2 ms·

There is an alternative. We could amortize the costs of maternity leave over the entire working population. This way we get the desired outcome (companies have

• icelancer 8y ago
  >> companies have no financial disincentive to hire women This would still exist in this world. You're still down an employee. So you don't hire women or married men.
  • edanm 8y ago
    Thereby ruling out almost everyone over the age of thirty? Not really practical. Also, it doesn't actually happen.
• slavik81 8y ago
  No incentive is probably an overstatement, but there would certainly be less incentive. Every employer would pay the average cost of paid parental leave, regardless of who they employed. That would reduce discrimination against those likely to use parental leave. Though, I would probably fund it via a payroll tax so it could remain employer-paid. I don't think it makes any difference to the economics whether you tax the employee or the employer, but changing who pays is an additional decision you'd need to explain and that would be attacked by political opponents. A payroll tax is a smaller change and equally effective, so it's the better option.
  • lovich 8y ago
    You'd still have the costs of training or reallocating another employee to fill the persons role, and that risk would be higher in women if our society doesn't change its norms about whose the caregiver and whose the provider.