Hacker News Reader

Comment by Iftheshoefits | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of women who would prefer to breastfeed but can't for a variety of physiological reasons, so this market would at least have the potential to exist even if America's maternity leave laws weren't barbaric.

View on HN

> even if America's maternity leave laws weren't barbaric.

Please don't throw drive-by explosives into Hacker News comments like that. All it does, predictably, is blow up the thread. Your comment had a fine substantive part, but that, of course, was the part that got ignored.

I've detached this subthread from its parent and marked it off-topic.

Can I ask why there is a need to exaggerate creeping into hacker news, particularly where it involves gender topics? Barbaric literally means: Savage, primitive, brutish. You don't help a cause with such inappropriate language. I switch off if people can't use non-political language and I'm a dad with young kids so the topic is relevant to my family.

The word seems entirely appropriate.

As a European, I have not been able to convince family members or friends that aren't intimately acquainted with the US-American situation that there is no universal, legislative framework for paid or unpaid maternity leave.

They usually respond with a variation of "this can't be right; you must be misinformed; it would be horrible if that were the case."

And you (as a populace) aren't even fighting for it! Not visibly, at least. So, honestly, you seem to be the one hurting all sorts of causes with this misdirected attitude of apologism.

Why should someone be paid for adding nothing of value to a company (by being on maternity leave)?

Same reason someone should be taxed to fund the police even if said person can afford a private security guard.

Social good.

I largely agree now -- in fact I think that women and men (since it's the 21st century and all types of people go on maternity leave) should be able to go on paid maternity leave. The leave will be funded by all corporations for social good -- no point in limiting it to the one the person worked for, since a person on maternity leave contributes equally to all of them. Paid maternity leave is a human right, like clean drinking water and fast internet, and I demand corporations provide us with it!

I think you're being sarcastic but if not, I agree with you.

Most developed countries (the USA being the most notable exception) have some form of paid paternity leave as well, ranging from just a few days, to the same level as maternity leave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Where the state provides some or all of the financial assistance for parental leave, one could argue that it is already funded by all corporations, as it would be derived from tax income.

Agreed, everyone who decides to parent a child should get some time off to help raise that child. It would strengthen society.

(And if every company were obligated to provide it, none would have a short-sighted competitive advantage over those who chose not to provide it.)

Why should the company provide maternity benefits and not the state? I don't think it's fair for some three person startup to go bankrupt because employee #1 got pregnant and continues to draw down salary while staying home.

Indeed, the European standard is that it is paid by the state, rather than the employers.

We support a common police force because it makes sense that government has a monopoly on force. If private security forces did the job of police, that person or persons employing the private force would be a society unto themselves, not a part of the same society as the rest of us, and when conflict developed between their police and the common police (or the police of a 3rd party -- another private security force), then we would be at war. In other words, you don't understand why everyone in society supports the police.

At the simplest level, because we the people design laws that allow the company to exist. Without our consent, these invented human things called companies would have no legal standing. So, because we say it should be so.

If the person is adding value while not on maternity (or paternity) leave then it would be worthwhile to pay them while they are gone so they come back and continue working for you. If you don't do it, some other employer probably will, and they may choose to work for the employer with better benefits instead.

It's the cost of participating in a job market where children are reared better.

there is no universal, legislative framework for paid or unpaid maternity leave.

Yes there is, it's call the Family Medical Leave Act. It's a federal law that defines the minimum benefit offered.

I see [0] that it mandates 12 weeks of unpaid leave total -- for pregnancy, childbirth, and the first few weeks of caring for the baby -- which is not hugely generous; but it is something.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of...

Note the requirements, which exclude a lot of people including employees of small businesses: "In order to be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have been at the business at least 12 months, and worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles."

When my sister developed health complications caused by her pregnancy, she had to quit her job. She had no other choice. But even if she hadn't quit, she would not have been eligible for FMLA. Now she is going through a divorce, and since she has no income, I am helping to pay her living expenses. My family is definitely feeling the ripple effects of our inadequate maternity leave laws in the U.S. right now.

It may be best to explain to your relatives that the federal US government was mostly intended to provide for a common defense and a few other common things, and the states were supposed to be the real movers and shakers. It appears that things may be similar in the EU, where the individual decisions are left up to the member nations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe

...(certainly someone can correct me if I'm wrong). If a state wants to mandate maternity leave it can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_...

...In recent times, the states have seemingly ceded a lot of their power to the federal government. Maybe someday there will be an Article V convention and some of that will be reversed.

Aren't you projecting your European biases and beliefs on our American system. Who's to say your system is right, and our system is wrong? Europe takes a different approach to labor and economics than the United States. You may love large socialist structures in Europe, but you trade that off with a slow-growing economy. In the US, we have a smaller socialist structure with fewer safety nets, but we get a faster growing and robust economy. There's no right or wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

The rebuttal wouldn't have had been posted if the original comment not been a histrionic observation.

I'm a US citizen by birth. I just happen to have traveled and lived abroad for a time, and I find the labor laws especially, but the social welfare laws in general in the US to be rather backward and uncivilized: barbaric is a word I chose deliberately because in my opinion it is accurate.

> There's no right or wrong.

If your argument ends in this conclusion, you should assume that there's a fallacy somewhere.

I'm unaware of many "socialist structures" in either Europe or North America, with the exception of Mondragon. That is unless you define socialism as purely meaning "state ownership of industry", which is rather naive, even if widely accepted by the American public.

> robust economy

That's debatable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com