3 ms·

I agree that any form of paid parental leave is in part a form of social engineering. But I clearly see the benefit of it: to encourage people to have children.

I agree that any form of paid parental leave is in part a form of social engineering. But I clearly see the benefit of it: to encourage people to have children. This is beneficial because developed countries face the demographic challenge of an ageing population. But the question I am asking is, between a couple taking a year of leave and one (usually the woman) decides to become a full time parent vs. a couple takes 6 months leave to have a kid and both stay in the workforce. Why is the latter better than the former? My first thought was that it would improve gender imbalance, but the article states that Gates Foundation employees are two thirds women. So that's out the window. So the only other justifications require subscription to the belief that a woman who chooses to become a full time parent isn't as good a thing one that stays in the workforce. Sure, the latter improves a country's labor pool. But there's a lot of intangible benefits of having a full time parent. It seems kind of manipulative to cut workers' benefits and try and justify it because it makes more women keep working, when the evidence seems to be that many would have chosen differently if the benefits weren't cut.

rayiner 8y ago
As you acknowledge, it's usually the woman that takes the longer leave. Part of that is free choice. But part of it is also that women have lower opportunity costs to taking leave, and higher opportunity costs to staying in the workforce. A couple might realize that a woman will face additional headwinds to achieving seniority in her employment, since as you go up the ladder management tends to be disproportionately men. Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. Longer parental leave amplifies the effect of that pre-existing differential treatment, which is a downside to be accounted for.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. I'm not sure how cutting parental leave eliminates pr reduced these headwinds. It seems to me that it's deliberately putting more financial pressure on women to tolerate those headwinds. Not eliminating those headwinds. Women's choice is strictly less with 6 months of paid leave as compared to 1 year. Women have the choice to take 6 months of leave instead of the full year (the article mentions that they use 77% on average). It still seems like this is trying to justify limiting women's choices and benefits, because it makes more of them work.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It reduces this headwinds in the long term. Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-workin.... That, in turn, reduces gender inequality for the next generation.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions. Note that "reduced headwinds" isn't one of these. Countries with high rates of mothers in the workforce don't necessarily have more flexible gender roles. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have the highest rates of working mothers, but have some of the strongest workplace segregation. It's also a largely circular justification: more working mothers are better because their daughters are more likely to become working mothers. Again, this only functions as a justification for those that subscribe to the belief that working mothers are categorically better than non-working mothers. My original point, from which we have diverged significantly by now, is that this article and many in this thread seem to believe that working mothers are categorically better than full time mothers. This seems to have led us to respond positively to measures that increase the former, even when those measures are coercive (in this case, cutting benefits and putting more financial burden on mothers).
tzs 8y ago
> But the question I am asking is, between a couple taking a year of leave and one (usually the woman) decides to become a full time parent vs. a couple takes 6 months leave to have a kid and both stay in the workforce. Why is the latter better than the former? workforce I think the point may be that employer paid family leave is meant to help people make having a new child fit in with their career. If you are switching to full time parenthood you are quitting your job, not taking a leave from your job. They aren't implying that working parents are better than full time parents, or more desirable to society. They are just saying that as employers they are designing their program around people who are going to remain employees.

rayiner 8y ago

As you acknowledge, it's usually the woman that takes the longer leave. Part of that is free choice. But part of it is also that women have lower opportunity costs to taking leave, and higher opportunity costs to staying in the workforce. A couple might realize that a woman will face additional headwinds to achieving seniority in her employment, since as you go up the ladder management tends to be disproportionately men. Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. Longer parental leave amplifies the effect of that pre-existing differential treatment, which is a downside to be accounted for.

manfredo 8y ago
> Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. I'm not sure how cutting parental leave eliminates pr reduced these headwinds. It seems to me that it's deliberately putting more financial pressure on women to tolerate those headwinds. Not eliminating those headwinds. Women's choice is strictly less with 6 months of paid leave as compared to 1 year. Women have the choice to take 6 months of leave instead of the full year (the article mentions that they use 77% on average). It still seems like this is trying to justify limiting women's choices and benefits, because it makes more of them work.
- rayiner 8y ago
  It reduces this headwinds in the long term. Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-workin.... That, in turn, reduces gender inequality for the next generation.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions. Note that "reduced headwinds" isn't one of these. Countries with high rates of mothers in the workforce don't necessarily have more flexible gender roles. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have the highest rates of working mothers, but have some of the strongest workplace segregation. It's also a largely circular justification: more working mothers are better because their daughters are more likely to become working mothers. Again, this only functions as a justification for those that subscribe to the belief that working mothers are categorically better than non-working mothers. My original point, from which we have diverged significantly by now, is that this article and many in this thread seem to believe that working mothers are categorically better than full time mothers. This seems to have led us to respond positively to measures that increase the former, even when those measures are coercive (in this case, cutting benefits and putting more financial burden on mothers).

tzs 8y ago

> But the question I am asking is, between a couple taking a year of leave and one (usually the woman) decides to become a full time parent vs. a couple takes 6 months leave to have a kid and both stay in the workforce. Why is the latter better than the former? workforce I think the point may be that employer paid family leave is meant to help people make having a new child fit in with their career. If you are switching to full time parenthood you are quitting your job, not taking a leave from your job. They aren't implying that working parents are better than full time parents, or more desirable to society. They are just saying that as employers they are designing their program around people who are going to remain employees.