What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[eppie]

First... I don't believe in measuring a country by the size of their handouts. There should be a social safety net sufficient to prevent people from suffering, and anything more is gratuitous. In the US, the federal FMLA allows for a minimum protection of 12 weeks leave, and most companies have some policy about how they pay during that period. But, in the US, paid leave is at the discretion of the companies paid benefits. We don't get a leave check from the government for having a child. Personally, my wife and I planned for it, and saved up for about 5 years before she gave birth. She took off 3 months (1/2 of it was paid) then worked three 10 hour days for a year with the first one, and quit work for 5 years for the second one. I took off a month for both (1/2 was vacation time).

Kandrathe, it is easy to whisk away this argument by talking about 'handouts'. Just like they are some nice thing that you give people so they can remain being the hypocrytical lazy commies they are.

We get longer child benefits because we believe in equality (for real, so not like in the US only on paper and in campaign speeches).
Women and men are given the chance to take enough leave and share it as equal as they can so that women don't have to throw away their career (and now I am sure you are coming up with the example of your wife who after 5 years of leave continued her brilliant career but please don't have this discussion as a list of examples of people you or I know).
Women can take enough leave so that they don't have to breastfeed their baby's when they are back at work already. Parents don't have to be scared to take a day off to take care of their sick child (we have a more or less unlimited number of those days (paid) .

Here family is more important than the chance that one person pays a bit more tax and gets a bit less benefits for it as another.

And to add to that; the descretion of the comapanies to give leave......I am sure cleaning companies and wall-mart have the same impressive leave package as has exxon or Procter and Gamble. Or not?

[DeeBye]

Women can take enough leave so that they don't have to breastfeed their baby's when they are back at work already.

In Canada we get 12 months' parental leave, split up between father and mother how they see fit. The mother can take 12 months, or the father can take 12 months, or they can split it up 6/6 or 3/9 etc.

What happens to a single new mother in the US?

[Tris]

We had a married court reporter who brought her kid to work periodically. IIRC, her husband was out in the field planting several thousand acres.

Also, had a married office administrator (State) who brought her kid to work for several weeks. IIRC similar situation. Big difference was that she drove >40 miles one-way to work out here. Besides, really can't blame her for not hanging around the unincorporated area several miles North of the "Oil Capital of North Dakota" ™ ... and I don't mean Minot either.

Of course, we're also fairly remote, and they were in jobs where having a child with them wasn't a problem

[kandrathe]

Women can take enough leave so that they don't have to breastfeed their baby's when they are back at work already.

In Canada we get 12 months' parental leave, split up between father and mother how they see fit. The mother can take 12 months, or the father can take 12 months, or they can split it up 6/6 or 3/9 etc.

Is that paid? What if they have 12 children over 14 years to 10 different fathers?

[Tris]

*insert politically incorrect comment here* Self-censorship about certain groups there

You forgot to mention 10 different, and unknown, fathers *Slaps self*

[kandrathe]

You forgot to mention 10 different, and unknown, fathers *Slaps self*

I've heard from friends multiple cases of poor single mothers who look for "fathers" to keep the AFDC money flowing.

Safety net, yes. Hammock, no.

[FireIceTalon]

Yep, only the bourgeois are entitled to hammocks.

[eppie]

Women can take enough leave so that they don't have to breastfeed their baby's when they are back at work already.

In Canada we get 12 months' parental leave, split up between father and mother how they see fit. The mother can take 12 months, or the father can take 12 months, or they can split it up 6/6 or 3/9 etc.

What happens to a single new mother in the US?

We get 18 months of which 3 for some small benefit (20 dollars per day) and the rest for 80% of your salary up to a max of around 3500 euro per month. Often employers top this up t0 90 or 100%.
Here however 3 months are non transferable.....so every parent needs to take at least 3 months (or loose those three months of course) and if you split it 50/50 you get some small bonus as well.

[ShadowHM]

You forgot to mention 10 different, and unknown, fathers *Slaps self*

I've heard from friends multiple cases of poor single mothers who look for "fathers" to keep the AFDC money flowing.

Safety net, yes. Hammock, no.

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence. You, of all people here, should know this by now.

Furthermore, given the spectrum of human activities, if you decide to make your policy calls based on the activity of the outliers, you end up taking things away from the majority.

There is significant evidence that society benefits from the availability of maternity leave. Suggesting taking it away because the bottom percentile 'abuses' it is both mean-spirited and bad policy.

[kandrathe]

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence. You, of all people here, should know this by now.

Yup. I was just wondering on how Canada confronts those who game the system. Here, we do have a large "dependency class" that if given the opportunity to rely entirely on the government for support, will do so. As contrasted by those temporarily falling into the safety net. In the US, ~50% of income is derived from wages, and the corresponding Canadian number is 78%. 11.2% of Canadian income is derived from government transfers, while in the US it is about 19%. In the US, the government spends $7,427 per citizen on handouts, while Canada spends $2,029 per citizen.

Furthermore, given the spectrum of human activities, if you decide to make your policy calls based on the activity of the outliers, you end up taking things away from the majority.

You mean taking away from the majority the "free" hand out from the government. The money came from somewhere. If you are subsidizing 12 months of salary for 1.5% of the population giving birth that year, that money came from taxing 100% of the people during that same 12 months.

There is significant evidence that society benefits from the availability of maternity leave. Suggesting taking it away because the bottom percentile 'abuses' it is both mean-spirited and bad policy.

I would agree that parental leave is good, and we have that. The question is who pays, the government (taxes everyone), the employer, or the individual. Also, I think there is a difference in the civic spirit of the average American, from the average Canadian. It's why they fled north in the first place. You were all the King's rule followers, and we were the rebels who wanted more anarchy.

I tend to favor having the individual pay for their own expensive decisions (like living in a flood plain. Heh, I just equated childbirth to a natural disaster). Having sex is fun and easy, but rearing children is not. People should not be encouraged by the government to have more children. But, once impregnated, the women and child need to be coddled for societies benefit. It's not that we are not taxing enough, or spending enough. The problem is we are ineffective in our spending.

[Jester]

In the US, ~50% of income is derived from wages, and the corresponding Canadian number is 78%. 11.2% of Canadian income is derived from government transfers, while in the US it is about 19%. In the US, the government spends $7,427 per citizen on handouts, while Canada spends $2,029 per citizen.

Source? Are you sure you're not missing some Federal/Provincial distinction? I would be shocked if the US and Canadian figures were anywhere near that divergent. Canada has higher taxes, and a fraction of the military budget. The money must go somewhere...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In the US, ~50% of income is derived from wages, and the corresponding Canadian number is 78%. 11.2% of Canadian income is derived from government transfers, while in the US it is about 19%. In the US, the government spends $7,427 per citizen on handouts, while Canada spends $2,029 per citizen.

Source? Are you sure you're not missing some Federal/Provincial distinction? I would be shocked if the US and Canadian figures were anywhere near that divergent. Canada has higher taxes, and a fraction of the military budget. The money must go somewhere...

-Jester

Right, but our government borrows half of what we spend. Our public services costs, (e.g. healthcare, education) are much higher. I think Canada does socialism correctly, whereas, the US handles it as "programs" which get muddled with special interests.

Edit: For sources (summary here), wages as a % income, and (welfare) transfer payment outlays per capita for the US corroborated with the BLS. For Canada, I was able to google the Wages as a % of income, but had to calculate the transfer per capita by adding up the ~70 billion spent on transfer payments over the population of Canada.

[DeeBye]

You mean taking away from the majority the "free" hand out from the government. The money came from somewhere. If you are subsidizing 12 months of salary for 1.5% of the population giving birth that year, that money came from taxing 100% of the people during that same 12 months.

I, and I imagine most other Canadians living within the same system, look at it from the point of view that we contribute to the pot, and when the need arises we get to take our fair share from that pot. When I need to visit the doctor, I don't think that everyone else is paying for my "free" doctor visit. I'm just getting the healthcare that I've been paying for through my taxes over the years.

[ShadowHM]

You mean taking away from the majority the "free" hand out from the government. The money came from somewhere. If you are subsidizing 12 months of salary for 1.5% of the population giving birth that year, that money came from taxing 100% of the people during that same 12 months.

There is a philosophy at work here that suggests that 'giving' a hand to new parents is the sort of thing that prevents problems that are more costly to society later. In other words, it ain't a 'free hand out' when there is enlightened self interest involved.

Also, I think there is a difference in the civic spirit of the average American, from the average Canadian. It's why they fled north in the first place.

It may come as news to you, but most Canadians actually did not flee the U.S. of A. to get here. Our citizens have arrived from all over the world. And even when there were arrivals from the U.S., (the so-called Loyalists and Late Loyalists) there was quite a lot more involved than fleeing anarchy.

[Jester]

For Canada, I was able to google the Wages as a % of income, but had to calculate the transfer per capita by adding up the ~70 billion spent on transfer payments over the population of Canada.

In the Canadian context, transfer payments are made by the Federal government to the Provincial governments in order to help fund Federally regulated programs that are administered at the Province level. It is accounting - taxes from one pile moved into another pile.

They are not in any sense a measure of total Canadian spending on entitlement programs.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

There is a philosophy at work here that suggests that 'giving' a hand to new parents is the sort of thing that prevents problems that are more costly to society later. In other words, it ain't a 'free hand out' when there is enlightened self interest involved.

I get it. But... What I was attempting to describe is that we have a whole different issue than Canada. The number of poor in the USA is ~39 million. The population of Canada is ~34.1 million. Birth rate (2009) in Canada is 10.28 per 1000. The birth rate in the US is 34.3 per 1000. We already have a deficit problem, so adding another cost to government without cutting some other expense will be politically difficult. And, as I attempted to show, our government spends more per capita than Canada on transfer payments. The other means would be to force businesses to provide this benefit, but the unintended consequence will be higher unemployment (esp. fertile females).

Also, I think there is a difference in the civic spirit of the average American, from the average Canadian. It's why they fled north in the first place.

It may come as news to you, but most Canadians actually did not flee the U.S. of A. to get here. Our citizens have arrived from all over the world. And even when there were arrivals from the U.S., (the so-called Loyalists and Late Loyalists) there was quite a lot more involved than fleeing anarchy.

Yes. I was attempting to make a joke/compliment. My ancestors didn't arrive until the late 1800's to early 1900's, and some of them ended up in Canada too.

[DeeBye]

The number of poor in the USA is ~39 million. The population of Canada is ~34.1 million. Birth rate (2009) in Canada is 10.28 per 1000. The birth rate in the US is 34.3 per 1000.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/us.html
13.83 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)

Also, I think your birthrate calculation for Canada is off as well.

StatCan "Births, estimates, by province and territory"
386,013 births in a population of 34,482,779

My math might be fuzzy but I work that out to 11.19 births/1,000 population.

It's a lot closer then you made it out to be.

[DeeBye]

Furthermore, given the spectrum of human activities, if you decide to make your policy calls based on the activity of the outliers, you end up taking things away from the majority.

I sort of skimmed over this the first time I read it, but it deserves a response.

Well said.

[kandrathe]

It's a lot closer then you made it out to be.

Yeah, sorry. I looked at a wrong number.

Using the CIA's numbers...

For 2009, the U.S. total fertility rate is currently 2.09 births per woman. The United Kingdom's fertility rate is 1.66, Canada's is 1.61, and Germany's is 1.40.

My source.

"The preliminary general fertility rate (GFR) for 2010 was 64.1 births per 1,000 women age 15-44 years, 3 percent below the rate in 2009 (66.2) and the lowest rate reported since the late 1990s (Table 1-3 and S-1 and Figure 2)."

It doesn't make sense to include women who are too young, or too old to bear children.

Canada's GFR (15-44) for 2010 is ??? The only data I could find showed it to be ~44.1 in 1998 (Figure 5.1.5) . Projecting the line, I would guess it continued to decline from 1999 to 2009 by a similar amount to the mid 30's.

[Jester]

And, as I attempted to show, our government spends more per capita than Canada on transfer payments.

Except, as I said, what you are measuring is not what you think you are measuring. Transfer payments in Canada involve moving funds from one level of government to the other (mostly, to equalize regional incomes, and to support uniform national standards in health and other programs despite tax base differences between rich and poor provinces) You appear to be using them as "net entitlement payments," which is simply incorrect.

-Jester