3 ms·
> In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Then his salary, and the salary o
by conanbatt 7y ago
> In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it.
Then his salary, and the salary of all the employees have been lowered to provide the benefit. That means employees without kids pay for the parents.
> Moreover money is not zero-sum.
A handout is definitely zero-sum. But even if it isn't, the entire benefit of that handout is captured by the receiver, not by the giver. So its an even worse reason for an employer to give parental leave.
- kickling 7y agoOr perhaps they use the benefit to attract better competence? Higher pay vs a more secure work life balance is of course the decision to make here, and seems like op of this thread made a decision. What are you trying to proove?
- aetimmes 7y agoMaking the claim that parental leave is zero-sum assumes that I'd be working at full productivity for those 6 months, which based on my current sleep schedule even without work obligations, I definitely wouldn't be. My employer can either pay me for 6 months of work and get a substandard work product while I suffer sleep deprivation, or they can pay me for 6 months of leave and get me back recharged and ready to work at the end of that leave, when my child is sleeping through the night.