Employers in 'Dark Ages' with 'antiquated' views on recruiting women

[Antiganon]

I would have to say that if willing to make some sacrifices for things that are not really necessary to live, such as cable TV, new cars, smart phones, high speed internet, name brand tags on your clothes, dining out etc, you could support a small family on one median income most places in the US. The problem is that all of those things are for some reason considered to be "necessities".

Median HOUSEHOLD income in the US is $59,000. That's $29,500 for a single person working.

Family with two adults two children. Rent for a 2 bedroom is going to be in the $800-$1200 range most places, let's call it $1000 for easy math. You now have $17,500 to pay for food, clothing, diapers, utilities, transportation, medical expenses (kids go to the doctor a LOT), etc.

Let me know how livable that is.

- - - Updated - - -

The question that should be raised is if people want to compensate companies (public subsidies) for the pregnancy of their employees so that its removed from the profiling when adquiring a new job. If the answer is no, then no one can be surprised if the company puts the success of their business as first priority.

We already do. Maternity leave is paid at least in part by state disability, which tax dollars fund.

[Pooti]

Median HOUSEHOLD income in the US is $59,000. That's $29,500 for a single person working.

Family with two adults two children. Rent for a 2 bedroom is going to be in the $800-$1200 range most places, let's call it $1000 for easy math. You now have $17,500 to pay for food, clothing, diapers, utilities, transportation, medical expenses (kids go to the doctor a LOT), etc.

Let me know how livable that is.

- - - Updated - - -

We already do. Maternity leave is paid at least in part by state disability, which tax dollars fund.

I feel like you are pulling your median income info and your rent info from 2 different sources. Also, I am not suggesting that a family could be supported flipping burgers, it would require someone to have an actual career type of job.

[Elegiac]

I feel like you are pulling your median income info and your rent info from 2 different sources. Also, I am not suggesting that a family could be supported flipping burgers, it would require someone to have an actual career type of job.

What on earth makes you think that food service isn't a career?

[Babadoo]

I am surprised anyone wants to hire women these days, you know, all the possible sexual harassment charges that man can get just for saying hi.

[Allenseiei]

We already do. Maternity leave is paid at least in part by state disability, which tax dollars fund.

If the compensation recieved from the state is enough when the maternity/paternity leaves are due, then companies should not have any reason to ask those questions. Companies who have a person in those leaves need to cover the cost of their salary plus the cost of adding a substitute during that time(also the posible costs that the woman/man might start working part time or other choices they decide to make). Northern European countries have these policies and cover the costs.

[Pooti]

What on earth makes you think that food service isn't a career?

If that is the modern way of thinking, than it does not surprise me why things are in the state that they are.

[Elegiac]

If that is the modern way of thinking, than it does not surprise me why things are in the state that they are.

If "what" is the modern way of thinking?

That people working in food service provide a sufficiently valuable service for that industry to keep existing and are deserving of a basic level of respect? Lol.

Fuckin' boomers, man. Worst generation ever.

[Kiri]

I would have to say that if willing to make some sacrifices for things that are not really necessary to live, such as cable TV, new cars, smart phones, high speed internet, name brand tags on your clothes, dining out etc, you could support a small family on one median income most places in the US. The problem is that all of those things are for some reason considered to be "necessities".

That is correct, of course (except for internet, which sometimes can be, but let's not go there). On the other hand, the US economy is built upon those things being consumed, society is based around wanting them. All of these things are what people these days consider to be part of 'living a normal life' in the US. The issue is that women are poised with the decision between 'becoming a mother' and 'living the kind of life they feel they should be able to' in many cases. It is a bit of a societal thing, really.
If you want to see where this can lead, you best look at Japan, which is a country where a high percentage of young women - or young people in general - choose to stay without children, or partner, for as long as possible, to achieve the living standard that society tells them they should have. That has, in part, led to the demographic problem that country is facing right now.

The US wants to prevent that from happening, but family values and the focus on having a nuclear family might one day give way to societal and economic pressure.

On the other side of the coin, the US needs demand for all of those things in order for its economy to go round. People don't need smart phones, but if no one could afford them, the US as a whole would take a hit. Similarly, enabling mothers to purchase what you could call....middle-class luxury goods, I guess?.....funnels money back into the economy. Obviously, said money oftentimes does not go to the company hiring mothers, which is part of why this all is an externality issue.

[Elegiac]

I would have to say that if willing to make some sacrifices for things that are not really necessary to live, such as cable TV, new cars, smart phones, high speed internet, name brand tags on your clothes, dining out etc, you could support a small family on one median income most places in the US. The problem is that all of those things are for some reason considered to be "necessities".

If you honestly think people that struggle to afford to pay for family expenses are awash in high priced consumer goods, you're absolutely deluding yourself.

Children cost in the realm of at least a million dollars over eighteen plus years, and that is for poor families.

[McFuu]

New evidence has found that three in five employers believe it is reasonable to ask a woman if she has young children and if she is pregnant during an interview.

What is actually being said here? I'll preface this by not being familiar with UK laws, but in the US you aren't allowed to ask if someone is pregnant or has young children (as part of a job interview), but that doesn't change them from being reasonable questions.

I think people greatly underestimate how much it costs to hire someone. People assume it's just xyz person makes $70k a year, that's how much it costs. Hiring personnel is extremely costly for a company, measures above their salary. Having to fire someone is even costlier, losing people to disability or pregnancy is costly. I think companies are within their rights to acquire the best, most available talent that they want. If a company is looking for someone to work flexible 50+ hour weeks, Janet with 3 kids isn't a fit for them. Just because Janet is deluded into thinking she can make the job work doesn't mean that a company is going to want to roll the dice on her.

[Elegiac]

What is actually being said here? I'll preface this by not being familiar with UK laws, but in the US you aren't allowed to ask if someone is pregnant or has young children (as part of a job interview), but that doesn't change them from being reasonable questions.

I think people greatly underestimate how much it costs to hire someone. People assume it's just xyz person makes $70k a year, that's how much it costs. Hiring personnel is extremely costly for a company, measures above their salary. Having to fire someone is even costlier, losing people to disability or pregnancy is costly. I think companies are within their rights to acquire the best, most available talent that they want. If a company is looking for someone to work flexible 50+ hour weeks, Janet with 3 kids isn't a fit for them. Just because Janet is deluded into thinking she can make the job work doesn't mean that a company is going to want to roll the dice on her.

Prithee, how is Janet supposed to support her 3 kids if every employer takes this attitude?

[Antiganon]

If the compensation recieved from the state is enough when the maternity/paternity leaves are due, then companies should not have any reason to ask those questions. Companies who have a person in those leaves need to cover the cost of their salary plus the cost of adding a substitute during that time(also the posible costs that the woman/man might start working part time or other choices they decide to make). Northern European countries have these policies and cover the costs.

It is partially covered. My understanding (which may be off, I am basing this off of the pay stubs my wife got while on maternity leave) is that the employer pays about 50% of the disability earnings, and the state pays about the other 50%. The state portion is covered by line item deductions on employee pay, as well as payroll taxes on employers.

We also (in many states, I am 100% sure this varies state-to-state) require the pregnant woman to exhaust any accrued PTO before getting disability payments.

So yes, the employer is bearing a large portion of the costs of maternity leave, but the employee is burning through their own earned benefits as well. The state is picking up the rest.

I would much prefer a system where tax dollars fully fund 26 weeks of paid family leave for each parent and this becomes a complete non-issue.

Of course, that would require that this actually be an issue of a business having to pay for the maternity leave, which I don't believe it is. I believe it is a perception in many business managers that young mothers are incapable of being high functioning, reliable employees.

[Pooti]

If you honestly think people that struggle to afford to pay for family expenses are awash in high priced consumer goods, you're absolutely deluding yourself.

Children cost in the realm of at least a million dollars over eighteen plus years, and that is for poor families.

I do not think I suggested "awash in high priced consumer goods". There are always corners to be cut though, or choices to be made. My point is mainly is that to hard line something as "impossible" is usually hyperbole. A more accurate description is usually harder than someone may be willing to endure.

[Saphyron]

This is my opinion.

It's not factual, some may not like it but it is my opinion.

The Way I would deal with this is quite simple. If a woman becomes pregnant. The state pays her paycheck. (Which will be a certain amount that is livable for).
If they get pregnant a second time the state yet again covers. To prevent misuse by people who keep popping children. After the 2nd child has been born the state and the company will not pay the woman any longer if they get a 3rd and onwards.

While this is happening the company is not allowed to fire the woman during the pregnancy's and for x month after returning from paternity leave.(or whatever its called).
In addition, the company is allowed to hire someone to cover the position of the pregnant mother. Who works x amount of time. There should be no severance payout. But the state should then help the "backup woman" finding a new job when the pregnant mom returns.

This way everyone is happy except the state.

[McFuu]

Prithee, how is Janet supposed to support her 3 kids if every employer takes this attitude?

There are more jobs that she can take, that she can arrange for certain hours etc... Not every employer will take the approach that she isn't worth hiring. Many employers also offer on site day-care and other services that greatly benefit people in Janet's hypothetical position.
But some employers are simply not in the position to have an employee take liberties with hours that the other employees can not take.

[Afrospinach]

It is not really antiquated when pregnancy represents a legitimate liability to the company. More idealism.

[Elegiac]

I do not think I suggested "awash in high priced consumer goods". There are always corners to be cut though, or choices to be made. My point is mainly is that to hard line something as "impossible" is usually hyperbole. A more accurate description is usually harder than someone may be willing to endure.

When people say "impossible" they mean "held to an unreasonable standard">

You're arguing semantics rather than substance.

[Pooti]

When people say "impossible" they mean "held to an unreasonable standard">

You're arguing semantics rather than substance.

What people consider unreasonable can be vastly different.

[Elegiac]

There are more jobs that she can take, that she can arrange for certain hours etc... Not every employer will take the approach that she isn't worth hiring. Many employers also offer on site day-care and other services that greatly benefit people in Janet's hypothetical position.
But some employers are simply not in the position to have an employee take liberties with hours that the other employees can not take.

You just argued that it was not in a business' financial interest to employ people that might take leave due to personal responsibilities; don't start trying to introduce weasel qualifiers. Businesses gravitate towards the lowest common denominator, so it's not an unreasonable question as to who would employ a mother if standard practice was to discriminate because they're 'unprofitable'.

Either you start supporting a means by which parents can support themselves regardless of employment, or employers have to be made to eat the costs and be satisfied with having done something eminently patriotic.

- - - Updated - - -

What people consider unreasonable can be vastly different.

You're on far better terms arguing that than what words people use.

[Antiganon]

I feel like you are pulling your median income info and your rent info from 2 different sources. Also, I am not suggesting that a family could be supported flipping burgers, it would require someone to have an actual career type of job.

Why yes, I am, because they are not reported by the same people.

Median household income in the US is $59,039 according to the US Census Bureau.

Median rent in the US for a 2br housing unit for the top 100 markets is $1050 monthly, according to this study by apartmentlist.com (Methodology included at the bottom of the study in case you doubt the source)