Federal government forces corporations to redistribute finite resources away from men without children and redistribute work towards men without children.
Federal government forces corporations to redistribute finite resources away from men without children and redistribute work towards men without children.
But single men will end up working extra hours in order to help compensate for it.
^^^^^^^ THIS IS THE COMMENT^^^^^^^ 100% correct. This is just a free week off every month for women, while men have to pick up the slack and employers are required to pay the same amount. Best case scenario, it makes women less likely to get hired for anything important.
Ironically, woman-majority or women-lead businesses literally most affected XD.
These are literally bot-level responses.
No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
Crabs in a bucket mentality: A crab placed alone in a bucket will easily climb out and escape, but when you place it with a few of its mates, this interesting phenomenon occurs: One at a time, as the crabs try to escape, other crabs will pull them back down to their misery and the group's collective demise.
You did not even respond to the question. You mentioned that 2 words with different spellings are in fact 2 words with different spellings. Then you avoided the question by appealing to a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality saying someone else would "get it" and you wouldn't.
Neither of these respond to the question - how would this hurt men without children? How would this actually take anything away from them?
My understanding is that this is supposed to apply to men (as well as women) so I don't any way this would be a drawback.
These are literally bot-level responses. No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
That’s because this community is rife with degenerate FAGTOWs who know that women are repulsed by their existence, with the Imp being their ringleader. They’re just jealous of the idea that men with wives can take time off to spend with their newborns.
To the MGTOWs: If you actually gave a damn about men’s rights like you claim, you’d be happy that men can get the same parental leave as new mothers.
I usually think theimpossible1's posts are great...sad to him to posting the same kind of stuff he's usually against, just with a different coating over it.
When a government implements a policy allowing for paid leave while also making it illegal to discriminate hiring based on whether you have children or not the net result is that wages for everyone decreases. In essence, men without children are now subsidizing the paid leave of men with children.
Without going into the further details, at a basic level, it's because you can't create something out of nothing. Paid leave doesn't add value/productivity and in fact does the opposite. Otherwise, why not give everyone paid leave forever without doing any work? See the problem? There's a cost associated with this policy and the cost is put onto everyone; however, men without children aren't benefiting from this cost. The only truly fair thing to do is to not have any government enforced paid leave. That way the costs will follow the end-user whose decisions lead to the direct consequence.
As it stands right now, we're punishing men who don't have children by making them get paid less to support men who do have children.
I can think of no way in which this is hurting men without children, at all.
Federal government forces corporations to redistribute finite resources away from men without children and redistribute work towards men without children.
Good.
It's the right wing equivalent of the feminist "men might get something so it's bad".
How copy-paste with no thought whatsoever are these?
Resources are finite.
^ Political bot?
Literally bot-level copy-paste responses with no thought whatsoever.
TBF the OP said "screwing over", not "hurting". It's a government-mandated work benefit that single men cannot receive.
But single men will end up working extra hours in order to help compensate for it.
^^^^^^^ THIS IS THE COMMENT^^^^^^^ 100% correct. This is just a free week off every month for women, while men have to pick up the slack and employers are required to pay the same amount. Best case scenario, it makes women less likely to get hired for anything important.
Ironically, woman-majority or women-lead businesses literally most affected XD.
Isn't this family leave for both men and women?
These are literally bot-level responses.
No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
Crabs in a bucket mentality: A crab placed alone in a bucket will easily climb out and escape, but when you place it with a few of its mates, this interesting phenomenon occurs: One at a time, as the crabs try to escape, other crabs will pull them back down to their misery and the group's collective demise.
I did not argue an opinion. I explained to you why the OP would believe government-mandated paid leave gives men without children the shaft.
I hope you have found this answer useful. Your feedback will help me improve future responses! BEEP-BOOP
You did not even respond to the question. You mentioned that 2 words with different spellings are in fact 2 words with different spellings. Then you avoided the question by appealing to a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality saying someone else would "get it" and you wouldn't.
Neither of these respond to the question - how would this hurt men without children? How would this actually take anything away from them?
My understanding is that this is supposed to apply to men (as well as women) so I don't any way this would be a drawback.
That’s because this community is rife with degenerate FAGTOWs who know that women are repulsed by their existence, with the Imp being their ringleader. They’re just jealous of the idea that men with wives can take time off to spend with their newborns.
To the MGTOWs: If you actually gave a damn about men’s rights like you claim, you’d be happy that men can get the same parental leave as new mothers.
I usually think theimpossible1's posts are great...sad to him to posting the same kind of stuff he's usually against, just with a different coating over it.
That's because you don't understand economics.
When a government implements a policy allowing for paid leave while also making it illegal to discriminate hiring based on whether you have children or not the net result is that wages for everyone decreases. In essence, men without children are now subsidizing the paid leave of men with children.
Without going into the further details, at a basic level, it's because you can't create something out of nothing. Paid leave doesn't add value/productivity and in fact does the opposite. Otherwise, why not give everyone paid leave forever without doing any work? See the problem? There's a cost associated with this policy and the cost is put onto everyone; however, men without children aren't benefiting from this cost. The only truly fair thing to do is to not have any government enforced paid leave. That way the costs will follow the end-user whose decisions lead to the direct consequence.
As it stands right now, we're punishing men who don't have children by making them get paid less to support men who do have children.
You are literally pushing that you should be a slave to your employer.
Everything in this post is wrong, on every level, and it's pushing an Idiocracy.
Evolution...began to rewards those who reproduced the most...and left the intelligent to become and endangered species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA
Found the communist retard. That's you btw.
Oh no the slaves are insulting. How scary.