Rant 525/ France

That just boggles the mind, at least my mind. Ok, I am not really strong with how economics work, or if the comment
"juggling parenthood and modern life has led many couples to hold down family size, resulting in a decline in fertility rates that some fear could lead to economic decline"
is really valid. I guess when I think of lowering population, I think that our resourse will last longer.

Another comment from the artilce just makes my blood pressure rise.
"Among other measures, Brin's commission suggested that employers be encouraged to chip in for employees' child-care costs, that pregnant women get more help in the work place and that mothers who take time off to raise children receive job training."
Why the heck should an employer be responsible for something like that.

These people are sucking the most resourses out of the system, and they get the most breaks. How the heck does reducing that lead to economic decline? I would think that less people sucking off the system would be better for the community.

well the thing is the UK has that stuff already,

the companies have by law to keep their jobs open for 12 months, and pay them part of their wages just the same, plus pay for a replacement whilst they are off work, then they come back and the firms/companies have to have them back and pay them for a minimum number of weeks at which point they phone in the child is sick, they are sick and so get paid yet again.

During this time as well the idiot Blair government has made more laws and payments in favour of these parasites and they get Working Mothers tax repayments of more than their weekly wage in some cases.

Now you can see how the overpopulation with unwanted children apart from the fact that they are a wage packet has occurred. On top of this lot in this country they get Family Allowance ( a weekly payment)for the little treasures. and theres the baby bonds, the kids get money for thier kids future, its put into a bank and it builds till its a lot(when they are 18 they will use it to get drunk no doubt)

It is exactly the same for small firms and practices as the larger companies who can to some extent cope with it.

I had a co-worker from Canada one time who couldn't understand why the hospital we worked in wouldn't hold her job for a year while she went to have a kid. (she ended up quiting after getting pregnent, thank goodnees) I tried to explain to her that in our profession it is hard to find someone to replace her for a year on a contigent basis. People dont want to quit their jobs for a "contigent" position, without benifits. The hospital certainly wouldn't hire someone in a regular position unless there was a job opening.

In my area we have 3 people in a highly skilled job. If one of us were to take a year off that would leave 2 people doing 3s work for one whole year. Then if someone needed a day off there would be one person doing that. Its bad enough when we have to do that over a 3 month period, but a year? Thank goodness I work with childfree/less people.

I'm willing to bet that small businesses in areas like that dont want to hire women of child bearing age, simply because they are too much of a burden and expense if they decide to breed.

yes the smaller places are doing just that, but unfortunatly, you have the equal opp commission, wanting to stop people from discriminating due to potential child birth..

but there are ways around it.. (or even hire men)