ultimately the consumer who also happens to be the employee is the 1 who foots the bill and pays higher prices for food and medicine.
What I was saying McDonald's franchise A offers $12 an hour with 2 weeks paid vacation. McDonald's franchise B across town offers $13 an HR with no paid leave. Which do you pick? If company A didn't offer paid leave then they would increase pay to $13 an hour too.
@madwtube actually their money or worth is on paper in stock market. It's the value of the stock they own if they were to sell. But they have to sell to have the money. If they sell all the stock and spend the money they won't have any left then. People where I work quit cause too much work for the pay. Well that's why businesses close. Too much work for no more than owner makes. And it's always someone that never owned a business that's running their mouth about what companies should pay. How bout this. Business owners for a union and fix prices so they can make a higher wage. Oh wait that's anti trust. Or as you call it.....unionizing. Ok for 1 party to form a union for higher pay but not ok for others to form a union for higher pay? Welcome to murikkka
@madwtube you should pay more too. If they have to sell stock to pay higher prices you don't need food stamps. You can just sell your tv and kids toys and furniture to pay higher food prices. It's only fair. You liberals want equality. Well there it is. Sell your house and car if you are hungry and can't afford higher food prices if you want others that work harder than you to sell their belongings.
John Stossel is not right in this. No government should sacrifice 95% of women's interest for 5% who are on the top. And without decreasing tension between child bearing and female employment the USA will also have to face a plummeting fertility rate as some European or East Asian countries with a poor family policy. American TFR is aleady at a historical low at this moment.
And yes, it is costly - but it would be better to spend on babies than on arms. The defense budget of the USA is enormously oversized in international comparison. And those plus babies who might be born because their parents were encouraged by paid parental leave to have them will pay more tax and social security contribution when they grow up. So, it is profitable even for the state in the long run.
To be fair, it’s probably one reason why the “wage gap” is wide. Woman take paid leave more than men - they are a obstacle
And women prefer different jobs that is also one of the factors
@@zhanucong4614 that as well. In fact when you compare job for job the 17% gap that leftists claim falls to 5%.
@@zachb1706 and most women are less aggressive so their negotiation isn't good like mens
Kabbala Harris is the queen of pandering.....
JPH FOREX HAHAHAHA
@@GMONEYFIFTYFOUR (c:
who is this Cabal Harassment?
@@MichielVanKets Some woman who worked on her knees....I heard.
Even her own father is sick of her identity politics
When I was in the Coast Guard a female member who got pregnant ( and plenty did take advantage of that to get 'disability' which should not be service connected but they get benefits for it...) got paid leave and COULD take TWO YEARS off with a guaranteed job when they decided to return. No men EVER received that option.
Give it to the men also.
Give it to the men too
Pete Buttigeig .. (rolling eyes..)
Women should not serve in the first place and men should get paid enough their wives can afford not to work. Everything is backwards.
what if my partner and I are both men and can't have children. We should get maternity leave too!!@@cbrockbishop1566 🤣
I’d be content with my employer treating fathers the same as mothers. Moms can use their sick leave for maternity leave, but dads cannot. I don’t need a government program, just fair HR policies.
@EJ K FMLA allows the father to take unpaid paternity leave, correct? I'm not sure it protects you using whatever PTO you might have accrued so you can still make money while on FMLA. Maybe you or someone else can clarify
FMLA is a law that merely prevents your employer from terminating you. They must hold your job for 12 weeks. The law does nothing regarding pay. That's up to each employer. So yes, an employer certainly could offer paid pregnancy leave / mother's leave but force men to use up all their PTO, vacation, sick, etc. (Not saying they should, just saying that the OP's point is plausible.) Until recently, my employer offered short-term disability for new moms but dads got nothing.
@EJ K FMLA is for unpaid leave. Most corporations have policies in place that allow a mother paid time off, but very few extend those same policies to the men.
@@dugroz @jamie t In California, men and woman get 12 weeks protected FMLA with 6 of those weeks paid at 60% of your gross pay by the State of CA out of STD funds and not your by employer. Men and woman are free to supplement that 60% with paid time off AKA vacation time. On top of this, Woman also get more weeks of disability leave.
@@malcorub Wow! Just another reason why CA is in the dumper.
I always hear Social Security is in trouble. Most people don't know that SSI is capped. When a worker reaches about 139k in a year. SSI is NO LONGER deducted from pay. Why is that?
Here's one thing government should mandate. If an employer offers paid leave for women who give birth, then it should also offer paid leave for women who adopt a newborn.
My wife's employer had a very generous maternity leave policy for women who gave birth. But there were no benefits for adopting a child. My wife had to take vacation and then use unpaid family leave.
Her boss could not understand why my wife wanted leave. He thought maternity leave was strictly for recovering from labor and childbirth, especially for women who had C-sections.
A friend of ours worked for what used to be a Big 8 accounting firm. Not only do women who adopt get paid maternity leave, but women and men who adopt get a bonus of several thousand dollars to help defray the costs of adoption.
With my job, I received a number of vacation days based on years of service. Additionally I accrued several hrs of sick leave each 2wk pay period. I rarely used my sick leave and was able to roll over the unused portion in case of long term or family illness. When my husband and I were ready to start our family I'd saved all my vacation leave for several years. I was able to combine these two leave benefits at half pay and stay home with my newborn son for 4 months before I returned to work. Three years later, I did the same thing again and stayed home to care for my 2nd child for 3 months. Often, if you plan with your employer, arrangements can be made without government mandates. It requires a little bit of self sacrifice and maximizing 3 day weekend vacations.
Sorry to hear that. When my wife gave birth i didn't have to use any vacation or sick time. Some people understand how important family is. Others don't seem to care.
nunayafb I think you miss his point. Paid parental leave is a benefit that’s mostly designed for women remember it’s taking some time for men fathers to be affected by this change too and it depends on the type of work the father has many he cannot leave and must remain at his job while his wife can leave and is alowed to stay home and take care of the child. He is pointing out that he didn’t get parental leave even if his wife was pregnant that’s the point no need to attack him and say he don’t care he is not the boss and if they won’t let him leave to stay with his child there is very little he can do as he is a man and these laws are mostly for women not for men.
That's nice that you could do that. Many places will not let someone use all their vacation tima all at once like you were able to do.
I guess they want ALL the money and ALL the free time. Because fuck my employer, right...?
Also: if I were a mother, screw my work. When I grow old, in my walls, I wanna have photos withy my babies - not the copies of paychecks and deals closed on behalf of my employer (something I already do even as a male: NOTHING comes first to friends and family. Outside my living expenses, everything is optional).
You were lucky. Many people don't even have the option to save up leave.
Mrs Here - When I was having babies, I had about 9 months to prepare for my time off. I figured out how much money we would need to tide us over and made the conscious effort to save out of every paycheck enough to sustain us while I was off work. Heaven forbid the current generation take on any responsibility or accountability.
Exactly! People live above their means and then don't understand when they don't have any emergency funds or are in crippling credit card debt.
Some women have complications with their pregnancy that forces them out of work unexpectedly and income situations change
Jim Bo you don’t make laws and programs fro the exceptions. Most women don’t have complications and can plan accordingly. Life’s not fair to everyone. Complications and unexpected things happen. That’s something that should be expected
not everyone is you.
I Will Not Comply.
Having children is a two person job! And yet it seems that in America only women are penalised. Countries need children! Who will pay the taxes to help you out in old age if there aren’t any children. China is realising this now. Every country has realised the benefit of maternity time and pay other than America. 30 years ago in the UK I received 9 months of full paid leave and 3 months of partial paid leave. The rules of leave have changed slightly now. My niece recently took 6 months of paid leave and her other husband took the other six months. This is becoming increasingly common and we then lose the ability of companies to stop recruiting young women for fear of them having children. Companies will then just employ the best person for the job and the country will be the better for it. I feel so sorry for professional women who have returned to work after days or weeks because they feel that women should do this if they want to compete against men. I spent 9 months cuddling , kissing, nursing, loving, bonding with my child. If , as a professional woman you chose not to do this then I feel so sorry for you and your child. You cannot get this time back.Families have babies, not women. America appears to be the last developed country to understand that within a family it is not only the woman who raises the child.
Paying two people to do the same job because one sits at home "parenting" while someone else fills in is expensive.
We didn't have these problems when women didn't work.
parenting shouldn't really be in parenthesis.. it's a real thing.
That’s some grade A misogyny there! 👍
Employers like to keep good workers who have been trained and in female dominated jobs/careers, it’s an investment into their workers.
"we and papua new guinea"...didn't know north korea and cuba offered better benefits...wonder why more people don't move there
Politicians needs to stay out of business. Unless they actually have an idea of how business works.
When we do get a business man in office they cheat him out
If everything becomes mandatory, nothing becomes a benefit.
I remember when they wanted unpaid leave and I said, "Just wait. They will eventually want "paid" leave." I was right. Bottom line = I don't want to pay for your birthing with my time or my money. Take responsibility and pay your own way.
Of all the things our government spends money on, paid maternity/paternity time is one I can actually get behind. The benefits are obvious.
kommisar i watch a ton of Stossel’s shows. But with of all the waste of money government programs out there, parental leave isn’t one of them. Allowing a worker to take time off to bond with a child is something we should be for. It benefits child, parent and family. If someone is working, it means they are paying into the system. They should be able to have paid time off to bond with a child.
Mandating unpaid leave makes sense. Wouldn't that be something you'd do anyways, if you were an employer? I would. Paid is an entirely different story, though.
kommisar
They aren’t proposing that the government pay for the time off. The government will just pass a law that says businesses have to give paid time off. The business will have to pay for it. It’s so easy for the government to be generous with other people’s money.
kommisar you pay into the system through an SDI tax, which we have to pay anyway here in California. Your benefits for parental leave (and other types of short term medical leave), are distributed from this. It’s actually a smart way to protect employers from having to foot the bill for medical leaves, while providing people some security during these times.
I get the libertarian argument of no government involvement in private business at all. But I disagree with it here. As a society, we need to make sure we evolve to a point where we can take care of the things that matter most to us. Family, and child rearing are central to a productive, healthy society. So if we can figure out a way to allow parents to bond and raise an infant, while not going into financial ruin, then it makes sense to explore options on how to do that.
It's not fair for people who chose not to have children. They are not compensative for not leaving work with pay and have to cover for the people that take time off for children. It's not fair for all Americans.
How that "Affordable Care Act" working out for you? Stay away from my hard worked wages!!!
In EVERY hood we have ourselves a sub-nation of Momy's on PERMANENT maternity leave called Section 8 & food stamps...yup, another genius government program!!
We called them low income housing, but section 8 all the same.
20 years later I still know people up there.
It ain’t me.
Well said
“Tax dollars working, so you don’t have to!”
My auntie is a state worker. Been there for years. Does nothing but Facebook most of the day. Gets paid 80k+ plus CRAZY good benefits. She literally files all day. This is why a lot of states are in debt.
This seems like a capitalism issue. Employers decide if they want to offer extra leave, employees decide if they like a potential employer's policy and voila, everything works itself out, no government interference required.
Totally agree just because the rest of the world does it doesn't mean that we should be doing it!!! The government is so far beyond its constitutional power it is DISGUSTING 🤮
Stossel has been dropping facts since I was a little kid, keep up the good work
How's a small business going to pay an employee to not be there for three months? Every government regulation benefits big business at the expense of small business.
I work for a company with three employees. No there is no paid leave for anyone under any circumstances. A quarter of the year there's unpaid leave for at least one of us. These sort of laws are intended to protect the largest companies at the expense of everybody else.
I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!
...run!!!
Guns don't kill people, the government does.
US Military in a nutshell.
@@carultch dahle, if it gets one degree hotter I'm gonna kick your ass
If I ran a business, and I had to give someone more than a week off....I would step back and wonder if I even needed that person's position.
You are Guaranteed by law 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work. That Law has been around since 1993. It's called FMLA.
Forced paternity leave would make women less likely to being hired...that would be the result.
LOL
Then the solution is to give men tge right to be with their kuds too just like women or neither of them get it.
@@dubstepphene82 by doing that you would have hiring questions like "are you in a relationship right now?"
@@Lue1337 that's an illegal question to ask and if that employer got reported they'd be in deep shit
@@dubstepphene82 some employers actually do.
Our company provides 16 paid weeks off for paternity and maternity leave. Out of 100 people on our floor there are suddenly 8 people getting ready to go out on leave. We’re still not sure who’s going to handle all the work. I’m not adding to MY workload because others decided to have kids.
Says a man.
As a mom who worked in fast food it was extremely hard trying to recover from a c section and pay bills. I was almost out of the street. My second job refused to pay me on maternity leave and refused to have me come back till the 3 months were up. They “lost” my doctors note to come back sooner. Then told me to find another job after my 3 months were up.
Mothers need aid and protection.
My current job has a temporary disability benefit I pay monthly for. This will become my maternity leave when I have baby 3. I am happy this option is available.
Gov't should leave us alone.🇺🇸🇺🇸
Stossel mentioned higher unemployment for young women.
Another problem with mandatory paid child leave is that it hurts small businesses more than corporations. If you only have two employees, and you're forced to give one leave for months, it can devastate you.
But what is the point of having all that power if you can't boss people around?
As Pepe the Frog said " I just want to be left alone "
they are blood sucking....
I wonder how many of the lawmakers proclaiming to know what is "good for business" have ever met a payroll in the private sector?
Disappointingly few....... The number is likely so low, lets just call it zero.
People have solutions. Governments have programs.
Governments have solved issues only it has been able to solve though.
@@boredfangerrude Yeah, only they created those issues to begin with. It's the only kind of issues it can solve.
And the means never justify it's ends. Period.
Statetheism, the most dangerous, destructive, thieving and murderous religion in history.
How naive.
The government has not created every issue it has solved, many arose on their own.
Let's look at some actual facts.
Fact 1: There has been many issues that governments have NOT created that they have solved.
Fact 2: Under a government, we have been able to live much longer lives than we ever did without one.
Fact 3: Under a government, innovation has been able to flourish.
Fact 4: Under a government, ENTIRE industries have popped up that were not possible before.
Fact 5: Under a government, there have been far less wars, less cultures being wiped out because there aren't thousands of tribes warring with each other, trying to wipe each other out.
Fact 6: PEOPLE are destructive, governments are at the mercy of people and because of that, a government alone can never be destructive or thieving.
Fact 7: People have stolen far more than any government has.
Fact 8: Governments aren't religions.
The only legitimate functions of government are protection from aggression.
Protection from criminals - Police (first responders or avengers, anything else is extortion)
Protection from fraud - Courts
Protection from external aggression - Military
Nope, look at the US constitution. Also, some of what you listed are sub functions such as protection from external aggression - military.
Coming from a country that offers maternity leave for 6 months + 3 years of parental benefits... Gotta say everyone’s salary is so so so low that without this gov rescuing you wouldn’t be able to make it. As simple as that. I decided to work online in USA therefor I gave up on my maternity leave. I’m glad I took the decision because I made x4 times the money I would make here and I don’t need any economical help... People need to be responsible for their own life decisions and stop lingering to the gov.
As a young Republican, I am for required maternity AND paternity leave allowances. Gov’t will always make us pay taxes to do some things. The government’s job is to serve us and then otherwise leave us alone. When the blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut we shouldn’t poopoo is because the rest of the time he only found rocks. Giving leave to new parents is something I support because it is ridiculous we are the only country where you have to use PTO to get paternity leave and maternity leave is often unpaid. There are plenty of other stupid programs we could get rid of, but this is not one of them.
Negative, you’re not special because you have kids 🙄
Nowadays people are having kids before committing to a relationship lol. Having kids is far from anything special! 100% agreed!
Sold, I will take all my SS money out now. I am probably only going to get retirement benefits if the gov starts to just print money. The paper might be worth more at that point.
Haha just like in Canada where its been said before our CPP (SS equivalent) is going to be dried up by the time I retire and jackass government keeps giving more and more to current CPP recipients when their value put in is much less.
The metal in the penny is worth more than it’s worth
And that's why I'm saving up on my own for retirement. I don't trust SS any more than I can throw a tank.
Im fine with that, since i will never see it anyway
Starts to just print money? Uhm... that’s what they’ve been doing for a long long time.
Say it again John! "We don't need another government program" 👍
I have oppened a business in 2009. Hired three ladies in late twenties. Within 3 months all three went on parental leave and I have never seen them again. Why? In my country you can get up to 26 months leave paid by government. But I, as employes, have to pay first month and then 5 weeks vacation salary for each year of leave. I ended up paying 4 full salaries to persons who were not working for me at the time. As a result I will never employ female under 40 again, and a lot of small business are having same attitude.
Which country?
@@herrschaftg35 Poland
0:35
And bounding child with father not so important?
Tbh, not in the first few weeks to months of a baby's life. Although having a father in the home is most important to raising children. When it comes to the importance of bonding right after birth is crucial for the mothers as naturally the mothers are the childs life support in most cases and because of the hormonal imbalances of pregnancy and childbirth it is crucial for the mother to be able to bond with the baby to help reduce hormonal side effects and to induce the natural motherly instinct. Its a major help with post partum depression too. Fathers naturally and generally dont play a huge roll in the babys first stage of life and although its important to have bonding for fathers as well. Its not the same type of importance. Which is why no one should have children until they are able to have time off and a plan worked out instead of expecting the government or tax payers to pay for or regulate. Of course im not talking about all cases or single father situations. Im speaking in general.
@@kathryncastanares525 I think that is nonsense! It is every bit as important for a father to bond from the moment of birth to lifes natural conclusion! Both parents are equally important in that childs development and sense of security and emotional stability! Men are not just provider and protector of their offspring! But this is one of the fundamental parental breakdowns in our society! One parent being seen as more crucial during certain developmental points of a childs life or one parent not needed at all or only to a specified point such as financial support or for discipline! As a father I don't agree with you whatsoever!
To me, that were mother and father should work together. The father should be willing to work extra hours, move-in temporarily or nearby if they aren't together, or whatever needs to be done so that mother and child can have that time to bond-which by the way goes far beyond 12 weeks. So, what next, ask government to mandate 16 weeks, 2 years....?
@@lvteachme973 So essentially the father should bare ALL of the financial burden and work extra hard so the mother gets ALL the privilege of bonding with baby? No matter if the father bonds with baby? He should just do all the dirty work to ensure her bond with baby is great? Wow. Dad loves their child too ya know!
Artjoms Pugacovs it’s not just about bonding, it also gives times for the woman’s body to heal.
Thank you Stossel for your great work!
Knowing the bit of the Republican party supporting is scares me even more
I'm fine with it as long as it is voluntary and I don't have to pay for anyone else's decisions.
I'm not surprised. There are far too many RINOs.
Its as real as the gender pay gap, which was outlawed in the 1960s in the USA BTW.
What's real is the gender hard work gap. When women gets jobs in physically hard work they end up getting the easy jobs while men need to bust ass on the harder shit. Not all but most I've come across.
Yeah, there is a pay gap. Women get paid more with extra benefits and protection considering they tend to work less hours and less strenuous jobs.
Next they'll be mad their insurance costs more when they are constantly using it while I have paid for mine for 7 years and haven't seen a doctor once. But it's unfair ... ?
As Dr Thomas Sowell aptly points out, "the key to higher earnings is learning better job skills. And, with each boost in minimum wage, the lowest skilled workers are effectively blocked out of the job market", sometimes forever.
That is forever the unintended consequence of a good intention.
When a candidate cannot perform a job to be worth what they are required to be paid, they are not hired and consequently have no opportunity to advance themselves by proving themselves worthy of higher pay.
In other words, they cannot even get a start, that entry level job.
I wish you had gone to some actual employers and asked they how they fund their maternity leave programs. It's not like they have a magical tree that grows maternity leave dollars. They calculate the amount necessary to fund the program, and then they subtract that from their wages budget. The company pays you less now while you work so you can pay you during maternity leave later while you don't work. In the end, you still make the same amount of money (if you take the leave), it's just that the boss only gives you some of the money now and the rest later. For those who don't take maternity leave, they're still paying for it through reduced wages now that they'll never recoup later. It's all a shell game that some of us win and others lose. OR ... we could all be responsible adults and if we're planning to have kids, start a savings account where we put money aside to cover expenses for when the kids arrive.
When my daughter was born..: I took 8 total weeks off with pay.. that was 16 years ago.. I’m a male... I worked Wal-Mart at the time.
Yeah, attracting those 'talented' cashiers at Walmart and CVS.
meanwhile self-checkout technology is only getting better and more people using it.
Bernie is such a hero.
)in his mind)
And this is the man that was kicked out of the hippie commun for being too lazy.
@@the_mighty_kc uhh well... Those people were not the best sharers
Yep!
Lol I had to open the rest lol ass hole
@@the_mighty_kc lol
Yet, the UK provides paternaty leave and female employment is up. The idea that women won't be employed due to paid maternaty leave does not follow the numbers of employment.
I'm republican but I support paid family leave and the cradle act. I think lack of parenting is what's leading to to so many problems in our society.
One thing I noticed that isn't being mentioned is they say it's the price of a cup of coffee. That may be all well and good for one person but when you're talking about a hundreds or even thousands of cups of coffee that changes things
Yeah had an employee who would just get up and walk out of work every day at 5:40 to pick up her child from day care. Didn’t matter what was happening in front of her, customers, coworkers or meetings that were going on. She’d just get up and say “I have to leave, I have a child.” HR permitted this for 4 years because it was a “”life Choise”, but denied my life choice of having to leave work at the same time, to take a class that would have benefited the business, for only 8 consecutive Wednesday’s.
This constant begging for auxiliary policy is not gonna change until either universal vote or the state itself is abolished! We dug our own graves with the expansion of democracy, people vote with the absolute highest time preference and get bought out with promises of privilege policies such as maternity leave, pensions and welfare without giving second thought to consequence.
With technological advancement giving people the freedom and power to do things without being monitored or stopped efficiently, the state would end first.
@vin 950 democracy is a bad system indeed. I'd even go so far as to call it a tyranny of the mob that seeks to coerce those who disagree under the guise of a meaningless platitude such as "the will of the peoples".
This is idiotic, literally every other country has paid leave, and it works!
12 months minimum. It is soo sad how US treats its people. In Canada we have up to 18months leave + 5 weeks for father + any sick leave on top of that. Conservatives are sooo wrong here and I am a conservative. We are pro life but won't support parental leave? Sad, just sad!
Congrats on 200.000 subscribers!
Man, I love John Stossel!!! Keep up the great work!!!!
Congratulations on 200k! Love this
Just had my first kid. My wife took 3 months unpaid. Guess how? We planned ahead and saved up 3 months of her contributions to living expenses plus medical bills. Keep your government program to yourself.
I used to work for a company that has a very generous parental leave policy. The father of a new baby gets the first week off after the baby is born. The primary caregiver of the baby gets 16 weeks paid leave. And if the primary caregiver is not the employee, AND if at any time during the first 16 the (non-employee) primary caregiver can not continue as the primary caregiver, the employee can then take over as the primary caregiver (and take paid leave) for the balance of that 16 weeks. So...my wife got 8 weeks maternity leave from her company when our first baby was born, and I took weeks 1 and 9-16. It came as no surprise that I was laid off almost immediately upon returning to work.
It all went to shit when they brought it in, in Australia. You get bugger all for 12 weeks to 1 year, often way less than what they normaly earn so it makes life harder and forces mum's back to work before they are ready where employers are giving less flexibility because the government should take care of it..
Why don't they argue for an economy where a household can be comfortable on a single income which would free up so much time for all those things we rush through in life..
smeg head
Because then they'd have to argue that a woman and mother's place is in the home. One earner households are no longer affordable because once women started working, they doubled the workforce which halved wages. You can't have your cake and eat it.
@@davelowe1977 that is no where near true.. life was far more expensive 100 years ago and didn't start becoming cheaper till way after the 60's.. more many numbers of reasons..
And my point has nothing to do with the idea that woman are ment to be in a particular place, it's an observation about how left wing parties such as the democrats are pushing stupid policies over practical policies in which people would accually make a difference in order to procure power.
Achnologing this isn't saying that a woman's place is anywhere or that a particular way of life is the answer, it's the idea that we have a choice and they are refusing to let us see such choice.
@@davelowe1977 Exactly. Feminism
One of the reasons I sold my business was the paid leave bill. It broke the bank.
Leonardokite What’s 12 weeks supposed to do for that kid anyway? After that he/she gets to go to daycare or be raised by a nanny for the next 5 years before they get turned over to the state. It’s just an excuse to take 6 years worth of vacations at once and for the dems to pretend that they ❤️ babies.
Does universal parental leave include dad's? I thought feminists wanted equality
It should include those of us that don’t want kid
it does is some places, yes.
It does in California
does in northern europe.
Just shows government has zero common sense. If I hire someone to make widgets and they stop making widgets but I still have to pay them...I am out their pay and I have no widgets to sell. So now I have to double my costs to get those same widgets made or just sell no widgets until the vacation is over. How does that equal a few dollars a year??
Other countries have paid family leave and their economies are fine. Why would it not work here in the U.S.?
I really want the option to opt out of social security entirely. I don’t pay money in, I don’t get money out.
There are a few options for that. I have heard of some, that don't pay in at all.
I could not afford ANY time off. I went back to work three days after I had my kid.
Guess what? My kid turned out fine.
You do what you got to do to make ends meet.
I love my unlimited PTO and some 12 weeks of parental leave, but that's the choice of the company I work for. I totally agree that the government should stay out of it.
What are you talking about? Which company gives unlimited PTO? I know of companies that give unlimited TO, but if there is a company that gives unlimited PTO I would like to apply and take it, so that I can get paid for a couple of years while I work on some private business.
@@srki22 Unlimited PTO is a trap. It's there but most employees don't use it for fear of termination.
@@GeneralChangFromDanang I know of companies giving unlimited TO, but not of companies giving unlimited PTO.
Why should the government not mandate paid leave?
I’m a father of two from Sweden. We get 240 days paid parental leave per parent per child. 90 days are tied individually to the mother, 90 days individually to the father. The remaining 150 days per parent are transferable to the other parent. The company that employs you does not have to pay you anything when you are on parental leave (but many companies with employees earning more than the $5 000 per month cap on state parental pay choose to voluntarily supplement the difference between an employee’s normal salary and their parental pay).
I’ve personally used my full 240 days of paid leave for each of my children, but nationally there is a discrepancy between average male and female usage of parental leave. Males on average use about a third of the 480 days per child of paid parental leave, females on average two thirds.
The cost of our paid parental leave to the Swedish taxpayer is about 0,7% of our GDP.
As a high income earner I have certainly payed more in taxes to finance the system of state distributed paid parental leave than it would have cost me to pay for my parental leave with my own money. I still like our system, though, since it re-normalizes spending time with your children when they are young - something humans have historically done way more than we do today.
But imagine how much higher your GDP would be if people worked instead of taking unnecessarily long vacations.
@@ledzeppelin1212 Not necessarily. Good tax-financed unemployment benefits are proven to increase willingness to quit your day-job and start a business for yourself - the fact that parental leave is not tied to any particular employer further bolsters people’s entrepreneurial drive. Our start-ups are doing great, especially since our corporate taxation rate is lower than, e g, the mean US corporate tax rate.
Also, even though happiness, sense of purpose, individual freedom and perceived security have value beyond their effects on the economy, all four seem to also contribute to our working population’s ability to produce products and services that are highly lucrative - yielding profits that increase employment levels and both directly and indirectly pay for the worker benefits that contributed to their quality as well as to their initial conception.
Working more hours doesn’t boost productivity by nearly as much as working harder while at work. Working more hours doesn’t boost productivity by nearly as much as working on fulfilling an entrepreneurial dream. Paid parental leave, at least in the Swedish context, probably increases our national income substantially - although given the somewhat strange way that BNP, specifically, is calculated I’m not sure about it’s effect on that metric.
I am so mad when I see the new taxes for MA paid family leave act come out of my paycheck. Leave my paycheck alone! And noooooo social security for younger people. That's crazy!!! I don't want to support everyone's life choices!
It's a sense of entitlement that usually goes hand in hand with low emotional intelligence: somehow, the world owes you; you should get as much as possible for free!
I dont think it has anything to do with emotional intelligence. I live in Denmark and if you want, you can stop working and get more money from government than some workers (I think it is ridiculous) but for some reason, people choose to work as much as they can. People dont want to be reliant on others once they hit adulthood (the people who stay childish seems to also be the ones on government payroll).
I like the republicans giving the opportunity rather than mandatory since it otherwise hurt equality between man and woman. Interesting statistic that European women have less leaderroles, it is probably correct that mandatory leave is a big cause of this.
@@Munchausenification Perhaps each country, and even each culture, is different. It could be that Denmark has a high-average IQ, and homogeneous cultures; there is less of a sense of entitlement and emotional intelligence is high?
In countries with a low-average IQ, South Africa, for example, where the average IQ is 70 (WorldData.Info), there is seemingly a sense of entitlement and low emotional intelligence (on the *laundry list of negative traits* that low IQ inflicts on society), that results in a *"the world owes me"* mentality; it's a mentality that can cripple the economy of any country VERY quickly!
@@macclift9956 Well to be honest, Im not an expert so I shouldnt really have any idea on how this works. But you are right on the mentality of low emotional intelligence. I just dont see how it is connected to paid family leave. Otherwise a lot of countries in the world must have below average emotional intelligence using your hypothesis. I dont think you meant it like that though.
@@Munchausenification It can be very confusing, and comparing one country with another is perhaps like comparing apple and oranges.
The way I see it, in countries where the average IQ is reasonably high and cultures are homogeneous, perhaps all people pay tax, or have paid tax, during their working lives, so paid maternity leave is quite normal and is not open to exploitation, but in a country like South Africa, for example, where the average IQ is low, the birth rate *astronomically high,* and the tax base under 4 million in a population of over 50 million, the *paid leave* becomes the problem of the 4 million, and eventually that sense of entitlement of the masses to free "stuff," for want of a better word, cripples the economy of the country! If I can think of something to add to this, I'll get back to you in this comment section :)