Here’s an example of increasing expectations. Five years ago I bought a house built in the 1950s. Including the large den that used to be a garage, it’s less than 1,300 square feet. I bought it from a couple that had lived in it since 1976 and raised two or three children in it. It originally was three bedrooms and one bathroom, but they remodeled to make it two bedrooms and two baths. I wanted the second bathroom since I planned to rent out a bedroom and didn’t want to share a bathroom. But note that my housemate and I each have about 650 square feet of living space.

My real-estate agent told me (with a straight face) that I could live in it for a few years and then rent it out and buy a bigger one. Why does a single woman renting out one bedroom need a larger house? Now, I’d like to have a library, and I’d like to have a walk-in closet. But I don’t need those things. Looking at it another way, I have about the same square footage as my parents had in 1970 when they had six kids at home.

Most of the “poor” people I know have cable and newer cars than I do. I really don’t see it as my responsibility to pay a mother to stay home for a few weeks, and then go back to work so she can afford those luxuries that I myself don’t have. If a person has genuine needs, then it’s fine for people to help them. It isn’t fine for people to ask for government assistance to help raise their families just because they want it.

For the record, I have family members who easily qualify for government benefits (WIC and other stuff) that they do not take. My own father qualified, and never took them. But let’s say for the sake of argument that we decide to go with this system–how long before the liberals begin arguing that families can only take it twice, because no family should have more than two children? Would you be willing to cover my dad seven times, or most of my married siblings five times each? If not, then don’t say you care about the poor (families with large numbers of children tend to be poorer). And if you would be willing, then it might make more sense to see what the working poor really want–and for many of them, it isn’t government handouts, but it’s for government to stay off their backs, and not to tax them for benefits to others. Because, see, families that choose not to take government assistance are stronger families, and their kids don’t end up getting divorced or going to jail in anywhere near the numbers of those who feel that government “owes” them money.

Report comment to moderator

Family and Medical Leave Act

Overview

Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

I’m not certain of how the law is actually worded, but it appears that there is an exemption to favour the employer when both spouses work for the same company. For example, my wife and I could both take our 12 weeks of FMLA leave. However, my company’s policy manual (and I assume this is in compliance with the law) stipulates that if a husband and wife are both employeed here, they may take a combined total of 12 weeks. So this limits the impact on the company.

Report comment to moderator

FMLA grants unpaid leave. I believe it applies either to the mother or the father. My experience is that men rarely take that time off, although I heartily applaud those who do.

A co-worker who reported to me was able to take time off for the birth of his daughter. Financially, I was unable to, but I certainly would have if we had been a bit more stable when our daughter was born. Since he and I had similar incomes, what made the difference was that his wife earned more as a university professor than mine did as a grad student/ biological technician.

If and when we are blessed with another child, I fully intend to take advantage of my FMLA leave.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

I stand by my original comment, with bells on. Expectations of what a family needs to get by have soared over the last couple of generations, and we have the enormous home floor plans (and commensurate utility bills) and bloated entertainment spending to show for it. Even a typical American family’s concept of a week’s worth of groceries has changed drastically and unnecessarily: dessert for many kids growing up in the 50s and 60s was a serving of canned peaches with a little cream over it; now, everybody gets a Haagen-Dazs. Surely you’ve noticed the square footage of the average new tract home compared to what you grew up in? The average number of (new!) cars, television sets, and bathrooms per household? Average number of restaurant meals per week? Average cable TV bill? [In my work, I see the occasional bankruptcy filing. I had to laugh at one that listed a ginormous mortgage payment, two car loans, and a top-of-the-line cable package as reasons why they could only afford a measly payment to the trustee to pay off their other creditors!]

None of these material uber-blessings are in themselves bad things, yet they are surely not necessities. Kids are the losers when Mom and Dad are both away all day. Sometimes, as I already made allowance for, this is a sad necessity, but again this is the exception in affluent America, not the rule. Rising expectations, and the desire to have it all, account for the majority of these households.

Report comment to moderator

As well we ought to because we claim to value families.

As a society, we cannot have it both ways – having our cake and eating it too. Do we really value families, or do we value a few extra bucks in corporate profits more? Well, which is it?

Families, at least the ones I know, pretty much all are struggling to get by, and working as hard as they can. Who are you to be the arbiter of whether they can get by without Mom working full time or not?

Yet, you are ready to grudge every dime that flows from business to families.

And yet, you just may be surprised. Treat families a little bit better, and you will get, what? More loyal employees? People who want to come to work, and repay loyalty for loyalty? Better productivity? Better retention of trained employees? Nah, wouldn’t want those things!

If we claim to be for “family values,” then we should either put up or shut up.

Report comment to moderator

Buddy in 17: who compensates these employers again? That’s right, the taxpayers.

Report comment to moderator

Actually, I value all families, whether they choose to have Mom, or Dad, or both working, and whether they absolutely positively both need to work financially, and whether there is one parent or two in the family. And in all such cases, for Mom or for Dad, I support the notion of paid leave. So, at least for a time, BOTH parents can be home. Or ONE, if that is all there is.

Report comment to moderator

Personally I think paternity leave is a good idea not because it would achieve some feminist utopia, but because mothers with new children typically need a lot of help and encouragement.

Report comment to moderator

Actually the “family values” crowd is the group that values family enough that one parent stays home full-time, and not just for 12 weeks or a year. And such families don’t want to be paying for the maternity leave of another family that, with two wage earners, has more money than they do.

Report comment to moderator