[mum]

How can you have 'no problem with it', when it would require redistributive social programmes to fund it, and laws preventing companies from firing women for 'being pregnant' or 'being new mothers', as well watchdogs and ombudsmans to oversee that this is followed to the letter, funded by tax revenues?

I have no problem with the "idea". Having it state funded is very wasteful. and laws preventing firing etc, jeez...

Basically none, which is why businesses would have to be given a grant by the state to create the appropriate facilities, and the state would also have to fund the creation of more daycare centres in more locations as an option too.

Why don't you just save time and shut the business down ? Forcing them to incorporate these changes could very well make some business go out of business, or stop them hiring women in the first place. Is that what you want ?

Ideally, women should only have to take 2 months off work after the birth of a child, which of course ought to be paid at full salary. After that it should be made possible for them to return to work.

Some women do, some other women prefer to give their kid a better upbringing by staying home much longer. My wife go paid for more than 2 months at full pay. Employer's policy, not states which is much more than any of the state funded companies in her industry get

That may be an exaggeration, but yes, I am aware that it's a time consuming thing, that's why the solution would have to be so dramatic as what I've described in this post, and why I am not sure that you support the solution at all.

Excuse me but I know EXACTLY how much time there is to do things with a child, I am not exaggerating it at all. You seem to think you know everything. Do you friends call you a " know it all? "

No, but I've been a kid.

That explains a lot. Maybe you should talk to a bunch of mothers (and fathers) about your [sarc] fantastic idea. I'm sure you will get a lot of support [/sarc]

[Rei Murasame]

I have no problem with the "idea". Having it state funded is very wasteful. and laws preventing firing etc, jeez...

You have no problem with the idea except the part about actually implementing it? Having women out of work and training for ages is also really wasteful. You were the one who acknowledged it yourself earlier!

Why don't you just save time and shut the business down ? Forcing them to incorporate these changes could very well make some business go out of business, or stop them hiring women in the first place. Is that what you want ?

The state would be paying them to implement the changes, it costs them nothing to do it. Have you ever seen a business decide to refuse to take stacks of money from the government to renovate their building to fit a certain standard?

Some women do, some other women prefer to give their kid a better upbringing by staying home much longer.

Well, they'll have to change, won't they?

My wife go paid for more than 2 months at full pay.

Well, as you can probably guess, I don't think she should have.

Excuse me but I know EXACTLY how much time there is to do things with a child, I am not exaggerating it at all. You seem to think you know everything.

I'm not sure that you would know, if you were at work while she was at home.

That explains a lot. Maybe you should talk to a bunch of mothers (and fathers) about your [sarc] fantastic idea.

Plenty of people who have had children have indeed agreed with my idea when I told them about it.

[mum]

The state would be paying them to implement the changes, it costs them nothing to do it. Have you ever seen a business decide to refuse to take stacks of money from the government to renovate their building to fit a certain standard?

So more money taken from other services and/or more govt debt. Brilliant !!

Well, they'll have to change, won't they?

Why do they have to change? Are you forcing the mothers to work now? This is getting better

Well, as you can probably guess, I don't think she should have.

So you don't want paid time off now? I thought you said you did ??

[/quote]I'm not sure that you would know, if you were at work while she was at home.[quote]
The reasonable thing to do would be to ask me if I knew for sure. Buy maybe you are not reasonable.
I have had the good fortune to be able to take some days off work to "swap" with my wife so she can work while I look after the baby.
I also spend a lot of time talking to my wife about what she does at home and all that stuff. So I have a very good idea how it all works.
You obviously have no idea how it works and look quite foolish to anyone that does.

[Rei Murasame]

So more money taken from other services and/or more govt debt. Brilliant !!

Yes actually, it is brilliant, in a non-sarcastic sense. If people don't want to allocate tax revenues to do it, then they could indeed put it as debt. Using the Austrian economist's definition of what debt is all about (am I surprising you by doing this?), it means that we are trusting that investing in women will create a return that will enable economic growth and make all this budget neutral eventually.

I'm pretty sure that there are some banking institutions - especially the ones that are linked to industrial groups and housing - which would give us a relatively low interest rates* on that borrowing, which would be a pretty solid signal that they trust us to trust female workers. Because it helps them too.

This is especially relevant in countries where more than 20% of working age women are not in work (and obviously are having their potential wasted), which happens to be every country I've ever been to. And it is in reality the situation in most of the EU and pretty much all of Asia.

That's why I asked what 'magical country' you are in.

Why do they have to change? Are you forcing the mothers to work now? This is getting better

Yes, I am indeed wanting to aggressively encourage them to get a paying job.

So you don't want paid time off now? I thought you said you did ??

I don't want it to exceed 2 months.

The reasonable thing to do would be to ask me if I knew for sure.

Well, I did use the word 'if'.

I have had the good fortune to be able to take some days off work to "swap" with my wife so she can work while I look after the baby.

And you will of course admit that that is all pretty inefficient, right?

* EDIT: I should clarify this before I am asked. Since the workers and the employers would be in a corporativist system, the workers themselves would have a hand in how that interest rate came about, because they would be in the bargaining process that brings it into being based on 'confidence' in the plan and what it demands. And also because of how syndicalism works, it would almost be as though it were just an accounting game, since to some extent they'd be borrowing a percentage of the money from their own salaries as well, only to later pay themselves back once the gains are realised.

[SolarCross]

A fascist and an anarcho-capitalist arguing childcare provision on a thread titled 'communists on social issues'.

I wonder why a woman would want to have child if she didn't want to look after the poor wee thing? It is like a man saving up for x amount of years to buy a car then leaving it in the garage or letting his friends use it instead of himself.

[mum]

Yes actually, it is brilliant, in a non-sarcastic sense. If people don't want to allocate tax revenues to do it, then they could indeed put it as debt. Using the Austrian economist's definition of what debt is all about (am I surprising you by doing this?), it means that we are trusting that investing in women will create a return that will enable economic growth and make all this budget neutral eventually.

I'm glad you are not an economist that plans my countries budget... actually you probably would be only slightly worse than what we already have...

Yes, I am indeed wanting to aggressively encourage them to get a paying job.

Ahh of course you are after all a central planner, you simply have a desire to tell other people what is best for them don't you ?

I don't want it to exceed 2 months.

So 2 months is your arbitrary acceptable non-work period. Well done, you are really showing off your contempt for mothers (and people in general) now. (I'm assuming you don't actually think like this, but your words are saying you do)

And you will of course admit that that is all pretty inefficient, right?

Not at all. My work isn't less efficient, in fact it is more efficient. If I have 4 days to do a similar amount of work, I will generally focus more on the higher priority tasks, and maybe even do a few extra hours. My wife's work is perfectly suited to a casual 1 day per week/fortnight/month/whatever.

Why must you make everyone work and behave the way you think is best? Are you so arrogant that you know best for everyone?
For some mothers it is best to work after 2 months, for other mothers it is best to work after 1 year. Forcing your rules upon people makes it unnecessarily hard for some and unnecessarily easy for others.

[Social_Critic]

From what I can observe there is no link between communism and social ideology. Communism always degenerates into a dictatorship, and these repressive regimes tend to be led by psychopaths and megalomaniacs.

These sick puppies impose their personal culture on society at large, and thus we see homophobia, free abortion on demand, widespread prostitution and restrictions on what music can be played and the width of one's pants legs all in one bag. What I described before was Cuba in the mid 60s. Yes, really, they used to worry about whether our pants were too tight.

[Conscript]

Only you would complain about paternalist culture and reveal your own social chauvinist views in the process, which you no doubt would support the legislating of.

Keep it classy SC.

[Social_Critic]

Conscript, I suggest thou propose legislation you think is appropriate and desist from a feeble attempt to predict what legislation I would propose. This way I don't have to waste my time pointing out you don't know who I am nor do you have the foggiest idea of how I think.

[Conscript]

I'm not for legislating morality. You complained about abortion and prostitution, no doubt you would support their criminalization. It's just amusing when you do so while you shit on other social conservative fetishisms, probably just because it's cuba. Lol

[Rei Murasame]

Conscript makes a great point. Social_Critic seems to be saying two things at the same time.

[TheSkyHMaestro]

4) Civil Rights for Minorities: Civil rights for the working masses* (irrespective of nationality, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, etc). Fuck everyone else, no rights for them.

Dude, I want to be your friend.