Question Parents

[dysfunction]

Well the thing is @Scouse is that in general people without kids are not disadvantaged by companies.

Not that many years ago companies would take advantage of a women who had children by paying them a lot less than others doing the same job. And it still happens even within government departments.

Forcing "equality" is the only way to combat this.

Yes things are not black and white but you need some something to prevent exploitation as what has happened in the past.

I'm sorry you or your partner feel they are not given special treatment because you don't have kids but it's better than the alternative.

 

[Scouse]

Concentrating on the wrong point again @dysfunction.

 

[dysfunction]

Concentrating on the wrong point again @dysfunction.

I'm focusing on your first post as that is what you started with.
If you change focus then that is your issue not mine.

 

[Scouse]

You mean you're ignoring the gradual and development of an argument and cherry picking something because it suits what you want to say...

 

[Moriath]

Which you seem to do all the time when it suits you.

 

[Gwadien]

Okay...

How do you reward non-parents for their dedication? Or should paid "parental" leave just be rolled out to all?

You don't.

No.

 

[Scouse]

Okay...

*Sigh* - whilst I admire your resolute sticking to "fuck everyone but parents" attitude:

However, if people don't want to entertain the argument that everyone should be given similar assistance to help enable their lifestyle choices ... then we can broaden the argument out?

How about - why are parents given so many advantages to the exclusion of people that require help - many of which aren't given much choice about their circumstance as they weren't conscious lifestyle options?

Come on. How about it. Finite resources, disabled people, carers, single parents, no choice, yadda yadda yadda.

In a world of limited resources, justify the prioritisation of two able-bodied people's choice over those in a more desparate situation who have no choice.

 

[old.Osy]

Thats the bit you dont like.

in reality childless couples are being subsidised by the majority.

Not having kids isnt saving anything, you are not skipping dessert and right in claiming a reduction on your part of the bill.
They get subsidies, because they put more in to the pot.

"See, if you have nails, you hammer them in. No nails? just hammering for you."

 

[Gwadien]

*Sigh* - whilst I admire your resolute sticking to "fuck everyone but parents" attitude:


Come on. How about it. Finite resources, disabled people, carers, single parents, no choice, yadda yadda yadda.

In a world of limited resources, justify the prioritisation of two able-bodied people's choice over those in a more desparate situation who have no choice.

Surely with that logic we should gas the disabled and old and just focus on getting maximum productivity out of the workers of the future.

They're the drain on the finite resources, not the future workers.

 

[Scouse]

Jeebuz. Get a fucking grip on your emotions @Gwadien!

 

[DaGaffer]

*Sigh* - whilst I admire your resolute sticking to "fuck everyone but parents" attitude:


Come on. How about it. Finite resources, disabled people, carers, single parents, no choice, yadda yadda yadda.

In a world of limited resources, justify the prioritisation of two able-bodied people's choice over those in a more desparate situation who have no choice.

I note with interest you've ignored my post and made no attempt to quantify the split of those "finite resources" at the moment. So basically you're just axe-grinding.

 

[Scouse]

I note with interest you've ignored my post and made no attempt to quantify the split of those "finite resources" at the moment. So basically you're just axe-grinding.

Just been busy is all. With all my free time n cash I'm going on holiday in 4 hours

Next week

 

[Access Denied]

I can see your point @Scouse but I will argue against it. You quite rightly state that parents should be entitled to help fro the Government but that childless people should also be rewarded for their dedication to the job/choice to not reproduce.

The fact of the matter is that wages, generally, haven't been rising anywhere near the rate of inflation. Parents have to pay for the usual bills but they also have to pay for EVERYTHING to do with their children. Clothes, nappies, car seats, food, (Do you have any idea how expensive baby milk is?) etc, etc.

One argument is that people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them. However the number of people who can afford to have kids, raise them and pay for everything associated with them, without the sort of help they get, is growing increasingly small. Cutting benefits, even to help carers, who I agree need more help, would only screw the vast majority of families who are struggling even with help.

You specifically mentioned holiday/maternity/days off.

I'll give where I work as an example. Everyone gets the same number of days off from the start. (The number goes up according to number of years served.) Maternity leave has been proven time and again to be of benefit to society and the workforce. Any days off people take for their kids because of childcare issues/sickness/watching them do something are more than likely to be unpaid. As for the childless having to work harder because people take maternity/paternity leave, that has nothing to do with the parents and it isn't fair to put that on them because they made a lifestyle choice. Covering for maternity, as has already been covered is the province of the employer and if it doesn't happen then they're a shitty employer.

I quite like proper discussion so give me your views.