Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Hillis
Topic Author
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:16 pm

Nice to see someone catching up with the rest of the civilized world. I think something like this should be national policy, but I guess we can't have that in the U.S. You know, that dirty word "Socialism" that buggers so many Yanks.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/pf/paid ... index.html
 
User avatar
GEG
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:45 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:47 pm

Wow, man my company doesn't even have sick days... :weeping:
I have no idea what I'm doing...
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14323
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:22 am

When you bang vendors and cardholders the fees they charge you can do this. I am not sure other companies can. I like the insult to Americans too. Thanks.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:52 am

Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,

Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. Nobody has a basic right to get paid for not working. It is a nice perk, but taking it away as a chip for employers to use is a dreadful idea.

Hillis wrote:
You know, that dirty word "Socialism" that buggers so many Yanks.

This isn't socialism as much as basic government overreach into private business. Socialism is inherently evil however.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15831
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:03 am

BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,

Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. .


I agree that it should not be a government-mandated policy, and I say that as someone who is presently in the middle of taking 8 weeks off from work for the birth of my second child, which I did by earning it; working my ass off to ensure I accrued enough vacation time to have it available.

Thankfully, my employer allows generous vacation accruals (which I seldom use), enabling me to do this. I realize not all do. But it was a choice on my part to put my skills to use, allowing me to work where I do, and to save my vacation the way I did.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:15 am

EA CO AS wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,

Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. .


I agree that it should not be a government-mandated policy, and I say that as someone who is presently in the middle of taking 8 weeks off from work for the birth of my second child, which I did by earning it; working my ass off to ensure I accrued enough vacation time to have it available.

Thankfully, my employer allows generous vacation accruals (which I seldom use), enabling me to do this. I realize not all do. But it was a choice on my part to put my skills to use, allowing me to work where I do, and to save my vacation the way I did.



then both of you shouldn't of voted for Trump, that was on his platform. government mandated maternity leave. lol
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:18 am

anohter dupe post.
Last edited by DLFREEBIRD on Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:18 am

you two are old fashioned. 41 countries offer paid parental leave. I thought you so called " Republicans " were for families. There is more to life than making money. most people have figured this out a long time ago. Almost feel sorry for you two.

Lot of professions cannot work extra hours for safety reasons. ATC Pilots, flight attendants. to name a few

Just because you have a job that allows you to accumulate hours, for time off later, doesn't mean that you earned the right to be home
for your new baby and other who have much more demanding job, should be out of luck.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13491
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:12 am

Yippee for 10 months at 100% or 12 months at 80% maternity leave, gotta love the 5 weeks annual leave plus since I'm a parent 21 days sick leave as well. Damn socialism sucks!!!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:12 am

BMI727 wrote:
Socialism is inherently evil however.


Of course. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Flexible working hours. 28 days paid annual vacation. 8 days paid public holiday (flexible). Six weeks paid paternity leave. After 20 years' service, up to a year off sick on full pay and another year on 50% pay.

And that was working for an American company. US colleagues got two weeks vacation a year. They hated us. :laughing:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
UltimoTiger777
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:29 am

Why do people always assume things like state run healthcare or nationally mandated things such as maternity leave are "Socialism"?

Socialism relies on the means of production being controlled by the workers. Unless you work for a company that is owned by its rank and file employees, you don't live in a Socialist entity.
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:29 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,

Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. Nobody has a basic right to get paid for not working. It is a nice perk, but taking it away as a chip for employers to use is a dreadful idea.

Hillis wrote:
You know, that dirty word "Socialism" that buggers so many Yanks.

This isn't socialism as much as basic government overreach into private business. Socialism is inherently evil however.



Isn't it in the govt's interest to protect its citizens?

So by mandating 28 days annual leave, the Govt is protecting it's citizens from archaic working practices that would flog the workforce and unscrupulous management. A happy workforce is a productive workforce.

The company I work for, gives me 44 days annual leave and all public holidays - and this year 23rd December to 2nd January off and paid for
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:32 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
you two are old fashioned. 41 countries offer paid parental leave. I thought you so called " Republicans " were for families. There is more to life than making money. most people have figured this out a long time ago. Almost feel sorry for you two.

Oh, you see, family is important. The bible says so and it's in the interest of the state (so say them) to allow families. However, if that family has needs, it's their own fault and the state should have no responsibility.

The states' motto regarding families should be: "I encourage you to have a family. We need families...but I'm not gonna help you and if your baby is an accident, I'm not gonna let you walk it back. Carry it to term and dump it in an orphanage where it'll be given the bare minimum...but yeah...please start a family because when families are strong, *state* is strong and America is strong!" *fireworks*
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
N867DA
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:04 pm

This is great, hopefully in the future something like this can be mandated for all workers.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:23 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please

Just admit it already. We should bring back slavery and let the marketplace and the holy owners decide whether or not it's acceptable.
 
Hillis
Topic Author
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:00 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,


Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. Nobody has a basic right to get paid for not working. It is a nice perk, but taking it away as a chip for employers to use is a dreadful idea.


Let me ask you something? Do you have any children. Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about in saying you're not "working". You work your butt off with a newborn a lot of the time. And why should a mother or father be penalized in not getting income when they actually need it most.

You'd sing a different tune if you have gone through having kids. I have. But, then again, you only think of yourself, so I really hope you haven't procreated.

Hillis wrote:
You know, that dirty word "Socialism" that buggers so many Yanks.


This isn't socialism as much as basic government overreach into private business. Socialism is inherently evil however.[/quote]\\

Funny that this system works just fine in almost everywhere else in the Western world, but people in the U.S. would rather parents go broke when they have a newborn. And then go broke again when a child wants to go for higher education. We're the outlier, BMI, not the rule in the world on this. We're headed that way, whether you like it or not. And I'm all for it.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
you two are old fashioned. 41 countries offer paid parental leave. I thought you so called " Republicans " were for families. There is more to life than making money. most people have figured this out a long time ago. Almost feel sorry for you two.

Lot of professions cannot work extra hours for safety reasons. ATC Pilots, flight attendants. to name a few

Just because you have a job that allows you to accumulate hours, for time off later, doesn't mean that you earned the right to be home
for your new baby and other who have much more demanding job, should be out of luck.


They're just afraid of something that doesn't fit their rigid ideology, to be honest. The majority of the Western world does things similar to this, and their citizens, for the most part, are rated as much happier than Americans, in part because of that system. And, unfortunately, BMI727 doesn't see a difference between straight-out Socialism and Democratic Socialism, which still believes in Capitalism but with some restraints. Want evil? Pure capitalism falls under that category. Pure Socialism is evil. Pure Communism is evil.

The belief that parents should either go broke after a baby is born, or simply not spend much time with a newborn is Capitalism at its worst. As is the belief that education is a commodity and that our students who want higher education should go massively into debt just to get that education. Those excesses need to be stamped out, and we'll be a better country for it. Unfortunately, BMI727, EA CO AS, and most conservatives feel that such things are not only warranted but somehow good for the nation. Well, it's not.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:38 pm

My workplace has a similar policy. It is valuable to retain women in the workforce. Yet, a maternity leave benefit is a bit sexist (actually would be hard to think of something more sexist), and so the benefit is extended to fathers as well.

Affluent 2-parent families are a fabulous thing for society. Successful people should have far more children than they do.

Hillis, just for fun I will tell you, regarding free school lunch. I think that parents who fail to provide lunch for their children are in breach of their parental duties. I do not believe they should be called parents or legal guardians at all. Instead, the state should register itself as the father or mother of those kids. Have a good day!
 
NoTime
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:42 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I think something like this should be national policy,

Absolutely not. Business should be run how the owners please and if that does not suit you then work somewhere else. Nobody has a basic right to get paid for not working. It is a nice perk, but taking it away as a chip for employers to use is a dreadful idea.


This. 100%.

Good for AMEX for implementing this. If that's an important thing to you, then go work for AMEX or any of the other places that allow this. But don't force other companies to adopt this by federal fiat.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:12 pm

NoTime wrote:
But don't force other companies to adopt this by federal fiat.

Then government (at all levels) should then get out of the business of family altogether, which means that it shouldn't promote the family as we know it (parents with kids) as the model; it should also state that procreation is not and will never be a government interest (so it will neither promote nor hinder it); and it should not interfere with family planning (if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy and/or use contraceptives, the state has no official position and as such will not prohibit or encourage it). Otherwise, if it's indeed an interest of the government, any employee (particularly pregnant women) are fully in their right to request paid leave to deal with medical appointments and taking care of the newborn during its first weeks of life.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
NoTime
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:24 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
NoTime wrote:
But don't force other companies to adopt this by federal fiat.

Then government (at all levels) should then get out of the business of family altogether,


Sounds good to me...
 
Hillis
Topic Author
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:42 pm

Flighty wrote:
My workplace has a similar policy. It is valuable to retain women in the workforce. Yet, a maternity leave benefit is a bit sexist (actually would be hard to think of something more sexist), and so the benefit is extended to fathers as well.

Affluent 2-parent families are a fabulous thing for society. Successful people should have far more children than they do.

Hillis, just for fun I will tell you, regarding free school lunch. I think that parents who fail to provide lunch for their children are in breach of their parental duties. I do not believe they should be called parents or legal guardians at all. Instead, the state should register itself as the father or mother of those kids. Have a good day!


I'm not a big fan of free school lunch. Years ago, I had taken a huge pay cut at a job, and my wife had got laid off, and we got reduced lunch rates, which helped, but we also did have our kids brown bag it at times. Now, if someone is in dire financial straits, I have no problem having free lunch for a period of time. I'd rather have my $$ help a kid eat than give to a Fortune 500 oil company.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13491
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:47 pm

scbriml wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Socialism is inherently evil however.


Of course. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Flexible working hours. 28 days paid annual vacation. 8 days paid public holiday (flexible). Six weeks paid paternity leave. After 20 years' service, up to a year off sick on full pay and another year on 50% pay.

And that was working for an American company. US colleagues got two weeks vacation a year. They hated us. :laughing:


Haha I was in a similar situation when I worked for NCR in NZ, we got a much better deal that our American colleagues, when we had Americans come down it was always a hot topic of conversation, how badly screwed the average US employee was. When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:17 pm


Haha I was in a similar situation when I worked for NCR in NZ, we got a much better deal that our American colleagues, when we had Americans come down it was always a hot topic of conversation, how badly screwed the average US employee was. When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.


Not everyone wants to sacrifice working hard and be forced to drive crappy econobox Audis like you and on their extended vacation debate what sort of rims to put on it... :)

Frankly, Ill sacrifice a whole weeks of vacation if it means I can have a regular dryer for my clothes and not waste a whole month out of the year like all of Europe does taking clothes down from lines drapped in backyards. Thats a great net-savings of my time and I'd probably wager I save a few weeks of it during the year because of what working a bit longer provides me in the way of convenience vs. someone who has 6 weeks of diddly daddling around Palma but then spends half their life at home waiting for the bus or tram.

BTW - You can take unpaid time off in the US, most of the time a lot of it. Since we make more per head than any other civilized country with a sizeable population if you want to live a lifestyle of taking the week off every other month and living in a shoebox of an apartment like the people you are praising do then theres nothing stopping you. Theres your 6 weeks with the same GDP per capita as France.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:41 pm

LOT767301ER wrote:
Frankly, Ill sacrifice a whole weeks of vacation if it means I can have a regular dryer for my clothes and not waste a whole month out of the year like all of Europe does taking clothes down from lines drapped in backyards.


It's not the 1960s any more! :roll:

We have dryers and didn't have to sacrifice a week of vacation to get them.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:05 pm

LOT767301ER wrote:

Haha I was in a similar situation when I worked for NCR in NZ, we got a much better deal that our American colleagues, when we had Americans come down it was always a hot topic of conversation, how badly screwed the average US employee was. When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.


Not everyone wants to sacrifice working hard and be forced to drive crappy econobox Audis like you and on their extended vacation debate what sort of rims to put on it... :)

Frankly, Ill sacrifice a whole weeks of vacation if it means I can have a regular dryer for my clothes and not waste a whole month out of the year like all of Europe does taking clothes down from lines drapped in backyards. Thats a great net-savings of my time and I'd probably wager I save a few weeks of it during the year because of what working a bit longer provides me in the way of convenience vs. someone who has 6 weeks of diddly daddling around Palma but then spends half their life at home waiting for the bus or tram.

BTW - You can take unpaid time off in the US, most of the time a lot of it. Since we make more per head than any other civilized country with a sizeable population if you want to live a lifestyle of taking the week off every other month and living in a shoebox of an apartment like the people you are praising do then theres nothing stopping you. Theres your 6 weeks with the same GDP per capita as France.



What's wrong with that?

I prefer my shirts air dried on the clothes line, yes I can tell the difference between a tumbled dried shirt and one that's been hanging out on the line!

It's also economic not having the drier going on in the summer, less electricity usage. Might as well make use of free natural resources (Sunshine - Fresh air)

Got a brand new AEG drier ordered on a Sunday from John Lewis Dept store - delivered and installed Monday evening. (unfortunately German reliability is a bit of a let down on this machine, but that is a whole new topic)
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:28 pm

We have dryers and didn't have to sacrifice a week of vacation to get them.


Keep lying to yourself, the statistics say that % wise Western Europe is below 50% for dryer ownership, and to add to that the gold standard of wasting time hanging stuff out to dry is none other than NZ.

https://blog.opower.com/2013/07/americas-most-unpopular-way-of-saving-energy-is-one-of-europes-favorites/

BTW - What you do have is those god awful ventless condenser dryers that take a hilarious amount of clothes and you need to run the cycle 2-3x as long to get the same effect. The rest of the trend is toward heat pump dryers which are not only way more expensive to buy (approximately 2x according to a the Feds) due to their internals but also take longer to run. You'd do much better if it wasnt for the fact that many have already gone ahead and banned venter dryers because they club baby seals in many places.

Some simple math and logical assumptions - A Euro household does about 3.5 loads per week. I figure it takes one about 7-8 mins per load to put it all up and take it down, although to be honest it could be more. That's around 30 minutes per week or 1560 minutes per year which translated to just over 1 day per year. So, would I rather work an extra day per year or do chores and have clothes that are as stiff as a coathangar? The choice is clear and I bet I could find a few more of these stupid time wasting activities that the average peon with 6 weeks worth of vacation engages in that I never have to think about, we can talk about dishwashers next where the ownership just like dryers is <50% where you live.

There is a reason for all this. You work less, you make less money, you have less/smaller things, things that make my life more convenient. If you want to be less convenient and take more time off more power to you. Unpaid leave is your answer to your dreams.

I prefer my shirts air dried on the clothes line, yes I can tell the difference between a tumbled dried shirt and one that's been hanging out on the line!

It's also economic not having the drier going on in the summer, less electricity usage. Might as well make use of free natural resources (Sunshine - Fresh air)


Not only does it take much more time to dry, the clothes feel like you are putting on sandpaper after you're done with it compared to a dryer. Also, one more added benefit which cannot be understated: you can take wrinkles out fairly easily and your propensity to iron clothes goes down dramatically. I can throw in a damp towel with something wrinkled up in a dryer and 5 minutes later Im good to go and I barely lifted a finger.

You might as well ask me why even have a washing machine, you might as well spend half your day washing your clothes by hand in a tub.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:54 am

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
then both of you shouldn't of voted for Trump, that was on his platform. government mandated maternity leave. lol

I didn't vote for Trump.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
you two are old fashioned. 41 countries offer paid parental leave. I thought you so called " Republicans " were for families. There is more to life than making money. most people have figured this out a long time ago. Almost feel sorry for you two.

I'm for people handling their own business without government interference.

Dano1977 wrote:
Isn't it in the govt's interest to protect its citizens?

No. It's the government's purpose to protect citizens' rights, which does not include being paid to not work.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Oh, you see, family is important. The bible says so and it's in the interest of the state (so say them) to allow families. However, if that family has needs, it's their own fault and the state should have no responsibility.

If you think family is important then treat family as important. If your employer doesn't offer benefits that suit your needs then go elsewhere, but if you're worth it to them I bet they'd work with you.

blueflyer wrote:
Just admit it already. We should bring back slavery and let the marketplace and the holy owners decide whether or not it's acceptable.

If you want to voluntarily sign a contract that pays you nothing and has you living in squalor I guess that's your business.

Hillis wrote:
Let me ask you something? Do you have any children.

Nope. I have very little interest in paying to feed something so dirty and noisy, cleaning up vomit that isn't mine or leaving work early to attend a shitty school play or t-ball game.

Hillis wrote:
Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about in saying you're not "working". You work your butt off with a newborn a lot of the time

If you're not working for me I have no reason to pay you as I'm getting nothing for that money. Taking care of a kid is work, but if you want to get paid for it then get the kid or the kid's parents to pay you.

Hillis wrote:
And why should a mother or father be penalized in not getting income when they actually need it most.

You don't get income based on what you need, you get income based on the value you deliver. No value, no income. Of course, it is reasonable for some employers, like American Express in this case, to decide that it's a good value for them to pay a little more for the value of some employees by giving them paid leave and I have no problem with that.

Hillis wrote:
And then go broke again when a child wants to go for higher education.

That's a problem caused by government intervention and distortion of the market i.e. lack of a free market.

Hillis wrote:
We're the outlier, BMI, not the rule in the world on this.

We're also the outlier in the number of billionaires, developing new technology and creating a massive economy.

Hillis wrote:
We're headed that way, whether you like it or not. And I'm all for it.

If paid leave becomes the market standard for white collar employment I'm fine with it. But legislating it will just be a waste.

Hillis wrote:
And, unfortunately, BMI727 doesn't see a difference between straight-out Socialism and Democratic Socialism, which still believes in Capitalism but with some restraints.

I do, and you would know that if you had read post four. Either way, the distinction is pretty much like wanting no part of a vat of Sarin but being perfectly happy with a good whiff of anthrax.

Hillis wrote:
Want evil? Pure capitalism falls under that category.

How? Because you might not "win"? Tell me exactly who has which of their basic rights violated by pure capitalism.

You see the reality is that capitalism is absolutely a virtue that should only be limited when it will violate the rights of someone else. At its core, capitalism is just the application of basic human rights to economic transactions. Capitalism and freedom are one in the same and as many economic transactions as possible should be completely voluntary on all sides as anything else is a restriction of liberty.

Hillis wrote:
As is the belief that education is a commodity and that our students who want higher education should go massively into debt just to get that education.

Then stop having the government guarantee massive loans and let the market work.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Then government (at all levels) should then get out of the business of family altogether,

Absolutely.

Kiwirob wrote:
When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.

Yep, every day I wake up and wish I could live in a place where I could pay the equivalent of $52,000 for a new Golf GTI.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:14 am

BMI727 wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:
you two are old fashioned. 41 countries offer paid parental leave. I thought you so called " Republicans " were for families. There is more to life than making money. most people have figured this out a long time ago. Almost feel sorry for you two.

I'm for people handling their own business without government interference.


So you shouldn't be angry if a business chooses to outsource jobs because it's less costly to do have those jobs overseas. Or colluding with their competitors to set prices in order not to lose money. Or use the power afforded to them by being a monopoly to crush anyone who dares to even try & compete.

What's your opinion on that?

BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Want evil? Pure capitalism falls under that category.

How? Because you might not "win"? Tell me exactly who has which of their basic rights violated by pure capitalism.


At the top of my head - those who have had their homes repossessed because they could no longer afford to pay off their loans simply due to the fact that the interest rates on their mortgage jumped tremendously or because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoffs due to outsourcing, bad economy, unscrupulous employers). Or how about families who can't afford to pay rent because rent prices are jacked up by those who went and rented properties to be sublet as Airbnb homes?

Last time I look, rights to adequate housing is a basic right as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:56 am

LOT767301ER wrote:
Keep lying to yourself


I don't need to. :wave:

We've owned vented dryers sine the 1970s. :roll:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
JJJ
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:19 am

LOT767301ER wrote:
Not only does it take much more time to dry, the clothes feel like you are putting on sandpaper after you're done with it compared to a dryer


OTOH they smell like crap, and never get fully dry. Hang them right and you won't need to iron or barely, which saves a lot more time than you

I used to have a dryer when I lived in an apartment, now that I live in a house in a place with 300 rain-less days a year (and even then the garage has a line, too) I'm never going back.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13491
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:01 pm

LOT767301ER wrote:

Frankly, Ill sacrifice a whole weeks of vacation if it means I can have a regular dryer for my clothes and not waste a whole month out of the year like all of Europe does taking clothes down from lines drapped in backyards. Thats a great net-savings of my time and I'd probably wager I save a few weeks of it during the year because of what working a bit longer provides me in the way of convenience vs. someone who has 6 weeks of diddly daddling around Palma but then spends half their life at home waiting for the bus or tram.

BTW - You can take unpaid time off in the US, most of the time a lot of it. Since we make more per head than any other civilized country with a sizeable population if you want to live a lifestyle of taking the week off every other month and living in a shoebox of an apartment like the people you are praising do then theres nothing stopping you. Theres your 6 weeks with the same GDP per capita as France.


I have not idea what you're talking about re a dryer, we've got a front loading dryer that looks and function just like dryers in the US look and function. My wife has never hung anything out to dry, we don't have a clothes line.

I don't live in an apartment, we have a 4 bedroom house, in a suburb, with grass and trees around it, just like any American suburb. I've never taken a bus, tram or train to work. But people living in many US cities live in shoebox apartments, use buses, trams and trains and hang washing out on there balconies if they are lucky enough to have one.

BTW the US has a lower GDP per capita than Norway, you're not as productive, not as well paid and have significantly worse living and working conditions, I'll take my Norwegian work like balance over yours any day.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4608
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:02 pm

20 weeks does seem a bit over the top.

Kiwirob wrote:

Haha I was in a similar situation when I worked for NCR in NZ, we got a much better deal that our American colleagues, when we had Americans come down it was always a hot topic of conversation, how badly screwed the average US employee was. When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.

I always find it entertaining to see americans defending a system that screws them over so much compared to the rest of the world. Obviously every other civilised country has it wrong! Of course most of the time the people making such arguments have never set foot outside the land of the free, so I guess their mentality makes sense.


LOT767301ER wrote:
We have dryers and didn't have to sacrifice a week of vacation to get them.


Keep lying to yourself, the statistics say that % wise Western Europe is below 50% for dryer ownership, and to add to that the gold standard of wasting time hanging stuff out to dry is none other than NZ.


You must be really fun to be with at parties, mate! :rotfl:
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13491
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:08 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
When folks like BMI open up against this it's really just them being jealous, unable to accept that they system they have only works for the wealthy, but they are too proud or stupid to admit they could do better.

Yep, every day I wake up and wish I could live in a place where I could pay the equivalent of $52,000 for a new Golf GTI.


That's ok I'm quote happy earning more money that most of you, not having to worry about healthcare, childcare or education expenses, and I'll take my 5 weeks paid annual leave over whatever you get.
 
User avatar
mad99
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:10 pm

Here in Spain it's 18 weeks and it really should be more. My wife is a teacher so once the 18 were up she was at the start of summer so she got another 12 and took some unpaid time after that. You really need a full year minimum.
 
NoTime
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:44 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Want evil? Pure capitalism falls under that category.

How? Because you might not "win"? Tell me exactly who has which of their basic rights violated by pure capitalism.


At the top of my head - those who have had their homes repossessed because they could no longer afford to pay off their loans simply due to the fact that the interest rates on their mortgage jumped tremendously or because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoffs due to outsourcing, bad economy, unscrupulous employers).


If your interest rates "jumped tremendously" it's because you signed up for a variable rate mortgage, and knew it was a possibility from the beginning. You would have no one to blame but yourself.

Or how about families who can't afford to pay rent because rent prices are jacked up by those who went and rented properties to be sublet as Airbnb homes?


Then either a) find a new (cheaper) place to rent, or b) make more money to afford it. It really is that simple.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:35 pm

NoTime wrote:
If your interest rates "jumped tremendously" it's because you signed up for a variable rate mortgage, and knew it was a possibility from the beginning. You would have no one to blame but yourself.

So if I banked with Wells Fargo and an account was opened under my name, it's my fault for banking with Wells Fargo? We're not talking about not knowing the consequences of your actions; we're talking about unrestricted action from corporations. The case brought was uncontrolled capitalism, which means the bank could sneak in a provision (without telling you and vehemently denying it) that grants it the right to raise interest rates to whatever level they want and no way for you to break the contract (ie. the bank raises your interest rate and until you pay it off, you're stuck and no refinancing or subsequent loans can allow you to pay it off).

NoTime wrote:
Then either a) find a new (cheaper) place to rent, or b) make more money to afford it. It really is that simple.
Yeah, because moving from one place to another is free and doesn't involve big costs associated with it. And because money grows on trees, we can always make more money to afford all of this. It's really that simple!

a) Finding a new (cheaper) place to rent is the solution. But you fail to consider that to go somewhere else you have to break a lease (which means paying a penalty for it); unless you slim down to bare minimums, you also need to move stuff. A cheaper place may be miles away from your job which means there may not be the infrastructure in place for public transportation, which means if you don't have a car you need to buy one.
b) We can't make more money when corporations aren't willing to give raises, and when you tells us that we have to make sacrifices. You tell us to go to college to get a good paying degree. Newsflash: college isn't free. So that means we carry debt, which we need to pay off but you don't believe we should be helped. We just need to trim down, make more money (easier said than done) and if you need to sell an arm and leg, go for it...but it's your fault if you do.

Did I get that right?
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
NoTime
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:49 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
NoTime wrote:
If your interest rates "jumped tremendously" it's because you signed up for a variable rate mortgage, and knew it was a possibility from the beginning. You would have no one to blame but yourself.

So if I banked with Wells Fargo and an account was opened under my name, it's my fault for banking with Wells Fargo? We're not talking about not knowing the consequences of your actions; we're talking about unrestricted action from corporations. The case brought was uncontrolled capitalism, which means the bank could sneak in a provision (without telling you and vehemently denying it) that grants it the right to raise interest rates to whatever level they want and no way for you to break the contract (ie. the bank raises your interest rate and until you pay it off, you're stuck and no refinancing or subsequent loans can allow you to pay it off).


Sneaking something into a contract, without one party's knowledge, is not "uncontrolled capitalism," it's illegal and criminal. In true capitalism, the contract between the provider and recipient is sacred, just as it is (or is supposed to be) today.

If a bank "snuck something in" that wasn't in the original contract, then you would have plenty of basis for a court case and termination of the contract. What Wells Fargo apparently did was illegal, which is why they are being sued and taking a beating, and those affected will receive compensation.

NoTime wrote:
Then either a) find a new (cheaper) place to rent, or b) make more money to afford it. It really is that simple.
a) Finding a new (cheaper) place to rent is the solution. But you fail to consider that to go somewhere else you have to break a lease (which means paying a penalty for it); unless you slim down to bare minimums, you also need to move stuff. A cheaper place may be miles away from your job which means there may not be the infrastructure in place for public transportation, which means if you don't have a car you need to buy one.


Your landlord or rental management company is contractually bound to abide by the terms of the originally agreed upon contract for the duration of the contract. They can't raise someone's rent mid-lease, which means you wouldn't have to break your lease and be subject to a penalty. If you sign some kind of bizarre lease that allows for rent increases mid-lease (I've never seen one before) then, like with a variable rate mortgage, you have only yourself to blame. Otherwise, every court in the nation will side with the renter.

b) We can't make more money when corporations aren't willing to give raises, and when you tells us that we have to make sacrifices. You tell us to go to college to get a good paying degree. Newsflash: college isn't free. So that means we carry debt, which we need to pay off but you don't believe we should be helped. We just need to trim down, make more money (easier said than done) and if you need to sell an arm and leg, go for it...but it's your fault if you do.


First, corporations aren't under any obligation to give raises. However, nearly all of them do (when financially feasible), along with bonuses, because it's how you attract and retain the best, most productive, workers. Granted, you have to have usable skills and be an effective worker, but even janitors and mail clerks often get raises, because there's value in knowing your employees and having workers that have already learned and understand the company culture and possess soft skills specific to the company. (There's also cost associated with on-boarding new/replacement employees, and employers want to avoid those if possible.)

Second, believe me, I know that college isn't free. I only recently finished paying off my own loans. But, as BMI727 has pointed out, the high cost of a college education is due in large part to government interference in the student loan process. The good news is that online schools are making it much easier to keep the costs of a college education down. The dirty little secret that the education industry doesn't want you to know is this - Unless you are wanting to land a job with a high profile law firm or bank, most companies don't care if your degree is from Harvard or Devry or Podunk State Community College... they just want to see that you have a degree. Now, granted, executive level positions often put more scrutiny on where you went to school, but the vast majority of positions at the managerial level and below don't require a degree from a high-profile (read: expensive) school.

Regardless, depending on what you want to do as a career, the value of a college education is often overstated. Trade schools, associate degrees, online learning and certifications, on the job training, etc, etc, are all viable options. Plus, a huge number of companies offer tuition reimbursement (even Walmart, that boogeyman of the left, is starting to offer this). This makes it much more viable to get your foot in the door of a large company with a lower-rung position, and then work your way up.

I know I've gone off on a tangent, but I've seen friends and family fall into the very same trap you appear to be on the verge of - essentially biting the hand that could be feeding you (and feeding you well). The key is to be persistent, be willing to take on more responsibility, and be smart about what you're getting your degree/certificate/training in. Companies are dying to hire decent, hard-working people who can then be promoted from within.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:54 pm

NoTime wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
How? Because you might not "win"? Tell me exactly who has which of their basic rights violated by pure capitalism.


At the top of my head - those who have had their homes repossessed because they could no longer afford to pay off their loans simply due to the fact that the interest rates on their mortgage jumped tremendously or because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoffs due to outsourcing, bad economy, unscrupulous employers).


If your interest rates "jumped tremendously" it's because you signed up for a variable rate mortgage, and knew it was a possibility from the beginning. You would have no one to blame but yourself.


Yes its always the fault of the customer, never the bank. It's not like banks have never attempted predatory lending that are deceptive, coercive, exploitative or unscrupulous. No wonder banks can run roughshod over consumers & get away with it. No wonder bankers can walk away with huge fat bonus checks while their customers are thrown to the streets.

NoTime wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Or how about families who can't afford to pay rent because rent prices are jacked up by those who went and rented properties to be sublet as Airbnb homes?


Then either a) find a new (cheaper) place to rent, or b) make more money to afford it. It really is that simple.


Image

If only life was that simple.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:07 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
So you shouldn't be angry if a business chooses to outsource jobs because it's less costly to do have those jobs overseas.

Why? The displaced workers lost the competition. The employer should be expected to fulfill the terms of whatever contract they have with the workers but that is all.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Or colluding with their competitors to set prices in order not to lose money.

Collusion does violate people's rights and is illegal for that reason.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Or use the power afforded to them by being a monopoly to crush anyone who dares to even try & compete.

If the monopoly was really abusive then competition would do them in. There are already laws against blatantly anti-competitive behavior and many others are purely government overreach.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
At the top of my head - those who have had their homes repossessed because they could no longer afford to pay off their loans simply due to the fact that the interest rates on their mortgage jumped tremendously or because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoffs due to outsourcing, bad economy, unscrupulous employers).

You don't have a right to keep something you can't pay for. All the buyers signed contracts didn't they?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Or how about families who can't afford to pay rent because rent prices are jacked up by those who went and rented properties to be sublet as Airbnb homes?

Then they have to do something else.

Nobody has a right to get housing by violating someone else's right, in this case their property rights by either stiffing a bank on a house or denying property owners the right to rent their property as they please. You simply have no legitimate claim to keep a property owner from renting their property to someone else.

It's exactly the same as why it's wrong to hold up a Burger King because you're hungry.

zkojq wrote:
I always find it entertaining to see americans defending a system that screws them over so much compared to the rest of the world.

I always find it entertaining to see Europeans defending a system that gives them free stuff at a very high cost. Ludwig Von Mises warned us about this, but we gave Europe many fish but they never learned to catch anything themselves.

einsteinboricua wrote:
So if I banked with Wells Fargo and an account was opened under my name, it's my fault for banking with Wells Fargo?

That is identity theft and fraud, both of which are illegal for good reasons. Find me one person who thinks that what went on at Wells Fargo was totally legit. You're refuting a point that nobody is making.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Yeah, because moving from one place to another is free and doesn't involve big costs associated with it. And because money grows on trees, we can always make more money to afford all of this. It's really that simple!

a) Finding a new (cheaper) place to rent is the solution. But you fail to consider that to go somewhere else you have to break a lease (which means paying a penalty for it); unless you slim down to bare minimums, you also need to move stuff. A cheaper place may be miles away from your job which means there may not be the infrastructure in place for public transportation, which means if you don't have a car you need to buy one.
b) We can't make more money when corporations aren't willing to give raises, and when you tells us that we have to make sacrifices. You tell us to go to college to get a good paying degree. Newsflash: college isn't free. So that means we carry debt, which we need to pay off but you don't believe we should be helped. We just need to trim down, make more money (easier said than done) and if you need to sell an arm and leg, go for it...but it's your fault if you do.

I highly doubt that anyone is putting a gun to your head to do any of those things. Violating the property rights of others is not a legitimate solution to any of those situations.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
It's not like banks have never attempted predatory lending that are deceptive, coercive, exploitative or unscrupulous.

The government cheered them on all the way when giving loans to people who had less than stellar credit. The government was encouraging the American Dream for everyone, whether they could afford it or not.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
No wonder bankers can walk away with huge fat bonus checks while their customers are thrown to the streets.

Do you really believe that a default/foreclosure is a victory for the bank?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:51 am

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
So you shouldn't be angry if a business chooses to outsource jobs because it's less costly to do have those jobs overseas.

Why? The displaced workers lost the competition. The employer should be expected to fulfill the terms of whatever contract they have with the workers but that is all.


So you're saying you're ok with someone being deprived of his/her right to desirable work (as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) simply because the "competition" can offer lower costs through less stringent employment rules?

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Or colluding with their competitors to set prices in order not to lose money.

Collusion does violate people's rights and is illegal for that reason.


Actually, it doesn't.

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
At the top of my head - those who have had their homes repossessed because they could no longer afford to pay off their loans simply due to the fact that the interest rates on their mortgage jumped tremendously or because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoffs due to outsourcing, bad economy, unscrupulous employers).

You don't have a right to keep something you can't pay for. All the buyers signed contracts didn't they?


The argument's only valid if there's clear intent that they never intend to pay in the first place. Another thing entirely if the only reason they can't pay is due to the seller's deceptive practices. Speaking of which, I don't understand why contracts can't be simplified so that a layman can understand the gist of what they're signing. I've tried reading through my hire-purchase contract & it's written in such legalese that a normal person such as myself may find themselves bewildered by the clauses. And not everyone can afford access to a lawyer in order to make it clearer.

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
No wonder bankers can walk away with huge fat bonus checks while their customers are thrown to the streets.

Do you really believe that a default/foreclosure is a victory for the bank?


Well it seems like the banks didn't lose out during the 2008 Financial Crisis now do they? Sure one bank went under, but the big Wall Street banks are still up & running thanks to government intervention (otherwise we'd be in deeper trouble) - even growing too big that any future failure would ultimately bring down the global financial system & thus bringing the whole notion of capitalism crashing to the ground. All because the bankers were chasing after unsustainable profits & bonuses for themselves.

Now, there's nothing wrong with making a profit. However people need to realize that profits at the expense of others is no profit at all, which is pure capitalism's main problem. There must be some sort of limit, whether you like it or not.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:51 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
So you're saying you're ok with someone being deprived of his/her right to desirable work (as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) simply because the "competition" can offer lower costs through less stringent employment rules?

One person does not get to exercise their right to "desirable work" (whatever that means) by violating both the property rights (by forcing them to pay you) and liberty (by forcing them into an economic transaction against their will) of potential employers. It's the same as how I can't exercise my right to property by stabbing you and taking your wallet.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The argument's only valid if there's clear intent that they never intend to pay in the first place.

No it isn't. It makes no difference why someone can't pay unless it is somehow covered in the terms of the mortgage. Otherwise you are in breach of contract and it will trigger whatever provisions were agreed to in the contract.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Speaking of which, I don't understand why contracts can't be simplified so that a layman can understand the gist of what they're signing.

I don't either, but if you sign something that you don't like or can't understand that is your problem. You not being smart enough to understand things is not everyone's problem.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Well it seems like the banks didn't lose out during the 2008 Financial Crisis now do they?

They were bailed out because of massive numbers of defaults. Banks do not ever want a loan to not be repaid. There is risk that is priced into the loan but the bank never wants that risk to be realized. All you do by saying that banks are winning when debtors default is prove that you know very little about the financial system.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
All because the bankers were chasing after unsustainable profits & bonuses for themselves.

They were trying to implement the government policy of trying to get everyone into a home of their own. Bundling into derivatives and variable rate mortgages were methods to spread the risk inherent with loaning money to people so they can buy things they can't really afford. Those attempts ultimately didn't really work in 2007.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Hillis
Topic Author
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:26 pm

BMI727=Alex P Keaton.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:46 pm

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
So you're saying you're ok with someone being deprived of his/her right to desirable work (as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) simply because the "competition" can offer lower costs through less stringent employment rules?

One person does not get to exercise their right to "desirable work" (whatever that means) by violating both the property rights (by forcing them to pay you) and liberty (by forcing them into an economic transaction against their will) of potential employers. It's the same as how I can't exercise my right to property by stabbing you and taking your wallet.


Desireable work = the right to work and to choose what work they will do.

It seems that for you, it's ok for employers to exercise their rights but god forbid if an employee wants to exercise their rights.

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Well it seems like the banks didn't lose out during the 2008 Financial Crisis now do they?

They were bailed out because of massive numbers of defaults. Banks do not ever want a loan to not be repaid. There is risk that is priced into the loan but the bank never wants that risk to be realized. All you do by saying that banks are winning when debtors default is prove that you know very little about the financial system.


They faced massive defaults because they foisted loans on people who don't deserve loans. Why they did that? Bonuses & commissions through the issuance of more loans. And they can do that because of the belief that convoluted financial tools like CDO & CDS help reduce the inherent risks in offering those subprime loans. Indeed any sane banker wouldn't push their companies to offer loans with high default probability, but the two factors I just stated were the main driver that led many banks to ignore common sense and ultimately drove America to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

As for defaults, I've my own personal experience. A few years ago, my car was repossessed (through no fault of my own; my father kicked the bucket & I was still in the midst of studying at that time) & auctioned off before I managed to settle the outstanding fee. Not only was my car auctioned, but I still have to settle whatever balance left after the proceeds from the auction was deducted from the outstanding total, which I obviously had to pay otherwise I'm blacklisted. So how did I as a debtor profited from being in default? And how did the bank lose out by me defaulting? The bank still got their money (with interest, I might add - as I didn't settle the accounts right away).

BMI727 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
All because the bankers were chasing after unsustainable profits & bonuses for themselves.

They were trying to implement the government policy of trying to get everyone into a home of their own. Bundling into derivatives and variable rate mortgages were methods to spread the risk inherent with loaning money to people so they can buy things they can't really afford. Those attempts ultimately didn't really work in 2007.


First off, let's be real - the bankers don't give two hoots about giving the opportunity for every American to reach out for a taste of the American Dream by owning a house. And second, did the American government point a gun to the bankers' head & said "Lend the money to everyone, or else we'll take over your bank?" No they didn't. So don't try to shift the blame whole responsibility to the government. The banks should shoulder much of the blame themselves.

I'll reiterate what I've written before - there's nothing wrong with making a profit. However people need to realize that profits at the expense of others is no profit at all, which is pure capitalism's main problem. There must be some sort of limit, whether you like it or not.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
NoTime
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:06 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Desireable work = the right to work and to choose what work they will do.

It seems that for you, it's ok for employers to exercise their rights but god forbid if an employee wants to exercise their rights.


Completely asinine. What rights are employees being prevented from exercising?

And second, did the American government point a gun to the bankers' head & said "Lend the money to everyone, or else we'll take over your bank?" No they didn't. So don't try to shift the blame whole responsibility to the government.


Perhaps you should read up on the Community Reinvestment Act’s role in the housing bubble.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:45 pm

The government subsidizes housing. Banks don't really write mortgages - they act as agents for the government, who buys up conforming mortgages via Fannie and Freddie.

The mortgage market would be completely different without Fannie and Freddie. And the university marketplace would be totally different without government loans. And, health care expenses would be totally different without government involvement.

I think people have this idea that corporations harm the world, and government is the source of everything good. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We need a government. But we also need private business. We need both, desperately. Government should limit business from pumping the air full of lead and coal soot. And business should exist to prevent the government from running our farms and our factories and so on. Because government is terribly bad at that.

There is nothing inherently evil about collaborative organizations that use labor and capital together, aka businesses / nonprofifts. Without business there would be almost no medicine, no bread, no TV, no cell phones, no cars, no good whiskey, no good movies, etc. People working together following a strict set of laws = government (if you are lucky). People working together on something new = business/nonprofit. This has been tried and verified.

Not to get totally Ayn Rand, but an airline performs a good service to humanity by accepting people's money, and taking them where they want to go. Airlines perform a morally good service. Each year, they innovate and provide you slightly more efficient travel. If customers DO NOT want something, an airline has no money to fund it - and the service STOPS. If customers want MORE of something, an airline deploys MORE fleet to do that thing. An airline is a tool -- a system -- that makes common people's desires come to life. With $300 in my pocket I can take a long, perfectly safe journey on a major airline. That requires training pilots, acquiring a $50 million airplane and so on. This is utterly out of reach for me unless a complex business offers me that service.

A government could run an airline, using taxation of all citizens, but the morality of that system would be highly dubious. The airline system we have is more moral than a Soviet airline system IMO.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:00 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
So by mandating 28 days annual leave, the Govt is protecting it's citizens from archaic working practices that would flog the workforce and unscrupulous management. A happy workforce is a productive workforce.


Yet, except for Norway and Luxembourg, no "civilized" country comes close to US productivity.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
 
Redd
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:05 pm

6-8 weeks isn't enough time for a woman's vagina to heal in most cases. Not to mention that a baby need it's mother for much longer than that short time to be around. What do you do with a 1.5 month old baby when you have to go back to work and you don't have family around to help?

My wife has just finished 1 year paid maternity leave, I can't really imagine what we would have done if we'd had anything shorter than that.
 
User avatar
akiss20
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm

mham001 wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
So by mandating 28 days annual leave, the Govt is protecting it's citizens from archaic working practices that would flog the workforce and unscrupulous management. A happy workforce is a productive workforce.


Yet, except for Norway and Luxembourg, no "civilized" country comes close to US productivity.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV


Apparently you can't read your own sources. Ireland and Belgium have higher productivity than the US. According to your own source, 13 other nations are as close to the US in productivity as the US is to Luxembourg. That is not including the lumped groups of nations (EU, G7, and Euro Area) which are all within that range too.

So let's not toot our own horn too much there.
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14399
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:46 pm

I enjoyed the surreal part of this thread about dryer ownership.

I've just learned that in Finland, 70% of the homes (including apartments) feature a sauna. How uncivilized of us in the rest of the world to usually not have one !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: AMEX To Give New Parents In US 20 Weeks Paid Leave

Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:41 am

This thread was obviously red meat to the first three repliers.

And I agree...the dryer tangent was a bit surreal. Who knew that a dick measuring contest could take the form of a household appliance?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueberryWheats, FGITD, N14AZ and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos