"Day Without A Woman" - General Strike - March 8, 2017

mfc2006

HughFreakingDillon said:

mfc2006 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

my2hands said:

vaggar99 said:

i only recognize one of the women in this picture. It's the lady to the left of Eddie. I believe she is the band's tour manager (forgot name). Anybody care to identify the rest?

Don't know... but we did buy 2 of those badass shirts

this picture says it all. women play a major role in the PJ infrastructure. Is there another band in the world that stands up for women's right and respects women like PJ? I can't think of any.

The Tea Party (Canadian band) are staunch supporters, and have been for a long time, of the White Ribbon Campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ribbon_Campaign

quite an ironic name. but kudos none the less.

they were the tea party before the political party was the tea party. the political party actually tried to buy the rights to their website domain, since they were broken up at the time. the amount was rumoured at around a million. the band refused. kudos to them, because I don't believe any of them are millionaires.

they're a good band

you like the vinyl?

sure do!

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Ms. Haiku

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Child care is needed for infants to kindergarten, and then before and after school for those in public schools.

unsung

Ms. Haiku said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Child care is needed for infants to kindergarten, and then before and after school for those in public schools.

So isn't that a job that a parent could, or should, do?

rgambs

unsung said:

Ms. Haiku said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Child care is needed for infants to kindergarten, and then before and after school for those in public schools.

So isn't that a job that a parent could, or should, do?

You know damn well not everyone is able to do that.

unsung

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Ms. Haiku said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Child care is needed for infants to kindergarten, and then before and after school for those in public schools.

So isn't that a job that a parent could, or should, do?

You know damn well not everyone is able to do that.

Calm yourself.

Maybe they shouldn't be taxed to the brink of not being able to miss a day off work.

rgambs

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Ms. Haiku said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

Fully subsidized daycare for one. Also stronger laws governing mat leave and work return/retention. Also working on gender roles that most people and society in general still brainwash kids with.

You already have that, it is called public schools.

Child care is needed for infants to kindergarten, and then before and after school for those in public schools.

So isn't that a job that a parent could, or should, do?

You know damn well not everyone is able to do that.

Calm yourself.

Maybe they shouldn't be taxed to the brink of not being able to miss a day off work.

Hahaha taxes are theft bro! Muh roads!

rgambs

Have you seen the infrastructure report card?
Ouch.
Yikes.
The virulent anti-government sentiment in America is turning us into a third world country.

mace1229

rgambs said:

Have you seen the infrastructure report card?
Ouch.
Yikes.
The virulent anti-government sentiment in America is turning us into a third world country.

I think there is an entitlement issue in this country. When did having a cell phone become a right that the government needed to pay for?
I see free childcare getting out of control. I would support free childcare for those who truly needed, and would mostly be single moms with small children.
I would support a bill that had a temporary plan for childcare for certain families in need. I would fear it would grow into a much larger situation, where families would feel they are entitled to it if they struggle and depend on it for long term.
Parents are supposed to make sacrifice. I saw Pearl Jam 17 different times in about 5 different states and Canada from 1998-2013. I've seen them once since then. Why? Well my first was born in 2014 and I could no longer afford to do so. We have the basic cable program, and I go through the hassle of switching every year when the promo runs out. TJ MAxx is now a high end department store for us. We made all these sacrifices so my wife can stay home because the cost of childcare was not going to make her working full time worth it for us.
Universal free childcare is not something the government should be responsible for.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Have you seen the infrastructure report card?
Ouch.
Yikes.
The virulent anti-government sentiment in America is turning us into a third world country.

I think there is an entitlement issue in this country. When did having a cell phone become a right that the government needed to pay for?
I see free childcare getting out of control. I would support free childcare for those who truly needed, and would mostly be single moms with small children.
I would support a bill that had a temporary plan for childcare for certain families in need. I would fear it would grow into a much larger situation, where families would feel they are entitled to it if they struggle and depend on it for long term.
Parents are supposed to make sacrifice. I saw Pearl Jam 17 different times in about 5 different states and Canada from 1998-2013. I've seen them once since then. Why? Well my first was born in 2014 and I could no longer afford to do so. We have the basic cable program, and I go through the hassle of switching every year when the promo runs out. TJ MAxx is now a high end department store for us. We made all these sacrifices so my wife can stay home because the cost of childcare was not going to make her working full time worth it for us.
Universal free childcare is not something the government should be responsible for.

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Have you seen the infrastructure report card?
Ouch.
Yikes.
The virulent anti-government sentiment in America is turning us into a third world country.

I think there is an entitlement issue in this country. When did having a cell phone become a right that the government needed to pay for?
I see free childcare getting out of control. I would support free childcare for those who truly needed, and would mostly be single moms with small children.
I would support a bill that had a temporary plan for childcare for certain families in need. I would fear it would grow into a much larger situation, where families would feel they are entitled to it if they struggle and depend on it for long term.
Parents are supposed to make sacrifice. I saw Pearl Jam 17 different times in about 5 different states and Canada from 1998-2013. I've seen them once since then. Why? Well my first was born in 2014 and I could no longer afford to do so. We have the basic cable program, and I go through the hassle of switching every year when the promo runs out. TJ MAxx is now a high end department store for us. We made all these sacrifices so my wife can stay home because the cost of childcare was not going to make her working full time worth it for us.
Universal free childcare is not something the government should be responsible for.

Well it works for a bunch of countries that rank better than the US in practically every positive per capita statistic that can be measured.

mace1229

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.

But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.

But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.

Working full time at minimum wage would make about $1300 a month. Assuming both parents have a working schedule where they need full time childcare, it usually runs $500/month or less. So there shouldn't be a situation where the whole paycheck goes to childcare.
Even if both parents, working fulltime at minimum wage they would be taking in over $2600/month. At that rate, they would pay almost no taxes (if any) and qualify for other assistance to help buy food and pay other bills. I'm not saying they'd have a lot of luxuries, but you could survive on that, especially with the government assistance that is out there for families in that situation.
But if you disagree, then I would prefer to help improve their situation. I would rather see programs that offer trade schools, and childcare while enrolled into the trade school and for 3 months following the completion of the program. That way mom (or dad) has the opportunity to gain skills necessary to improve his job, and a lifetime of childcare wont be necessary.

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

It is designed to do that.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.

I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.

But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.

Working full time at minimum wage would make about $1300 a month. Assuming both parents have a working schedule where they need full time childcare, it usually runs $500/month or less. So there shouldn't be a situation where the whole paycheck goes to childcare.
Even if both parents, working fulltime at minimum wage they would be taking in over $2600/month. At that rate, they would pay almost no taxes (if any) and qualify for other assistance to help buy food and pay other bills. I'm not saying they'd have a lot of luxuries, but you could survive on that, especially with the government assistance that is out there for families in that situation.
But if you disagree, then I would prefer to help improve their situation. I would rather see programs that offer trade schools, and childcare while enrolled into the trade school and for 3 months following the completion of the program. That way mom (or dad) has the opportunity to gain skills necessary to improve his job, and a lifetime of childcare wont be necessary.

It is $1000 a month per child where I live.... But even in your utopia where child care is only $500/month per child, that is $1000 of $1300 per month. Let's say the other parent brings in $2000/month. So that is $2300/month for ALL expenses. Rent, food, clothes, bills, etc. That isn't anywhere near enough for a family to live on unless you are totally find with kids growing up in poverty, and the minimum wage parent is sacrificing all of their time with their own children for only $300/month to spend. At that point they may as well just stay home and care for the kids themselves, leaving the family to survive on $2000/month, which does indeed leave the children living in poverty.

mace1229

When we looked into it last year it was about $500/month for daycare, and that's what just about all of my coworkers pay. Its not a Utopia world, its actually here in Colorado.
A family living on minimum wage gets a lot of support from the government. They can likely qualify for section 8 housing where the government pays a large portion of their rent, get hundreds in food stamps a month.
I never said they'd be living the luxury life. But it goes farther than you think.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

When we looked into it last year it was about $500/month for daycare, and that's what just about all of my coworkers pay. Its not a Utopia world, its actually here in Colorado.
A family living on minimum wage gets a lot of support from the government. They can likely qualify for section 8 housing where the government pays a large portion of their rent, get hundreds in food stamps a month.
I never said they'd be living the luxury life. But it goes farther than you think.

I didn't mean to say that you were wrong. I meant that it really is amazingly cheap where you live compared to where I live. Nevertheless, child care is a very well-proven financial burden for those with low wages, so I'm not sure if you're trying to deny that or what. In any case, I don't think they should be living in luxury either, but with your scenario the kids would indeed be living in poverty, and that is my point. The initial premise was that the economy is not set up for many families to thrive in American society because wages don't come close to matching cost of living. I'm not really sure how anyone could deny this, since that fact slaps most of us in the face each and every day that we spend living in our society.... Clearly social programs are not exactly keeping kids out of poverty in the US, even when there are two working parents who have to struggle to pay for child care. 21% of all American children live in poverty, and they aren't all being raised by single mothers. The American poverty line has been solidly determined to demonstrate that the needs of families are severely underestimated. The National Centre for Child Poverty has conducted extensive research and it turns out that the poverty line set by government underestimates that need by half. Given that stat, and lot more than 21% of American children are actually living in poverty, but the government set the bar so low to keep the poverty numbers down, in part to protect their stance on child care funding and to keep the amounts on other welfare programs low.

mace1229

A family of 4 where I live will qualify for WIC, a program that provides money to buy essentials to low income families, if they earn less than about 40k/year for a family of 4. Two parents in your scenario will qualify for quite a bit.
Its a little skewed because they only look at gross pay. Someone who has an employer who pays very little towards benefits and gets a larger chunk taken out wont be qualified, but someone else with the same net pay who has a smaller paycheck but employer does contribute more towards benefits would qualify, even though their net pay is the same after benefits.