Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

Occassion and modus operandi are two entirely different precepts but you know this, yeah, and your trying ever-so hard to be pedantic. It's cute.

>Paid sick days is something your insurance may or may not cover.

I thought it was the employer who paid the sick days in the states. What you're talking about falls under the FMLA, I believe; which is an entire different set of principles - independent of the actual employer, yeah? Then you reinforce the point that it's not an overall societal protection with the statement, "States laws also may protect workers from getting fired during longer illness."

>Nothing, just rubbing it in.

You've brought nothing of attainable consequence to the conversation, much less any evidence of your assertion. How can you rub in that which you assume to be true but have no evidence for or against? The arrogance is astounding, to say the least.

>If you're successful in Finland (or some other little Euro country), you're going to be far less wealthy than in the US.

I'm assuming you're speaking of purely fiscal wealth, which is a pretty myopic perspective to have. You've provided no evidence of this claim. Are you sure we, the europoor, are actually poor or is this just something you're reverberating from the echo chambers of American exceptionalism.

>You'll be paying for everyone else to live.

Do you not do this with the current Social Security system? The irony is palpable...

>If that makes you happy, go for it.

Already doing it, so this is pretty pedestrian.

>Pat yourself on the back.

Is this not what you're trying to do with your own argument around more pay and less taxes? Pot meet kettle. The banality of this tangible irony is already starting to bore me.

Do you have anything of consequence to proffer or is it going to continually be this mundane level of effort, deriving from your bravado? If the latter of the two, then, you're bringing a knife to a gun show and it wouldn't be fair to keep being you with your own phantom limbs, so I'm dipping out. Have fun!

Tell that to the employer that fired me for doing this lol.

“In the United States, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 44 049 a year”

In addition the website says average, and doesn’t describe whether it means a mean or a median.

edit: kids up to the age of 12.

edit2: it can be unpaid. However you get sickpay instead.

I personally know of two separate acquaintances’ relatives who were hurt at Walmart, fired, sued with no up front legal fees, and won. One got hit by a parking lot shopping cart train and the other got injured in the mechanic shop.

Paid sick leave with a urgent care clinic available at no charge. Someone gets sick (esp with food service) and they work for you, they should provide that clinic at no charge, and you get a legit sick day.

The stick: the health dept should be able to come in and close that food service thing down right then and there if someone is obviously sick. And because it was negligence of the company, the company is still legally obligated to pay the wages of everyone they screwed over. Tipped staff will go by average weekly reported wages.

.... But that's wishful thinking. The NRA - National Restaurant Association pays more and is better connected than public health and respectful treatment. I mean, who really cares if a few sick workers spread influenza as hotspots in food service, and infect many more, and likely kill a few with compromised immune systems? /sarcastic

I often wonder if we could magically make every person on the planet avoid human contact for 1 month if we'd kill off the common cold. I know it's impossible obviously it's just an interesting thought experiment.

Because policies that depend on taking from the economically productive to prop up the unproductive eventually become unsustainable.

Does it upset you that people work jobs instead of voting to receive a million USD annual stipend? Would you vote for a policy giving that to every person?

Back to the Walmart story. There is more we aren’t being told. There are thousands of lawyers drooling to take a case against a company the size of Walmart firing people for simply getting hurt due to the company’s incompetence. OP more than likely was at fault for the accident, which would be grounds for termination in most European countries as well.

Also, I would rather keep my money and not redistribute it to the bottomfeeders.

This is a severe misstatement of that person’s argument. Believing that there is no better alternative isn’t the same as believing something is good.

So many people treat parenthood as a checkmark on the mandatory itinerary of life and once they check it off they just "eat the cost" and pay to have the kids taken care of.

Both those parents, and the poor parents who cannot afford the state / capitalist solutions to child rearing, are being negligent. Kids need familial bonds and constant social contact with their kin group to thrive. You don't drop them at random daycares every day for eight hours starting at six months and produce healthy progeny.

Raising kids is at least a part time job for both parents. Not in monetary expenses, in time. Putting in less than that at any point before pubescence can be catastrophic to the growth of the child. But as a society, because that cost is for most people untenable, they still want to "fulfill their obligation" to past generations, and have kids they cannot adequately allocate time for and end up producing descendants who suffer throughout life for it.

It is an absolute real conversation that needs to be had, that the true cost of parenthood is astronomical in todays society, and that almost nobody is in a financial position to fulfill that obligation such that they aren't risking harm to the child. We haven't had an adequate availability of time on the part of both parents to raise their children since 80% of the population were agrarian farmers* and we have seen rampant expanse of mental illness and maladjustment to society for it ever since.

* of course said farmers were very rarely good parents. Using your kids as hard labor from a young age, using violence as a coercion tactic against them, treating them like property and an investment rather than people, not feeding their curiosity or inquisitiveness out of your own ignorance and simple mindedness taught by your parents. It was a real mess that compulsory public education in part did a lot to stop, but that doesn't preclude the availability of parents and family being so critical to the well-being of young minds while also being absent from contemporary society for the vast majority of children.

I had always considered myself as a rather staid somewhat conservative person with orthodox views of my own volition. Until I realized that ‘feminists’ considered my views as fringe. That’s the ‘grandmother effect’..a matriarchal upbringing is entirely different from a feminist upbringing. The former is about freedom/owning power and the latter is about competition/struggle(in my understanding)

Every family needs a support system. And every human person does NOT have to be a parent. Parenting is a big scary and A Very Important Job.

I am reminded of Robert Wright’s Moral Animal where he beckons altruism and the chapter on kinship. That’s the ‘grandmother effect’.

It’s a topic worthy of a proper thesis.

If you are made a victim of property crime (i.e. most nonviolent crime) there is no good solution if the property can't easily be returned. Social standards and possible punishment is what prevents that kind of crime and even it doesn't do a very good job.

> at best it’s protection from crime that presents an active danger to your safety.

Well that's more than you can say for the cops. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

Is it just the following? "High GDP per capita is positively correlated with other metrics of development, so it is an interesting exercise to attempt to understand why this applies more strongly in some societies than in others". If so, I agree with you that it's an interesting historical and sociological question.

I guess what I have a negative reaction to is people living in modern parliamentary democracies like the UK or France, people who are used to a system where elected officials tend to accurately represent their constituent's wills and are able to make those wills reality, scratching their heads failing to understand why the US doesn't "just" pass some reforms to make life better. From my perspective this is like asking why Syrians don't just decide to stop having a war. (I am sure if you polled Syrians, 99.9% of them would say they wish the war weren't happening!)

The US political and institutional system is so extremely deadlocked and broken that there is no person alive -- not even Trump or any Senator or any other powerful person you care to name, who would be able to institute mandatory sick leave for workers, free childcare, or any other plausible solution to the problem stated in this headline, no matter how much they wanted to. So it gets a bit tiring to constantly hear moralizing about these issues from people who don't realize that no path to fixing them exists.

In any event, why have only five days? If five days is good, why aren't two weeks even better? How could five days be enough to care for your family? Why not a whole month, that's even better than two weeks! I'll tell you why: Because it's not a free lunch. These laws are made so that politicians can sell them to clueless voters, not because they make sense.