Jump to content

Coolname

Members
  • Content Count

    640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

234 Good People

About Coolname

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1557 profile views
  1. Yes, because people know how much you make, and it isn’t enough to be spending 1000 on a pair of shoes.
  2. And the “gift” at that point would just be coming from what would otherwise be a year end bonus.
  3. I started with a messenger back, and later switched to a backpack. Carrying heavy text books in a messenger back sucks.
  4. There is never too early of a time to propose a fee split (though, junior lawyer likely doesn’t want to be on pure fee split right away). That said, simply being on a fee split doesn’t mean more compensation automatically. It can be easier to negotiate a higher possible compensation through fee split though because the employer isn’t taking on more risk, but you still need to bill the hours.
  5. Whatever you say Mr. “I’m only doing okay on my household income of 300k per year”
  6. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/you-are-richer-than-john-d-rockefeller//amp I also think this article is relevant, while all his examples are not perfect, I think we would all rather live our current lives than the life of Rockefeller in 1916, making our standard of living higher than a Rockefeller.
  7. I almost started to feel sorry for the people posting in this thread just scrapping by on their pitiful salary but then I remembered I’m only making an articling student salary in Vancouver (50’ishk) and my quality of life is amazing. Can I buy every thing I want, no, but I can buy everything I need (and even those things I “need”, but don’t really need). I can’t eat out every night, but I can take my girlfriend out for a nice dinner once a month and remain well within my budget. Can I afford to buy a house, obviously no, but I’ve been out of school for one year. My parents couldn’t buy a house after working for one year either and when they did it was an hour away from downtown. I can however rent a nice one bedroom apartment and I can afford to buy real non-ikea furniture for it(granted the furniture was gently-used). On top of all of that, I’ve been slowly paying off my debt(at a slow pace, but it’s going down). Seriously, I just don’t get what all the moaning in this thread is about. A 50k salary is more than enough for someone without kids to live comfortably, and people in this thread are complaining about 100k salaries? Get a grip. The real issue isn’t high cost of living, but people’s outrageously high expectations of living at such an stage in their careers.
  8. I think from the fact of my short time frame I am using it in a very narrow sense. Definitely far more narrow than should.
  9. It seems like you are trying really hard to disagree with me, when reality I don’t think you do. You are saying you disagree, but then you go on to do what I said we should be doing looking at the background factors that influence the decisions that are being made: “we absolutely should still focus on the background in which they are making those decisions”. I have never said that women should return to work earlier. That likely would solve the problem, but is a ridiculous Procrustean bed solution. To much of your post please refer to another previous portion of my reply: “Also I fully support equal parental leave “ as as far as the “victim blaming” notion, is anyone suggesting that women are facing the career consequences from taking parental for a reason other than they took parental leave? I’m really not sure how anyone can disagree with the notion that woman face a career disadvantage from taking parental leave that men don’t face because they don’t take parental leave. Weren’t people earlier in this arguing that getting more men to take parental would be a potential solution?
  10. Yes, I understand that people make decisions that they probably shouldn’t make. Which is why I haven’t once said people “should take this time off” and instead and used the phrase “as a matter of necessity”, which clearly implies a much different standard then “should”.
  11. Obviously there is no one size fit all minimum, that should go without saying. I do not know the exact legislative, policy, etc. differences that will come from differentiating between the decision to take time off versus the decision to have a baby, it is a complicated issue. I do suggest however that better legislative and policy decisions (whatever they may end up being)will come from properly examining and defining the issue and it’s causes, do you disagree? Considering the issue in a frame of making a decision to have a baby is too simple and doesn’t get at the root cause of the disparities. The fact that women and men both make this same decision yet different results occur goes to show that the decision to have a baby can’t be the explanation. Thus instead we should look at the decisions they are making following the decision to have a baby which are different. I’m not really sure how this position is that different from many of the posts in this thread which centre around not the decision to have a baby but the decisions parents make following that and why they make those decisions. I was never trying to make some big controversial point. As as far as the necessity topic, the benefit from that is simply trying to show that woman do have a large of degree of choice in choosing how much time to take off(subject to various individuals constraints like finances obviously, but many of those constraints are not solely female ones) and more of the time they take off can be explained by choice them being done out of a matter of necessity. That said just because they have choice that doesn’t mean they have equal choices or that some choices aren’t worse than others for everyone involved.
  12. Never said it was best practices. Just that one month represented the amount of time a woman needs to stay home as a matter of necessity. Im not tied to the one month either, it was a rough estimate. My point would still stand if we used 2 months instead. The argument I was responding to was that: As Women require as a matter of necessity more time off, why should they be penalized for that time off? My rebuttal: which I clearly did not make clear enough, was that the portion of time that woman require as a matter of necessity to take off is only a small portion of the total amount of leave (at least in the legal context where leave is commonly 1 year). The implication being that they are not being punished for the extra time they need to take off as a matter of necessity, rather the consequences are coming from the amount of time they choose to take off. Which is consistent with my larger point that we should be looking at the decisions to take time off, not the decision to have a baby.
  13. No, I think you are intentionally missing my point. If you are concerned with what is the minimum amount of time a women needs to take off following childbirth AS A MATTER OF NECESSITY, then what the woman may rather want is irrelevant. Im sure plenty woman would prefer to take 18 months off, some would prefer to stop working all together. What they prefer is not relevant to what they need as a matter of necessity. If anything it makes more sense to look at the US because most people have a natural preference to want to spend time with their newborn after giving birth and if they are able to spend time with the baby through parental leave systems (which is great) they will, but in the US many do not have the ability to manifest their preference to stay home as they need to work. Thus the US offers a better situation to look at as those who need to return to work in order to be able to eat will return to work as soon as they can; they will return to work once it no longer becomes necessary as a matter of necessity to stay home.
  14. At least your rebuttal is related to what my point was. I seriously do not understand what Erin thinks I am arguing or how she came to that understanding. I agree we need to consider the implication of the different decision men and women are making, but in order to consider the implication of the different decisions they are making we need to first acknowledge that they are in fact making different decisions. We also need to consider why they are making different decisions, but again in order to do that we need to acknowledge that they are in fact making different decisions. A mother and a father not having the same options when it comes to parental leaves does not change the fact that they are making a different decision (stay home, or return to work), it just affects why they are making that decision. The decision to have a baby is not what causes any of the problematic effects on career progression, it is the decisions people making following the decision to have a baby that cause the consequences, thus those are the relevant decision as those are the decisions causes the effects people are concerned about. This does not mean that we the shouldnt concern ourselves with the way both parents progress through the system following the decision to have a baby and how the progression though system affects the decisions they make afterwards. If we are focusing on the parents decisions after choosing to have a baby we absolutely should still focus on the background in which they are making those decisions. Also I fully support equal parental leave rights, im not sure where the impression that I dont came from. If parental leave is a benefit offered to all employees then it should be offered equally to all employees.
  15. Since my comment was about the amount of time woman needs as a matter of necessity to take off, ie the absolute minimum, the context being in Canada and the legal sector does not change anything. Canadian woman in law do not take longer to heal than the woman in America.
×
×
  • Create New...