6 ms·

Sure, so give both the option of maternity leave, and let the ones who want to take it do so, and others who don't, won't.

by ep103 8y ago

tomp 8y ago
I support that. But: (i) that won't address the advantage non-parents have, (ii) different choices will still result in different/unequal "impact", if you measure it by outcomes, and (iii) women will always be hit harder, because (most) literally have to take time off (giving birth is physically harms the body) whereas men don't. Personally, I think the best solution is (1) have generic parenthood leave (but not forced), (2) have the government pay for it, and (3) reward new parents and companies who's employees have new kids. (1) makes it (roughly) gender-equal, (2) encourages small businesses/startups (who otherwise won't be able to afford Amazon-like benefits - a paid one-year absence is extremely impactful for a 5-person company, whereas Amazon can just statistically assume that a certain % of its workforce will be out of work at any moment), (3) equalizes the economic value of mothers, fathers and non-parents, and also incentivizes high-income, well educated, smarter and more ambitious people to have kids (assuming the rewards are proportional to taxes/salary), which most "kid-having incentive programs" fail to do (e.g. strong social security will encourage low-income families to have more kids).
- ep103 8y ago
  I'm not sure I'm okay with the measuring by outcome. So I like #s 1 and 2, but not so sure about #3. By rewarding a couple for having children, you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career. A couple shouldn't be punished because they choose to have a child, having children is human and our system should support that. But if a couple chooses to have children, they shouldn't expect to be rewarded with benefits that bring them back up to the level of a person who forwent that experience to focus on continuing to work. If you're worried that by only offering the opportunity to benefits, that men will disproportionately turn them down while women will need to take them (because giving birth physically harms the body), then 1) that just means the benefits involved should be made to be more appealing to men as well, and 2) I'm not completely convinced that's a bad thing Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career If the society values children, that's what it should do. In particular, it should find ways to specifically reward/incentivise particularly the smart, productive, capable people who the society most wants to procreate (assuming those traits are somewhat heritable, by genes, culture or both), and who are most likely to focus on their career otherwise (because the expected opportunity cost of not focusing on career is the biggest for them). You get what you incentivise. I think I agree with the second part of your comment (men/women), although I'm not sure I exactly get what you're trying to say - looks like you're addressing my point (1), not (3).

Sure, so give both the option of maternity leave, and let the ones who want to take it do so, and others who don't, won't.

by ep103 8y ago

Sure, so give both the option of maternity leave, and let the ones who want to take it do so, and others who don't, won't.

tomp 8y ago

I support that. But: (i) that won't address the advantage non-parents have, (ii) different choices will still result in different/unequal "impact", if you measure it by outcomes, and (iii) women will always be hit harder, because (most) literally have to take time off (giving birth is physically harms the body) whereas men don't. Personally, I think the best solution is (1) have generic parenthood leave (but not forced), (2) have the government pay for it, and (3) reward new parents and companies who's employees have new kids. (1) makes it (roughly) gender-equal, (2) encourages small businesses/startups (who otherwise won't be able to afford Amazon-like benefits - a paid one-year absence is extremely impactful for a 5-person company, whereas Amazon can just statistically assume that a certain % of its workforce will be out of work at any moment), (3) equalizes the economic value of mothers, fathers and non-parents, and also incentivizes high-income, well educated, smarter and more ambitious people to have kids (assuming the rewards are proportional to taxes/salary), which most "kid-having incentive programs" fail to do (e.g. strong social security will encourage low-income families to have more kids).

ep103 8y ago
I'm not sure I'm okay with the measuring by outcome. So I like #s 1 and 2, but not so sure about #3. By rewarding a couple for having children, you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career. A couple shouldn't be punished because they choose to have a child, having children is human and our system should support that. But if a couple chooses to have children, they shouldn't expect to be rewarded with benefits that bring them back up to the level of a person who forwent that experience to focus on continuing to work. If you're worried that by only offering the opportunity to benefits, that men will disproportionately turn them down while women will need to take them (because giving birth physically harms the body), then 1) that just means the benefits involved should be made to be more appealing to men as well, and 2) I'm not completely convinced that's a bad thing Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
- tomp 8y ago
  > you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career If the society values children, that's what it should do. In particular, it should find ways to specifically reward/incentivise particularly the smart, productive, capable people who the society most wants to procreate (assuming those traits are somewhat heritable, by genes, culture or both), and who are most likely to focus on their career otherwise (because the expected opportunity cost of not focusing on career is the biggest for them). You get what you incentivise. I think I agree with the second part of your comment (men/women), although I'm not sure I exactly get what you're trying to say - looks like you're addressing my point (1), not (3).