Obama to extend FMLA benefits to same-sex couples

[Xeones]

Another bad decision from Obama.

Because America doesn't approve of equality, amirite?

[Bakis]

Another bad decision from Obama.

Just like you just posted evolution is a hoax and guided by god in another thread

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Only for white, property owning, Protestant males.

Only protestant? What about catholic?

I feel so oppressed.

[Height]

In a functioning economy, producing children means producing future tax flows. Thus the government needs to subsidise it in any way they can.

Let's just put it out there and all agree that is a terrible argument. I mean try another one. You cannot lock a group of people out of hospital visits/tax breaks/death benefits because less of them produce kids. I mean some gay people DO have kids. It isn't that hard to put sperm in a vagina. There are also heterosexual people who don't. Try another argument. This one is too easy to break down.

[Xeones]

In a functioning economy, producing children means producing future tax flows. Thus the government needs to subsidise it in any way they can.

We aren't Japan. There is no need to subsidize it.

[Wells]

We aren't Japan. There is no need to subsidize it.

Subsidizing for the expense of children means more money is available to raise a child, which is in the child's best interest.

[Gumboy]

Subsidizing for the expense of children means more money is available to raise a child, which is in the child's best interest.

Yeah I love paying more taxes so Timmy and Lisa down the block can pump out there seventh kid, so totally needed! Its in the childs best interest to not exist most likely.

Don't mind me I just hate kids.

[oxymoronic]

Now if only our country could get on par with the rest of the world in terms of paid leave when having a new baby!

our tax code already pays people to have children - i dont think there should be even more benefits... as a business owner myself its downright silly for me to have to additional workforce just to cover people that have children. its freaking absurd and kills any positive workforce model that an owner can possibly come up with. I suspect small business in these so called progressive countries are hurting and borderline in the red every quarter. Must be fun to work your ass off day and night and still make min wage all cause some couple decided now would be a great time to expand their family.

[Spectral]

In a functioning economy, producing children means producing future tax flows. Thus the government needs to subsidise it in any way they can.

I don't think you can provide a shred of evidence that subsidizing children has had any effect at all on birth rates. The nations with the most heavily government subsidized reproduction have some of the absolute lowest birth rates.

[Wells]

Yeah I love paying more taxes so Timmy and Lisa down the block can pump out there seventh kid, so totally needed! Its in the childs best interest to not exist most likely.

Don't mind me I just hate kids.

I don't see how this is particularly rational. Birth rates will and do fall as a country develops, the US arguably has a higher birth rate due to our weak social net and even then we're not much above replenishment rate.

Point remains. Children who have had more money available in raising them do better.

[Gumboy]

I don't see how this is particularly rational. Birth rates will and do fall as a country develops, the US arguably has a higher birth rate due to our weak social net and even then we're not much above replenishment rate.

Point remains. Children who have had more money available in raising them do better.

If that is true (Your first point, the second is obviously true) then why do poor people have more kids in general?

[Wells]

If that is true (Your first point, the second is obviously true) then why do poor people have more kids in general?

Worse access to education and medical services that help keep birth rates low.

[Spectral]

I don't see how this is particularly rational. Birth rates will and do fall as a country develops, the US arguably has a higher birth rate due to our weak social net and even then we're not much above replenishment rate.

I think our higher birth rate (relative to European comps) stems primarily from immigrant populations and religiosity. I'd have to go dig for data, but I'd bet if you standardized by demographic, there's not much difference.

Point remains. Children who have had more money available in raising them do better.

Of course - people with more money in general do better. The question isn't whether people benefit from having money tossed at them (although that's not where this started, but I guess it's where it's going), it's whether it's a sufficiently strong effect to justify the harm done to people by taking their money and giving it to other people's kids. That might be the case. I'm agnostic on it, like I am with most economic questions.

Where I started with it though is that I'm not keen on family leave policies that give special rights to those with kids. If we want to require a certain amount of time off be made available for people, that's a reasonable policy. If we want to tie it to whether you have kids, I am not impressed. If someone with kids is going to be an inherently less reliable employee, a company should be allowed to pay me more if they choose.

- - - Updated - - -

Worse access to education and medical services that help keep birth rates low.

Also, opportunity cost. Individuals with high incomes and earnings potential stand to lose more by having children. In family situations where the mother isn't likely to work a high-paying job in either case, there's less opportunity cost (in the form of lost wages) to having a child. The literature on it that I'd seen recently suggests that this has been the primary driver of falling birth rates - women have more to gain by being in the work force in wealthy nations than they ever have before.

[Wells]

I think our higher birth rate (relative to European comps) stems primarily from immigrant populations and religiosity. I'd have to go dig for data, but I'd bet if you standardized by demographic, there's not much difference.

I think those are certainly elements. Though I think the way our immigration rate really just reinforces the point when you look at how underdeveloped the nations we get immigrants from are.

Of course - people with more money in general do better. The question isn't whether people benefit from having money tossed at them (although that's not where this started, but I guess it's where it's going), it's whether it's a sufficiently strong effect to justify the harm done to people by taking their money and giving it to other people's kids. That might be the case. I'm agnostic on it, like I am with most economic questions.

How about you look at it this way. Kid has more money pumped into raising it. It does better in school/home and makes more money as an adult. Which statistically means it'll have fewer kids that it needs subsidies for.

[Mormolyce]

Perpetuating discrimination against the childless doesn't really move equality forward, but whatever.

To be fair parental leave isn't much use to the childless.

[Wells]

Also, opportunity cost. Individuals with high incomes and earnings potential stand to lose more by having children.

See I'm not sure about this one. If you're rich you have access to more tools, like hired help, to offset the work involved, plus a child isn't as big a relative hit on your finances.

[Gumboy]

See I'm not sure about this one. If you're rich you have access to more tools, like hired help, to offset the work involved, plus a child isn't as big a relative hit on your finances.

You have to be quite rich to afford that kind of stuff, not middle class or anything. I mean I couldn't hire a maid, and I make a healthy living.

[Spectral]

How about you look at it this way. Kid has more money pumped into raising it. It does better in school/home and makes more money as an adult. Which statistically means it'll have fewer kids that it needs subsidies for.

That might be true, it's a theory that's plausible and has some evidential support. I don't really doubt it. The question is ultimately what the cost/benefit ratio is on that. I don't have any doubt, generally speaking, that people do better with more money, but I'm not sure where the tipping points are that bump the multiplier effect on taking taxpayer money above 1.0.

I don't think it's straightforward - it's obviously not going to be that important to subsidize very wealthy people's kids. They're generally not making choices about quality of life for their kids, they're having to cut luxury goods. It generally will be very valuable to subsidize poor kids, as we're talking about malnutrition that can effect basic development. Where's the tipping point though? And how much money is the tipping point? What's the correct amount of money for me to have to pass to another middle class couple that elects to have kids while I don't?

[Gumboy]

How about you look at it this way. Kid has more money pumped into raising it. It does better in school/home and makes more money as an adult. Which statistically means it'll have fewer kids that it needs subsidies for.

I don't believe that actually happens though. Look at birth rates generationally in inner cities and the like. They get money for the kids, they throw money at the schools (And they are still awful sadly) and the next generation is popping out even more kids.

[Spectral]

See I'm not sure about this one. If you're rich you have access to more tools, like hired help, to offset the work involved, plus a child isn't as big a relative hit on your finances.

That makes sense; there's probably some specific range (say ~$50K-$200K) where the strongest downward pull on birth rates would be seen.