population decline

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Saturday night on a message board filled with men and THIS is what y'all talk about? I'm laughing my tits off.

[YGIFS 19449]

30-something professional woman, "I guess you make a compelling argument.  I'm going to start trying with my husband right quick.  I assume there'll be top-notch coverage for my pregnancy that my employer based shit policy doesn't cover?  There'll be extended maternity leave so I can bond with this new baby and be the model mother you've discussed.  Then I can count on some kind of quality daycare for my baby either through the state or a mandate to my company/private insurer?  I'll bank on universal pre-K, quality pediatric care from the state or my insurer, and supplemental services for when I can't get out of work on time?" 

Most Texas Men: "Best we can do is a PSA that nobody will see."  

[Celery Man 20931]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Saturday night on a message board filled with men and THIS is what y'all talk about? I'm laughing my tits off.

Shhh the men are talking

[Thetexashammer 1062]

59 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Saturday night on a message board filled with men and THIS is what y'all talk about? I'm laughing my tits off.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Sawbonz 27536]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Saturday night on a message board filled with men and THIS is what y'all talk about? I'm laughing my tits off.

[YGIFS 19449]

Yeah, we're probably coming across as man-splaining and condescending.  not that women need our advocacy, they need to just not have our bullshit foisted upon them.  There's just not that many women posters on Surly (for obvious reasons).  But our insight on this matter run a far distant second to, "Women in their 20's should take a compulsory class in their egg metrics, that'll save our species."  We're already obfuscating their access to birth control, fertility treatments, pregnancy options, and other contraception and health services.  But yeah, a robust ABC after-school mini-series about "Sally and her Egg Count" should fix America back to Puritanical Solemnity.  

[TKthunder2 4985]

The conversation is about population decline. Women control that far more than men in Western countries. The bare minimum you can do is to provide education/awareness. You want to go further, you can look to other Westernized nations which have government mandated maternity leave/benefits, subsidized childcare, child healthcare and even cash payments. None of those have been proven/confirmed to be effective (as the birth rate continues to drop), but I agree with @Celery Man that the bar people think they need to be at to “comfortably” start a family is higher than ever which is also concerning.

[YGIFS 19449]

Perhaps it's just evolution.  Once women are given the choice to procreate over the birth-rate averages, at/below the replacement averages, or just not al all-maybe that's just the end result of mother nature?  Maybe it's free will.  Maybe it's spite, selfishness, or just a moral choice they've made for themselves as adults of agency and ethics and we have no place to judge.  Or if you don't believe in nature, then God wouldn't miracle'd a baby into them by 35 years old, no?  Give 'em benefits and support for their babies or don't.  Our choice as a Republic.  But let's stay the fuck outta their way either way, help if they need help, and mostly get the fuck outta their way.  Nature is screaming out to us that we don't need any extra people, but as usual---our fucking arrogant asses think we know better.  

[HornOnTheBayou 8905]

I have figured out the solution to all of the world's problems. @TKthunder2 will go on radio, television, and the internet and explain female fertility to all listeners. Yes, a man will explain the female reproductive system to everyone, including women. Anyone see any problems with this?

[TKthunder2 4985]

16 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I have figured out the solution to all of the world's problems. @TKthunder2 will go on radio, television, and the internet and explain female fertility to all listeners. Yes, a man will explain the female reproductive system to everyone, including women. Anyone see any problems with this?

Anyone see a problem that we can’t have a legitimate discussion talking about awareness and education of scientific facts and it turns into a controversy somehow? You could debate the effectiveness but instead you attack the messenger. As someone who has been attacked from both the right and the left leaning posters on this site…stupid shit like this why our country is so damn divided. Which is a shame.

[YGIFS 19449]

Would you describe this political divide as a "Vast Difference" or Vas Deferens?  

Dude, we get what you're saying.  You mean well.  Never hurts to give young women more unbiased access to fertility and sex education.  We're all on the same page there.  We're just being sarcastic dicks for two reasons: 

1.  PSA's?  I mean may as well be AM radio or leaflets at the airport given the technological landscape in which young women are reached about important topics.  And particularly antiquated when produced by middle-aged men by us.

2.  It's coming at a really awkward time, you gotta admit.  We're grating down their rights as fast as anyone can arrange it, but a series of store-window displays on "Your Hymen and You" is gonna somehow walk this assault back on their autonomy.  They're not turning their backs on God or morality or femininity or evolution.  They're turning into the light.  They don't need our help to do that, they just need us to get the fuck outta the way.

[Celery Man 20931]

I agree that it is really hard to have good conversations in topics like this that -  legitimate topics worthy of discussion that are also vehicles for our worst people to almost talk about replacement theory, handmaid’s tale fascism, etc

not accusing you (tk) of that at all

Edited April 21 by Celery Man

[Armybrat 40822]

11 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Saturday night on a message board filled with men and THIS is what y'all talk about? I'm laughing my tits off.

Pics don’t load late at night?

[Pancho 44703]

12 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Have any of you ever watched a PSA? Have you ever seen a PSA and thought Holy Shit I didn’t know that? No? Because generally people on here this site (with some major exceptions) have above average intelligence. Do you think we need PSA about being nice to people, not littering, that fathers are good? No, the majority of people don’t NEED these PSAs because we know these obvious things already.

But still we run them anyway, in hope that young people hear this message early and often for the betterment of society. Argue that PSAs don’t work or are ineffective, but you can’t argue that people don’t know because there are very real examples of smart people making not smart decisions because society tells them there is no rush. For example…

Here is a NYT op ed discussing why having a child later in life is no big deal and a WAPO article about a woman who believed all the rhetoric and ultimately was unable to have the child she always wanted. Maybe she would have trouble conceiving no matter what, but the sentiment that you can have it all on your own timeline is in stark contrast to science/logic/reality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/opinion/prenatal-postpartum.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/feature/she-championed-the-idea-that-freezing-your-eggs-would-free-your-career-but-things-didnt-quite-work-out/

This has nothing to do with men. If a woman chooses not to have a kid then great, power to her. But if she wants a child, she should not start thinking about that at 35 and I’m still not sure how that is a controversial message since it is literally what every OBGYN would tell you.

 

You are suggesting a PSA/class about when the best time for a woman to have a child and you are suggesting it be only for women. 

 

[Sawbonz 27536]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

You are suggesting a PSA/class about when the best time for a woman to have a child and you are suggesting it be only for women. 

 

Should be an afterschool special IMO

[Nivek 16918]

So, while our fascist elements within our state and federal government are restricting women's access to health care, you are simultaneously suggesting we inform women they need to have more kids at a younger age, but not be whores and have them out of wedlock.  And don't do the crime (sex) if they can't do the time (raising kids) because we want to associate child-rearing with punitive responsibilities.   

It never ceases to amaze me how much people want to dic(k)tate the lives of others.  

 

 

[UTGrad98 2271]

9 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So, while our fascist elements within our state and federal government are restricting women's access to health care, you are simultaneously suggesting we inform women they need to have more kids at a younger age, but not be whores and have them out of wedlock.  And don't do the crime (sex) if they can't do the time (raising kids) because we want to associate child-rearing with punitive responsibilities.   

It never ceases to amaze me how much people want to dic(k)tate the lives of others.  

 

 

"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien de Robespierre

[Schulz2.0 28951]

Wrong thread.

Edited April 21 by Schulz2.0

[Rockwell Torrey 1280]

11 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I have figured out the solution to all of the world's problems. @TKthunder2 will go on radio, television, and the internet and explain female fertility to all listeners. Yes, a man will explain the female reproductive system to everyone, including women. Anyone see any problems with this?

Japan agrees with you.

 

[Snake Diggity 4619]

On 4/19/2024 at 8:52 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Women used to care about finding a man who could provide and protect.

Our society is generally safe (most crime at historic lows, despite steep rise in property crime) so they don’t need protectors.

More women than men are getting advanced degrees and able to support themselves.

As a father of a young daughter these are great advancements which are generally beneficial to all.

That being said, what is out of whack is women’s understanding of their own priorities. Only 5% of women claim they do NOT want children, however more and more are waiting until their mid to late thirties to pursue that goal.

As a country we do a great job of showcasing women’s empowerment in the workforce, but we do a horrible job of explaining the basics of fertility.

Honestly this is something that should be required to be taught in high school, reviewed regularly by OBGYN’s with their patients, and something the government should have running on PSAs.

If knowing the data, you CHOOSE to wait or not have kids until later then that is okay, but the number of 30 years olds who don’t realize they have already lost 90% of their eggs is astounding and that should not be the norm.

I think it’s not so much women not knowing the realities of fertility, it’s more they try to thread the needle to have it all by waiting until they’re more mature and/or find the right partner before getting married and having kids.  Anecdotally, that’s what happened with my wife and me.  We got married when my wife was 29 and had as many kids as we could before she turned 35.  That ended up being 2, when she really wanted 3.

It’s possible making it easier to have wealth/career goals and still bear children would help.  But Im not sure how effective it would be, since similar efforts in other places haven’t yielded results.

[ConferenceRoom 6141]

20 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Grimly relevant. 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

3 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

Grimly relevant. 

[Nivek 16918]

1 hour ago, UTGrad98 said:

"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien de Robespierre

Same wonderful man also said this: "the Government has to defend itself" and "to the enemies of the people it owes only death"

[3 Stacks 9]

22 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Unfortunately you couldn't afford to do that today.

Our money is broken.

13 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Nature is screaming out to us that we don't need any extra people,

How so?

[SydneyCarton 48054]

On 4/20/2024 at 3:22 PM, Nivek said:

This is getting Andrew Tateish.

That's probably becuase the latest flurry of discussion stemmed from a link posted by the latest sock of GRUHorn, and was from an esteemed publication literally owned by the fucking Mormon Church. LITERALLY owned by the Mormon Church. I can't imagine a more neutral source to the topic of female empowerment and a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to have children. 

[Frank Drebin 5655]

22 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

It’s possible making it easier to have wealth/career goals and still bear children would help.  But Im not sure how effective it would be, since similar efforts in other places haven’t yielded results.

[Captainant 27630]

It's funny seeing all the business thread posters coming here and complaining that women aren't having enough children nowadays. I've got a secret for you: it's the economy, stupid!

People aren't real keen to have children when they feel like they're struggling to survive and just tread water. It doesn't make sense for most people to have children when they're already working 2 or 3 jobs with unpredictable hours and scheduling and shit pay. 

Sure the big economic line is going up on the chart in the sky, but most people aren't getting the benefit from it.

 

And also - YIKES - from tkthunder soft arguing for a handmaiden's tale. Women don't have reproductive rights AND are too stupid to plan for themselves when they should have kids? They just keep slipping down the social ladder with y'all eh?

[YGIFS 19449]

I can't believe his "Shut Up & Breed" science fair poster didn't take first place at State.  

[Celery Man 20931]

this is probably "i'm 14 and this is deep", but i'm curious about the change in "%women participating in the workforce" alongside "number of incomes required to achieve middle class household status" over time

23 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

It’s possible making it easier to have wealth/career goals and still bear children would help.  But Im not sure how effective it would be, since similar efforts in other places haven’t yielded results.

say more, i'd be interested to read whatever studies you're referring to. I work at a danish company, anecdotally it seems like having children (and taking extended maternity leaves) is much less of an impediment to career growth for our female danish counterparts than I've seen in my experience in the US. But, that's highly speculative and anecdotal.

[Captainant 27630]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

say more, i'd be interested to read whatever studies you're referring to. I work at a danish company, anecdotally it seems like having children (and taking extended maternity leaves) is much less of an impediment to career growth for our female danish counterparts than I've seen in my experience in the US. But, that's highly speculative and anecdotal.

I'd say the European business culture is way more comfortable with people just going missing for a month or two at a time. Those fuckers do it every year for vacation, so absorbing an extra period of leave for a newborn is not that much extra load. Here in the States, we are 100% grindcore all the time for the shareholder and nobody takes vacation, so being gone for six weeks is a major disruption to the cultural norm.

[TKthunder2 4985]

I work in Tech my wife works in health care finance, we BOTH took 12 weeks leave for each of our children and both got promoted within 12 months of returning (separate times). This is just anecdotal obviously, but the whole it sets your career back doesn’t seem to be as true as it once was.

The hard part is going back to work and putting the kids in expensive daycare. Many I know had a hard time affording that and their job performance suffered while they struggled to take care of their kid and do their job all day. I think that’s a real problem that could use some legislation to help. I’ve always found it weird that we cover grade school with taxes but not daycare when both serve the same purpose.

[Celery Man 20931]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd say the European business culture is way more comfortable with people just going missing for a month or two at a time. Those fuckers do it every year for vacation, so absorbing an extra period of leave for a newborn is not that much extra load. Here in the States, we are 100% grindcore all the time for the shareholder and nobody takes vacation, so being gone for six weeks is a major disruption to the cultural norm.

I strongly agree that it has a ton to do with culture. And specifically with the danes (scandinavians in general?) there's a thing about the harsh winters and a culture of consensus and communal support that differs from other vacation friendly european cultures. I'm sure someone will bring up the "homogeneity 😉😜" point, which of course is not irrelevant even if it a tasty treat for xenophobes.

[tbone_ 14109]

With respect to the grind core comment above, FWIW, I work for a public company and we just increased maternity/paternity leave to up to 120 days. And we used to be the king of hard asses.

Just my observation, but there def seems to be a push for more friendly work environments among groups I deal with.

[Celery Man 20931]

1 minute ago, TKthunder2 said:

The hard part is going back to work and putting the kids in expensive daycare. Many I know had a hard time affording that and their job performance suffered while they struggled to take care of their kid and do their job all day. I think that’s a real problem that could use some legislation to help. I’ve always found it weird that we cover grade school with taxes but not daycare when both serve the same purpose.

Agree with you and tbone that the culture seems to be shifting here as well. And the part you highlighted is one where it seems like we could have an impact. Support childcare, stop fucking up the public schools. It's more important than almost anything else we burn "your tax dollars" on.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I would agree that safety nets (whether government, family, or society) are something that perhaps American culture seems to find alien and/or abhorrent but those are the very things that can encourage young women to consider childbirth. Sometimes it is not the thought that "I can have it all" that is the career (desire) motivation, it is the fear that "it can all be taken away from me" that is the decision driver. Regardless of child support financial arrangements, a woman with offspring who suddenly becomes single (through divorce or other circumstances) faces poverty at a much higher percentage. If she has no higher education due to staying at home post HS or was not employed (while having babies) even with a college degree , then entering the workforce at a disadvantage is a given. The situation is improving in some fields, but it's still difficult enough to give one pause and perhaps want to have some skills, money, or other things in place and getting those things takes time. That was pointed out--that it's a choice, but our country has only ever really considered the upper and upper middle class women when questioning those things because working class women have almost always had to work throughout history and manage both and without few if any safety nets at all. Some act as if women are essentially instinctual creatures who don't have the intellectual capacity to think, to question, to invent, to dream.

[Snake Diggity 4619]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

this is probably "i'm 14 and this is deep", but i'm curious about the change in "%women participating in the workforce" alongside "number of incomes required to achieve middle class household status" over time

say more, i'd be interested to read whatever studies you're referring to. I work at a danish company, anecdotally it seems like having children (and taking extended maternity leaves) is much less of an impediment to career growth for our female danish counterparts than I've seen in my experience in the US. But, that's highly speculative and anecdotal.

Studies show that the policies do in fact make it easier for women to have both family and a career; unfortunately, that does not translate into an increased birth rate.  So basically, even though it’s easier to have both in those places, those women are still choosing to have fewer children.

[Captainant 27630]

1 minute ago, Snake Diggity said:

Studies show that the policies do in fact make it easier for women to have both family and a career; unfortunately, that does not translate into an increased birth rate.  So basically, even though it’s easier to have both in those places, those women are still choosing to have fewer children.

I don't think it's as binary as you're framing it. It's that there's more uncertainty and risk in having a child now than ever, and costs are higher than ever with median pay remaining almost stagnant. Even if it's not as much of an impediment to career growth now, having a child is still a massive burden that with little to no safety net, many couples don't feel they have the breathing room or time to responsibly have kids. So you get fewer kids, born later in the parents life

[Snake Diggity 4619]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't think it's as binary as you're framing it. It's that there's more uncertainty and risk in having a child now than ever, and costs are higher than ever with median pay remaining almost stagnant. Even if it's not as much of an impediment to career growth now, having a child is still a massive burden that with little to no safety net, many couples don't feel they have the breathing room or time to responsibly have kids. So you get fewer kids, born later in the parents life

I agree with all this.  My point was that what seems like a logical fix (make it easier for women to have both a career and a family) appeared to have been tried elsewhere and not addressed the full problem.

I kinda feel like society has reached a point of ugly truth: having kids kind of sucks.  Even if you have the resources to accommodate them, whatever you don’t outsource is still a real pain in the ass.  Life has evolved to the point that we don’t need children for work or companionship or religious obligations.  So we are left with some pretty narrow benefits of having kids and a lot of people don’t see the value.  I say all this as someone whose entire life revolves around my kids; they are my primary source of joy and purpose in life.  But I wouldn’t really recommend having kids to anyone and totally understand why more people are choosing to forego the experience.

[Captainant 27630]

7 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

And to the shifting tone of American culture, I've defintely seen it. I haven't worked in or around an organization in probably 5 years who doesn't do 6 months paternity leave, much less maternity leave, and 50-100% reimbursement of IVF, and nobody bats at an eye at people utilizing these benefits. 

Something tells me there's a difference in those benefits depending on your pay scale. I do pretty good in bigtech but I only get 6 weeks paternity (in like, a week, holy shit holy shit!) and that's pretty standard. None of the other benefits you mention though, that would all just be insurance premiums for me.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

I find it interesting how many of the comments here come from the bubble that most posters (including me) live in.  The vast majority of Americans are not working in companies offering any maternity leave above what is required by law, and paternity leave isn't a phrase most Americans have ever heard in their life.  Similarly, blaming shrinking birth rates on women becoming more educated and engaging in higher-level roles in the workforce is silly when it only applies to a small percentage of women in America.  While it may be contributing in a small way to birth rates, it simply cannot be the primary cause.  Most women in America are not educated and are not working in career-oriented jobs.  Neither are most men.  Around 40% of American adults have a college degree.  When you consider how many of those degrees are completely useless when it comes to finding a job, you can probably cut the number down to around 20% of Americans holding a degree in something that is a net positive on their financial outlook. If you add in industry certifications maybe you can get that number up to 30%.  Women earn slightly more degrees than men, but it's close enough to half to say around 15% of the population accounts for this theory of women working up the career ladder accounting for declines in birth rates.  That just isn't statistically significant enough to be a root cause. I think it's too easy for most of us to forget that the majority of the country doesn't live like us, doesn't earn like us, isn't educated like us, and does not make decisions based on the same criteria that we do.  

Based on absolutely nothing of substance, my theory for the birthrate issue is that life sucks right now for so many.  People are miserable and don't have a lot of hope for the future. Happy people have more children.  

[Celery Man 20931]

7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I find it interesting how many of the comments here come from the bubble that most posters (including me) live in.  The vast majority of Americans are not working in companies offering any maternity leave above what is required by law, and paternity leave isn't a phrase most Americans have ever heard in their life.  Similarly, blaming shrinking birth rates on women becoming more educated and engaging in higher-level roles in the workforce is silly when it only applies to a small percentage of women in America.  While it may be contributing in a small way to birth rates, it simply cannot be the primary cause.  Most women in America are not educated and are not working in career-oriented jobs.  Neither are most men.  Around 40% of American adults have a college degree.  When you consider how many of those degrees are completely useless when it comes to finding a job, you can probably cut the number down to around 20% of Americans holding a degree in something that is a net positive on their financial outlook. If you add in industry certifications maybe you can get that number up to 30%.  Women earn slightly more degrees than men, but it's close enough to half to say around 15% of the population accounts for this theory of women working up the career ladder accounting for declines in birth rates.  That just isn't statistically significant enough to be a root cause. I think it's too easy for most of us to forget that the majority of the country doesn't live like us, doesn't earn like us, isn't educated like us, and does not make decisions based on the same criteria that we do.  

Based on absolutely nothing of substance, my theory for the birthrate issue is that life sucks right now for so many.  People are miserable and don't have a lot of hope for the future. Happy people have more children.  

this is vastly overstated and your conclusions are wrong. if you want to talk about comparative cost-benefit of technical vs non technical degrees, OK, but that's not what you are doing here. i also think your numbers are wrong across the board, and while I agree that there are real problems impacting people's optimism about the future right now I doubt that people were happier in the '80s or <insert decade here>.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

10 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

this is vastly overstated and your conclusions are wrong. if you want to talk about comparative cost-benefit of technical vs non technical degrees, OK, but that's not what you are doing here. i also think your numbers are wrong across the board, and while I agree that there are real problems impacting people's optimism about the future right now I doubt that people were happier in the '80s or <insert decade here>.

Okay.    I pulled those numbers quickly from a google search.  I don't see any numbers countering them, but I'm willing to listen if you've got anything substantive to add.   Those numbers include trade school graduates, for what it's worth, and those are clearly a financial net positive for msot.  I don't put much stock in degrees earned from for-profit fly-by-night schools, however, which are also included in those numbers and make up a significant chunk of earned degrees.  I was not speaking to the tired debate about liberal arts v. technical degrees.  I suspect you and I might agree on that one, as I think there is a great deal of value in liberal arts degrees.  I don't put a lot of value in a degree from the University of Phoenix, however, which is what I was referencing.   

My point is that this entire discussion is ridiculous as it's happening in an echo chamber that doesn't represent the majority of the country.  We are not, by and large, a country full of highly educated individuals working in high-paying jobs.  Trying to draw broad conclusions based on a small subset of Americans is ridiculous, but that's what is going on in this thread.  Most women are not foregoing kids because they're focused on their careers.  The insinuation is ridiculous on its face, as most women are not pursuing careers at all.  They're trying to survive and working wage earning jobs.

As for the happiness factor, I invite you to look up any number of studies conducted on the subject.  Almost all will say people are less happy now than they were forty years ago.  Social sciences are largely speculative, so you can certainly argue with the data out there, but I don't find it a controversial take when we objectly live in more isolated environment with less upward mobility than we did forty years ago. 

Edited April 22 by Samson's Wig

[Celery Man 20931]

I did in fact misunderstand what you mean by "useful degrees" and my quick google search for percent of degree holding american adults gives me 54.3. I'll have to look into the happiness thing when I have a longer minute.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

36 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I did in fact misunderstand what you mean by "useful degrees" and my quick google search for percent of degree holding american adults gives me 54.3. I'll have to look into the happiness thing when I have a longer minute.

I saw that as well, but the 54% number includes industry certifications.  Actual degrees, including associates, trade school graduates, and all of the for-profit University of Phoenix type degrees earned add up to somewhere between 40-44%. 

[Samson's Wig 3191]

38 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Yes, women working at wide range of low skill positions and careers that make up a lot of the economy are not afforded those benefits, but they also aren't NOT having babies because it will kneecap them from being able to make it to VP or Partner or ELT/C-Suite, etc.

Agreed.  They're not having babies for some other reason.  That's what I was getting at.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

3 hours ago, BeardIP said:

And to the shifting tone of American culture, I've defintely seen it. I haven't worked in or around an organization in probably 5 years who doesn't do 6 months paternity leave, much less maternity leave, and 50-100% reimbursement of IVF, and nobody bats at an eye at people utilizing these benefits. 

I work at a refinery that has really good benefits. I got 3 weeks paternity leave. My wife works for a small (less than 50 employees) company. She got 3 months maternity leave. My wife has also probably reached the ceiling for her ability to be promoted until our kids get older because of the needed flexibility having kids.

[956 Worldwide 34699]

I’ve lived and worked for the last six years in Europe. Nations that have some of the very best maternity and paternity benefits also have some of the lowest birth rates.  We should do that stuff because it’s good for existing moms and babies and not in a bid to boost birth rates.

Birth rates have been declining since I’ve been officially off the market and all the ladies just keep hoping that will change. I don’t blame them for not wanting to settle for less. 

[Foosters 17827]

28 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I work at a refinery that has really good benefits. I got 3 weeks paternity leave. My wife works for a small (less than 50 employees) company. She got 3 months maternity leave. My wife has also probably reached the ceiling for her ability to be promoted until our kids get older because of the needed flexibility having kids.

Yeah, I'm a government attorney in the socialist republic of California and we all get the minimum required by federal law. Not a day more.

[Farmerted 125]

Do you guys know more than two people who make less than 50k a year ?
 

Our office is predominantly women. The women /couples that are well off all have 2-4 kids average is 3 .The people that make let’s say less than 40 k have kids most are young and have 1-3 . They take off when they have babies most  come back some don’t . They save pto. The single low income earners get housing support / child tax credits . They have family support systems that work well. All seem very happy. The ones with no kids are either young early 20s and not yet ready and the few who don’t and are older which is 1 out of 30 just don’t want them . It’s not 1950, we’re less farm oriented and even less dogmatically religious. Part of the progression of women’s rights in this country is they don’t have to sit at home and have 5 kids ( however one of our family’s does just that) pregnancy rates in our office keep our insurance rates higher than normal.. it’s going to be fine .There are plenty of babies , plus with drones and Ai we won’t need baby’s to fight wars or do mundane things . We got plenty of other problems ……..

PS the family that has 5 they are all girls plenty of baby makers . 

[Celery Man 20931]

22 minutes ago, Farmerted said:

Do you guys know more than two people who make less than 50k a year ?