Maternity leave, schmaternity leave
Christian S. Collberg
90 % salary, the rest with a smaller amount.
Christian
coll...@dna.lth.se
Clayton Cramer
# Since the topic of social legislation affecting the workplace seems
# to be one people are interested in, I thought I'd share some further
# information on this topic which I just happened to run across the other
# day (in the British magazine Spare Rib), in the form of a display
# labeled "Statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave at a percentage
# of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
#
#
# In this country The law entitles a woman At this percentage
# to this many weeks of her salary
# maternity leave
#
# West Germany 32 80
# Italy 21 80
# Denmark 18 90
# Luxembourg 16 100
# France 16 90
# Ireland 14 80
# Belgium 14 79
# Spain 14 75
# Portugal 13 100
# Netherlands 12 100
# Greece 12 50
# Britain 6 90
#
# To which we may add:
#
# United States surely you jest
#
# This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
# really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
# --
# Jon Corelis j...@lindy.stanford.edu
# Stanford University BITNET: XB....@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
That's why you are at Stanford -- to demonstrate your ignorance.
At least in California, a woman having a baby is considered
"disabled", and receives disability payments for six weeks after
giving birth.
That such "disability" is (or should be) a matter of choice, is
obvious.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
What shall it be today? Watch Three's Company? Or unify the field theory?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
Dr. Sanio
>
> I recently posted an article titled Capitalism with a human face, in
>which I noted that the only bill to fail passage in a recent session of
>the California State Senate was a proposal which would obligate
>businesses to let their employees use sick leave to care for their sick
>children. [...]
>
>[...] "Statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave at a percentage
>of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
>
>
>
> West Germany 32 80
> [...]
In addition, it may be interesting that after maternity leave, one of the
parents might have an "educational year" (or "baby year") at a fixed income
of 600 Deutschmarks - 300 $ ca. - with guaranteed return to her/his job.
To the percentage of salary, it might be interesting to know that this
is paid through the health insurance system (though subsidized by the state),
and is free of taxes, so that it's nearly normal net income, in average, and
a little more under extreme conditions (If the other partner earns a lot,
tax saving may be more than income loss). Special rules for labour conditions
take effect from the beginning of pregnancy up to the end of breast-feeding,
e.g. night or shift labour is forbidden (though full income for that kind of
work must be paid), up to 2 h/day must be granted (and paid) for breast-feeding
(as far as it applies) etc. .
These rules are part of a system of social security, which at least guarantees
high productivity, rather good level of qualification (skilled workers) and
a remarkably low rate of strikes, sabotage, absentism etc. Obviously, both sides
- employers and workers - , win with that arrangement. Maybe the neigbourhood of
communist countries with similar regulations inspired the employers & the
authorities, too (well, that's competition), because many people otherwise
wouldn't accept that we can't afford what those (obviously poorer & worse-
governed) countries can. And our neighbour Sweden was always an example that
advanced social security doesn't contradict Capitalism (Companies make good
profits, even there).
>
>Jon Corelis j...@lindy.stanford.edu
es e...@athen.uucp sa...@netmbx.uucp (dunno whether working from the US)
Will Johnson
>of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
>
> In this country The law entitles a woman At this percentage
> to this many weeks of her salary
> maternity leave
>
> West Germany 32 80
> Denmark 18 90
> Luxembourg 16 100
> France 16 90
> Ireland 14 80
> Belgium 14 79
> Spain 14 75
> Portugal 13 100
> Netherlands 12 100
> Greece 12 50
> Britain 6 90
>
> To which we may add:
>
>
Better off? Perhaps not. But do you get paid sick leave for voluntary
surgery? Not last I checked. So why should pregnancy be any different?
I agree pregnancy is important enough that it should be law that a woman
must be able to get her job back after maternity leave. But having
children in a choice. With contraception and abortion prevalent, there
is little chance that a responsible woman will get pregnant anyway.
(Not saying that it's her responsibility, but certainly it's half hers).
No, if parents are going to have a child, I don't think it's right to
ask an employer to pay for work he/she doesn't recieve. A little less
than a 6th less work in the year in question for the same money (s)he
agreed to pay for a year's work. I admit this is somewhat unfair to
women, since men don't have such a restriction (either a job or lose
a bit of pay for a family), but as so many people have thrown out as
justification for the idea that women should get primary custody:
It's biology. And it's a hell of a lot more fair to put the CHOICE on
a woman, than to force responsibility for that choice on the employer
(Hmmm, more parallels to the unwed parents dilemma).
This is like the whole socialized medicine thing many people are for.
People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
a Doctor if it no longer paid as well? Socialized medicine is part
of a socialist society. Free trade is part of ours. If you like
democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine. If you like cheap
medicine, you have to give up some of your freedom. There are a lot
of trade offs we make for our freedom, and one of those is the idea
that everyone else deserves THEIR freedom as well. Including Doctors.
Including companies, with the singular exception of monopolies. Including
employers. If you want free trade, then you expect to get fair market
value for your services. If you don't render the services, you don't
get paid. Pure and simple.
Will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Original text copyright (c) 1989 by: William Johnson
William...@mts.rpi.edu | 76 1/2 - 13th Street
user...@rpitsmts.bitnet | Troy, NY 12180
ad...@pawl.rpi.edu | "Hey, Dad...wanna have a catch?" -- Ray Kinsella
Karl Denninger
>which I noted that the only bill to fail passage in a recent session of
>the California State Senate was a proposal which would obligate
>businesses to let their employees use sick leave to care for their sick
>Senate did pass the measure in a subsequent session, so this may still
>become law in California.
Obligate? Why?
You'll get at least one. From me.
To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
workplace.
If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
A company hiring cannot force a woman to not become pregnant. That I think
we all agree is a good thing. It should be her choice to have or not have
children.
However, since that is the case, and men cannot become pregnant, if a woman
of child-bearing age is interviewing, and there is a mandatory maternity
leave with pay law, then each businessman must evaluate the cost of
employing that person as follows:
Man Woman
May take up to <x> days off May take up to 6 WEEKS off
(sick days, say for argument 7/year) per year, every year while
menstruating, with pay. This is 72
days, or 6 times that of a man.
Get the point yet? No, all women won't produce babies like this. But some
will, especially when they know full well that they will get paid for doing
so! All men won't take the 7 days a year off sick either -- but some will.
A prudent businessperson has to evaluate the potential cost of those sick
days and/or maternity leave time when making an offer of employment and
salary.
By mandating a paid maternity leave you have just reduced the market value
of a woman, who does the same work as a man, by 5 weeks per year, or about
11% from that of a man. So, by your reasoning, I should be able to offer a
woman 11% less money per year for the SAME JOB as a man might hold, on the
basis that I might get 11% less work out of the woman due to this maternity
leave! Remember, equal pay for equal work is fine -- but you have to put
in equal work to get the equal pay, and under this "paid maternity leave"
the woman isn't going to be doing equal work. Unequal pay is the result.
If you also try to mandate that a business must pay women the same amount of
money for an identical position, but give the woman the maternity leave TOO,
then you'll get sued immediately on the grounds of discrimination -- by the
men.
I would bet this result would pass both normal and Supreme Court challenges.
There is no discrimination if you can show that you aren't getting the same
value of work out of the two sexes......which is what you would like to
codify into law!
Mandating parental leave for BOTH sexes, of equal amount, will just cause
salaries of BOTH sexes to drop by that same 11%. Not good.
Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
women's decisions.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
David M. Alexander
> >become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
> > not producing anything for the company.]
>
>Of course, this is only true if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL. What happens to
>your figures if, say, men are more susceptible to, say, heart disease,
>in their 40s and 50s? Funny -- people are paid more (on average) in
>their 40s and 50s than in their 20s and 30s, so the sick time costs
>more.
>
>I didn't think this up myself -- I heard it on NPR, and the claim
>there was that really it all ends up roughly equal.
>
>David
I was wondering...
Does that take into account the fact that in your 40's and 50's (when more
men have heart problems) you have more valuable experience built up and are
less expendable to the company than you did when you were in your 20's and
30's (when most women have babies)?
Just courious, it could make a difference.
Dave Alexander
%include "/usr/bin/std.disclaimer"
Steve Lamont
<labeled "Statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave at a percentage
<of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
<
<
< In this country The law entitles a woman At this percentage
< to this many weeks of her salary
< maternity leave
<
<
< To which we may add:
<
< United States surely you jest
<
< This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
<really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
Right-oh! Just think of it as a subtle form of birth control.
spl (the p stands for
pregnancy leave?
Sure! You get
pregnant, you
leave...)
--
Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: s...@ncsc.org
NCSC, Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
"Surrealism only comes later when it seems 'reality' becomes difficult
to achieve." - E. Miya, NASA Ames Research Center
Lori Barfield
Are you sure you're not combining disability-type medical leave with
maternity leave in your statistics? If you are, then the U.S. offers
variable leave starting with the first day in the hospital. Our jobs
are protected by law (federal or state?) for six weeks.
Personally, I'm still burning over the lack of paternity leave.
I care much, much less whether my maternity leave is really just
medical disability. I want my husband to get the chance to be a
new father with each baby! Single moms should be eligible for
paternity leave, too, as well as their disability.
...lori
VICC Project (Rose)
> However, since that is the case, and men cannot become pregnant, if a woman
> of child-bearing age is interviewing, and there is a mandatory maternity
> leave with pay law, then each businessman must evaluate the cost of
> employing that person as follows:
>
> Man Woman
> May take up to <x> days off May take up to 6 WEEKS off
> (sick days, say for argument 7/year) per year, every year while
> menstruating, with pay. This is 72
> days, or 6 times that of a man.
>
> Get the point yet? No, all women won't produce babies like this. But some
> will, especially when they know full well that they will get paid for doing
> so! All men won't take the 7 days a year off sick either -- but some will.
> A prudent businessperson has to evaluate the potential cost of those sick
> days and/or maternity leave time when making an offer of employment and
> salary.
>
> By mandating a paid maternity leave you have just reduced the market value
> of a woman, who does the same work as a man, by 5 weeks per year, or about
> 11% from that of a man. So, by your reasoning, I should be able to offer a
> woman 11% less money per year for the SAME JOB as a man might hold, on the
> basis that I might get 11% less work out of the woman due to this maternity
> leave! Remember, equal pay for equal work is fine -- but you have to put
> in equal work to get the equal pay, and under this "paid maternity leave"
> the woman isn't going to be doing equal work. Unequal pay is the result.
However, no one will use the maximum possible, the calculation will be based
on the average. Since most families will only have 1-2 children, the rate
should be much less than 5% (perhaps 2-3% at most).
> Mandating parental leave for BOTH sexes, of equal amount, will just cause
> salaries of BOTH sexes to drop by that same 11%. Not good.
At 2-3% each, this sounds more reasonable.
> Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
> that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
> child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
> policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
> value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
> want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
> while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
> women's decisions.
Unfortuanetaly, having a child is so expensive these days that in most
families, both parents must be able to hold down a well paying job. If a
woman is not guaranteed a job to return to, only the rich will be able to
afford children. I am not sure that the woman need be paid during the
maternity leave but I feel that a guaranteed job on return is needed. I
would also support the same for men for paternity leave.
I suppose you don't support public schools either? The maternity leave is
actually only a small portion of the cost of a child. If the burden of
child rearing was to only be on the parents, very few families would have
children, and other societies who were willing to pay for children would
eventually grind ours into the dust.
Frank Filz
Center For Integrated Electronics
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
vi...@unix.cie.rpi.edu
David Chase
>> [table comparing maternity leave among various countries, with the
>> U.S showing none at all]
>> This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
>>really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
>You'll get at least one. From me.
>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
Bronis Vidugiris
>Mandating parental leave for BOTH sexes, of equal amount, will just cause
>salaries of BOTH sexes to drop by that same 11%. Not good.
>
>Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
>that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
>child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
>policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
>value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
>want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
>while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
>women's decisions.
Hello Karl! I disagree with your position here - I think that paid parental
leave (for both sexes) is a reasonable thing to do, at least for large
corporations. [I can see a need for exception in very small companies].
There are more and more single parent families, and I think that provisions
to allow single parents to take care of their children are sorely needed.
I think that companies can 'head off' the need for legislation by voulantarily
adopting such policies - which do serve a legitimate need.
I don't think that your '11%' formula will hold. Not everyone will take the
leave - and those who do will not always take the full amount - so the cost
to the company will be less than indicated. Also, benifits (medical and
otherwise) are already a significant part of the cost of employment - so
this will reduce the figure by an additional factor of (I'd guess) about
1.3 to 1.5, which is the amount that total benifits raise the cost to the
company. In additon, this particular benifit is not taxable, which will
also help the situation.
All in all, I'd guess that the total impact might be 5% of salary or less -
and it does not necessarily have to come from salary, it could come from
reducing other benifits.
Christian S. Collberg
>In article <48...@lindy.Stanford.EDU> j...@lindy.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis) writes:
> >
>This is like the whole socialized medicine thing many people are for.
>People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
>want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
>In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
>a Doctor if it no longer paid as well? Socialized medicine is part
>of a socialist society. Free trade is part of ours. If you like
>democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine. If you like cheap
>user...@rpitsmts.bitnet | Troy, NY 12180
>ad...@pawl.rpi.edu | "Hey, Dad...wanna have a catch?" -- Ray Kinsella
I'm offended - on behalf of the entire free world (minus the US). Are you
saying that Britain, W. Germany, Sweden - all countries with free medicine -
are not democracies? You must be completely off your rocker! Providing
free medical care for people who could not otherwise afford it is a cornerstone
of democracy. It will free poor people from having to worry about potential
economic disaster because of sickness, and thus will allow them to take part
in the democratic process.
Chris Collberg
coll...@dna.lth.se
Christian S. Collberg
>> This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
>>really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
>
>You'll get at least one. From me.
>
>To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
>in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
>longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
>workplace.
>
>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
>Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
This is not necessarily true, not if men also get the chance to take
patternity leave. This is the case in Sweden. My wife and I enjoyed
maternity/patternity leave with our two children for a total of two years,
splitting it roughly half-in-half. With this sort of system, men and
women will be valued equally in the workplace simply because they are
both equally likely to be absent from work in order to take care of their
children.
Chris Collberg
coll...@dna.lth.se
Jonathan Hue
On a related topic, the company I was working for a few years back was
bought by DuPont and we switched to their policies for sick leave and
maternity leave.
Their policy for sick leave was, "If you are sick, you get paid. Period."
So even if you were out sick for three years, as long as you really were
sick, you got paid. They normally gave women 90 days for maternity leave,
but I think you could get more if you made a good argument for needing
more time.
-Jonathan
Duane Hentrich
>See, the problem with such a system, however, is that it puts the unscrupulous
>in a position to cheat.
And, of course, the current system doesn't allow cheating. ;^)
I'm sure I've never called in sick when I wasn't. (since my boss might read
this you'll have to guess if this is serious)
>Also, the idea in question wasn't for sick days for sick children, it was
>for leave to give birth.
And to care for the newly birthed.
>The difference is that giving birth is by choice
>or at worst a "fixable" accident.
This I find to be an interesting attitude. One which is by no means unique
to you. I believe that, like barking dogs, pregnancy and childrearing are
facts of life. Individuals may have options regarding it, but society, and
this includes employers, must accommodate this fact.
>A sick child is not something you plan on.
A sick child can be planned on in just the manner in which adult sickness
is planned on by employers. I, as a parent, plan that my son will be ill
a certain amount this year. I must be ready with a plan when it happens.
>You don't say "Hey, I think I'll do <x> which will make my child sick". It
>needs attending to, and you can't decide not to do it. If we restrict this
>to childbirth, then we are back to before.
>Unless you want to give men an
>equal time off, presumably to "bond" with the child, and care for mother and
>child in the time directly preceding and following birth.
Give parents time off of work, yes.
>Then we still
>are trying to mandate payment for a personal choice, but again, at least
>that way employers would simply down all salaries by a bit.
So think of it as if these parents are performing a necessary service to
society, by personal choice. Someone has to take care of the children.
Their existence is not something which can or should be done away with.
It is naive to expect that an employee's personal life will not affect the
employee's life at work.
>So the people
>who would end up paying would be those workers who DIDN'T have children,
>or did but never used their m/p-aternity leave.
This is the cost of not having children. It will be your choice. A
personal choice.
My company has an exercise room. I don't use it. By your logic I'm paying
for it and I don't believe I'm being cheated.
>from the employer. Ultimately it's the workers, or the consumers who end
>up paying for it, and again, this just puts us back to expecting everyone
>to pay for one person's personal choice.
I believe it puts us to expecting everyone to pay for something which has to be done.
Why should I, who doesn't drink coffe, have to pay for all these addict's
fixes? Why should my company subsidise the cafeteria? Why should my
company support the Red Cross with space and personel for their Blood
Bank?
My position: Allow months long parental leave, paid, with assurances of
continued employment, starting at or near the time of birth, for both parents.
Allow a parent's sick leave to be usedby parents to care for their sick child.
d'baba Duane Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
Copyright notice: If you're going to copy it, copy it right.
Karl Denninger
>In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM> ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Mandating parental leave for BOTH sexes, of equal amount, will just cause
>>salaries of BOTH sexes to drop by that same 11%. Not good.
>>
>>Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
>>that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
>>child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
>>policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
>>value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
>>want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
>>while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
>>women's decisions.
>Hello Karl! I disagree with your position here - I think that paid parental
>leave (for both sexes) is a reasonable thing to do, at least for large
>corporations. [I can see a need for exception in very small companies].
>There are more and more single parent families, and I think that provisions
>to allow single parents to take care of their children are sorely needed.
We're not talking about PARENTAL leave here, we're talking about a sexually
inequal leave called MATERNITY leave, and paid leave at that.
We're talking about, in effect, paying someone to have a child.
If it's a reasonable thing to do to large companies, then it is also
reasonable to do to small companies. Both large and small firms spend about
the same percentage of their gross revenues on people (ie: wages, benefits,
etc). So why is it unfair to do to small companies, but not large.
I will say this -- as a small business we would have to refuse to hire
women or go out of business (probably the second due to discrimination
suits) were this to pass. We simply could not afford to allow someone 6
or 8 weeks of PAID leave when they had a child -- regardless of their sex.
I suspect that many companies, large AND small, would be in the same
position.
Since men don't get the leave now, why should we make an exception for
women? Is this not sexist?
>I think that companies can 'head off' the need for legislation by voulantarily
>adopting such policies - which do serve a legitimate need.
Why should a company pay a woman to have babies, when a man doesn't get the
same consideration when his SO or wife has a kid?
>I don't think that your '11%' formula will hold. Not everyone will take the
>leave - and those who do will not always take the full amount - so the cost
>to the company will be less than indicated. Also, benifits (medical and
>otherwise) are already a significant part of the cost of employment - so
>this will reduce the figure by an additional factor of (I'd guess) about
>1.3 to 1.5, which is the amount that total benifits raise the cost to the
>company. In additon, this particular benifit is not taxable, which will
>also help the situation.
>
>All in all, I'd guess that the total impact might be 5% of salary or less -
>and it does not necessarily have to come from salary, it could come from
>reducing other benifits.
Now you're suggesting that I should forego some other benefit so that a
woman can have her children and get paid to do it. I find that argument
sexist, unfair, and discriminatory on the basis of sex.
Sure, some people won't use the full sick leave, or whatever have you. But
some will. An employer can't currently fire someone (ethically now, legal
issues aside) if he or she uses the full 7 days/year of sick leave. Now you
wish to toss into this a medical leave, WITH PAY, of some 6 times that
figure for women only -- on elective procedures! My position is that I
will not absorb the cost of this leave, unless it is ALSO mandated at the
same time that when a woman has a child, the father ALSO gets that same
amount of time off, with pay. All this in addition to normal paid "sick"
leave time.
Having a child is an elective procedure. Companies currently do not, as a
matter of course, pay (or give paid time off) for elective surgery or medical
procedures that are a result of free choice. Why should child-bearing be
different from anything else?
Paul Durham
> weeks leave percent salary
> Canada 15 60
>
This is not paid leave, but government unemployment benefits. They pay
60% of your salary up to a certain upper limit, which is _much_ lower
than any professional salary in major Canadian cities.
Also note that the European countries mentioned all have low birth rates
and are quite concerned about it - the last time I was in France I saw
billboards which read "France needs babies" ! ( in French of course ).
The paid leave is likely designed, in part, to encourage people to have
more kids.
P. Durham
Ned Nowotny
Do only "large" companies provide it because they can afford it?
Or, do "small" companies have to provide it as well?
If so, how do they afford it?
Who pays for the self-employed?
If the government, why shouldn't the government pay in all cases?
Why shouldn't government pay all benefits from employee taxes?
If so, why not have the government pay all wages?
If government is the only employer, should it own all the assets?
What's wrong with living in a company town where the company is owned
by all the residents who own exactly one voting share apiece?
Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715
ARPA: n...@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.
Bronis Vidugiris
>We're not talking about PARENTAL leave here, we're talking about a sexually
>inequal leave called MATERNITY leave, and paid leave at that.
I wasn't clear what you were intending to discuss - both parental and maternal
leave were mentioned in your posting, though the later was mentioned more
often. I think there is a need for parental leave, as I said before.
Maternal leave should, in my opinion, be 'in line' with other forms of
disability leave - I do not have firm opinions on this issue, as it is not
of direct concern to me.
>
>If it's a reasonable thing to do to large companies, then it is also
>reasonable to do to small companies. Both large and small firms spend about
>the same percentage of their gross revenues on people (ie: wages, benefits,
>etc). So why is it unfair to do to small companies, but not large.
>
It is unfair to small companies, because the loss of a single person can
have a very significant impact on such a company. In larger companies, the
importance of any single person is not as great. I believe there is
precedent for reduced regualtion of small companies, and I think that paid
leave is an appropriate thing to regulate only in large companies.
>I will say this -- as a small business we would have to refuse to hire
>women or go out of business (probably the second due to discrimination
>suits) were this to pass. We simply could not afford to allow someone 6
>or 8 weeks of PAID leave when they had a child -- regardless of their sex.
>I suspect that many companies, large AND small, would be in the same
>position.
>
Large companies are not generally in the same marginal postion as small
companies.
This is why I would oppose this legislation for small companies - I think
that they _are_ often in a position where they simply cannot afford this
kind of benefit.
In addition, the original proposal under discussion was not to allow long
unpaid periods of leave - but simply to allow a person to take time off
from work when their child was sick. This is something that a reasonable
company would do anyway, in my opinion.
>
>>I don't think that your '11%' formula will hold. Not everyone will take the
>>leave - and those who do will not always take the full amount - so the cost
>>to the company will be less than indicated. Also, benifits (medical and
>>otherwise) are already a significant part of the cost of employment - so
>>this will reduce the figure by an additional factor of (I'd guess) about
>>1.3 to 1.5, which is the amount that total benifits raise the cost to the
>>company. In additon, this particular benifit is not taxable, which will
>>also help the situation.
>>
>>All in all, I'd guess that the total impact might be 5% of salary or less -
>>and it does not necessarily have to come from salary, it could come from
>>reducing other benifits.
>
>Now you're suggesting that I should forego some other benefit so that a
>woman can have her children and get paid to do it. I find that argument
>sexist, unfair, and discriminatory on the basis of sex.
Where did you get the idea that I was making such an argument?
Karl Denninger
>In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>> By mandating a paid maternity leave you have just reduced the market value
>> of a woman, who does the same work as a man, by 5 weeks per year, or about
>> 11% from that of a man. So, by your reasoning, I should be able to offer a
>> woman 11% less money per year for the SAME JOB as a man might hold, on the
>> basis that I might get 11% less work out of the woman due to this maternity
>> leave! Remember, equal pay for equal work is fine -- but you have to put
>> in equal work to get the equal pay, and under this "paid maternity leave"
>> the woman isn't going to be doing equal work. Unequal pay is the result.
>
>However, no one will use the maximum possible, the calculation will be based
>on the average. Since most families will only have 1-2 children, the rate
>should be much less than 5% (perhaps 2-3% at most).
Actually it's no different. No one will use the maximum sick leave either.
So we can still use the 11% difference.
Or are you going to argue that people take their 7 days sick time every
year, but won't take the maternal leave? That's not realistic.
>> Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
>> that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
>> child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
>> policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
>> value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
>> want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
>> while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
>> women's decisions.
>
>Unfortuanetaly, having a child is so expensive these days that in most
>families, both parents must be able to hold down a well paying job. If a
>woman is not guaranteed a job to return to, only the rich will be able to
>afford children. I am not sure that the woman need be paid during the
>maternity leave but I feel that a guaranteed job on return is needed. I
>would also support the same for men for paternity leave.
Ok, not we get down to brass tacks. I don't have as much of a problem with
UNPAID maternity and paternity leave, as long as the following is true:
1) Both the man and woman involved are allowed the SAME amount of leave,
unpaid, and
2) An employee can bargain away their "right" to that leave, and receive
extra compensation (ie: I can decide I won't take leave, and receive
extra money or benefits of some other kind). This option is open to both
men and women, but if you take it and then renig, you can be fired
without recourse. An employer can insist, for "mission critical"
positions, that this bargaining take place (as can an employee). (Many
companies have positions that cannot be left unfilled for 6-8 weeks at a
shot, and for which there is NO WAY to temporarially replace that person).
Paid MATERNITY leave is sexist. Paid PARENTAL leave is not. I do not
support sexist measures in any form, either for or against women.
>I suppose you don't support public schools either? The maternity leave is
>actually only a small portion of the cost of a child. If the burden of
>child rearing was to only be on the parents, very few families would have
>children, and other societies who were willing to pay for children would
>eventually grind ours into the dust.
Would they?
The burden of child rearing properly belongs with the parents. Before you
scream out in protest, think about this -- at present we allocate some of
that burden to the schools (publically), and now there are proposals for
nationally funded day care and other subsidies. How much control do YOU
want to give up in rearing your children?
With responsibility and cost comes control. I want that control over my
children's education and value systems. I want to be the "programmer", as
it were, for them. I refuse to allow the state to instill it's version of
"right and wrong" -- what if I don't agree with it? Witness those parents
who are now in jail because their school-age kid saw President Bush's
indoctrination about drugs and turned them in -- for smoking a single
joint (and alone at that)!
Are you willing to give up control of your children's future and learning
process? ALL of it? That is what I hear you advocating. I, for one, am
not.
Note: I'm not a father yet. But any children I may father in the future
are my responsibility, not the state's. I take that responsibility
VERY seriously.
Rob Bernardo
+ > >become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
+ >
+ > This is not necessarily true, not if men also get the chance to take
+ > patternity leave. ... + > With this sort of system, men and
+ > women will be valued equally in the workplace simply because they are
+ > both equally likely to be absent from work in order to take care of their
+ > children.
But couldn't this simply shift the problem of unequal value from woman-vs-man
to married-vs-single?
--
Rob Bernardo ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob -or- r...@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Product engineer, UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Editor, "Go `C' UNIX"
Office: (415) 823-2417 Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R BAR JB, Concord, California
Adrienne Regard
>but as so many people have thrown out as
>justification for the idea that women should get primary custody:
>It's biology.
I haven't seen it. What I've seen is complaints that women get primary
custody more often than men, and the corresponding answer that this
occurs because it's easier to link the mother to a child than the father,
it's biology. That cannot be construed into an argument IN FAVOR of
primary custody for women. Especially since I, as the primary arguer
on this issue, am _not_ in favor of primary custody automatically awarded
to women (any more than primary custody automatically awarded to men).
I'd love to know who "so many people" are in Will's mind. I must have
missed a whole lot of postings.
Adrienne Regard
Phil Ronzone
>which I noted that the only bill to fail passage in a recent session of
>the California State Senate was a proposal which would obligate
>children...
>
> This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
>really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
I agree with Jon. As a matter of fact, I think employers should be
required to give full, 100% mdeical coverage. And if someone leaves
his/her job for any reason, the old employer should be required to
continue 100% medical coverage until the person has another job.
And I think the 100% medical coverage should be for EVERYTHING.
Shrinks, stress counseling, whatever the person needs. And if the
person is driven to drugs by the horrible stresses of a job
under capitilism, the employer should be 100% responsible for the
medical costs, no matter how much cocaine the person has
destroyed their brain with it.
And you know, while we are at it, what's even more important
than medical care? FOOD! I think employers should provide
100% of the food for an employee and his family. And since the
company draws unpon the community, perhaps it should supply
the food for the surrounding community (prorated for other companies
of course - we want to be fair).
I mean so what if it means we near totally destroy the small
company in the USA, like they have done in Europe? Who needs
new ideas, innovation freedom, santicity of contract and all
those other non-essentials?
Just look at those Japanese! I mean, they do even less
than the USA in benefits for their employees! And it shows
too -- look at the excellent products they produce. It's
disgusting ...
Freedom is not efficient, but it is freedom. I assume
of course that Jon Corelis can tell us the name of the
free (medical) clinic he donates 10% of his time a week to?
Or does he just donate 10% of his time to watching the babies
of women who don't get $$$ in "baby leave"? Since he is willing
to tax us all to pay for this (ya' don't have to call it a tax
if you make a company pay for it by law -- but it is the same
thing), I'm sure he is setting an example now ....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX p...@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr
Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark edwards
>
>To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
>in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
>longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
>workplace.
>
>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
[... Some very good reasoning about why ....]
On a gut level reaction I whole heartedly agree with you. If I was given a
choice of two people to hire, I'd want the one who gives me the most potential
for my money. (The tendency of males in their 40's and 50's to have heart
problems, is also showing up in women who smoke and/or have high stress related
jobs too.)
But on an intellectually level I realize that women make babies and these
babies grow up to be taxpayers and Social Security taxpayers. No babies and
I end up paying more taxes. I do not like paying more taxes. Therefore I
want more babies. But... On the gut level side we have Karl's arguments which
I agree with. But we need more taxpayers! Some of the European countries are
experiencing negative population growths, the U.S. would also if there were
no immigration. The white population in the U.S. is also experiencing negative
population growth.
What to do? Outlaw taxes? Sure, but it would never happen. There are too many
people who depend on government support. Cut taxes, especially SSN? Too many
old people would shoot their representatives.
Looks to me like we have to have another governmental entitlement program (did
I say that? Nah. I must be dreaming I'm a liberal.). The entitlement program
would compensate employers when their employee's take a break to make more
taxpayers. And since the outlook for SSN ain't too exciting the govenment
should give families who make little taxpayers a bigger deduction. After all
more the more taxpayers the less you'll have to contribute.
mark
Brett Slocum
>to be one people are interested in, I thought I'd share some further
>information on this topic which I just happened to run across the other
>day (in the British magazine Spare Rib), in the form of a display
>of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
Here is some additional info I have:
France also gives an additional two weeks maternity leave
for multiple births.
My figures for West Germany (they may have changed before
that article) were 14 weeks at 100% pay, plus option to
extend leave to 26 weeks.
Italy also gives an additional 26 weeks at 30% pay.
Also, some other countries:
weeks leave percent salary
Sweden (both parents) 39 90
plus the right to work 3/4 time for 8 YEARS!
Canada 15 60
And to see how the Soviet bloc compares:
Soviet Union 16 100
for both parents
Hungary 21 100
East Germany 26 90
plus additional 26 50
In the US, 5 states have Temporary Disability Insurance with
employer/employee contributions. Benefits range from 1/2 to
2/3 salary for 26 weeks maximum. Minnesota has 6 weeks unpaid
leave with job protection.
--
Brett Slocum, Honeywell SSDC, Golden Valley, Minnesota
<uunet!hi-csc!slocum> | AIDS is a virus; George Bush
or <hi-csc!slo...@uunet.uu.net> | is a punishment from God.
Will Johnson
> >If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
> >become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
>
> maternity/patternity leave with our two children for a total of two years,
> women will be valued equally in the workplace simply because they are
Now THIS I could agree to, because it would simply be taken into account
at hiring time in determining wages. I don't want to keep parents from
caring for their children, I just don't want a system where one gender
or other is inately less valuable to employers, while we still (try to)
insist on equal rates of employment and equal pay. If we allow a certain
number of childhood sick days per year (days when a member of a dual
income home can take off work with pay to care for a sick child) then I
think employers will just say "Ok, now instead of 7, they get 14, so
we will adjust down by a few hundred our usual anual salary". No biggie,
and you don't get much difference exept that then there is no reason to
ignore a sick child.
See, the problem with such a system, however, is that it puts the unscrupulous
in a position to cheat. Couples who already have one member at home full time
still having the other member taking the day off, when it's not necessary.
Both members taking a day off where one is all that's needed. Etc.
Also, the idea in question wasn't for sick days for sick children, it was
for leave to give birth. The difference is that giving birth is by choice
or at worst a "fixable" accident. A sick child is not something you plan on.
You don't say "Hey, I think I'll do <x> which will make my child sick". It
needs attending to, and you can't decide not to do it. If we restrict this
to childbirth, then we are back to before. Unless you want to give men an
equal time off, presumably to "bond" with the child, and care for mother and
child in the time directly preceding and following birth. Then we still
are trying to mandate payment for a personal choice, but again, at least
that way employers would simply down all salaries by a bit. So the people
who would end up paying would be those workers who DIDN'T have children,
or did but never used their m/p-aternity leave. It's like welfare and
social security, too many people think this money comes from nowhere or
from the employer. Ultimately it's the workers, or the consumers who end
up paying for it, and again, this just puts us back to expecting everyone
to pay for one person's personal choice. In some cases this is good (like
insurance, which people enter in to voluntarily, or paid sick leave because
in the end it works to the advantage of the company not to have people who
can't afford to lose some pay working themselves to death) and in some it's bad
(like (IMO) child support without visitation).
Oh, and one final thing: I don't disagree with paid sick leave for a
pregnancy which has complications and causes real damage to a woman's
body. Then it really IS a sickness, not forseen or chosen, nor effectively
avoidable, so that makes sense.
Will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Original text copyright (c) 1989 by: William Johnson
Adrienne Regard
>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
(explanation followed)
My, my, but we are all children of the "me" generation, aren't we?
WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs. I guess
there aren't any MEN out there who want their children, or ever intend to
have them or recognise the economic necessity of the next generation.
CHILDREN are, of course, a personal and familial issue. However, they are
_also_, and perhaps more importantly, a SURVIVAL issue as well. For the
government, the society, the economic viability of the nation, and of course,
in a more remote sense, for the species.
The "explanation" offered can be argued about ANY of a number of benefits
that are more used by one employee group than another -- health insurance,
van pools, stock options, employee counselling, workout rooms, you name it.
The reduction of the work-week from 50 to 40 hours certainly "undervalued"
our contributions to big bad corporate america, but we survived, didn't we?
How deeply can you thrust your head into the sand?
What we will see is that some companies will respond "favorably" and some
"unfavorably" to the issues of maternity leave, and the economics of attracting
the labor force will adjust their attitudes. You can define favorably and
unfavorably to suit yourselves -- the "winning" strategy will show by which
companies survive.
Just what do you expect will happen in the United States with more and more
children living in poverty -- that there will be thousands of buyers in
20 years for your wonderful high-tech gadgets??? If you want to be in business
a few years from now, you better take whatever steps are necessary to insure
there will be a market with means a few years from now. With our current
level of poor, school's scoring and dropout rate, I've got to wonder if
there are any long range planners out there...
It's all tied together. Guess what.
Adrienne Regard
William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
> since [...] men cannot become pregnant,
Actually, this is in fact theoretically possible; I have
seen medical speculations on how this might be accomplished
which involve implanting an embryo at one of a number of
possible locations and eventually delivering it via C-section.
Nobody has actually tried it yet, but the impression I got
was that it seems possible to do this on an experimental
basis right now, and that it is probably only a matter
of time before somebody decides to grab the "First Male
Pregnancy" spot in the Book of World Records.
Bill Wolfe, wtw...@hubcap.clemson.edu
VICC Project (Rose)
> In article <1989Sep20.2...@rpi.edu> vi...@unix.cie.rpi.edu (VICC Project (Rose)) writes:
> >In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
> >>
> >> By mandating a paid maternity leave you have just reduced the market value
> >> of a woman, who does the same work as a man, by 5 weeks per year, or about
> >> 11% from that of a man. So, by your reasoning, I should be able to offer a
> >> woman 11% less money per year for the SAME JOB as a man might hold, on the
> >> basis that I might get 11% less work out of the woman due to this maternity
> >> leave! Remember, equal pay for equal work is fine -- but you have to put
> >> in equal work to get the equal pay, and under this "paid maternity leave"
> >> the woman isn't going to be doing equal work. Unequal pay is the result.
> >
> >However, no one will use the maximum possible, the calculation will be based
> >on the average. Since most families will only have 1-2 children, the rate
> >should be much less than 5% (perhaps 2-3% at most).
>
> Actually it's no different. No one will use the maximum sick leave either.
> So we can still use the 11% difference.
It appeared that your statement was that a woman would work 11% less than a man
because of maternity leave. What you wanted to say is that they will take
6 times as much leave, which should ammount to less than an 11% loss of work.
> Or are you going to argue that people take their 7 days sick time every
> year, but won't take the maternal leave? That's not realistic.
1. I think many people take close to their 7 sick days
2. Most women will not have 1 child per year
3. many companies give a partial credit for unused sick days
>> Ok, not we get down to brass tacks. I don't have as much of a problem with
> UNPAID maternity and paternity leave, as long as the following is true:
>
> 1) Both the man and woman involved are allowed the SAME amount of leave,
> unpaid, and
I agree mostly, I can see some point for women getting more UNPAID leave
under certain circumstances. Remember, as UNPAID leave there is no general
need to have equal ammounts of time allowed.
> 2) An employee can bargain away their "right" to that leave, and receive
> extra compensation (ie: I can decide I won't take leave, and receive
> extra money or benefits of some other kind). This option is open to both
> men and women, but if you take it and then renig, you can be fired
> without recourse.
This has some good points with respect to PAID maternity/paternity leave, but
for UNPAID leave I see no real reason to allow those who wont take it extra
money. Maybe extra UNPAID vacation days allowed or some such.
> An employer can insist, for "mission critical"
> positions, that this bargaining take place (as can an employee). (Many
> companies have positions that cannot be left unfilled for 6-8 weeks at a
> shot, and for which there is NO WAY to temporarially replace that person).
This is a good point, except that to fully justify it, the employer must be
able to control whether the employee has a child (or gets any other major
ilness) which seems unreasonable. If the employers recourse when this happens
is to fire the employee, or for the employee to quit, the reasoning becomes
weakened.
> Paid MATERNITY leave is sexist. Paid PARENTAL leave is not. I do not
> support sexist measures in any form, either for or against women.
I agree here.
> >I suppose you don't support public schools either? The maternity leave is
> >actually only a small portion of the cost of a child. If the burden of
> >child rearing was to only be on the parents, very few families would have
> >children, and other societies who were willing to pay for children would
> >eventually grind ours into the dust.
>
> Would they?
BTW, I should have surrounded the first statement with smileys....
> The burden of child rearing properly belongs with the parents. Before you
> scream out in protest, think about this -- at present we allocate some of
> that burden to the schools (publically), and now there are proposals for
> nationally funded day care and other subsidies. How much control do YOU
> want to give up in rearing your children?
The schooling was part of what I was mentioning above. I'm glad you seem
to agree about schooling. I'm not totally sure about publicly funded day
care for every one (for the poor -- yes absolutely -- they need it so that
they can get out and go to school or earn money to improve their ability
to support themselves -- BUT I would like to see some of these publicly
funded day care centers staffed BY the poor FOR the poor)
I do think large companies should provide low cost day care. I am not
necessarily saying free here, just that the company help with some of
the burden. Of course in many areas, just having the day care center on
the companies premisis will save the users of it 1-2 hours per day even
if they must pay normal rates to use it. We could even partially staff it
with employees who are on parental leave (helping then to justify a paid
parental leave).
> With responsibility and cost comes control. I want that control over my
> children's education and value systems. I want to be the "programmer", as
> it were, for them. I refuse to allow the state to instill it's version of
> "right and wrong" -- what if I don't agree with it? Witness those parents
I agree.
> who are now in jail because their school-age kid saw President Bush's
> indoctrination about drugs and turned them in -- for smoking a single
> joint (and alone at that)!
I'm sorry here, currently our society considers drug use a crime. If a
child is encouraged to turn in their parents, maybe these parents will
consider more carefully their habbit.
> Are you willing to give up control of your children's future and learning
> process? ALL of it? That is what I hear you advocating. I, for one, am
> not.
No I am not advocating giving up control of my childrens future, I am
advocating that society realize several things:
1. There is too much population growth so birth rates must go down
2. But they must not go to zero, and they must not go to zero in any
one social class
3. Since children are needed by SOCIETY, but everyone can not be expected
to have them, I feel that SOCIETY should share some of the burden.
4. The children of poor people currenlty grow up to be poor people in
general, we need to break this cycle.
VICC Project (Rose)
> Given that paid maternity/paternity leave is a good thing:
>
> Do only "large" companies provide it because they can afford it?
> Or, do "small" companies have to provide it as well?
> If so, how do they afford it?
> Who pays for the self-employed?
> If the government, why shouldn't the government pay in all cases?
> Why shouldn't government pay all benefits from employee taxes?
> If so, why not have the government pay all wages?
> If government is the only employer, should it own all the assets?
> What's wrong with living in a company town where the company is owned
> by all the residents who own exactly one voting share apiece?
You have clearly outlined one danger with social programs...it is possible
to go too far. However...
It is my beleif that while total socialism will not work, neither will total
capitalism. I beleive that humans have gained intelligence because they
have a concern for society which allows different people to have jobs of
differing value, thus releasing some people to do those highly valuable
things that do not contribute well to staying alive. It is these feelings
which make us unwilling to allow another to suffer. On the other hand,
clearly capitalism is needed to excite those few to excelence.
Thus I think that the ideal society has somehow balanced socialism and
capitalism.
Steve Lamont
>But on an intellectually level I realize that women make babies and these
>babies grow up to be taxpayers and Social Security taxpayers. No babies and
>I end up paying more taxes. I do not like paying more taxes. Therefore I
>want more babies. But... On the gut level side we have Karl's arguments which
>I agree with. But we need more taxpayers! Some of the European countries are
>experiencing negative population growths, the U.S. would also if there were
>no immigration. The white population in the U.S. is also experiencing negative
>population growth.
So what? Is it important to make sure that there is a continuing supply of
whites?
There are *too* *many* whites, blacks, Asians, etc, etc, etc -- in short, too
many people for this planet to support *now*. Negative population growths
are, in fact, precisely what this poor planet needs. There are something like
88,000,000 new mouths to feed each year and that number is climbing!
I'm terribly sorry that you're paying too much tax. I personally pay just
under 50 percent (summation of state and federal income tax, FICA [Social
Insecurity], health tax [aka insurance], etc.) and it doesn't bother me.
spl (the p stands for
population explosion?
You go first)
Wm E Davidsen Jr
Some companies allow "personal business" time to be taken for care of
sick children. Certainly most would allow vacation to be used for that
purpose.
The problem I have with paid time off for having children is that it
is asking a business to subsidize an activity which some choose not to
perform, and which others can't. At the same time, as a parent, I
realize the need for some way to solve the problem.
Several friends work for organizations which have no vacation, sick
leave, or holidays. Instead they provide "Paid Time Off" (PTO).
Employees may use the PTO for anything they please, and can carry it
over up to a certain limit. In one case excess is lost, and the other it
is paid at normal rates.
This allows "banking" of PTO for activities such as vacation, illness,
or child bearing. It rewards the prudent employee who keeps a reserve,
and allows the parent to decide if 4,6, or many weeks off are best, and
if the father should be home as well.
I think I would be happy working for such a company, although my
current situation, as a long term employee, is certainly better for me
now, as a new hire a more flexible policy might be better.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon
Duane Hentrich
>+ > patternity leave. ... + > With this sort of system, men and
>+ > women will be valued equally in the workplace simply because they are
>+ > both equally likely to be absent from work in order to take care of their
>+ > children.
>
>But couldn't this simply shift the problem of unequal value from woman-vs-man
>to married-vs-single?
Not really. First of all benefits from a company to the employees must be
looked at as a package. There are several benefits available to me that
I do not take advantage of that others in the company do. This does not
make it unequal.
Onthe other hand, some companies allow a new employee to negotiate their
own benefits package, trading off this remuneration for that. Granted that
I heard about this from someone who is in a much higher salary bracket,
the possibility of allowing all new employees this right of negotiation
is real.
On the last hand, I'm single and a parent, and there are lots of us out here.
I don't know the ratio of couple/single parenthood, but I do know its
changing all the time.
Remember that someone who is sick more than me gets more benefits from
the insurance company. Does this mean I am not getting my fair share?
I don't feel that to be true.
pat coffey
>In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM> ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
>(explanation followed)
>
>"unfavorably" to the issues of maternity leave, and the economics of attracting
>the labor force will adjust their attitudes. You can define favorably and
>unfavorably to suit yourselves -- the "winning" strategy will show by which
>companies survive.
>
>Just what do you expect will happen in the United States with more and more
>children living in poverty -- that there will be thousands of buyers in
>20 years for your wonderful high-tech gadgets??? If you want to be in business
>a few years from now, you better take whatever steps are necessary to insure
>there will be a market with means a few years from now. With our current
>level of poor, school's scoring and dropout rate, I've got to wonder if
>there are any long range planners out there...
>
>It's all tied together. Guess what.
IMHO, it's the lack of long range planning that is killing this country.
It seems like the people in power, in both business and government, are
sending us down the tubes in order to line their own pockets. Corporate
executives give themselves huge salaries as they preside over
disintrigrating companies. They cry 'unfair' when foreign competition
can sell better and cheaper products here. They complain about 'cheap
foreign labor' and forget about the fact that the foreign companies are
spending far more on R&D than they are. It seems to me that if the
money spent on corporate takeovers, outrageous executive salaries,
and other non-productive money-wasters were spent on R&D and long
range planning, we would start on the road to recovery.
Meanwhile, our government priorities are just as bad. Education is a
good example. We are still graduating/dropping out adults who can't
read, write , or calculate. We have overflowing prisons that are
filled with these people. It is much cheaper to educate them than
to incarcerate them, but we prefer to do the latter. After all, we
can't 'throw money' at a problem and make it go away. (Of course,
starving funding tends to make it worse). Here in California, we
had a special reading program called Miller Unruh. It said that
every child deserved to learn to read. Our current governor decided
that in order to remain popular, he should refund tax money to the voters.
Guess what??? I got a $100 refund, and in San Diego county, all the
Miller-Unruh teachers were reassigned. When the California lottery was
passed, it was supposed to suppliment funding. No state or local funding
was to be removed. I understand that our wonderful governor has cut
the regular education funding to thepoint where all the lottery funds
are being used to fund programs that used to be funded by taxes. California
need techically-oritnted, educated prople in its workforce, but, to
keep today's people happy, skims on education. We have one of the largest
class sizes in the nation. Most elementary classrooms have > 30 kids for
one teacher and no aide.
Nationally, we have all these homeless families roaming the streets. These
kids will get little or no education and may well grow up to be very
angry, illeterate adults. My retirement age is < 15 years from now, and
I fear to think what the society will be like with all these angry and
possibly violent adults around. We declare 'war on drugs', and don't
have prison space for the offenders. We spend very little on rehabilitation
programs; usually the waiting list is so long that by the time a person
gets called, her/his desire to get off drugs has gone. But, again,
spending money on rehab is 'throwing money at the problem'.
Of course, we can't waste money on childcare either. After all no one
forced these women to have babies. BTW I don't have children and don't
plan to, yet feel that my tax money is well spent on education,
child care, housing, etc. Our children are our greatest asset, yet
they are at the very bottom of our priority list. The 'ME' generation
has forgotten that 'ME' will be dependent on these children in the
very near future. Both government and industry are acting like a
person who is cold and tears down his/her own house for firewood.
--
_ _ Ms. Pat Coffey
|_) (_ San Diego State University
| cof...@ucselx.sdsu.edu
J. Eric Townsend
>or 8 weeks of PAID leave when they had a child -- regardless of their sex.
>I suspect that many companies, large AND small, would be in the same
>position.
Maybe if goofball executives stopped getting such huge salaries, companies
could afford to treat their employers better?
Lotus's head raked in over $26 million year before last. Assuming the
average employee made 50K (Ha. It makes the math easier though...) a
year; with half of Mr. President of Lotus's salary (13 million) you could
have 260 person-*years* of leave time paid for.
130 people could each take two years leave at *FULL* salary.
520 people could each take 6 mo's leave at *FULL* salary.
(How many people work at Lotus, anyway? :-)
And Mr. President of Lotus corp still gets a cool $13 million to line
his pockets with.
And there'd be no more money spent on wages than before...
The problem is that American employers want to pay themselves huge
amounts of money instead of taking care of their employees....
--
Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. -- Makers of:
Write-Only Memory, the Maybe Gate, 6502-based AI systems and puce things.
J. Eric Townsend unet!sugar!flatline!erict co...@uhnix1.uh.edu
EastEnders Mailing list: east...@flatline.UUCP
J. Eric Townsend
>"unfavorably" to the issues of maternity leave, and the economics of attracting
>the labor force will adjust their attitudes. You can define favorably and
>unfavorably to suit yourselves -- the "winning" strategy will show by which
>companies survive.
Hey, I just heard that IBM's going to offer paid maternity/paternity leave
for some period of time and up to 3 years (unpaid) but you'll get your
old job/position back.
Could IBM do something intelligent w/o being forced? Nah... They musta
lost a lawsuit or something. :-)
Karl Denninger
>
>>If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
>>become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
>(explanation followed)
>
>My, my, but we are all children of the "me" generation, aren't we?
>
>WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs. I guess
>there aren't any MEN out there who want their children, or ever intend to
>have them or recognise the economic necessity of the next generation.
Wrong. Men do recognize that paid MATERNITY leave is sexist. At least
those of us who are for equal rights and responsibilities do. The rest of
you, the "rad fems", want to discriminate against men. Some of us men are
dead-set against that.
Note that none of those countries seem to allow PARENTAL leave instead
of MATERNITY leave. There is quite a difference. Maternity leave, with
pay, is sexist. Parental leave, on the other hand, is not.
I wouldn't complain if BOTH parties were to get the same amount of time off,
with or without pay, when a child is born. But to give the time off only to
the women is to say that (1) a man is not important when it is time to bring
a child into the world, and (2) that a women can be reasonably by paid less
than a man for the same job, since a company won't (on average) get as
much work for their money.
I reject both of those conclusions as utter and complete bull.
>CHILDREN are, of course, a personal and familial issue. However, they are
>_also_, and perhaps more importantly, a SURVIVAL issue as well. For the
>government, the society, the economic viability of the nation, and of course,
>in a more remote sense, for the species.
So we give the women the carrot so they will have more babies, especially if
the family in questiuon can't afford to raise them, right? At the same time
we tell men that they don't matter in the child-bearing and rearing process,
since they don't get that same carrot.
Your sexism is showing Adrienne.
>The "explanation" offered can be argued about ANY of a number of benefits
>that are more used by one employee group than another -- health insurance,
>van pools, stock options, employee counselling, workout rooms, you name it.
>The reduction of the work-week from 50 to 40 hours certainly "undervalued"
>our contributions to big bad corporate america, but we survived, didn't we?
>How deeply can you thrust your head into the sand?
Oh, an ad-hominen attack! Why don't you address the issue here. Is it
wrong for men to want equality in these things? That's what I thought.
>What we will see is that some companies will respond "favorably" and some
>"unfavorably" to the issues of maternity leave, and the economics of attracting
>the labor force will adjust their attitudes. You can define favorably and
>unfavorably to suit yourselves -- the "winning" strategy will show by which
>companies survive.
Yep. Some companies who don't do maternity leave may have to pay women
more. So? They get more work done for their money. Sounds pretty fair to
me.
What the original poster was advocating was not a free-market decision but
rather one FORCED on firms by the government. Quite a difference.
>Just what do you expect will happen in the United States with more and more
>children living in poverty -- that there will be thousands of buyers in
>20 years for your wonderful high-tech gadgets??? If you want to be in business
>a few years from now, you better take whatever steps are necessary to insure
>there will be a market with means a few years from now. With our current
>level of poor, school's scoring and dropout rate, I've got to wonder if
>there are any long range planners out there...
Yes, there are. Some of us also realize that the prototypical "welfare
mother" is driven by one thing more than any other -- she gets paid to have
all those kids that she can never support.
But you're off the subject. We were discussing the practice of giving one
sex preferrential treatment at the "paid time off" table. I find it
deplorable, discriminitory, and were I to be affected by it you can bet I
would fight such a practice, in court if necessary. EQUAL IS EQUAL. If
you're going to have paid time off for having kids, then BOTH partners
should get it or NEITHER one should.
Anything else diminishes the value of women in the workplace, and justifies
different pay rates for identical positions based solely on sex. Attempting
to mandate maternity leave without recognizing these facts simply shows that
you're just as sexist as the "old boys network" -- you simply want women to
have the advantage rather than men.
Discriminatory behavior is wrong, regardless of who benefits from it.
Steve Lamont
>And you know, while we are at it, what's even more important
>than medical care? FOOD! I think employers should provide
>100% of the food for an employee and his family. And since the
>company draws unpon the community, perhaps it should supply
>the food for the surrounding community (prorated for other companies
>of course - we want to be fair).
They do provide food. It just happens to be called wages or salary or a
paycheck. And let's hope that the employer pays taxes -- which also might
better go to feeding the victims of the next employment contraction rather
than other things I might think of.
spl (the p stands for
pretty good idea,
Ronzone... glad you
thought of it)
Rob Bernardo
+>+ > patternity leave. ... + > With this sort of system, men and
+>+ > women will be valued equally in the workplace simply because they are
+>+ > both equally likely to be absent from work in order to take care of their
+>+ > children.
I wrote:
+>But couldn't this simply shift the problem of unequal value from woman-vs-man
+>to married-vs-single?
Duane Hentrich wrote:
+Not really. First of all benefits from a company to the employees must be
+looked at as a package. There are several benefits available to me that
+I do not take advantage of that others in the company do. This does not
+make it unequal.
...
+Remember that someone who is sick more than me gets more benefits from
+the insurance company. Does this mean I am not getting my fair share?
+I don't feel that to be true.
You make a good point, but I think you missed the point that I was getting
at.
I thought the "unknown poster" was saying that if only women are guaranteed
{m,p}aternity leave, then an employer may sub rosa discriminate against
hiring female employees (or married female employees) to avoid bearing
the expense of maternity leave. Furthermore, I thought that poster was
saying that if employers become obliged to provide paternity for male
employees, employers would no longer be encouraged to discriminate against
females. (Actually whether or not that's what the "unknown poster" meant
is moot, since it's a valid concern regardless.)
My point was then that if employers were required to provide paternity
leave, this might simply shift the direction of discrimination from
being against married females to being against married employees
regardless of gender (or more refinedly, against those employees who
are more likely to bear children, e.g. heterosexuals who don't already
have their families fully formed).
But I agree with what you say: we don't all take advantage of benefits
in the same fashion and we ought to be accepting of personal differences
and lean towards generosity in benefits in a "semi-socialistic" fashion
rather than asking employees to pay for only those that they use.
Tom Tedrick
is concern over the low birth rate. Since our problem is
over-population, not under-population, I see no reason to
subsidize the birth of even more hungry mouths to feed.
********************************************************************
If you must use drugs, remember to use the minimum effective dosage.
Rick Farris
> My, my, but we are all children of the "me" generation, aren't we?
< WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs. I
> guess there aren't any MEN out there who want their children, or ever
< intend to have them or recognise the economic necessity of the next
> generation.
So, if pregnancies are a shared phenomenon, who is it that should
decide whether a pregnancy should be aborted?
Or is that "different?"
Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793
rfa...@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757
Jim Robinson
>People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
>want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
>In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
>a Doctor if it no longer paid as well?
First off, socialized medicine does not necessarily mean a drop in pay for
MDs. One cannot generalize because that is the result of a particular
implementation.
Secondly, given that applications for medical schools outnumber by *many*
times the number of places available, classical economics leads one to
suspect that the salary of MDs could indeed be decreased by some (unknown)
amount without a doctor shortage resulting and without much, if any, of a
drop in the quality of applicants.
Canada certainly has no shortage of doctors; and Canadian medical schools
have no shortage of qualified applicants.
>Socialized medicine is part
>of a socialist society. Free trade is part of ours. If you like
>democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine.
The statement "If you like democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine" is
somewhat contradictory with real world experience (from the context I think
it is safe to assume that "cheap medicine" and "socialized medicine" are
interchangeable). Just about every industrialized country practices one form
or another of socialized medicine, yet most of these countries are
democracies. France, West Germany, Australia, NZ, the UK, Canada, etc are
all countries in which this is true. To say that they are any less
democratic than the US purely because of socialized medicine is, to put it
mildly, ignorant.
>If you like cheap
>medicine, you have to give up some of your freedom. There are a lot
>of trade offs we make for our freedom, and one of those is the idea
>that everyone else deserves THEIR freedom as well. Including Doctors.
>Including companies, with the singular exception of monopolies. Including
>employers. If you want free trade, then you expect to get fair market
>value for your services. If you don't render the services, you don't
>get paid. Pure and simple.
I think it would be more accurate to say "If you like cheap (socialized)
medicine, you may have to trade off some of your freedoms". Yes, a
*particular* implementation of socialized medicine *may* result in some loss
of economic freedom for MDs. However, I suspect that the 37 million
Americans who now do not have health insurance would argue that socialized
medicine would increase their freedoms considerably. For example, the person
working in a low paying, no benefits, job would not have to go on welfare,
thus qualifying for Medicaid, in order to ensure adequate medical treatment
for a chronically sick child.
Even the presently insured would benefit. E.g., the person who developed (or
who's child developed) an expensive to treat chronic illness would not have
to worry about changing jobs and having the insurance company of his new
employer refuse to pay for the treatment of a previously existing condition.
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ all have socialized medicine. Given
that there doesn't seem to be any real movement afoot in any of these
countries to return to market economy medicine I would conclude that any
trade offs that were made are considered to have been well worth it by the
citizens of those countries.
J.B. Robinson
--
Ned Nowotny
=>In article <1989Sep21.0...@rpi.edu> ad...@pawl.rpi.edu writes:
=>>This is like the whole socialized medicine thing many people are for.
=>>People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
=>>want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
=>>In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
=>>a Doctor if it no longer paid as well?
=>
=>First off, socialized medicine does not necessarily mean a drop in pay for
=>MDs. One cannot generalize because that is the result of a particular
=>implementation.
=>
=>Secondly, given that applications for medical schools outnumber by *many*
=>times the number of places available, classical economics leads one to
=>suspect that the salary of MDs could indeed be decreased by some (unknown)
=>amount without a doctor shortage resulting and without much, if any, of a
=>drop in the quality of applicants.
=>
In the U.S., we do not currently enjoy a "free" market in medicine.
As noted above, the number of medical school applications does outnumber
the places available by a wide margin above the number of incompetent
applicants. This state of affairs is maintained by the school accreditation
policies of the A.M.A. (American Medical Association) with the support of
government. Under the guise of public health and safety, the current
members of the medical profession restrict the supply of new members.
As a result of the existing demand for their services, they can and do
command a higher "price".
Frankly, I would like to try a "free" market (or something closer to it)
before trying "socialized" medicine. Of course, this would require returning
some sanity to the U.S. tort system as well as broadening the number of
accredited medical schools and residency hospitals.
Adrienne Regard
>In article <25...@hp-sdd.hp.com> reg...@hpsdde.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs.
>those of us who are for equal rights and responsibilities do. The rest of
>you, the "rad fems", want to discriminate against men. Some of us men are
>dead-set against that.
My apologies to all reading this line of discussion -- it was pointed out
to me in e-mail, and certainly again here, that my posting wasn't at all
clear, and therefore it's easy to understand why Karl has decided to blast
me for discrimination. My comment was intended to be sarcastic, but that
wasn't clear.
Of COURSE men are involved in the birth of a child. That's what I've been
arguing on another line for about 3 months (you all are probably so bored
with it that you've stopped reading (-:). And PARENTAL leave is the smartest
move corporations today could take, IMHO. I'd like to see more men fighting
for the option, frankly.
Sorry for the mixup.
Adrienne Regard
Peter Barbee
> [ in response to Will's "so many people use biology to justify women
> usually getting primary custody ]
>I'd love to know who "so many people" are in Will's mind. I must have
>missed a whole lot of postings.
I think both Adrienne and Will are right. Hardly any people post that
biology affects custody but in the real world (courts and custody
hearings) the opinion is expressed. While the Tender Years Doctrine
doesn't specifically include biology it might as well.
In other words, I sense that our society generally expects women will
have custody on the basis of their gender. I also sense that this is
changing.
Peter B
Adrienne Regard
>In article <25...@hp-sdd.hp.com> reg...@hpsdde.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>< WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs. I
>> guess there aren't any MEN out there who want their children, or ever
>< intend to have them or recognise the economic necessity of the next
>> generation.
>So, if pregnancies are a shared phenomenon, who is it that should
>decide whether a pregnancy should be aborted?
>Or is that "different?"
Rick, it's obvious you haven't been following this particular stream (NOT
that I blame you -- it hasn't been that interesting, but it does mean your
questions asks for repetition of what everybody else has already waded
through -- I'd e-mail, but most of that bounces -- our mailer isn't too
well supported. My apologies in advance).
Yes and no. Yes insofar as the act of abortion negates any questions of
a child. No insofar as technological advance will alleviate this situation
soon. Abortion is based on the notion of personal privacy -- the woman is
not obligated to support another life on her own life support system, and
therefore has a personal decision to make. It just, at this level of
technology, kills the fetus. When we CAN support the fetus artificially,
the world will be subject to a wonderfully complex 3-ring circus of shoulds --
but ideally, the R&Rs of having a child will rest with both original parents,
as an extension of our current laws. Abortion rights are not now, and prob-
ably never will be, based on "birth control" rights, but on personal
privacy. They are different things, and the level of choice of different
parties involved differ also. The rest belongs in talk.abortion.
Adrienne Regard
Valerie Maslak
>Is there anyone here who seriously thinks that we should have
>maternity leave instead of parental leave??
>I think the way to go is to have X weeks PAID leave for BOTH parents,
>and up to 2X UNPAID leave, with your old job back, no problem.
>Sounds rational to me...
I agree with Cindy. The actual hospitalization or other medical
treatment for giving birth should be treated just as any other
hospitalization or medical treatment is treated: and this is not the
case now, by the way. Under some medical plans, pregnancy is
specifically excluded, although nose jobs or hair transplants are
covered! Of course, a lot of people have no medical insurance at
all.
The after-childbirth leave for mothers should also be available to
fathers, on an equal basis.
The way I look at it, our society can pay now to have children
properly cared for, or we can pay later for the results of lack of
care.
Valerie Maslak
Clayton Cramer
> In article <1989Sep21.0...@rpi.edu> ad...@pawl.rpi.edu writes:
# #
# #This is like the whole socialized medicine thing many people are for.
# #People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
# #want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
# #In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
# #a Doctor if it no longer paid as well?
#
# First off, socialized medicine does not necessarily mean a drop in pay for
# MDs. One cannot generalize because that is the result of a particular
# implementation.
I would certainly HOPE that socialized medicine would result in a
drop in pay for doctors -- otherwise, why bother? If a doctor is
guaranteed customers, and reduced risks from it, why should he continue
to be paid so well?
Of course, Canada's health insurance system is a tax-paid health
insurance system -- not really socialized medicine, in the strict
sense of the word.
# Secondly, given that applications for medical schools outnumber by *many*
# times the number of places available, classical economics leads one to
# suspect that the salary of MDs could indeed be decreased by some (unknown)
# amount without a doctor shortage resulting and without much, if any, of a
# drop in the quality of applicants.
Indeed. Even by increasing the number of medical school positions,
without any real change in the economic system -- but that would
require doctors to work harder, or earn less. Such a tragedy!
# #Socialized medicine is part
# #of a socialist society. Free trade is part of ours. If you like
# #democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine.
#
# The statement "If you like democracy, you have to give up cheap medicine" is
# somewhat contradictory with real world experience (from the context I think
# it is safe to assume that "cheap medicine" and "socialized medicine" are
# interchangeable). Just about every industrialized country practices one form
# or another of socialized medicine, yet most of these countries are
# democracies. France, West Germany, Australia, NZ, the UK, Canada, etc are
# all countries in which this is true. To say that they are any less
# democratic than the US purely because of socialized medicine is, to put it
# mildly, ignorant.
In fact, our system of medicine isn't free trade, either. It's a
system that subsidizes doctors and hospitals rather nicely by pro-
viding government funded medical insurance for those too lazy to
work, or whose parents are too lazy to work.
# #If you like cheap
# #medicine, you have to give up some of your freedom. There are a lot
# #of trade offs we make for our freedom, and one of those is the idea
# #that everyone else deserves THEIR freedom as well. Including Doctors.
# #Including companies, with the singular exception of monopolies. Including
# #employers. If you want free trade, then you expect to get fair market
# #value for your services. If you don't render the services, you don't
# #get paid. Pure and simple.
#
# I think it would be more accurate to say "If you like cheap (socialized)
# medicine, you may have to trade off some of your freedoms". Yes, a
# *particular* implementation of socialized medicine *may* result in some loss
# of economic freedom for MDs. However, I suspect that the 37 million
Not just doctors -- it's also a loss of economic freedom for consumers,
who will have the government even more concerned about what they do
for entertainment. Clearly, smoking shouldn't be legal in a system
where EVERYONE is obligated to pay for the results. Oh? Canada hasn't
prohibited smoking? Why not? Now you are forcing everyone to sub-
sidize the bad decisions of smokers. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
# Americans who now do not have health insurance would argue that socialized
# medicine would increase their freedoms considerably. For example, the person
# working in a low paying, no benefits, job would not have to go on welfare,
# thus qualifying for Medicaid, in order to ensure adequate medical treatment
# for a chronically sick child.
This assumes that the 37 million uninsured are that way because of
poverty. This is not clear to me at all. I've known too many
counterexamples -- myself, even, at one time.
# Even the presently insured would benefit. E.g., the person who developed (or
# who's child developed) an expensive to treat chronic illness would not have
# to worry about changing jobs and having the insurance company of his new
# employer refuse to pay for the treatment of a previously existing condition.
But most insurance (even before the government forced it) had a provision
for conversion to individual policies for exactly that situation.
# Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ all have socialized medicine. Given
# that there doesn't seem to be any real movement afoot in any of these
# countries to return to market economy medicine I would conclude that any
# trade offs that were made are considered to have been well worth it by the
# citizens of those countries.
#
# J.B. Robinson
I understand that most members of Parliament in Britain go to private
doctors -- not the truly socialized system that Britain has. If we
HAVE to go to a governmental system to make the rich liberals feel
a little less guilty, the Canadian model makes more sense than the
British model, which is true socialism -- but it's not clear to me
that even the Canadian model makes that much sense.
West Germany has a system of mandatory health insurance, governmental
for very poor people, private for others. This is another model to
consider.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
What shall it be today? Watch Three's Company? Or unify the field theory?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
Karl Denninger
>In article <1989Sep21.1...@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> In article <1989Sep20.2...@rpi.edu> vi...@unix.cie.rpi.edu (VICC Project (Rose)) writes:
>> >In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> >>
>>> Ok, not we get down to brass tacks. I don't have as much of a problem with
>> UNPAID maternity and paternity leave, as long as the following is true:
>>
>> 1) Both the man and woman involved are allowed the SAME amount of leave,
>> unpaid, and
>I agree mostly, I can see some point for women getting more UNPAID leave
>under certain circumstances. Remember, as UNPAID leave there is no general
>need to have equal ammounts of time allowed.
Sure there is. Unpaid leave is not free to an employer either. It is lower
cost than paid leave, but is hardly free. The employer has to provide a
substitute for that person's job, which may in fact cost more than the
employee who usually works there (since that person is usually
agency-employed, and/or may require training that is essentially thrown away
when the regular returns to work).
>> 2) An employee can bargain away their "right" to that leave, and receive
>> extra compensation (ie: I can decide I won't take leave, and receive
>> extra money or benefits of some other kind). This option is open to both
>> men and women, but if you take it and then renig, you can be fired
>> without recourse.
>
>This has some good points with respect to PAID maternity/paternity leave, but
>for UNPAID leave I see no real reason to allow those who wont take it extra
>money. Maybe extra UNPAID vacation days allowed or some such.
See above. Time off, with or without pay, costs the employer. Those who
don't want to or simply don't use it should be able to bargain it away for
higher wages or other benefits. The incremental amount of money involved is
between the employer and employee.
>> An employer can insist, for "mission critical"
>> positions, that this bargaining take place (as can an employee). (Many
>> companies have positions that cannot be left unfilled for 6-8 weeks at a
>> shot, and for which there is NO WAY to temporarially replace that person).
>
>This is a good point, except that to fully justify it, the employer must be
>able to control whether the employee has a child (or gets any other major
>ilness) which seems unreasonable. If the employers recourse when this happens
>is to fire the employee, or for the employee to quit, the reasoning becomes
>weakened.
Not really. Illness is a different -- you don't have a choice there. You
don't choose to become sick, while a person does choose to become pregnant
and bear children. That's quite a difference.
The only reasonable action open to the employer if an employee violates any
provision of his or her employment contract is to terminate that employee.
Employers have been exercising that right for hundreds of years. Employment
is a contractual matter that properly belongs in exactly that area -- you
make a contract when you agree to work under certain conditions for a
certain wage.
>> Paid MATERNITY leave is sexist. Paid PARENTAL leave is not. I do not
>> support sexist measures in any form, either for or against women.
>
>I agree here.
....
>I do think large companies should provide low cost day care. I am not
>necessarily saying free here, just that the company help with some of
>the burden. Of course in many areas, just having the day care center on
>the companies premisis will save the users of it 1-2 hours per day even
>if they must pay normal rates to use it. We could even partially staff it
>with employees who are on parental leave (helping then to justify a paid
>parental leave).
You could also have the people who use it pay the costs. The people who use
the center still win. The problem with this, again, is a loss of control
over the raising of children by their parents. I, for one, don't want to
give up that kind of control should I ever choose to have children.
I'll even go so far as to say that I simply will not give up that control.
Until I can participate in having a child without needing to give up
control, I refuse to propagate my genes. If and only if I can be an
integral part of raising that child, and can be assured that the child will
be raised within my beliefs and ethical standards, then I would consider
becoming a father. Not until then.
>> With responsibility and cost comes control. I want that control over my
>> children's education and value systems. I want to be the "programmer", as
>> it were, for them. I refuse to allow the state to instill it's version of
>> "right and wrong" -- what if I don't agree with it? Witness those parents
>
>I agree.
>
>> who are now in jail because their school-age kid saw President Bush's
>> indoctrination about drugs and turned them in -- for smoking a single
>> joint (and alone at that)!
>
>I'm sorry here, currently our society considers drug use a crime. If a
>child is encouraged to turn in their parents, maybe these parents will
>consider more carefully their habbit.
You know, Hitler encouraged the young to give up their Jewish parents too.
Being Jewish was a crime in Nazi Germany. The witch hunt that is currently
on for drug users is just as much as travesty of justice.
I have no obligation to obey an unjust law. I don't use illegal drugs, and
I draw the line where that use may hurt another person. But I find it
ludicrous that it is ok to smoke tobacco or drink yourself to death in front
of your children, yet consuming a single joint is grounds to have your
family forever destroyed.
Ask that kid who turned in his parents whether he thinks it was the right
thing to do NOW. Now that he is in a foster home, his parents are in jail,
and he'll never see Mom & Dad again. I bet he understands now the bullshit
that he was indoctrinated with -- and is mightily pissed at President Bush.
I was using that example as but one of the many ideas that the government
would love to put in our kids' heads. I find this particular kind of
brainwashing, regardless of the cause being instilled, highly offensive
and wrong.
Next it will be illegal to be homosexual (the crime against nature, you
know, which even the Supreme Court has upheld) -- and kids will be told to
turn in parents who have that trait. Then it will be overweight people, or
those who have a martini with dinner, or those who smoke tobacco (even if
they allow for proper ventilation so as not to endanger the kids through
second-hand smoke). We'll end with those who aren't Democrat or Republican
(What, you're Libertarian?! Up against that wall! Blam!) Can't have any
subversives, you know.
>> Are you willing to give up control of your children's future and learning
>> process? ALL of it? That is what I hear you advocating. I, for one, am
>> not.
>
>No I am not advocating giving up control of my childrens future, I am
>advocating that society realize several things:
>
> 1. There is too much population growth so birth rates must go down
Which is exactly what will happen if we stop procreating like rabbits, and
take (or force) responsibility for our actions in that regard -- including
the COST of those actions, both material and emotional.
> 2. But they must not go to zero, and they must not go to zero in any
> one social class
>
> 3. Since children are needed by SOCIETY, but everyone can not be expected
> to have them, I feel that SOCIETY should share some of the burden.
That's ok, but you can't do that without giving up some measure of control.
Therein lies the problem with having society "help out" as it were, and the
root of my objection.
> 4. The children of poor people currenlty grow up to be poor people in
> general, we need to break this cycle.
You don't break that cycle by giving away money to people in order to
facilitate their having children. You have to empower them -- which, in
addition to making it possible for them to rise above the poverty, includes
driving home the responsibility that comes with the rewards.
Right now the US misses the boat in several of these key areas.
Tim Oldham
setting up subsidised nurseries to allow the women on its staff to return
to work after having a child. They report that this has had a significant
effect on recruitment; they now find it easier to recruit women.
Yes, I realise this is a voluntary scheme, and so is distinct from
legislation. However, if maternity leave was not legislated for,
I would think that the companies that offered it would find it
considerably easier to recruit women.
6 weeks' paid leave is insignificant compared with recruitment costs.
It makes economic sense to make it easy for women to return to their
job after having a child. It is also a caring attitude to take. Do
you want to be just another employer, or a caring employer?
Tim.
--
Tim Oldham t...@fulcrum.bt.co.uk or ...!mcvax!ukc!axion!fulcrum!tjo
#include <stdisclaim>
Why have coffee, when caffeine tastes this good?
Ian G Batten
``We are...investigating whether Fulcrum Products should provide and
support a Day Care Nursery''
clearly it regards supporting parents and retaining their expertise
within the company as worthwhile from a business perspective.
ian
k.a.perkins
> > Since the topic of social legislation affecting the workplace seems
> >to be one people are interested in, I thought I'd share some further
> >information on this topic which I just happened to run across the other
> >day (in the British magazine Spare Rib), in the form of a display
> >labeled "Statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave at a percentage
> >of salary." The data given may be summarized as follows:
... data from western European countries deleted ...
> > United States surely you jest
> > This posting will generate numerous followups explaining why we're
> >really a lot better off in the United States not having such laws.
>
> You'll get at least one. From me.
>
> To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
> in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
> longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
> workplace.
Without statistics or proof one way or another (which you lack, too, but
still went on with your assertion) all I can say is that women do not
get equal opportunity or equal pay for equal work in this country.
I will find sources if you like, but in general white women earn
less than 70% than white men in the work place in this country.
> If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
> become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
If you force a company to provide paid sick and disability leave, then all
men become less valuable in the workplace. Men take an average of 1 -2 days
more sick leave per year than women. Men have more heart attacks and stress
related illnesses, which also require them to take time off.
> if a woman
> of child-bearing age is interviewing, and there is a mandatory maternity
> leave with pay law, then each businessman must evaluate the cost of
> employing that person as follows:
>
> Man Woman
> May take up to <x> days off May take up to 6 WEEKS off
> (sick days, say for argument 7/year) per year, every year while
> menstruating, with pay. This is 72
> days, or 6 times that of a man.
>
> Get the point yet? No, all women won't produce babies like this.
In my personal opinion and experience, NO women produce babies like this.
> But some
> will, especially when they know full well that they will get paid for doing
> so! All men won't take the 7 days a year off sick either -- but some will.
> A prudent businessperson has to evaluate the potential cost of those sick
> days and/or maternity leave time when making an offer of employment and
> salary.
God, you are such a moron. Do you think that people (I have news for you,
people, not just women, have children) have children because they get
sick pay for having them? Assuming that a women makes $30,000 per year,
which many women DON'T, do you think that her 6 weeks of paid time (or $3600)
pays for the cost of that child? For how long? If you know ONE woman
who had a child because she could get 6 paid weeks off from work, I would
be absolutely astonished. Speaking as someone who is pregnant, I think
any other woman who has ever been pregnant would be just as astonished.
There are many make or break factors in deciding to become a parent, but
the possibility of 6 weeks off from paid employment is not one of them.
> By mandating a paid maternity leave you have just reduced the market value
> of a woman, who does the same work as a man, by 5 weeks per year, or about
> 11% from that of a man. So, by your reasoning, I should be able to offer a
> woman 11% less money per year for the SAME JOB as a man might hold, on the
> basis that I might get 11% less work out of the woman due to this maternity
> leave! Remember, equal pay for equal work is fine -- but you have to put
> in equal work to get the equal pay, and under this "paid maternity leave"
> the woman isn't going to be doing equal work. Unequal pay is the result.
IMHO, all that mandating a paid maternity leave of 6 weeks does is
recognize the physical limitations of a woman who has just given
birth. (why do you think they call it LABOR?)
I am qualified by my years of service for 13 weeks of paid
sick leave, but in the opinion of my company and its medical opinion
makers, I can have 6 weeks for a vaginal delivery and 8 weeks for a
C-section. Anything else, my doctor and their doctor have to agree
to. The 6 weeks has nothing to do with the care of the child
or any bonding process or their desire to be nice to me so that I
won't just quit and find another job; rather, it has to do with what
just happened to my body and the likelihood that I am now recovered
enough to do my job. If a woman gave up her child for adoption, she
would still need and get (in my case) the 6 weeks to recover from the
birth.
> If you also try to mandate that a business must pay women the same amount of
> money for an identical position, but give the woman the maternity leave TOO,
> then you'll get sued immediately on the grounds of discrimination -- by the
> men.
I expect that's the reason that my enlightened company classifies the 6 weeks
off as sick leave - or maybe you thought that most women are physically
capable of leaving the hospital bed and going right back to work - and
classifies the rest of the available (but unpaid) leave as "care of
newborn child" and makes it equally available to men and women.
By the way, they also make the care of child leave available on an
equal basis to people who adopt a child. It's unpaid but it's
available to both genders on an equal basis.
> Mandating parental leave for BOTH sexes, of equal amount, will just cause
> salaries of BOTH sexes to drop by that same 11%. Not good.
It appears to me that the companies in this area set their salaries
based on what it costs to get somebody to take a job and stay with it,
not based on how much money they make from that person. If my
employers thought people would work for them for $5/hour,
I'm sure they'd offer it. As it is, they pay a competitive salary
out of fear that their workers will leave and go to a company with
better salary and benefits. Fast food franchises around here start
their people at about $5/hour because they can't get employees for less.
> Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE. No one can argue
> that. It should be the parent(s) responsibility to manage the care of that
> child. I even find it difficult to support an unpaid maternity leave
> policy, because it also raises costs to employers (and thus depresses the
> value of a job held by a woman). I say let the women choose -- those who
> want to bear children should be prepared for and pay the costs involved,
> while those who do not should not be penalized in the marketplace for other
> women's decisions.
Maybe I need to say it twice - IT IS NOT JUST WOMEN WHO HAVE CHILDREN.
MEN HAVE CHILDREN, TOO. There is more to having a child than getting
pregnant and giving birth.
Since it bothers you to raise the cost of employing women of
child bearing age for employers, maybe you
also support the termination of all benefits, too, since health insurance
is an enormous expense to employers. Maybe they should pay fathers
in single earner households with children less because they have more
health insurance claims. After all, why should a single person with no
dependents get paid the same amount as a man with a wife and some kids
when the family costs so much more to insure and thus the man with the
family costs more to employ? Maybe people with physical disabilities
should have the costs of any special equipment taken out of their salaries.
My company buys special terminals for people with visual impairments and
special phones for people with hearing loss - they aren't cheap. Why
should those people make the same salaries as others who can use standard
equipment?
K. A. Perkins
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| 6 weeks' paid leave is insignificant compared with recruitment costs.
| It makes economic sense to make it easy for women to return to their
| job after having a child. It is also a caring attitude to take. Do
| you want to be just another employer, or a caring employer?
It depends a lot on the job. There are a lot of people (not just
women) who work at jobs which require very little training and which
allow for recruitment costs to be a newspaper ad and a few interviews. I
may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you're thinking of professional
people rather than typical jobs.
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Speaking as someone who is pregnant, I think
| any other woman who has ever been pregnant would be just as astonished.
| There are many make or break factors in deciding to become a parent, but
| the possibility of 6 weeks off from paid employment is not one of them.
I think you're wrong. While no one would have a child just to get time
off work, I think there are a lot of responsible parents who would feel
that they could not afford to have a child if the mother didn't get paid
time off. I think you denigrate the value of this when you say it is not
one of the factors. I am sure that women who don't get paid leave often
postpone pregnancy for a year or two until the family savings are able
to stand the loss of income.
|
| IMHO, all that mandating a paid maternity leave of 6 weeks does is
| recognize the physical limitations of a woman who has just given
| birth. (why do you think they call it LABOR?)
This is something which depends very much on the woman and somewhat on
the job. For normal delivery, the purely physical recovery is probably
faster than that. The hormone changes (probably more of a problem on the
job) may last for 2-12 weeks, if I can trust the mothers in my immediate
family. There should be a better way to fit the term of the leave to the
needs of the mother than to pick a fixed time.
| I am qualified by my years of service for 13 weeks of paid
| sick leave, but in the opinion of my company and its medical opinion
| makers, I can have 6 weeks for a vaginal delivery and 8 weeks for a
| C-section. Anything else, my doctor and their doctor have to agree
| to.
It sounds as if you have the option I mentioned, to extend the leave
as needed.
| By the way, they also make the care of child leave available on an
| equal basis to people who adopt a child. It's unpaid but it's
| available to both genders on an equal basis.
Sounds like a pretty good policy.
|
| It appears to me that the companies in this area set their salaries
| based on what it costs to get somebody to take a job and stay with it,
| not based on how much money they make from that person. If my
| employers thought people would work for them for $5/hour,
| I'm sure they'd offer it. As it is, they pay a competitive salary
| out of fear that their workers will leave and go to a company with
| better salary and benefits. Fast food franchises around here start
| their people at about $5/hour because they can't get employees for less.
That's the way it should work. Isn't it nice to have the option of
choosing an employer to maximize your salary, benefits, time off,
travel, excitement, or whatever is important to you.
|
| > Having a baby is a personal choice. It is EXPENSIVE.
Having a baby is dirt cheap. As they say "it's not the cost but the
upkeep." When you start teaching them to speak, try to make their first
word "scholarship." 1/2 ;-)
| Since it bothers you to raise the cost of employing women of
| child bearing age for employers, maybe you
| also support the termination of all benefits, too, since health insurance
| is an enormous expense to employers.
This is the way capitalism works. There are employers who offer no
benefits. As long as people will work for them they will continue. As
long as there are fewer qualified people than jobs for them, some
employers will use benefits in addition to salsry to attract and hold
workers. And, if you have a spouse who has the benefits your family
needs, doesn't it make sense for one parent to work at a low benefit,
high pay job, if available?
Ned Nowotny
>In article <1989Sep20....@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
>> in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
>> longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
>> workplace.
>
>Without statistics or proof one way or another (which you lack, too, but
>still went on with your assertion) all I can say is that women do not
>get equal opportunity or equal pay for equal work in this country.
>I will find sources if you like, but in general white women earn
>less than 70% than white men in the work place in this country.
>
I seem to recall a figure more like 67% to 69%. Well, close enough.
What exactly are the population groups being compared here? No, I am
not implying a certain political slant. I really am curious. I have
seen this "statistic" widely quoted for years, but I still don't know
where it comes from.
For example, does it mean that the earnings of all women in the workforce
is only about two-thirds of the total earnings of all men in the workforce?
Or, is the number derived from the average disparity of earnings between
men and women in a given field? If so, is it the average of all fields,
including construction and manufacturing, or is it the average only of
professional or office/clerical fields? Does this ratio take into account
differences in education, training, and/or experience? Or, is it derived
from something else entirely?
Mary Ellen Foley
When I was at Perkin-Elmer, somebody circulated the last of many, many
petitions asking for on-site, if not subsidized, child care. The
management came out with a memo in a very stern tone, saying that there
would be no more petitions regarding child care, they had no intention
of providing child care, and hinting at dire sanctions for any who
would dare to continue to petition. Yes, the word "Neanderthal" comes
to mind.
I saw a televised interview with the head of the "Patagonia" clothing
company, which has FREE on-site child care. He said he believed it
was cheaper for him in the long run, and better for his employees. He
also said he was one of only 100 companies in the country doing this
(it could've been an old interview, don't know when it was taped).
One suggestion I like -- with so many families having two bread-winners,
many, many people are doubly insured. When I was at Perkin-Elmer, they
paid for health insurance for me and my husband, and his company paid
for him and for me. Why not have a menu of benefit choices, and let
one of us elect child care INSTEAD of insurance we don't need? On the
other hand, the insurance companies stand to lose a lot of money this
way (only 1 of those companies will have to pay in case of illness or
accident), and the insurance lobby is quite powerful, so it'll probably
never happen...
At my current company, they pay for life insurance in the amount of
three times my salary. I don't want this insurance, but accepting it
is a condition of employment, because all employees must be in the plan
for the company to participate. Since 3xsalary is a good bit above
the $50K or whatever it is ceiling imposed by law, I am TAXED on the
premiums my company pays, as if it is income! I REALLY HATE THIS, because
I don't want that much life insurance!!! I don't have kids, but if I
did, maybe I'd want the insurance, I dunno. On the other hand, maybe I'd
rather have subsidized child care.
--
WARNING: Opinions in posting are farther away than they appear.
Clayton Cramer
> > To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
> > in those countries. I bet you find that those countries that provide the
> > longest maternity leave also have the worst opportunity for women in the
> > workplace.
>
> Without statistics or proof one way or another (which you lack, too, but
> still went on with your assertion) all I can say is that women do not
> get equal opportunity or equal pay for equal work in this country.
> I will find sources if you like, but in general white women earn
> less than 70% than white men in the work place in this country.
The numbers of interest are that women currently earn 59% of men's
earnings. In the 1950s, it was 70%. Are we becoming MORE sexist?
No. Women working in the 1950s were more likely to be professionals
than today.
Keep in mind also that women are more likely to go into lines of
work that pay poorly, simply because these are low demand jobs that
don't interefere with what a lot of women in this country still view
as their primary responsibility: child-rearing. (Not every woman
is a business executive, you know).
Comparing salaries of men and women doing the SAME job is more
interesting. Discrepancies appear between married men and married
women; there is no significant different when both men and women
are in the "never married" category. The difference is probably
because married women are more likely to leave the workforce to
have children, and more likely to be out of work as a result of
a husband having his job relocated.
You may argue that these all reflect the sexism of our society's
notion of male/female roles. OK. But it's not necessarily an
indication of large scale sexism in employment.
>
> K. A. Perkins
Jim Robinson
>In article <21...@hcr.UUCP>, ji...@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>#
># I think it would be more accurate to say "If you like cheap (socialized)
># medicine, you may have to trade off some of your freedoms". Yes, a
># *particular* implementation of socialized medicine *may* result in some loss
># of economic freedom for MDs. However, I suspect that the 37 million
>
>Not just doctors -- it's also a loss of economic freedom for consumers,
>who will have the government even more concerned about what they do
>for entertainment. Clearly, smoking shouldn't be legal in a system
>where EVERYONE is obligated to pay for the results. Oh? Canada hasn't
>prohibited smoking? Why not? Now you are forcing everyone to sub-
>sidize the bad decisions of smokers. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
The negative aspects of smoking have the same effect in the US as in Canada.
Namely, that lost productivity increases the cost of goods and services to
consumers, and that increased health insurance costs are *ultimately* passed
on to virtually every insured person. Indeed, given that the US spends a
greater percentage of its GNP on health care than Canada does, the US would
benefit more from a ban on smoking than would Canada.
In the context of the Canadian system there are at least two ways to deal
with this problem. One would be to charge smokers an added health insurance
premium. The other would be to add a hefty tax to the price of cigarettes.
Canada has opted for the latter. Thus, I would *guess* that Canada's system
is more fair that the US's wrt the subsidization of smokers by non-smokers
(As would be expected, alcoholic beverages sold in Canada are also subject
to heavy taxes.)
>I understand that most members of Parliament in Britain go to private
>doctors -- not the truly socialized system that Britain has. If we
>HAVE to go to a governmental system to make the rich liberals feel
>a little less guilty, the Canadian model makes more sense than the
>British model, which is true socialism -- but it's not clear to me
>that even the Canadian model makes that much sense.
Guess it partly depends on whether or not you want the US to continue
spending a significantly greater percentage of GNP on health care than its
major competitors (and not obviously receiving anything more for that
greater expense).
BTW, I'm certainly not rich nor do I consider myself a liberal (in Canada I
am definitely *not* considered to be a liberal). However, the Canadian
system seems to make good economic sense, and in a country where a consensus
exists that health care is as much a right as primary and secondary
schooling, it makes good social sense.
>West Germany has a system of mandatory health insurance, governmental
>for very poor people, private for others. This is another model to
>consider.
Sounds like what Massachusetts is trying do. And, yes, given the character
of the US, it may be the model that would fit the best.
>Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
J.B. Robinson
--
Jim Clausing
<> In article <1989Sep21.0...@rpi.edu> ad...@pawl.rpi.edu writes:
<# #This is like the whole socialized medicine thing many people are for.
<# #People don't realize that you can't have complete freedom when you
<# #want it, and give it up to government control only when you like.
<# #In the case of medicine, who would continue to invest the time to be
<# #a Doctor if it no longer paid as well?
<#
<# First off, socialized medicine does not necessarily mean a drop in pay for
<# MDs. One cannot generalize because that is the result of a particular
<# implementation.
<
<I would certainly HOPE that socialized medicine would result in a
<drop in pay for doctors -- otherwise, why bother? If a doctor is
<guaranteed customers, and reduced risks from it, why should he continue
<to be paid so well?
There is only so much of this I can listen to (read) before I finally have
to say something in defense of doctors. I will preface this by stating that
my sister is a surgical resident and her husband is a psychiatric resident
and I have a half-dozen or so other friends at various stages in their medical
careers (only one in private practice).
I hope no one would dispute that we want qualified, competent doctors to
take care of us in case of illness or injury (with the possible exception of
those groups which for supposedly religious reasons dont' believe in using
doctors, but that is topic for another posting). Would anyone argue that
four years of medical school is necessary? How about residency, the
'apprencticeship' phase where the doctor gets an opportunity to gain
experience while still under the (at least nominal) supervision of an
attending physician? Honestly, would anyone really want to go under the
knife of someone straight out of school without an experienced doctor
alongside? How about a surgeon with a mail-order degree? Fine,
experience must be gained somehow and I think that residency is a fine
way to do that. Now to the real point of this posting.
When my sister finishes her residency, she will be 31 years old and in the
9 years after graduating from college will have earned approx. $120,000 and
still have $50,000 in debts left over from school. At this point, after
four years of college and four more of medical school she is qualified to
work 80 hr/wk for $22K (which keeps food on the table on the rare occasions
when she is home to eat it, but doesn't do anything about the $50K mentioned
above). If she had taken her chemistry degree and gotten one of the jobs
she was offered with a major chemical company, in that same period of time
she would have earned (conservatively) two-and-a-half to three times as much
over the same nine year period and would not have acquired the $50K debt.
She would also presently probably be earning in the high $30K to low $40K
range.
This hasn't even touched on the ridiculous malpractice insurance situation
now (almost as bad as the auto insurance situation here in NJ 1/2 :-). How
many of you have to pay more than $10K a year for insurance? If you really
want to reduce the cost of health care, this is one of the areas you have to
look at. This is really also topic for a different posting.
None of the doctors I know got into medicine for the money. Those that did
usually didn't make it through medical school (there are certainly easier
ways to get rich). None of the doctors that I know can just put in a 40 or
50 hour week and then go home and relax in front of the TV with the kids.
There PROBABLY are some of those if they are long established in family
practice, but I don't know any of those. Medicine is a difficult, demanding,
and expensive profession. They have earned the right to at least live
comfortably once they get into private practice (or at least out of residency).
How many of you out there with PhDs would stay in the profession very long
if you had the ridiculous malpractice insurance rates of the medical profession
and never got paid any better than a post-doc? Research is wonderful, but
the family has got to eat, too. Maybe, I have mis-read the tone of some of
the other articles and maybe people don't really see all doctors as money
grubbers getting rich off other peoples misery, and if so I apologize for
the flame, but from where I sit it doesn't look that way at all.
Now, to temper the diatribe a bit, I will concede that there are some doctors
out there who abuse the privilege and wouldn't need to make as much money as
they are. I don't believe, however, (and I admit I could be wrong here) that
these doctors contribute all that much to the problem of expensive health
care. Deal with the lawyers first.
<# Secondly, given that applications for medical schools outnumber by *many*
<# times the number of places available, classical economics leads one to
<# suspect that the salary of MDs could indeed be decreased by some (unknown)
<# amount without a doctor shortage resulting and without much, if any, of a
<# drop in the quality of applicants.
Fine, but what about the *quality* of medical care?
<Indeed. Even by increasing the number of medical school positions,
<without any real change in the economic system -- but that would
<require doctors to work harder, or earn less. Such a tragedy!
Again what about *quality* of medical care? Also, see above about how hard
doctors work and how much they get paid (and keep in mind that in most
hospitals, unless you are fairly wealthy, primary care is really afforded
by the residents that are putting in the 80-100 hour weeks).
[... stuff about laziness and government subsidies deleted ...]
[... stuff about economic freedom deleted ...]
<West Germany has a system of mandatory health insurance, governmental
<for very poor people, private for others. This is another model to
<consider.
I am, I admit, not familiar with the Canadian or British systems, so I won't
comment on their merits. What I have seen and heard about the West German
system indicates that this is indeed another model that should be considered.
<Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
And now, to throw another topic out for consideration, what about the
disastrous state of the nursing profession in the US? They are among the
most unappreciated and underpaid professionals in the country. Well, that
too should be another posting. Enough for now.
--
Jim Clausing Voice: (201)758-7693
Concurrent Computer Corp. Internet: j...@petsd.ccur.com
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 UUCP: {att, rutgers, princeton}!petsd!jac
Patrick L. Wigen
Perhaps I have missed something, or maybe my naivete is
showing but I don't understand why American companies are hving such a
hard time providing paid maternity leave. I spent 14 years in the Air
Force (Please no flames, I'm a slow learner sometimes) and my wife
spent 5 and she had our first child while on active duty. The olicy
was 6 weeks paid maternity leave, more if the doctor felt she required
it. And she returned tothe job she left when she returned to work.
It was a simple, humane, caring solution. I knew many departments
that managed to get by while one or more of their workers were on
maternity leave. Oh yea, This was administrative leave and did not
impact the regular leave, or vacation time for you civilians, that she
earned every month. And irregardless of present sentiment on
governmenal budgets this policy was not extravagant or very costly or
disruptive. My only complaint was that I had to take leave to stay
home with my wife and OUR new baby. We had moved to a new area that
was far from either of our families and knew nobody in the area to
help and she really needed me at home. She took care of our son, I
took care of her. (That was our choice!).
So what is the purpose of all this rambling? Instead of
talking about this disgrace, (It is obvious to me it is ossible andd
effective) what can we do about it?
Patrick L. Wigen Voice: (408) 756-9748
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. ( pa...@leadsv.UUCP )
Sunnyvale, Ca. ..{cae7780,sun!sunncal,savax}!leadsv!patw
*********************************************************************
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own(mostly). Certainly not those of
LMSC's.
*********************************************************************
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| None of the doctors I know got into medicine for the money.
I know two doctors who state bluntly that they are in medicine for the
money. They are both very fine doctors. That they pay painful attention
to detail and study the latest advances because it makes them more
valuable bothers me not a bit. I want a doctor who puts every bit of
effort possible into having the skills, keeping them current, and useing
them carefully. If they do it for money instead of love for their fello
man, I really don't care. What I don't want is the old family doctor who
does the poor for free, is jovial, caring, dedicated and 20 years behind
the times.
What I'm saying is that I personally care more about the quality of
the care, and not the motive. I am not offended by someone doing things
for money, I would do other things with my life if they paid as well,
too.
mark
# still went on with your assertion) all I can say is that women do not
# get equal opportunity or equal pay for equal work in this country.
# I will find sources if you like, but in general white women earn
# less than 70% than white men in the work place in this country.
This is simply NOT true. A woman in the same job as a man, with the
same education and the same years of experience, and the same
performance rating, WILL be paid the same as the man. (it is
contrary to the law to do otherwise)
If you find a case in which the above is false, contact the ACLU,
or some other womens organization and they will bring suit on
their behalf.
# K. A. Perkins
mark
#
# >If you force a company to provide paid maternity leave, then all women
# >become less valuable in the workplace. Let me explain why:
# (explanation followed)
#
# My, my, but we are all children of the "me" generation, aren't we?
#
# WOMEN decide to have children, and WOMEN must bear the costs.
# I guess there aren't any MEN out there who want their children,
# or ever intend to have them or recognise the economic necessity
# of the next generation.
Where have you been ? Women have the CHOICE !!!!!! Haven't you heard ?
# Adrienne Regard
Marie desJardins
>m...@homxb.att.com
What kind of an argument is that? How about this:
Nobody in this country uses illegal drugs.
(It is contrary to the law to do otherwise.)
or better yet
There is no need to install security systems
on your home or car, or to be careful where
you walk along at night. Nobody will rob
you or attack you. (It is contrary to the
law to do so.)
If you find a case in which the above is false,
call your local police department, and they
will find the criminal on your behalf.
I'm trying hard not to flame this individual, because
I can only assume that he means well, and doesn't think
that women SHOULD be discriminated against. But it
is incredibly naive to believe that women AREN'T
discriminated against in this country. "Performance
rating" is a very subjective thing and is often used
to lower women's wages. Other tactics include putting
women in positions with different job titles, not
hiring women for certain high-paying jobs, not
promoting women at an equal rate,... it goes on and on.
And even if discrimination CAN be proved, bringing
a court case requires large amounts of time, money,
tenacity, and understanding of the legal system. Many
(very likely most) of the women who suffer significantly
from discrimination in the workplace lack at least one
of these resources.
Really, Mark, before you post something like this here, you
ought to go to your library and pick up a book or two
on women's employment in this country. Look at some
statistics, read about some court cases (and if women
AREN'T discriminated against, why would there be
any court cases?), read about the personal experiences
of ACTUAL women in ACTUAL jobs. Do this BEFORE you
post naive idealism in a public forum full of women
(and men) who know better.
Idealism is nice, but we live in the real world.
Try looking at it a little bit, THEN perhaps you
can do something to bring us a little closer to an ideal
world.
--
Marie desJardins
ma...@ernie.berkeley.edu
She say, Miss Celie, You better hush. God might hear you.
Let 'im hear me, I say. If he ever listened to poor colored
women the world would be a different place, I can tell you.
(Alice Walker, _The Color Purple_)
Carole Ashmore
>
> This is simply NOT true. A woman in the same job as a man, with the
> same education and the same years of experience, and the same
> performance rating, WILL be paid the same as the man. (it is
> contrary to the law to do otherwise)
You are correct; it is almost never the case any more that men and
women in the same job are paid different amounts, although it was
certainly true and common and accepted and institutionalized 25 years
ago. This blatent form of sexist discrimination has been virtually
eliminated, for which we can all be thankful.
However, it is *very* naive to move from this fact to the notion that
women are no longer discriminated against in the business world. The
place where discrimination most often takes place today is in
promotion, and in the training, assignment of responsibilities, and
mentoring that usually lead to promotion.
Consider a man and a woman who join company XYY right out of college
with identical education, experience, GPA, intelligence, will to
succeed, family committments, etc. etc. etc. 10 years later it is
extremely likely that he will have a considerably higher paying more
responsible position than she. So many things contribute to it, some
of them involving conscious prejudice against women, some of them
involving unconscious prejudice, many of them simply involving the
fact that the sexes often feel best working with and relating socially
to their own kind, and most of the people with power in the company
are of his sex not hers.
It is quite likely that an older, more experienced man in the company
will take him 'under his wing' at some time, teaching him the ropes,
telling him how the company really operates as opposed to how it
officially operates, letting him know who is fueding with whonm at
higher levels, who is into power plays, what little irrational things
please or displease the president in presentations, etc. This is
called mentoring, and is so sommon that books on how to succeed in
business describe its dynamics. If there were many women in positions
of power one would be likely to mentor her, but there aren't many because
of the blatent discrimination of 25 years ago. And no sensible male
manager is going to have a female protege, for fear the rest of the
company, his wife, etc. would mistake the relationship for a sexual one.
So she blunders around finding these things out on her own, much later
than he, who has them spoon fed to him by one in the know.
It is quite likely that he will be offered training courses and
corporate responsibilities that involve travel while she will not.
This may be due to conscious prejudice, a manager who is already
planning to justify promoting him and not her, or simply to an
unconscious notion on the manager's part when it comes time to decide
who gets responsibility for the field offices, that his wife will
object less to his traveling on business than her husband will.
He will join the men's softball team at XYY for fun, good exercise,
and socializing with his work-mates. She will join the women's
softball team. He will end up playing and socializing with some guys
in production and some guys in maintenance, and with his boss and with
a couple of important people in management. She will end up
socializing with secretaries and file clerks.
All of these differences are small, no one of them is going to make or
break his career or hers. In situations where she is a *much* better
worker than he, they won't be enough to move him ahead of her. But
over 10 years these things mount up. The differences between the
successful candidate for a promotion and the person who comes in
number two are often very small. If he and she start out essentially
equal, or if she is just a little better than he, he will always have
an edge. And, of course, after he has gotten a few promotions she hasn't,
or gotten several more than she has, his career will obtain a considerable
momentum. People will look at his record and at hers and see him as the
much better worker.
The problem is, you don't simply pass a law ending discrimination and
see discrimination really end that year, even if the law is widely
complied with.
To see how much of an edge men still have, look around at the company
you work for and check the percentage of women in important management
positions, in front line supervisory positions, in in front line,
hire-in positions. To give you an example, the department I work in
consists of THE BOSS, supervisors who report to the boss, front line
people who work for the supervisors. Once a month we have a
departmental meeting at which I feel socially quite comfortable; the
numbers of men and women are about equal. Once a week we have a
meeting of just the boss and the supervisors, five men and me. If it
weren't for me they could hold it in the men's room. At the meetings
my boss goes to of all the department managers who report to his vice
president there are *no* women. Now, granted there are a couple of
women in the company at equal to my boss' level, but so few that you
can't count on even one reporting to most vice presidents. As for
female VPs, maybe someday.
Carole Ashmore
Ray Trent
>Guess it partly depends on whether or not you want the US to continue
>spending a significantly greater percentage of GNP on health care than its
>major competitors (and not obviously receiving anything more for that
Unless you wish to defend the idea that a larger GNP does not cause
much larger needs for health care, I suggest you relinquish the use of
this little gem for something more meaningful.
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
Mary Ellen Foley
mr@cbnewsh writes:
>>This is simply NOT true. A woman in the same job as a man, with the
>>same education and the same years of experience, and the same
>>performance rating, WILL be paid the same as the man. (it is
>>contrary to the law to do otherwise)
I worked at a company where a woman help to hire in a man who was to
be her peer, they were both first-line-managers, and had a look at
the paperwork, and found that he had the same number of years of
experience, not as much education, and was starting at 35% more than
she got. Her review was coming up, so she asked for a 35% raise and
told them why. They gave her 17%, and she left not long after.
She didn't want to sue them. There are many reasons why somebody
might not want to sue, but Silicon Valley is pretty small, it's like
a small town, word gets around. She might not be hired by anybody
else if she sued. She's now very happy in her new job.
Male/female isn't all that's going on there, of course, companies
around here don't keep their employees salaries up to market value,
the only way to get back up to market value is to leave, that's
why we have such a high turnover.
Clayton Cramer
#
# Perhaps I have missed something, or maybe my naivete is
# showing but I don't understand why American companies are hving such a
# hard time providing paid maternity leave. I spent 14 years in the Air
# Force (Please no flames, I'm a slow learner sometimes) and my wife
# spent 5 and she had our first child while on active duty. The olicy
# was 6 weeks paid maternity leave, more if the doctor felt she required
# it. And she returned tothe job she left when she returned to work.
# It was a simple, humane, caring solution. I knew many departments
# that managed to get by while one or more of their workers were on
# maternity leave. Oh yea, This was administrative leave and did not
# impact the regular leave, or vacation time for you civilians, that she
# earned every month. And irregardless of present sentiment on
I'm sure every employer could afford to offer maternity leave if
they paid as much as the Air Force does. From reading the military
pay scales in the latest World Almanac, I'm making more than a
brigadier general with the same number of years of experience!
(My job is somewhat less responsible than a brigadier general's,
of course! :-)).
# Patrick L. Wigen Voice: (408) 756-9748
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Paul Jackson
>There is only so much of this I can listen to (read) before I finally have
>to say something in defense of doctors.
> deserve to have it well later]
Yes, but a phD has also spent many years getting his degree, and
doesn't command the high prices. Also, lets (conservatively) assume
that the doctor gets into the "real world" by 35, that means the doctor
makes 30 yrs worth of $300,000 = $9,000,000 over a lifetime, as opposed
to the other professional making $50,000 * 45 years (left school at 20, in
which case an average income of $50,000 seems quite liberal) = $2,225,000
Incidentally, I would agree that the year or so of virtual slavery
as a resident is atrocious and should definitely be terminated.
>And now, to throw another topic out for consideration, what about the
>disastrous state of the nursing profession in the US? They are among the
>most unappreciated and underpaid professionals in the country. Well, that
>too should be another posting. Enough for now.
This is PRECISELY why I have no sympathy for the "oh woe is me I have
to work 60 hours a week" argument put forth by doctors. In Canada and (I
believe) the US, medicine is a self regulated (mostly) profession which has
mandated that almost all medical care be done by doctors. A huge amount
of medical care could (and should) be provided by trained (and well paid)
nurses. Doctors are overworked (when they are) due largely to their own
artificial policies, and hence have no cause for complaint.
pat coffey
... lots of stuff deleted from an excellent article about
differences in opportunity between men and women ...
> Once a week we have a
>meeting of just the boss and the supervisors, five men and me. If it
>weren't for me they could hold it in the men's room. At the meetings
>my boss goes to of all the department managers who report to his vice
>president there are *no* women. Now, granted there are a couple of
>women in the company at equal to my boss' level, but so few that you
>can't count on even one reporting to most vice presidents. As for
>female VPs, maybe someday.
One time I worked for a company where there were *no* women in any kind of
supervisorial/managerial position. This made the ladies room a safe
haven. One day, I went to the Ladies room to do my business and there
were 2 female employees in there -- one giving the other a perm! I
immediately realized the disadvantage that company put itself in
by shutting women out from managerial positions. ;-)
--
_ _ Ms. Pat Coffey
|_) (_ San Diego State University
| cof...@ucselx.sdsu.edu
Chris Long
> I worked at a company where a woman help to hire in a man who was to
> be her peer, they were both first-line-managers, and had a look at
> the paperwork, and found that he had the same number of years of
> experience, not as much education, and was starting at 35% more than
> she got. Her review was coming up, so she asked for a 35% raise and
> told them why. They gave her 17%, and she left not long after.
Of course, you don't give us enough information to conclude that
this is sexism in action. Maybe the woman in question was a total
incompetent and the man was the best worker they've ever had.
--
Chris Long, 272 Hamilton St. Apt. 1, New Brunswick NJ 08901 (201) 846-5569
"The proofs are so obvious that they can be left to the reader."
Lars V. Ahlfors, _Complex Analysis_
Rob Robertson
In article <Oct.2.17.13....@topaz.rutgers.edu> cl...@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
In article <MEF.89Se...@dalek.silvlis.com>, Mary Ellen Foley writes:
> I worked at a company where a woman help to hire in a man who was to
> be her peer, they were both first-line-managers, and had a look at
> the paperwork, and found that he had the same number of years of
> experience, not as much education, and was starting at 35% more than
> she got. Her review was coming up, so she asked for a 35% raise and
> told them why. They gave her 17%, and she left not long after.
Of course, you don't give us enough information to conclude that
this is sexism in action. Maybe the woman in question was a total
incompetent and the man was the best worker they've ever had.
or she had been there at the same company for 20 years and the company
just hired the man in at going industry wages. i've seen people work
for a company for 10 years, move to a higher position, then find out
that the person replacing them is making substantially more than they
were.
rob
--
william robertson
r...@violet.berkeley.edu
symbolic links are the GOTO's of filesystems
Eric Pepke
>I seem to recall a figure more like 67% to 69%. Well, close enough.
>
>What exactly are the population groups being compared here? No, I am
>not implying a certain political slant. I really am curious. I have
>seen this "statistic" widely quoted for years, but I still don't know
>where it comes from.
Go to the library and look up the _Statistical Abstracts of the United
States_, put out by the Bureau of the Census, a division of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Also see the _Current Population Reports_ which tell a lot of things
for which Stat Ab is just a digest. In particular, I would suggest "Money
Income and Poverty Status in the United States_.
>For example, does it mean that the earnings of all women in the workforce
>is only about two-thirds of the total earnings of all men in the workforce?
It means that the annual median income for all women in the workforce is
about 2/3 the annual median income for all men in the workforce. People
working half time, people working full time, and people working more than
one job are counted equally. Child support and alimony are not counted.
Gifts are not counted.
Because it varies with so many factors, it is a hopelessly useless statistic
for measuring disparity in pay. You will find others that are more useful.
-EMP
Phil Ronzone
>I worked at a company where a woman help to hire in a man who was to
>be her peer, they were both first-line-managers, and had a look at
>the paperwork, and found that he had the same number of years of
>experience, not as much education, and was starting at 35% more than
>she got. Her review was coming up, so she asked for a 35% raise and
>told them why. They gave her 17%, and she left not long after.
Well, perhaps it just me, but unless one is in a union or other
senority based system, shouldn't the QUALITY of the years of
experience matter the most?? Or even just the quality itself
count the most?
As a manager, I have hired (in a previous job) a woman with
less experience than myself at a higher salary than myself.
The QUALITY, or actually what the experience was was very
hard to get and thus the premium price.
I've seen men who were doing O.K., but the company simply
felt than a "more capabilities" person was needed, and
brought in somebody with sam,e years of experience but "more
horsepower" to work side by side and then become the new boss.
It happens a lot, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
I took the about paragraph and "reversed it" and asked someone
in the next cubicle to "read between the lines":
>I worked at a company where a man help to hire in a woman who was to
>be his peer, they were both first-line-managers, and had a look at
>the paperwork, and found that she had the same number of years of
>experience, not as much education, and was starting at 35% more than
>he got. His review was coming up, so he asked for a 35% raise and
>told them why. They gave him 17%, and he left not long after.
The interpretation - the guy wasn't working up to par and they brought
in a gung-ho woman who was really motivated and she ended up replacing him.
Is that sexism of any type? Just a though experiment ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX p...@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr
Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Cosell
}In article <30...@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> ned%c...@MCC.COM (Ned Nowotny) writes:
}>I seem to recall a figure more like 67% to 69%. Well, close enough.
}
}>is only about two-thirds of the total earnings of all men in the workforce?
}
}It means that the annual median income for all women in the workforce is
}about 2/3 the annual median income for all men in the workforce. People
}working half time, people working full time, and people working more than
}one job are counted equally. Child support and alimony are not counted.
}Gifts are not counted.
Note the important thing here: *all* women (and men) in the workforce.
Thus, it is much less an indictment of not-equal-pay than it is a
matter of women doing lower-paid jobs. Of course, one could try to
figure out WHY most beauticians are women, while most CEOs are men, but
the fact is that *within* a particular trade I think that payment is
fairly equal these days.
/Bernie\
Janet Carson
to government taking over the family, etc.>
You're missing the point. For most couples/families today, "the American
dream" costs *two* paychecks. Maternity leave allows a couple to have a
family without risking half their means of supporting that family, namely
the wife's job.
It is not sexist to give a woman maternity leave. It *is* sexist to force
female employes to give up their jobs if they become parents, but not male
employes.
Nor is maternity leave a step towards government taking over the family.
By enabling the woman to keep her means of supporting that child, the
government is relieved of the problem of supporting it with other programs.
p.s. Sorry this is a late follow-up, but our news server is *really* behind.
Janet L. Carson internet: jca...@bcm.tmc.edu
Baylor College of Medicine uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!jcarson
rwtang
>Thus, it is much less an indictment of not-equal-pay than it is a
>matter of women doing lower-paid jobs. Of course, one could try to
>figure out WHY most beauticians are women, while most CEOs are men, but
>the fact is that *within* a particular trade I think that payment is
>fairly equal these days.
Depends on the field. But when I was cruising through the US
Census Report on Employment and Population Statistics (Vol. D, Detailed
Characteristics), there were tables breaking down median salary by
race by sex by employment field by age by years of education. I saw VERY
few occupations where male and female salaries were comparable.
Granted, the difference was less than the fabled sixty cents on
the dollar, and granted that these stats don't really match up to
what we're really looking after, but they at least give us a better idea
of what's going on than the usual statistical foofaraw.
--
Roger Tang, Member
Rest Home for Ex-Asian American Radical Pinko Commie Punks, Frostbite Falls, MN
Chamber of Commerce, Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
gwan...@blake.acs.washington.edu
Mary Ellen Foley
Phil Ronzone takes my example of a female friend who hired in a male
colleague and found he was getting 35% more $$, and assumes that it was
because she was not as competent. She was the better employee, although
I did not address that point.
Not only was she more competent, but they eventually took away
all the people the new guy managed, because while he was technically
fantastic and a real nice guy to work WITH, he was horrible to work
FOR. One person quit because they wouldn't let her transfer from
his group, another person who was VERY important to the company
demanded a transfer and got it because he would've left if he'd had
to keep working for this guy. The company very wisely shifted this
manager to a different position, where he could be of great value,
but NOT MANAGE ANY PEOPLE.
So --> for the job in question, the underpaid female manager was BETTER
than the highly paid male manager.
My intention was just to give a counter-example when one fellow said
that [paraphrase] "Woman ARE paid equally, it's against the law not to",
which is clearly false. Just because something's illegal doesn't
mean it doesn't happen.
Mary Ellen Foley
--
Mary Ellen Foley
Rob Robertson is the second person who points out that in my description
of the woman who wasn't paid as much as a man in the same position, I
didn't give enough information for you to conclude that the pay difference
wasn't due to a difference in competence.
Okay, I should've been complete. But surely these people don't believe
I think everybody should get the same amount regardless of the QUALITY
of their work???? Sigh.
As it happens, the woman was the more competent worker in this case,
although she was paid less, which is certainly adding insult to injury.
I will remember to make such things more clear in future postings.
Jim Robinson
>In the referenced article, ji...@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Guess it partly depends on whether or not you want the US to continue
>>spending a significantly greater percentage of GNP on health care than its
>>major competitors (and not obviously receiving anything more for that
>
>Unless you wish to defend the idea that a larger GNP does not cause
>much larger needs for health care, I suggest you relinquish the use of
>this little gem for something more meaningful.
Either Ray Trent did not carefully read what I posted and hence missed the
word "percentage" [see above], or he believes that a country with, say, 20%
greater GNP than another country needs to spend *greater* than 20% more on
health care. If the latter is the case I suggest that it is Ray Trent who
has the defending to do as there is no obvious reason why health care
spending should not scale linearly with GNP.
J.B. Robinson
--
Phil Ronzone
>
>Phil Ronzone takes my example of a female friend who hired in a male
>colleague and found he was getting 35% more $$, and assumes that it was
>because she was not as competent. She was the better employee, although
>I did not address that point.
I'm not sure what the point is now ... :-)
It is a sexless happening. Companies will hire new employees in at salaries
that are as low as rational. Like buying a new car, one does not wish to pay
more than one has to. In my hiring experience, which is now quite large
in terms of the number of people I've hired, I have found the sex of the
applicant to not play a factor.
Then again, I've hired in a rather narrow technical field, where the quality
of one's work is THE determinant.
For example, any studies over tha last ten years of starting salaries of
say, Stanford MBA's, by sex?
Ray Trent
>In article <40...@unix.SRI.COM> tr...@unix.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>>In the referenced article, ji...@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Either Ray Trent did not carefully read what I posted and hence missed the
>word "percentage" [see above], or he believes that a country with, say, 20%
>greater GNP than another country needs to spend *greater* than 20% more on
Of course they do. First of all, medical prices scale with some
correlation to GNP, simply on a supply and demand basis. Secondly,
larger GNP means more people, higher levels of urbanization (usually),
more crowding, etc., etc., etc. all of which cost more than more
ruralized medicine (partly because people that can't reach medical
facilities don't spend money one them (they also don't get care, but
that's another story). Thirdly, larger available capitol (and economy
of scale) allows large hospitals to acquire much expensive machinery
and provide better care than smaller facilities in countries with lower
GNP. They're still monopolies, however, and thus make a higher profit
margin.
In summary, high GNP correlates with higher population, which would
tend to keep the percentage the same regardless of other effects, however
high GNP/capita also costs more in health care per capita; both because
individuals have readier access to facilities and more money to spend on
them but also because they face more expensive to correct health hazards.
Janet Carson
>>> To complete the table you need to show the wage disparity of women and men
>>> in those countries.
>>
>>Without statistics or proof one way or another (which you lack, too, but
>>get equal opportunity or equal pay for equal work in this country.
>
>not implying a certain political slant. I really am curious. I have
>seen this "statistic" widely quoted for years, but I still don't know
>where it comes from.
This isn't a complete answer, but here are some statistics from p. 68 of
the 9/25/89 issue of US News & World Report. The issue listed the "top 10
paying jobs for men and women". Since I don't see much point in comparing
"apples and oranges", I am only listing the 5 jobs that were in both the
"men's" and "women's" lists.
The following represent 1988 median weekly salaries according to the US
Department of Labor:
Job title His pay Her pay (% of his pay)
Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
College Professor 752 555 (74%)
Physician 815 553 (68%)
Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand jobs.
Where the demand is lower or less education is required, there is probably a
bigger gap. And when you start comparing apples and oranges (i.e. the salary
differentials in occupations dominated by men vs. occupations dominated by
women), the gap has to be even bigger still.
Mary Ellen Foley
Bernie Cosell says points out correctly that the "women get 2/3 of the $$
men get" reflects more that women are in lower paying jobs than anything
else, but then he uses as an example beauticians versus CEOs, and the
lines are very seldom that clear-cut.
A couple of years ago, some state (one of those cold-sounding ones that
starts with an M --Minnesota? Michigan? Montana? I don't remember) did
a survey and found that among state government employees, the highest
paid female-dominated jobs paid less than the lowest paid male-dominated
jobs. The example I read said that the highest paid executive secretaries
made less than the car park attendants at the capitol building. According
to the article (in Ms.? I'm not sure) the state changed its payscale to
remedy the problem.
Anybody from Minnesota/Michigan/Montana out there who can supply facts?
Shelley Louie
>> ned%c...@MCC.COM (Ned Nowotny) writes:
>>
>>What exactly are the population groups being compared here? No, I am
>>not implying a certain political slant. I really am curious. I have
>>seen this "statistic" widely quoted for years, but I still don't know
>>where it comes from.
>
>This isn't a complete answer, but here are some statistics from p. 68 of
>the 9/25/89 issue of US News & World Report. The issue listed the "top 10
>paying jobs for men and women". Since I don't see much point in comparing
>"apples and oranges", I am only listing the 5 jobs that were in both the
>"men's" and "women's" lists.
>
>
>Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
>Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
>Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
>College Professor 752 555 (74%)
>Physician 815 553 (68%)
>
>Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand jobs.
Did the stats include the average number of years on-the-job experience
each sex had? How many people were questioned? Where were they located
at? Sometimes these stats are deceiving, especially when they since we
don't have additional information. Any employer who decides to pay women
and men with similar experience, etc with a gap this large is probably
going to find their butt in the middle of a sex-discrimination case.If
not, then they SHOULD.
>Where the demand is lower or less education is required, there is probably a
>bigger gap. And when you start comparing apples and oranges (i.e. the salary
>differentials in occupations dominated by men vs. occupations dominated by
>women), the gap has to be even bigger still.
All of these are wonderful assumptions, but those who've taken a statistics
class know that results depend on the data you get. And sometimes the
data is skewed. The more you know about the data the better judgement
you can make on the results. I'm not saying there isn't any discrimination
going on, just that I can't make a judgement as to how much happening on
questionable stats.
-Shelley Louie
Phil Ronzone
>The following represent 1988 median weekly salaries according to the US
>Department of Labor:
>
>Job title His pay Her pay (% of his pay)
>
>Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
>Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
>Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
>College Professor 752 555 (74%)
>Physician 815 553 (68%)
I don't find this to meaningful. I've seen in the "Computer Specialist"
areas women getting paid the same as men for the SAME JOB. As more
and more women enter the computer fields, and as the years go by,
we should see the differential decrease, ASSUMING women as a class
have the same goal as men as a class. No?
Show me say, two doctors, one of each sex, otherwise identical,
with a significant pay differential. Graduated same year
from the same college, same quality of internship, etc.
Gerd Groos
Here's my 0.02$ worth...
I don't want to shatter your view of the world with facts, but
there is *no* free healthcare in West Germany. Somebody has to pay for it.
There is compulsory health insurance - around 6% of your pay. The
difference to the U.S. of A. might be that even if you are not insured
you will be treated with the same care - and the city, county or some other
institution will pay. If this looks like socialism to you, you are free
to opt out and insure privately - or not at all in certain conditions.
Chances are that this can ruin you financially..
So, after all, West Germany might still be democratic..
To compare two countries is difficult - one is always tempted to reagard
the way things are handled in his country as *standard*. People in the
U.K. regard it as normal to wait up to half a year for an operation.
I - coming from a different country - do not.
>More importantly, what the heck does this have to do with misc.jobs.misc?
Info's about social security are important when considering working abroad.
Bismarck's decision to introduce a social security system was a historical
event in my opinion - sorry, history really hasn't anything to do with
jobs?
Gerd
------------------------------------------------
There are intelligent live forms outside the U.S.
rajeev.b.patil
> In article <17...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> jca...@moniz.bcm.tmc.edu (Janet Carson) writes:
> # The following represent 1988 median weekly salaries according to the US
> # Department of Labor:
> #
> # Job title His pay Her pay (% of
> # his pay)
> #
> # Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
> # Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
> # Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
> # College Professor 752 555 (74%)
> # Physician 815 553 (68%)
> #
> # Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand
> # jobs. Where the demand is lower or less education is required, there
> # is probably a bigger gap. And when you start comparing apples and
> # oranges (i.e. the salary differentials in occupations dominated by
> # men vs. occupations dominated by women), the gap has to be even
> # bigger still.
>
> The numbers are meaningless with the median number of years of
> experience in each job for the men and the women. If the average
> woman physician has 6 years of experience and the average man has
> 9 then there may be no difference in pay for a man with 6 years
> of experience.
Additional factor:
Physician salaries are related to their specialization.
Surgeons and Radiologists make a lot more money than
Pediatricians and Internists.
The difference in his/her salary may be:
a) either because women chose the lower paying specializations.
Surgeons have to do 5 to 7 years of residency training compared
with 3 years for pediatricians. Some women may prefer to spend less
time in the residency program and start a life sooner.
b) or because women were involuntarily kept away from those
higher paying specializations.
I suspect that it is a combination of both.
Rajeev
>
> # Janet L. Carson internet: jca...@bcm.tmc.edu
> mark
> m...@homxb.att.com
Tim W Smith
>>or 8 weeks of PAID leave when they had a child -- regardless of their sex.
>>I suspect that many companies, large AND small, would be in the same
>>position.
>
>Maybe if goofball executives stopped getting such huge salaries, companies
>could afford to treat their employers better?
>
>Lotus's head raked in over $26 million year before last. Assuming the
...
...blah blah blah
...
>The problem is that American employers want to pay themselves huge
>amounts of money instead of taking care of their employees....
You're generalizing from Lotus to all companies?! There certainly are
companies that can not afford maternity leave and whose executives do
not make a lot of money.
For example, the company I work for does not have *ANY* high paid execs.
I think I might be the highest paid person here, and I'm not an exec.
I'm a programmer. I don't get anywhere near $26 million.
Our president and founder often takes no pay. We have no venture capital
or other such sources of money. Our money came from the savings of our
president. Where did he get the money? Before he started this company
he worked for several years as a consultant, taking two or three full time
jobs at a time to get the money to start his company.
When we get bigger and have more people, I have no doubt that maternity
leave will become a part of what the company offers us. But at this
stage, it doesn't seem to me like the company can afford it.
On the other hand, anyone who got a job here wouldn't have time to
get pregnant ( or get anyone pregnant ), so it's not an issue. :-)
If someone needed maternity leave now, my guess is that we would offer
to let them work at home.
Tim Smith
Karl Denninger
>the 9/25/89 issue of US News & World Report. The issue listed the "top 10
>paying jobs for men and women". Since I don't see much point in comparing
>"apples and oranges", I am only listing the 5 jobs that were in both the
>"men's" and "women's" lists.
>
>The following represent 1988 median weekly salaries according to the US
>Department of Labor:
>
>Job title His pay Her pay (% of his pay)
>
>Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
>Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
>Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
>College Professor 752 555 (74%)
>Physician 815 553 (68%)
>
>Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand jobs.
Ok, now show the following in the statistics, and see if you still get the
same numbers:
o Number of years on the job (experience)
o EXACT title (Mathematical & Computer specialist is quite diverse!)
o Tenure status (for the professors)
o Specialty (for physician), if any.
In the "lawyer" catagory, for example, the women might be overrepresented in
the public defender's office, which has a (much!) lower pay rate than that
of a highly successful civil or private criminal lawyer!
In the "Computer Specialist" you might find that the women they surveyed
were predominately operators, while the men were predominately programmers.
In the "Physician" catagory perhaps the men were predominately
neuro-surgeons, while the women were perhaps biased towards general
practice.
Show me statistics on two groups of people, with the >only< difference being
sex. Then you will have established that there is (or isn't) a problem.
>Where the demand is lower or less education is required, there is probably a
>bigger gap. And when you start comparing apples and oranges (i.e. the salary
>differentials in occupations dominated by men vs. occupations dominated by
>women), the gap has to be even bigger still.
But women and men both can choose what professions they enter, and stay in.
They can also choose their level of education.
>Janet L. Carson internet: jca...@bcm.tmc.edu
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
Bronis Vidugiris
)Department of Labor:
)
)Job title His pay Her pay (% of his pay)
)
)Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
)Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
)Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
)College Professor 752 555 (74%)
)Physician 815 553 (68%)
)
)
)Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand jobs.
)Where the demand is lower or less education is required, there is probably a
)bigger gap. And when you start comparing apples and oranges (i.e. the salary
)differentials in occupations dominated by men vs. occupations dominated by
)women), the gap has to be even bigger still.
This does not match the reults I have seen for my own profession.
Unfortunately, I do not have the raw data available, but the survey I saw was
the IEEE one. [I believe there is one in the EE times, as well - but I never
got around to looking at the results of that one]. At any rate, though I
do not have the exact figures, I recall that new hires who were women had
a higher salaray than new hires who were men, and that the men gained more
and more with experience. A figure of 90% or so seems to stick in my mind.
Anybody have the real figures, or other data?
Steve Maurer
> The following represent 1988 median weekly salaries according to the US
> Department of Labor:
>
> Job title His pay Her pay (% of his pay)
>
> Lawyer 930 774 (83%)
> Mathematical & Computer Specialist 733 575 (78%)
> Personnel & Labor Relations Manager 785 563 (71%)
> College Professor 752 555 (74%)
> Physician 815 553 (68%)
>
>
> Thus, women make 70-80% of a man's salary in professional, high-demand jobs.
Really, this should be an example used in "How to Lie with Statistics".
It only shows that women have recently entered the work force. It certainly
doesn't prove that women are being discriminated against. Of course, it
doesn't prove the reverse either.
Lets take an example, shall we?
Law firm A, B, and C Inc. has been in business for 40 years. It is a
respectable firm that attempts to be egalitarian. They employ 38 lawyers;
20 Junior Lawyers, 10 Senior Lawyers, 5 Partners, and of course, the
Founders A, B and C.
Of the 20 Junior Lawyers, 15 are women. They earn 30,000 a year. Just
to be fair (and because political-correctness helps this particular law firm)
the 5 men earn only 25,000 a year. There are 8 women and 2 men who are
Senior Lawyers. The women, again, at our hypothetical law firm, earn more
than the men do. 50,000 to 40,000. At the partner level, there are 3 men
and 2 women. Each earn the same amount of money: 60,000. Finally to round
everything off, the Founders A, B, and C, each earn 100,000. A, B and C are
all men, of course, since there weren't many women lawyers around at all in
the 1940's when this law firm was founded.
The result?
Men earn an "average" salary of: $52,690
Women, bless their poor little oppressed hearts, an "average": $37,300
....a mere 70.07 percent of the men's salaries.
Obviously this firm, which seems to hires women at a greater salary,
and preferentially to men, is actually a prime example of the sexist
elitist male chauvinist attitudes that make up America today. Probably
the women at the firm aren't complaining about their compensation, mind
you, but that won't prevent the ignorant feminists from wailing loudly
about the terrible salary imbalance.
Just goes to show what you can prove with statistics.
Steve Maurer
st...@vicom.com
Jim Robinson
>
>In summary, high GNP correlates with higher population, which would
>tend to keep the percentage the same regardless of other effects, however
>high GNP/capita also costs more in health care per capita; both because
>individuals have readier access to facilities and more money to spend on
>them but also because they face more expensive to correct health hazards.
The implication here is that countries such as W. Germany, France, etc with
lower GNPs/capita than the US:
a) do not provide ready access to health care facilities as compared with
the US,
b) have citizens which tend to be less healthy than US citizens because
their countries have less money to spend on health care, and
c) are sufficiently more rural than the US that the cost of whatever
health care is needed can actually be less, on a per capita basis, than
the US due to the less harsh nature of rural life.
Points a) and b) can probably be verified by considering longevity, infant
mortality rates, etc. I can't say I have any numbers, but I have never heard
of the citizens of Western European countries being any worse off than
Americans. If Ray Trent has such numbers I'd be interested in seeing them.
Point c) again requires some facts/numbers. How much more rural (if any) is
W. Germany or France as compared to the US. I don't have the foggiest, but
I didn't make the claim that there was a not insignificant difference.
Now consider some counter-examples to Ray Trent's claim. The US with a per
capita GDP of $15300 spends 10.8 % of GDP on health care, whereas Canada
with a per capita GDP of $15100 spends about 8.4 % of GDP. Britain with a
per capita GDP of $11000 spends 6 % of GDP on health care whereas Italy with
a *lower* per capita GDP of $10100 spends *more*, 7.2 %. France and Japan
with similar per capita GDPs ($12700 vs $12400) spend 9 and 6.6 % of GDP on
health care, respectively.
Thus, real world experience does not support the premise that higher
GDP/capita necessarily results in a higher percentage of GDP being spent on
health care. The differing cost of health care is probably the result of
different systems and regardless of how you cut it the US's system is
expensive. It should also be noted that Western European countries with
their national health care systems cover 100% of their citizens whereas in
the US some 30 million (~12 % of pop.) have no health insurance; and the US
has a high infant mortality rate for a developed country (no number
available). Having said all that I will now modify my original statement
(the one that started this) to: the US has a *very* expensive medical system
which appears to provide less to its citizens than those of its Western
trading partners and whose cost is probably out of control. The last part is
based on the fact that any expenditure whose share of GDP increases due to
an increase in GDP/capita will eventually consume the *entire* GDP. RT is
asserting that this is reasonable and thus is implicitly supporting an
economically unstable system.
Now, however, in the name of fairness I will mention that Canada's postal
system makes the US's look like the model of efficiency.
[The numbers pertaining to GDP/capita and health care spending as a % of GDP
were taken from a graph that appeared in the August 22 1987 edition of the
_Economist_ which in turn was constructed from OECD 1984 data - so, yep,
they're not exactly up to date.]
J.B. Robinson
--
Clayton Cramer
> In article <42...@unix.SRI.COM> tr...@unix.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
> >
> Now consider some counter-examples to Ray Trent's claim. The US with a per
> capita GDP of $15300 spends 10.8 % of GDP on health care, whereas Canada
> with a per capita GDP of $15100 spends about 8.4 % of GDP. Britain with a
> per capita GDP of $11000 spends 6 % of GDP on health care whereas Italy with
> a *lower* per capita GDP of $10100 spends *more*, 7.2 %. France and Japan
> with similar per capita GDPs ($12700 vs $12400) spend 9 and 6.6 % of GDP on
> health care, respectively.
>
> Thus, real world experience does not support the premise that higher
> GDP/capita necessarily results in a higher percentage of GDP being spent on
> health care. The differing cost of health care is probably the result of
> different systems and regardless of how you cut it the US's system is
> expensive. It should also be noted that Western European countries with
> their national health care systems cover 100% of their citizens whereas in
> the US some 30 million (~12 % of pop.) have no health insurance; and the US
> has a high infant mortality rate for a developed country (no number
> available). Having said all that I will now modify my original statement
Yes, the infant mortality rate is high, but there are differences in
how those numbers of computed in different countries. We also have a
serious drug abuse problem in this country, which is doubtless a factor
in the high infant mortality rate.
Finally, it may well be that Canada is getting what it is paying for,
with that lower percentage of medical expenses. From an article
titled, "Beware of Bargains" in the November 1989 Reason magazine,
written by Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute
in Vancouver:
Contrary to advocates of the Canadian model, it is by no means
clear that spending less on health care is *a priori* a good
thing. Indeed, although the United Kingdom spends about half as
much as Canada does, no one therefore infers that British
patients are better off. (In fact, the reverse is true.)
So we cannot safely conclude that Canada's health-care system
works better than its American counterpart based merely on the
difference in cost. To determine whether American patients
are truly being bilked in comparison to their northern
neighbors, it is necessary to measure performance more directly.
[discussion of long term study underway deleted]
The study's preliminary findings indicate that Canada's lower
health-care costs are accompanied by a lower level of service.
For example:
The entire province of British Columbia has fewer CAT scanners
than the city of Seattle.
There are more magnetic-resonance imaging machines in Michigan
than in all of Canada.
With a population of 570,000, the province of Newfoundland has
only one functioning CAT-scanner team, so patients must wait
two months for a scan. Pap-smear tests also take two months or
longer. The waiting period for mammograms is two-and-a-half
months; for bone scans, 90 days; and for myelograms, three to
four months.
Pretty obviously, a brain or breast cancer can grow very rapidly
in two months. If I needed a CAT scan, or my wife needed a Pap-
smear, I would consider two months dangerously long.
Throughout Canada, there are long delays for hip replacement
(6 to 10 months), cataract removal (2 months or more), and
coronary bypass surgery (up to a year).
According to a February 13 cover story in _Maclean's_ magazine,
six heart patients died last year waiting for surgery at
Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre. The article reported that
about 1,000 people in Toronto were being compelled to wait as
long as a year for bypass operations and that two had died
since December. Delays at the city's Hospital for Sick Children
are so bad that in January the facility sent home 40
children in need of heart surgery.
...
The types of problems brought to light by the Fraser Institute
may not be apparent to most Canadians, since the waiting lists
are confined to service beyond those provided by general
practioners. But the shortcomings found by the study should
nevertheless give pause to those inclined to imitate Canada's
health-care system.
This may in fact be evidence that Canadian health policies are
intelligently run, within the financial limitations the government
imposes -- most people get adequate medical care. If you have
something serious wrong, your care will be less adequate than being
in the U.S.
Of course, if our government set up a similar system, they would
manage to spend more than they do now, and priority in medical
care would be given to alcoholics, cigarette smokers, and IV
drug abusers.
> (the one that started this) to: the US has a *very* expensive medical system
> which appears to provide less to its citizens than those of its Western
> trading partners and whose cost is probably out of control. The last part is
> based on the fact that any expenditure whose share of GDP increases due to
> an increase in GDP/capita will eventually consume the *entire* GDP. RT is
> asserting that this is reasonable and thus is implicitly supporting an
> economically unstable system.
Extrapolating increases in gasoline prices from sometime in 1973 can
be used to show that the U.S. is now bankrupt. Obviously, there are
limits to how high medical expenses can go before market pressures
counteract them.
> Now, however, in the name of fairness I will mention that Canada's postal
> system makes the US's look like the model of efficiency.
But postage is cheaper in Canada!
> [The numbers pertaining to GDP/capita and health care spending as a % of GDP
> were taken from a graph that appeared in the August 22 1987 edition of the
> _Economist_ which in turn was constructed from OECD 1984 data - so, yep,
> they're not exactly up to date.]
>
> J.B. Robinson
It's tempting to think that governmental control of medical expenses
can solve the problem of runaway bills -- but at a cost. The cost
will be either reduced medical care, or reduced financial incentive
for doctors. I would like to think that concern for patients would
be an adequate incentive, but realistically, doctors are like the
rest of us.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has extraordinarily high medical expenses
at least partly because we have extraordinarily high medical malpractice
insurance premiums, reflecting our highly litigious society. I'm
not sure how much of the roughly 11% of GDP we spend on medical
care turns out to be premiums, but I've read that a GP just starting
out can expect to bring in $100,000/year, and pay $30,000 in
premiums.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Human rights are non-negotiable -- respect the Bill of Rights, or you'll soon
find out why the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
mark
# Janet L. Carson internet: jca...@bcm.tmc.edu
# Baylor College of Medicine uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!jcarson
Mike Westbrook
>In article <22...@hcr.UUCP>, ji...@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>
>> Now consider some counter-examples to Ray Trent's claim. The US with a per
>> capita GDP of $15300 spends 10.8 % of GDP on health care, whereas Canada
>> with a per capita GDP of $15100 spends about 8.4 % of GDP. Britain with a
>> per capita GDP of $11000 spends 6 % of GDP on health care
>> The differing cost of health care is probably the result of
>> different systems and regardless of how you cut it the US's system is
>> expensive.
I certainly can't object to either of the points in this last sentence!
>> It should also be noted that Western European countries with
>> their national health care systems cover 100% of their citizens whereas in
>> the US some 30 million (~12 % of pop.) have no health insurance; and the US
>> has a high infant mortality rate for a developed country (no number
>> available).
>
>Yes, the infant mortality rate is high, but there are differences in
>how those numbers of computed in different countries. We also have a
>serious drug abuse problem in this country, which is doubtless a factor
>in the high infant mortality rate.
I have no proof, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a strong
correlation here as well with lack of health insurance. (I personally
feel that the pricing of health insurance at rates so high that so many
people feel they can't afford them is bordering on the criminal.) I'm
not sure there aren't also serious drug abuse problems in other western
countries, even those with national health care schemes.
>Finally, it may well be that Canada is getting what it is paying for,
>with that lower percentage of medical expenses.
Your qualification of the statement is noted!
> From an article
>titled, "Beware of Bargains" in the November 1989 Reason magazine,
>written by Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute
>in Vancouver:
The Fraser Institute is a well-known small-c conservative think tank /
research institute, so it is no surprise that an article which deals
negatively with government- (ie. tax- i.e. public-) funded health care
is authored by someone from there. This is not to say, of course, that
the details (or maybe even the conclusions! :-) are not correct. (It's
also not to say they are...)
I'm not too impressed by the tone of the article, as quoted (no offense
to Mr. Cramer), starting with its title. ("Beware of `Bargains'", indeed!)
I found it less of an objective analysis of the public health care system
than a selective criticism of the system, with little attempt to describe
any advantages of public health care or areas where Canada is ahead of the
U.S. (there are some, on both counts). There are too many rhetorical
tricks used to promote their own attitude (I hesitate to call any of them
"conclusions") for me to find it very objective.
There is also one important point to be kept in mind when reading this
article: public health care in Canada, while primarily funded by the
federal government (which can thus exert some amount of control), is
administered by each provincial government. There is no guarantee that
any positive or negative aspect of the health system is easily comparable
across the country.
> Contrary to advocates of the Canadian model, it is by no means
> clear that spending less on health care is *a priori* a good
> thing.
I think that only an idiot (or a politician?!) would say that spending
less is "*a priori* a good thing". Kind of a straw-man argument...
> Indeed, although the United Kingdom spends about half as
> much as Canada does, no one therefore infers that British
> patients are better off. (In fact, the reverse is true.)
There are also roughly twice as many people in the U.K. as there are
in Canada. If the article refers to per-capita spending rather than
absolute amounts, it should say so explicitly, since most people would
assume absolute numbers from the words chosen by the author. To be
fair, the numbers quoted by Mr. Trent from the _Economist_ do in fact
bear out the approximately two-to-one rate, if my arithmetic is right.
> So we cannot safely conclude that Canada's health-care system
> works better than its American counterpart based merely on the
> difference in cost.
Again, I find this so obvious as to be insulting.
> To determine whether American patients
> are truly being bilked in comparison to their northern
> neighbors, it is necessary to measure performance more directly.
I'm not sure why the term "bilked" was chosen here--this would seem
more appropriate in a report aimed at Americans complaining about
the high cost of health care than one for Canadian readers.
> [discussion of long term study underway deleted]
>
> The study's preliminary findings indicate that Canada's lower
> health-care costs are accompanied by a lower level of service.
I cannot disagree that there are waiting lists at Canadian hospitals,
nor that these may not be necessary (with increased funding from some
source or another), nor that the numbers of various types of medical
equipment are in greater supply in the U.S. than in Canada (and the
rest of the world), nor that there are a larger number (even per capita)
of high-quality hospitals in the U.S.
However, this statement begs a number of questions, though they may have
been partly answered in the deleted discussion. Firstly, these are
preliminary findings in a long-term study. Using such information to
support a particular point of view is fraught with hazard, though very
popular. Secondly, it is not clear what the level of service in Canada
is being compared with when it is called "lower": all of the U.S.? or
only those who [can afford to] go to hospitals? And do all people in
the U.S. have equal access to the hospitals with such equipment as is
mentioned below?
> For example:
While the examples may be true, and may highlight some of the shortcomings
of health care in Canada, I'm not sure that we're not comparing oranges
and apples (or maybe tangerines)...
> The entire province of British Columbia has fewer CAT scanners
> than the city of Seattle.
Metropolitan Seattle or just the city? The population of B.C. is not
very large--two to three million, I think. How many fewer machines?
> There are more magnetic-resonance imaging machines in Michigan
> than in all of Canada.
What is the size of the population served by the Michigan machines?
(I think the population of Canada is now somewhere around 28 million.)
Again, how many fewer machines?
> With a population of 570,000, the province of Newfoundland has
> only one functioning CAT-scanner team, so patients must wait
> two months for a scan. Pap-smear tests also take two months or
> longer. The waiting period for mammograms is two-and-a-half
> months; for bone scans, 90 days; and for myelograms, three to
> four months.
Don't forget the additional half-hour!! :-)
>Pretty obviously, a brain or breast cancer can grow very rapidly
>in two months. If I needed a CAT scan, or my wife needed a Pap-
>smear, I would consider two months dangerously long.
I agree with your assessment of this situation as it applies to
Newfoundland. It's too bad that the report doesn't mention the
numbers for other parts of Canada--and I'm not sure that one couldn't
find similar numbers in some regions in the U.S. (Another thing to
note: Newfoundland has a large-c Conservative provincial government
[I think it still has them--I'm out of touch down here]. I don't
know what their professed attitude towards public health care is,
but you know what a government can do to something it funds but
doesn't really believe in. Newfoundland is also a poor province.
[What is the situation in Ontario?] And I'm not going to mention how
weird, uh, I mean "different", Newfies are anyway! :-)
> Throughout Canada, there are long delays for hip replacement
> (6 to 10 months), cataract removal (2 months or more), and
> coronary bypass surgery (up to a year).
Is this universal? (It may well be.)
> According to a February 13 cover story in _Maclean's_ magazine,
> six heart patients died last year waiting for surgery at
> Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre. The article reported that
> about 1,000 people in Toronto were being compelled to wait as
> long as a year for bypass operations and that two had died
> since December. Delays at the city's Hospital for Sick Children
> are so bad that in January the facility sent home 40
> children in need of heart surgery.
This is very sad. I don't know how these numbers compare to the U.S.
> ...
>
> The types of problems brought to light by the Fraser Institute
How wonderful of them to shine the light of truth on this situation.
Too bad there aren't any recommendations for improvement, but then,
I don't expect anything from them except data to be used to bolster
a particular point of view. (Again, no offense to Mr. Cramer--just
the Fraser Institute.)
> may not be apparent to most Canadians, since the waiting lists
> are confined to service beyond those provided by general
> practioners. But the shortcomings found by the study should
> nevertheless give pause to those inclined to imitate Canada's
> health-care system.
I can't for the life of me see how *any* other country (*especially*
the U.S.!) would or could *ever* "imitate" another country's health
care system (or *any* similar undertaking). *Of course* the/any
shortcomings should give them pause. Are they intimating that Canada
should *scrap* public health care??
>This may in fact be evidence that Canadian health policies are
>intelligently run, within the financial limitations the government
>imposes -- most people get adequate medical care.
Thank you for pointing this out. The article (as quoted) didn't.
> If you have
>something serious wrong, your care will be less adequate than being
>in the U.S.
In most cases, you are probably right. If you're rich, you'll always
get good health care. If you're poor, it's hard for me to say which
country would be better (I have my prejudices, of course, but they
don't add any meaningful light to the discussion).
>Of course, if our government set up a similar system, they would
>manage to spend more than they do now, and priority in medical
>care would be given to alcoholics, cigarette smokers, and IV
>drug abusers.
An interesting possibility, but I wonder how much priority they'll give.
Of course, the first two categories seem to cut across class boundaries
to include some influential people, so you never know!
>> ...
> ...
>
>> Now, however, in the name of fairness I will mention that Canada's postal
>> system makes the US's look like the model of efficiency.
>
>But postage is cheaper in Canada!
No it isn't! Domestic letters are/were C$0.37 (may be C$0.42 by now--that's
either >US$0.31 or >US$0.35) versus US$0.25. (Of course you may be able to
buy U.S. postage cheaply in Canada! :-}
>> ...
>
>It's tempting to think that governmental control of medical expenses
>can solve the problem of runaway bills
But please note that Canadian universal health care was introduced as
a "good thing" in itself, not to solve the mounting costs. (I think!)
> -- but at a cost. The cost
>will be either reduced medical care, or reduced financial incentive
^^^^^^^
>for doctors.
You didn't qualify your statement here!
> I would like to think that concern for patients would
>be an adequate incentive, but realistically, doctors are like the
>rest of us.
No kidding. By the way, my sister-in-law would probably appreciate a
good, solid plug for the [IMHO extremely] important role of nurses in
any form of health care.
>Keep in mind that the U.S. has extraordinarily high medical expenses
>at least partly because we have extraordinarily high medical malpractice
>insurance premiums, reflecting our highly litigious society. I'm
>not sure how much of the roughly 11% of GDP we spend on medical
>care turns out to be premiums, but I've read that a GP just starting
>out can expect to bring in $100,000/year, and pay $30,000 in
>premiums.
Ouch! (Are these premiums tax-deductable? :-)
Sorry about the length of this article to all of you who have made it
this far without using the 'n' key.
=============================
Mike Westbrook m...@excelan.com
"Are yoooou the braaainn specialist? ... My braain hurts!"
"It'll have to come out!"
"What, out of my head?"
"Yes, all the bits of it!"
Clayton Cramer
> In article <24...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <22...@hcr.UUCP>, ji...@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
# #how those numbers of computed in different countries. We also have a
# #serious drug abuse problem in this country, which is doubtless a factor
# #in the high infant mortality rate.
#
# I have no proof, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a strong
# correlation here as well with lack of health insurance. (I personally
# feel that the pricing of health insurance at rates so high that so many
# people feel they can't afford them is bordering on the criminal.) I'm
# not sure there aren't also serious drug abuse problems in other western
# countries, even those with national health care schemes.
First of all, we need to demonstrate that there is something unusual
about our infant mortality rate. I flipped open a copy of Newsweek
at the doctor's office recently, to an article about America's black
population. The article claimed that the infant mortality rate for
white Americans is the same as West Germany or Britain; the infant
mortality rate for black Americans is the same as Cuba. (This being
a news magazine, no numbers were given).
Does anyone have any numbers on drug abuse across the industrialized
world? Certainly, our news media work long and hard on persuading us
that we have the highest drug abuse problem in the world.
# #Finally, it may well be that Canada is getting what it is paying for,
# #with that lower percentage of medical expenses.
#
# Your qualification of the statement is noted!
Less money spent, less medical care. That may be a reasonable tradeoff
to you. I'm not sure that I would agree -- and in a governmentally
run system, if you and I disagree, one of us has to win, and one has
to lose. In a competitive market (or even one like the U.S. has),
your decision to spend less doesn't have to interfere with my decision
to spend more.
# # From an article
# #titled, "Beware of Bargains" in the November 1989 Reason magazine,
# #written by Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute
# #in Vancouver:
#
# The Fraser Institute is a well-known small-c conservative think tank /
# research institute, so it is no surprise that an article which deals
# negatively with government- (ie. tax- i.e. public-) funded health care
# is authored by someone from there. This is not to say, of course, that
# the details (or maybe even the conclusions! :-) are not correct. (It's
# also not to say they are...)
#
# I'm not too impressed by the tone of the article, as quoted (no offense
# to Mr. Cramer), starting with its title. ("Beware of `Bargains'", indeed!)
# I found it less of an objective analysis of the public health care system
# than a selective criticism of the system, with little attempt to describe
# any advantages of public health care or areas where Canada is ahead of the
# U.S. (there are some, on both counts). There are too many rhetorical
# tricks used to promote their own attitude (I hesitate to call any of them
# "conclusions") for me to find it very objective.
Objective conclusions about politics are few and far between. My purpose
is to demonstrate that the claims made for the superiority of a governmental
health system are just that -- claims.
# There is also one important point to be kept in mind when reading this
# article: public health care in Canada, while primarily funded by the
# federal government (which can thus exert some amount of control), is
# administered by each provincial government. There is no guarantee that
# any positive or negative aspect of the health system is easily comparable
# across the country.
But there are certain characteristics that will be true of the health
system everywhere -- and one of them is the government is controlling
expenditures and costs.
# # Contrary to advocates of the Canadian model, it is by no means
# # clear that spending less on health care is *a priori* a good
# # thing.
#
# I think that only an idiot (or a politician?!) would say that spending
# less is "*a priori* a good thing". Kind of a straw-man argument...
But the argument has been advanced in this group that Canada spending
8% of GNP rather than 11% shows the superiority of governmental control.
That's what I was responding to.
# # Indeed, although the United Kingdom spends about half as
# # much as Canada does, no one therefore infers that British
# # patients are better off. (In fact, the reverse is true.)
#
# There are also roughly twice as many people in the U.K. as there are
# in Canada. If the article refers to per-capita spending rather than
# absolute amounts, it should say so explicitly, since most people would
# assume absolute numbers from the words chosen by the author. To be
# fair, the numbers quoted by Mr. Trent from the _Economist_ do in fact
# bear out the approximately two-to-one rate, if my arithmetic is right.
Which suggests that the author meant the obvious -- per capita
spending -- otherwise all discussions of relative costs of the
two health system are meaningless. Only gun control advocates
are so absurd as to use raw numbers, ignoring population differences.
# # To determine whether American patients
# # are truly being bilked in comparison to their northern
# # neighbors, it is necessary to measure performance more directly.
#
# I'm not sure why the term "bilked" was chosen here--this would seem
# more appropriate in a report aimed at Americans complaining about
# the high cost of health care than one for Canadian readers.
The article was written for an American publication, and there is
an assumption being made in some circles that higher medical costs
are a problem of "greed" in the U.S.
# # [discussion of long term study underway deleted]
# #
# # The study's preliminary findings indicate that Canada's lower
# # health-care costs are accompanied by a lower level of service.
#
# I cannot disagree that there are waiting lists at Canadian hospitals,
# nor that these may not be necessary (with increased funding from some
# source or another), nor that the numbers of various types of medical
# equipment are in greater supply in the U.S. than in Canada (and the
# rest of the world), nor that there are a larger number (even per capita)
# of high-quality hospitals in the U.S.
#
# However, this statement begs a number of questions, though they may have
# been partly answered in the deleted discussion. Firstly, these are
# preliminary findings in a long-term study. Using such information to
# support a particular point of view is fraught with hazard, though very
# popular. Secondly, it is not clear what the level of service in Canada
# is being compared with when it is called "lower": all of the U.S.? or
# only those who [can afford to] go to hospitals? And do all people in
# the U.S. have equal access to the hospitals with such equipment as is
# mentioned below?
A good question. I presume that the Fraser Institute has covered this
in a more academic paper -- this was an article for a popular publication,
and I don't expect it to be as detailed as a proper study of the problem.
Note that access to hospitals in this country is excellent for people
who are employed full time, and not quite so good for welfare recipients.
The people who are ostensibly to be helped by national health insurance
are working poor. But having been a working non-poor person without
health insurance at one time (and having known quite a few others who
were in the same situation), I'm not at all clear that NHI will be
just helping poor people.
# # For example:
#
# While the examples may be true, and may highlight some of the shortcomings
# of health care in Canada, I'm not sure that we're not comparing oranges
# and apples (or maybe tangerines)...
#
# # The entire province of British Columbia has fewer CAT scanners
# # than the city of Seattle.
#
# Metropolitan Seattle or just the city? The population of B.C. is not
# very large--two to three million, I think. How many fewer machines?
An excellent question -- but all of King County (which includes Seattle)
has only 1.2 million people.
# # There are more magnetic-resonance imaging machines in Michigan
# # than in all of Canada.
#
# What is the size of the population served by the Michigan machines?
# (I think the population of Canada is now somewhere around 28 million.)
# Again, how many fewer machines?
The population of Michigan is 9.26 million people. Even if Michigan
had the same number of MRIs, it would be a bad reflection on Canadian
access to such machines. Note that in the 1970s, our Federal Government
thought it was saving money by establishing what were called Health
Services Agencies, which had authority to regulate when a hospital
could purchase CAT scan machines and MRIs, or even open an emergency
room! I wouldn't be surprised if Canada's provincial governments
suffer from the same bureaucratic shortsightedness that puts money
above medical care. (It's so nice to remind people that socialism
is, if anything, even more stingy about basic human needs than capitalism).
# # With a population of 570,000, the province of Newfoundland has
# # only one functioning CAT-scanner team, so patients must wait
# # two months for a scan. Pap-smear tests also take two months or
# # longer. The waiting period for mammograms is two-and-a-half
# # months; for bone scans, 90 days; and for myelograms, three to
# # four months.
#
# Don't forget the additional half-hour!! :-)
#
# #Pretty obviously, a brain or breast cancer can grow very rapidly
# #in two months. If I needed a CAT scan, or my wife needed a Pap-
# #smear, I would consider two months dangerously long.
#
# I agree with your assessment of this situation as it applies to
# Newfoundland. It's too bad that the report doesn't mention the
# numbers for other parts of Canada--and I'm not sure that one couldn't
# find similar numbers in some regions in the U.S. (Another thing to
# note: Newfoundland has a large-c Conservative provincial government
# [I think it still has them--I'm out of touch down here]. I don't
# know what their professed attitude towards public health care is,
# but you know what a government can do to something it funds but
# doesn't really believe in. Newfoundland is also a poor province.
# [What is the situation in Ontario?] And I'm not going to mention how
# weird, uh, I mean "different", Newfies are anyway! :-)
But you've just provided the libertarian argument against the government
being in control of such things -- what I call the James Watt argument
for private control -- when the government changes hands, all the
resources of the government end up under the control of people with
whom you may vigorously disagree.
# # Throughout Canada, there are long delays for hip replacement
# # (6 to 10 months), cataract removal (2 months or more), and
# # coronary bypass surgery (up to a year).
#
# Is this universal? (It may well be.)
Not in the U.S.
# # According to a February 13 cover story in _Maclean's_ magazine,
# # six heart patients died last year waiting for surgery at
# # Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre. The article reported that
# # about 1,000 people in Toronto were being compelled to wait as
# # long as a year for bypass operations and that two had died
# # since December. Delays at the city's Hospital for Sick Children
# # are so bad that in January the facility sent home 40
# # children in need of heart surgery.
#
# This is very sad. I don't know how these numbers compare to the U.S.
The ONLY time you hear of patients being sent out of a hospital here
is if there's a strike going on -- and then the patients get sent to
another hospital. Fortunately, we have excess capacity on most medical
services. (Not very efficient, of course, but human services don't
always fit into the narrow cheapness of socialists).
# # The types of problems brought to light by the Fraser Institute
#
# How wonderful of them to shine the light of truth on this situation.
# Too bad there aren't any recommendations for improvement, but then,
# I don't expect anything from them except data to be used to bolster
# a particular point of view. (Again, no offense to Mr. Cramer--just
# the Fraser Institute.)
I'm not sure what they are recommending. I would recommend getting
the government out of the health business. If I could figure out
how to get OUR government of the health business -- and that includes
restrictions on the market that keep doctor salaries up -- I would
do so.
# # may not be apparent to most Canadians, since the waiting lists
# # are confined to service beyond those provided by general
# # practioners. But the shortcomings found by the study should
# # nevertheless give pause to those inclined to imitate Canada's
# # health-care system.
#
# I can't for the life of me see how *any* other country (*especially*
# the U.S.!) would or could *ever* "imitate" another country's health
# care system (or *any* similar undertaking). *Of course* the/any
# shortcomings should give them pause. Are they intimating that Canada
# should *scrap* public health care??
I don't know. Ask the Fraser Institute. In fact, American socialists
are constantly anxious to imitate either Canada or Britain -- while
ignoring evidence that suggests that there are some significant
differences between the U.S. and both Canada and Britain.
# #This may in fact be evidence that Canadian health policies are
# #intelligently run, within the financial limitations the government
# #imposes -- most people get adequate medical care.
#
# Thank you for pointing this out. The article (as quoted) didn't.
#
# # If you have
# #something serious wrong, your care will be less adequate than being
# #in the U.S.
#
# In most cases, you are probably right. If you're rich, you'll always
# get good health care. If you're poor, it's hard for me to say which
# country would be better (I have my prejudices, of course, but they
# don't add any meaningful light to the discussion).
#
# #Of course, if our government set up a similar system, they would
# #manage to spend more than they do now, and priority in medical
# #care would be given to alcoholics, cigarette smokers, and IV
# #drug abusers.
#
# An interesting possibility, but I wonder how much priority they'll give.
# Of course, the first two categories seem to cut across class boundaries
# to include some influential people, so you never know!
Our government seems to be committed to stupid socialism. At one
time, it appeared that the Republicans, while claiming to support
free markets, would actually support intelligent socialism. It doesn't
look that way anymore. They seem to have fallen into the same trap
of special interest group politics as the Democrats.
# ## Now, however, in the name of fairness I will mention that Canada's postal
# ## system makes the US's look like the model of efficiency.
# #
# #But postage is cheaper in Canada!
#
# No it isn't! Domestic letters are/were C$0.37 (may be C$0.42 by now--that's
# either #US$0.31 or #US$0.35) versus US$0.25. (Of course you may be able to
# buy U.S. postage cheaply in Canada! :-}
Whoops! Times change.
# #Keep in mind that the U.S. has extraordinarily high medical expenses
# #at least partly because we have extraordinarily high medical malpractice
# #insurance premiums, reflecting our highly litigious society. I'm
# #not sure how much of the roughly 11% of GDP we spend on medical
# #care turns out to be premiums, but I've read that a GP just starting
# #out can expect to bring in $100,000/year, and pay $30,000 in
# #premiums.
#
# Ouch! (Are these premiums tax-deductable? :-)
They are. But even in a 33% tax bracket, 67% is still coming out of
the doctor's pocket, and eventually, out of yours, or the insurance
company.
# Mike Westbrook m...@excelan.com