Free Markets, Free People

Being “wonderful” with other people’s money

Or, the definition of politics today (and how Margret Thatcher defined socialism).  Today’s “wonderful” people?  Well they’re all in California.  Example one:

San Francisco on Tuesday became the first city in the United States to approve six weeks of fully paid leave for new parents — mothers and fathers, including same-sex couples, who either bear or adopt a child.

California is already one of only a few states that offer paid parental leave, with workers receiving 55 percent of their pay for six weeks, paid for by employee-financed public disability insurance. The new law in San Francisco, passed unanimously by the city’s Board of Supervisors, mandates full pay, with the 45 percent difference being paid by employers.

That’s right friends, the price of being nice means charging employers 45% more for paid family leave just for the privilege of doing business in San Francisco. Isn’t that just “wonderful”?

Well of course it is … just ask the clueless:

The United States, which guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave, is the only developed country that does not guarantee all new parents paid parental leave. Expectant mothers get 18 weeks of paid leave in Australia, 39 weeks in the UK, and 480 days in Sweden.

That’s right, they do it in … say it with me, Europe!  You know, the group of countries, all of which were they states in the US, would be poorer than Mississippi.  That’s what we want, isn’t it boys and girls!

It is the responsibility of others to pay for our choices! Because, you know, it’s the fault of the employer its employees get pregnant and miss work.  They should pay them for that time.  And what the heck, they can just socialize the payment by raising their prices, can’t they?

And, of course, they can socialize even more with California’s new $15 minimum wage.  Because everyone knows that employers ‘owe’ employees a “living wage”.  However, don’t forget members of California’s various governments up to their necks in giving away other people’s money – employers still have choices, and you can believe when they are feasible and affordable, they will exercise them.

When that happens, Cal Pols, you can hold a math quiz with everyone who finds themselves looking for work because employers took their business elsewhere or automated.

The question?

“What’s $15 dollars times zero hours?

Oh, wait, I forgot  … government run schools.

Never mind.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

7 Responses to Being “wonderful” with other people’s money

  • ““What’s $15 dollars times zero hours?”

    Using Obama reporting it equals unemployment at 5% or less, and a booming economy with jobs and wages on the rise!
    (cue up “Happy Days are Here Again” on the Victrola!)

    And the Chocolate ration has been increased again! from 25% to 20%.

    • The Democrats have painted themselves as the party of unemployment. So the unemployed from this guarantees their ranks will swell with those who feel beholden to them. Those that remain will feel they owe their income to government. They don’t really care about actually doing good. So you’re concerns are irrelevant to them.

      So under the facade of ‘doing good’ they’ve increased their power and influence. What really happened doesn’t matter. That’s what they get out of it.

  • As an exploiter of the parental leave in Sweden on numerous occasions there is a note to add. The level of parental leave remuneration is 80% of salary up to a fairly low cap, so if you are a moderate to high income earner it does not pay to exploit it too much. Also there is no regulation saying the employer must cover the difference between what is lost between regular salary and the parental leave payout. Some companies will do so for key employees, typically larger ones with high enough turnover. But the vast majority do not. Even here they are not crazy enough to pass a mandate like that San Francisco is doing.

    As an aside, these regulations usually have the unintended consequence of further disadvantaging women who have not yet had children. For obvious reasons.

    • The intended consequence is more democrat voters.
      When those voters hit 51%, game over.

      • Considering we’re now ‘surging’ immigrants I expect that to happen in a couple years.
        But I expect other things in the works will break the system sufficiently before that becomes the last straw.

        I will be interesting to see exactly how much “Americans” will tolerate before it gets, uh, interesting.

        • Growing up in Canada I noticed one difference from here. Other countries will put up with a wider range of BS. But the few things that upset them, they usually don’t wait for it to get far. And they will object to the hint of where something is going.

          In the US people require two things to become ‘energized’. It has to actually be provably happening, media obfuscations work really well here. And it has to happen quickly. I have a very explicit expression for the latter. ‘F@#$ an American up the ass slow enough, he won’t mind’ Of course that’s a “homophobic” position that such a thing is a bad thing, but bear with that assumption for now.

          To that end, the Resistance to the path to Socialism is probably the best reason it has gotten as far as it has. We slowed its creep to below the ‘give a shit about it’ threshold of most people.

          • It helps when people understand the difference between socialism and our original form of government. But they don’t.
            Too many people are busy the day they learn it, and too many teachers are eager to achieve a socialist workers paradise because they themselves don’t really understand it’s true nature.