3 ms·
> We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against parents. However, we don't live in a world where a business is spared the cost incurred by that.
by AFNobody 8y ago
> We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against parents. However, we don't live in a world where a business is spared the cost incurred by that.
The policy solution is:
- A per-child negative income tax sufficient to cover the risk/impact of employer discrimination.
- Give mothers and fathers equal leave.
- Limit the compulsory work week to 50 hours for salaried (or overtime hourly) employees.
- Penalties for violating the above sufficient to convince lawyers to take the case on a speculative basis if the client has a legitimate case.
That balances out the differences between genders and parents/non-parents sufficiently that anyone with sense wouldn't take the risk.
- gnicholas 8y ago> A per-child negative income tax sufficient to cover the risk/impact of employer discrimination. Wouldn't this just lead to employers discriminating, on the grounds that "hey, you already got your tax benefit to make up for it"?
- AFNobody 8y agoNot if the penalties harsh enough that a decent lawyer will take an average case on spec. You need to remember the effectiveness of a law is penalty * odds of getting caught. You just need to make discrimination unattractive financially and provide some incentive to the parents to cover the risk.
- ryanobjc 8y agoOther solutions, since we aren't going to see policy solutions in the US anytime soon, might include: - insurance to help companies pay for parental leave - state level policies (eg: California, but it only has 6 weeks which is hilariously short) - stronger enforcement of current laws
- AFNobody 8y agoTrue, I agree under an ideal framework including a form of insurance for parental leave could also work in place of the negative income tax.