CNN: How paid family leave hurts women
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
CNN you flip flop more than a house of pancakes. I specifically remember you pushing FOR paid leave and now your against it... Is CNN just changing sides to be the opposite of whatever Trump is? I'd think they would be praising the president for doing something they have been pushing for.

"President Donald Trump's 2018 budget will push for the creation of a federal paid family leave program that will provide families after the birth or adoption of a child with six weeks of paid leave, a Trump administration official tells CNN."


How paid family leave hurts women

This surely sounds like a boon to working women, who (on average) do more child rearing and housework than working men do. To those who object to some of the budget cuts to social programs, the administration's policy on family leave may even seem heartwarmingly egalitarian.

Unfortunately, a review of states and countries with government-mandated paid leave programs indicates they harm young women, whether they're available to fathers or not. This is because parental leave policies are associated with an increase in leave-taking and childbearing, which leads to lost labor or increased health care costs for companies. As a result, employers may assume women will cost more to employ than before the policy, and company decisions to hire, promote, train or pay women less can reflect that, at women's expense.

.... https://archive.fo/3MvYF#selection-1243.0-1257.265



http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/health/paid-leave-chances-national-law/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/health/paid-family-leave-new-york-passage-momentum/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/05/pf/paid-family-leave/
271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Ypsilanti, Michigan
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
Doesn't surprise me. I've honestly become so fed up with CNN in recent. (Including FOX and MSNBC) I used to like CNN but they sure do flipflop a lot...

Now I'm primarily using other sources like the Economist, and sites such as MarketWatch for my news.
15165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

Rujikin wrote:

CNN you flip flop more than a house of pancakes. I specifically remember you pushing FOR paid leave and now your against it... Is CNN just changing sides to be the opposite of whatever Trump is? I'd think they would be praising the president for doing something they have been pushing for.

"President Donald Trump's 2018 budget will push for the creation of a federal paid family leave program that will provide families after the birth or adoption of a child with six weeks of paid leave, a Trump administration official tells CNN."


How paid family leave hurts women

This surely sounds like a boon to working women, who (on average) do more child rearing and housework than working men do. To those who object to some of the budget cuts to social programs, the administration's policy on family leave may even seem heartwarmingly egalitarian.

Unfortunately, a review of states and countries with government-mandated paid leave programs indicates they harm young women, whether they're available to fathers or not. This is because parental leave policies are associated with an increase in leave-taking and childbearing, which leads to lost labor or increased health care costs for companies. As a result, employers may assume women will cost more to employ than before the policy, and company decisions to hire, promote, train or pay women less can reflect that, at women's expense.

.... https://archive.fo/3MvYF#selection-1243.0-1257.265



http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/health/paid-leave-chances-national-law/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/health/paid-family-leave-new-york-passage-momentum/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/05/pf/paid-family-leave/


That's nice but I really would like to be able to leave work and still get paid. I don't care what some economist says. I don't care if it negatively impacts working women "on average" or even if it negatively impacts me, my friends, or my family members in a personal financial sense. I want to get paid to not work. If they don't like it they should just invent the ability to grow babies in a vat or something.

Also, that hypothetical hiring policy is shamelessly and blatantly sexist, and I imagine it wouldn't fly in the face of anti-discrimination laws.

Also this article seems to exclusively or almost exclusively argue for deregulation and cite sources that are pro-classical-liberalism. I'm not interested enough to review the content to decide whether said sources happen to be correct in this specific case but I thought people reading this thread should know.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17


Summary: The main article is coming up with reasons against paid leave. While the other 3 links criticize America for not having paid leave and are from a couple years ago.
15165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

Rujikin wrote:



Summary: The main article is coming up with reasons against paid leave. While the other 3 links criticize America for not having paid leave and are from a couple years ago.


No, I got that. I just wasn't interested in CNN's alleged hypocrisy, because there are any number of factors that could explain it which wasn't interested in investigating because it isn't really worth my time. But since you insist I took a (marginally) closer look.

The article you reference that's anti-paid-leave is by Vanessa Brown Calder while the other articles are by entirely different people. I'm not already suspicious that CNN deliberately chooses what it publishes to promote a specific ideological line, so I don't buy the allegation that different people having different opinions is indicative of flip-flopping.
4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

Rujikin wrote:

CNN you flip flop more than a house of pancakes. I specifically remember you pushing FOR paid leave and now your against it... Is CNN just changing sides to be the opposite of whatever Trump is? I'd think they would be praising the president for doing something they have been pushing for.

"President Donald Trump's 2018 budget will push for the creation of a federal paid family leave program that will provide families after the birth or adoption of a child with six weeks of paid leave, a Trump administration official tells CNN."


How paid family leave hurts women

This surely sounds like a boon to working women, who (on average) do more child rearing and housework than working men do. To those who object to some of the budget cuts to social programs, the administration's policy on family leave may even seem heartwarmingly egalitarian.

Unfortunately, a review of states and countries with government-mandated paid leave programs indicates they harm young women, whether they're available to fathers or not. This is because parental leave policies are associated with an increase in leave-taking and childbearing, which leads to lost labor or increased health care costs for companies. As a result, employers may assume women will cost more to employ than before the policy, and company decisions to hire, promote, train or pay women less can reflect that, at women's expense.

.... https://archive.fo/3MvYF#selection-1243.0-1257.265



http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/health/paid-leave-chances-national-law/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/health/paid-family-leave-new-york-passage-momentum/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/05/pf/paid-family-leave/


Now on to you and your obvious bias; this is an opinion piece and not every "liberal's" view aligns with one another. Not only that, but you obviously did not read any of the articles; the opinion piece you used and quoted first talks about the negatives of government mandated paid leave and then goes on to state how those negatives can be alleviated with other legislation.

As with many things, there are costs associated with very good legislation. Single payer healthcare for example is more efficient in price and healthcare itself, but the negatives may be that some people that work in the industry will be paid less and the population may get longer wait times than previously.

4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

gghadur77 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:



Summary: The main article is coming up with reasons against paid leave. While the other 3 links criticize America for not having paid leave and are from a couple years ago.


No, I got that. I just wasn't interested in CNN's alleged hypocrisy, because there are any number of factors that could explain it which wasn't interested in investigating because it isn't really worth my time. But since you insist I took a (marginally) closer look.

The article you reference that's anti-paid-leave is by Vanessa Brown Calder while the other articles are by entirely different people. I'm not already suspicious that CNN deliberately chooses what it publishes to promote a specific ideological line, so I don't buy the allegation that different people having different opinions is indicative of flip-flopping.



This guy is quite biased that I don't think he reads the entire article or the study it is using to support it's argument. He is literally using an OPINION PIECE as an example of CNN "flip-flopping". Apparently he thinks the opinion of an entire free news organization is the same.


9646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 5/31/17 , edited 5/31/17
Journalists at an international news organization have differing opinions. That's unusual...how?
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/31/17 , edited 5/31/17

Rujikin wrote:
parental leave policies are associated with an increase in leave-taking and childbearing


Yeah, that's the goal of the policy.

Part of it is taking the opposite position of Trump, but the other part of it is that they promote entropy in the form of a birthrate under replacement level and unsustainable economic policies like investing into poor returns from solar/wind power instead of other modern, more effective energy practices. As well as massive expense in medical tech that merely extends our life expectancy a small amount, which is a much poorer return than raising the next generation well.

Why? I wonder.
You must be logged in to post.