20 ms·

The case for national paid maternity leave

168 points by chmaynard 6y ago

baggy_trough 6y ago
Fine if the government pays for it.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  We all pay for it, one way or another. The article argues that paying for it on a systemic level has what would probably amount to significant cost savings. There's precedent with unemployment for having employers pay an insurance premium to the state. That model seems like it might work here.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    Why would that be more equitable/efficient than paying for it from general tax funds? It would have to be so to make up for the employment disincentive and business overhead.
    - jeromegv 6y ago
      It's an insurance model in Quebec, similar to employment insurance, where both employer and employee contribute. In theory that means that everything that is contributed by employers/employee gets into that pool and only get spent back on those programs. And if you contribute to it that means you can have access to it, just like insurance. Most tax payers are also workers so this is pretty much the same anyway.
  - headcanon 6y ago
    Unemployment insurance only applies for full-time hires though doesn't it? Lots of companies will try to keep part-time employees from becoming full-time so that they don't have to pay for benefits like these. Same with gig-economy and contract-based workers.
    - lukifer 6y ago
      Im 1000% in favor of mandatory parental leave, but that's the risk: it incentivizes companies to try shift their labor force into gigs and contract roles as much as they can get away with. In 2012, I was canvassed by a McCain supporter who voted for Obama in 2008, but was disillusioned after his employer reduced his hours just below the threshold of the ACA requirement; he was forced to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet, neither of which provided healthcare. I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Tea Party / Trump backlash was in reaction to this sort of collateral damage: ACA helped many, but also left some worse off, even if employers and/or insurance companies should bear the primary blame.
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  There are some countries where mothers get their paycheck from their health insurance company while they are on maternity leave. It's heavily regulated and if they don't have private insurance, they can always opt for the state-run one.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    I'm curious, what countries are you referring to?
cryoshon 6y ago
the case for national paid parental leave -- that's right, parental leave, not just maternity leave -- is that it's a standard feature of developed countries. the US will start to see more and more brain drain to other developed countries until some basic aspects of the social contract here are corrected. we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce. there's no reason for highly educated people to stay here or immigrate to here when their quality of life will be significantly worse than elsewhere because our basic suite of mandatory and ubiquitous social amenities are entirely absent.
- harryh 6y ago
  The US has been "behind" many other developed countries in areas like paternal leave for quite some time and has not experienced the sort of brain drain you assert. In fact the drain has generally gone towards the US rather than away from it. It's hard to see why this trend would reverse now.
- enitihas 6y ago
  The brain drain is heavy in the other direction (towards the US from elsewhere), and doesn't seem to be slowing down. As long as the US can pay far higher salaries than other countries, the social benefits are irrelevant for the high performers. > we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce The high skilled people would earn far more in the US than elsewhere, and get a lot of benefits as part of their high paying job. It's difficult to see the brain drain to the US stopping, let alone the reverse brain drain you forsee.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    I will add to your point that high salaries + not losing it all to taxes is the kind of equation that matters. Some developed countries with strong social policy have reasonably high salaries, but much lower after taxes.
- AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
  Well, there's no sign of that so far. The US pays by far the most for talent, so if you're actually skilled and talented, it's the place to be. All those amenities you're talking about are not a concern for the high level skilled people we want to retain and bring to the US.
pm90 6y ago
The study seems to confirm the economic benefits associated with paid parental leave. > On the flip side, some studies have shown less positive effects, such as encouragement of employer bias against women of childbearing age in lower-paying or part-time jobs. It makes 0 sense to not have paid parental leave by law. Government assistance in the form of medicare assistance etc. should be provided to lower income parents or those that don't have access to employer sponsored healthcare. Apart from the economic and ethical argument, if we want the next generation of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, it seems imperative to provide as much assistance as possible to enable that environment.
- baq 6y ago
  i live in a country with paid parental leave and have heard second-hand stories of employer bias against women in childbearing age precisely because women in childbearing age got employed and promptly got pregnant. for the record i'm for this kind of social assistance because the alternative sounds downright barbaric.
  - pasquinelli 6y ago
    Not surprising that a woman of childbearing age turns up pregnant is it?
  - ta1234567890 6y ago
    Yes it happens. But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Just include the cost of abuse in the projections and deal with it. That's how every system works. Every system gets abused. One example: credit cards - there's plenty of fraud there, but we somehow manage to deal with it and make the system work regardless.
    - mrlala 6y ago
      Exactly.. really hate the attitude of "oh well someone might abuse it so let's just screw everyone instead"
    - 6y ago
dfxm12 6y ago
I wonder what the difference would be between a national program vs state specific programs. Or maybe even a national system supplemented on a state by state basis. I mean, right now, I live in a state that has no family leave, but I work in a state that does, for a company that does. I've got no idea what I'm really entitled to, and it's hard to get a hold of HR to get me a straight answer...
duxup 6y ago
Company I worked for a number of years ago publicly announced they had paid parental leave for all employees. Then I applied for it and they said "no it is just for the people in California". So I had to take unpaid leave. Whatever happens it needs to be on a national level.
flycaliguy 6y ago
I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a critical stage in their life.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- foogazi 6y ago
  Replace citizens with children and you would be more on point If you will be having kids why not save up to be away from work for a year and the take leave paid by your own family?
  - baq 6y ago
    Because biology? It’s hard to save when you’re 20-24 and that’s the best time to have a child. It’s completely insane that 30 is considered early for a firstborn.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other peoples’ decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6 months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute.
  - dudul 6y ago
    You're subsidizing the replenishing of the population of the country. You're subsidizing the creation of new people to be your friends, customers, colleagues. You're subsidizing the people who will become cops to protect you, or nurses to take care of you, or engineers who will create new tech and maybe keep you alive a little longer. It is really astonishing to see this comment again and again on this thread. New human beings are necessary.
ngngngng 6y ago
It's a strong case, but it still feels like a band-aid on the wound that is normalized double income households. My wife is a novelist. She chose to do that so she could have flexibility to stay home with children. It helps that she's a fantastic writer. I chose my current job because of 6 weeks paternity leave, as we plan on having several more children. I recognize my immense privilege being able to make choices like these, but it was not without sacrifices. For the first few years of our marriage we could have easily doubled our income if we were both working. All this to say, is a return to single income households wanted, reasonable or possible? I can't help but feel that "working" and "raising children" is having your cake and eating it too.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I think about this a lot too because my family could live off of my income alone. We might move to this at some point, but for now my wife prefers to work. That said, I'm genuinely curious if "single income households" were ever a norm, or if it was only a norm for the upper class (or perhaps for the middle class for a very short time, such as for a few decades in the 20th century).
  - yters 6y ago
    I think "everyone in the family works" used to be the norm.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      It’s always been true, but the answer to the question “for whom?” has changed a few times, like in the agricultural and industrial revolutions.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    Single income households were only ever a norm for the upper classes, whether aristocracy or haute bourgeoisie. Almost as soon as that changed society did. Mass leisure society with many single income households were a post WWII US thing. The richest country in the history of the world sustained that from maybe 1945 to 1970, by which time feminism was in full swing. Capable women got bored and wanted meaningful non family work.
technick 6y ago
I don't think it should be on my shoulders to pay for someone else deciding to breed, and I wouldn't expect them to pay for me. Over population is going to kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits.
- lghh 6y ago
  > Over population is going to kill this planet Source on this very big claim?
  - travisoneill1 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      Except the population is not exponentially growing...
- dudul 6y ago
  Except that overpopulation doesn't come from the US, or any first-world country really. And don't twist my words, I'm not saying that Americans aren't largely participating in killing the planet. But that has nothing to do with overpopulation, it is a lifestyle thing.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  > Over population is going to kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits. If you're not leaving this planet with any progeny then I hardly see why you should care if that happens to be our planet's future.
- lutorm 6y ago
  First-world countries are usually below replacement birth rate. If we disincentivize people from having children, we're going to need a lot more immigration to avoid a population inversion. Is that your preferred alternative to ensure there are enough people of working age to support all the retirees?
paulcole 6y ago
Happy to be in favor of this as long as there's an equivalent benefit for those who are childless. For anyone downvoting: People should be incentivized to avoid having kids. It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to combat climate change.
- lghh 6y ago
  > It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to combat climate change Climate change doesn't matter if there are no people left.
  - qu83rt 6y ago
    I don't think that's going to be a problem any time soon...
  - thomaslord 6y ago
    We are in zero danger of dying out as a species due to a low birth rate. The Earth is massively overpopulated and the only ethical way to combat that is to incentivize everyone, equally, to not have children.
    - lghh 6y ago
      > The Earth is massively overpopulated Source?
      - zanny 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction The combination of our global population and our resource consumptions per capita have devastated ecologies the world over and led to the deaths of innumerable species and biospheres. You basically have the choice, then - massively reduce the resources consumed per-capita such that having billions of people doesn't negatively impact the planet or displace the last remnants of nature unsullied by human encroachment, or reduce the population so that the people you do have can consume resources without causing a mass extinction event. When population reduction is as simple as "stop having kids" that is by far the least harmful mechanism to currently living humans to mitigate the ongoing disaster we are causing the planet. Trying to tell the current first world or developing countries to stop building roads, driving cars, building houses, using convenience products like plastics, stop building technologies that require scarce rare earth minerals that require extraction, stop using electric power in its myriad forms, etc is way more disruptive and harmful to those living today.
skapadia 6y ago
First world nations have mind-boggling tax revenue, so they should fund programs like paid family leave and higher education (within reasonable limits). (I feel like humanity is inexorably tending towards the attitude "everything should just be provided to us, no questions asked", so I really hope full-scale automation happens in my lifetime. I think it's the best way we can maximize happiness across the planet.)
whiddershins 6y ago
I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional and possibly practical level. I do wonder, though, if it’s really fair to households that choose to have one stay at home parent ... so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent who is also staying at home, but used to work? It seems confusing. Edit: I guess I’m wondering, should we by this logic extend a salary, even if temporary, to all new parents?
- skapadia 6y ago
  > so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent > who is also staying at home, but used to work? You can extend that argument to any benefit provided by a government. I'm sure there are (many) benefits you (and I) receive that are in part funded by those who receive no direct benefit from it. We are all interdependent and interconnected in many ways.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby" present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's health and getting back to work ASAP. So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity leave.
  - foota 6y ago
    I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation. The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.
anonymousiam 6y ago
It's always easy to give away other people's money.
- baq 6y ago
  That’s the point of having a country.
  - anonymousiam 6y ago
    I'm certain that Nicolás Maduro feels the same as you.
    - baq 6y ago
      you're welcome to not pay taxes there, it's quite likely nobody will come after you.
eganist 6y ago
If we're to successfully drive wage equality, we can't make mistakes like allowing employers to use maternity leave as an excuse to depress wages by gender. The only two ways to fix this are to eliminate (this option is untenable) parental leave or to make maternity leave apply to everybody. Besides, give both parents the ability to support a family during those formative months and the next generation will be healthier for it.
programminggeek 6y ago
One could make a case that the nation was better off when not everyone was forced into being a two income household and more parents stayed home to raise their children. Closer knit families, better long term relationships, more skills and wisdom passed down from generation to generation. Paid maternity leave doesn't fix time apart from your children over the first two decades of their life.
wegs 6y ago
Somehow, all the comments assumed that the article meant parental leave. The article said "maternity leave," and showed a stereotypical photo of mother with child. The PR piece was written by Patty, and the study by Amy. Amy's hobbies listed on her Stanford page include -- and I kid you not -- "learning how to cook." She's a member of several girl's-only clubs. This would have been wonderfully progressive in 1960. (As with most posters, I'm 100% in support of universal parental leave. However, something about this whole thing feels like a bizarre parody piece.)
ljf 6y ago
I work for a company that offers 6 months maternity and paternity at full pay to all employees from day 1 of employment. This covers adoption too. Parents can take additional unpaid or statutory paid leave as desired. As you might imagine it is a company that people want to work for, that retains staff and that has a good work life balance. In most roles asking to work compressed or reduced hours is a possibility. Even though I missed out on this perk personally, it makes me happy to work at a place that treats employees so well, and doesn't hold people back just because they want to have a family. Compared to other companies I've seen, far more women here return to the workplace after having children.
maerF0x0 6y ago
One problem with this article (and many others) is it confounds the benefits of taking leave with _paid leave_. I don't think there is a strong challenge against women taking a break after giving birth, but there is a moral/values argument about who pays for it. Potential sources of funding include: 1. Government (on various levels) 2. Employer 3. Savings 4. Debt (maternity loans?) 5. Partner/Father, other family We'd have to control for and examine interventions in the sources of funding to determine if governmental paid leave for all is a good policy. Sadly the article also focuses, myopically, on just maternity leave instead of Parental leave. afaik it's proven that children do better with 2 parents present. (lets ignore gender arguments for a moment and see the obvious-- access to twice the parental figures will be more robust and have more resources)
msla 6y ago
Now that we have same-sex marriage, making it only maternity leave is unjustifiably discriminatory against same-sex unions, not to mention against nonbinary parents. Making this leave completely gender-neutral is simply the simplest, most reasonable option.
einpoklum 6y ago
Only in the US does such a case need to be made.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RabbitmqGuy 6y ago
For whatever reason, I had always thought that paid maternity leave was available universally in all countries. I hadn't even fathomed that the opposite could be true. America continues to surprise me.
OctopusSandwich 6y ago
Instead of paying more in taxes to fund other people's wives to go on a maternity leave, I'd rather use that money for my wife.
godelski 6y ago
I think the case for parental leave is pretty obvious: we want healthy children. Not only are babies difficult to take care of, but frequently want to be constantly held. If you want a healthy society and to ensure that your next generation: is healthy, has more opportunities to climb the ladder, lower crime rates (more healthy home environments), etc, then you want parental leave. I don't think anyone on the left disagrees. But I don't understand why the right shouldn't. These things also make a lot of economic sense. It is like a mutual fund where we're investing in our next generation. Returns are even proportional to your investment. If you're wealthy you're likely to either own a business or stocks (or both!). You get a return by efficient workers who make businesses grow. This has a clear effect on GDP (I'd actually give similar arguments for education and health care, but I don't want to deviate too much from the topic (p.s. I don't identify as a socialist either)). As to why I'm saying parental leave and not just maternity leave, I'm worried about consequences of just maternity leave. Having just maternity leave does generate bias towards women because... well women are the only ones that give birth. On the other hand, a parental leave should generate less bias because males will have to be given the same leave (I don't think it'll completely wash out the bias towards women, but I suspect it would decrease it). This should also have obvious consequences of reducing stress in relationships (again, leading to lower crime because better households) and especially less stress for women, who are (given social norms) the primary care givers of children. TLDR: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
shahg4 6y ago
I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries, and didn't they state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline). https://www.multimeter-uses-hindi.com/ https://www.multimeter-uses-hindi.com/
randyrand 6y ago
Having those that cannot or will not have children directly pay for other people's salary is unnecessary and arguably unjust. 2-6 months salary is not an insignificant amount of money. It would make more sense to be paid entirely by additional income taxes on those who file taxes with dependents, or those who benefited from this program in the past.

168 points by chmaynard 6y ago

baggy_trough 6y ago

Fine if the government pays for it.

ceejayoz 6y ago
We all pay for it, one way or another. The article argues that paying for it on a systemic level has what would probably amount to significant cost savings. There's precedent with unemployment for having employers pay an insurance premium to the state. That model seems like it might work here.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  Why would that be more equitable/efficient than paying for it from general tax funds? It would have to be so to make up for the employment disincentive and business overhead.
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    It's an insurance model in Quebec, similar to employment insurance, where both employer and employee contribute. In theory that means that everything that is contributed by employers/employee gets into that pool and only get spent back on those programs. And if you contribute to it that means you can have access to it, just like insurance. Most tax payers are also workers so this is pretty much the same anyway.
- headcanon 6y ago
  Unemployment insurance only applies for full-time hires though doesn't it? Lots of companies will try to keep part-time employees from becoming full-time so that they don't have to pay for benefits like these. Same with gig-economy and contract-based workers.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    Im 1000% in favor of mandatory parental leave, but that's the risk: it incentivizes companies to try shift their labor force into gigs and contract roles as much as they can get away with. In 2012, I was canvassed by a McCain supporter who voted for Obama in 2008, but was disillusioned after his employer reduced his hours just below the threshold of the ACA requirement; he was forced to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet, neither of which provided healthcare. I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Tea Party / Trump backlash was in reaction to this sort of collateral damage: ACA helped many, but also left some worse off, even if employers and/or insurance companies should bear the primary blame.
ta1234567890 6y ago
There are some countries where mothers get their paycheck from their health insurance company while they are on maternity leave. It's heavily regulated and if they don't have private insurance, they can always opt for the state-run one.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  I'm curious, what countries are you referring to?

cryoshon 6y ago

the case for national paid parental leave -- that's right, parental leave, not just maternity leave -- is that it's a standard feature of developed countries. the US will start to see more and more brain drain to other developed countries until some basic aspects of the social contract here are corrected. we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce. there's no reason for highly educated people to stay here or immigrate to here when their quality of life will be significantly worse than elsewhere because our basic suite of mandatory and ubiquitous social amenities are entirely absent.

harryh 6y ago
The US has been "behind" many other developed countries in areas like paternal leave for quite some time and has not experienced the sort of brain drain you assert. In fact the drain has generally gone towards the US rather than away from it. It's hard to see why this trend would reverse now.
enitihas 6y ago
The brain drain is heavy in the other direction (towards the US from elsewhere), and doesn't seem to be slowing down. As long as the US can pay far higher salaries than other countries, the social benefits are irrelevant for the high performers. > we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce The high skilled people would earn far more in the US than elsewhere, and get a lot of benefits as part of their high paying job. It's difficult to see the brain drain to the US stopping, let alone the reverse brain drain you forsee.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  I will add to your point that high salaries + not losing it all to taxes is the kind of equation that matters. Some developed countries with strong social policy have reasonably high salaries, but much lower after taxes.
AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
Well, there's no sign of that so far. The US pays by far the most for talent, so if you're actually skilled and talented, it's the place to be. All those amenities you're talking about are not a concern for the high level skilled people we want to retain and bring to the US.

pm90 6y ago

The study seems to confirm the economic benefits associated with paid parental leave. > On the flip side, some studies have shown less positive effects, such as encouragement of employer bias against women of childbearing age in lower-paying or part-time jobs. It makes 0 sense to not have paid parental leave by law. Government assistance in the form of medicare assistance etc. should be provided to lower income parents or those that don't have access to employer sponsored healthcare. Apart from the economic and ethical argument, if we want the next generation of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, it seems imperative to provide as much assistance as possible to enable that environment.

baq 6y ago
i live in a country with paid parental leave and have heard second-hand stories of employer bias against women in childbearing age precisely because women in childbearing age got employed and promptly got pregnant. for the record i'm for this kind of social assistance because the alternative sounds downright barbaric.
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  Not surprising that a woman of childbearing age turns up pregnant is it?
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  Yes it happens. But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Just include the cost of abuse in the projections and deal with it. That's how every system works. Every system gets abused. One example: credit cards - there's plenty of fraud there, but we somehow manage to deal with it and make the system work regardless.
  - mrlala 6y ago
    Exactly.. really hate the attitude of "oh well someone might abuse it so let's just screw everyone instead"
  - 6y ago

dfxm12 6y ago

I wonder what the difference would be between a national program vs state specific programs. Or maybe even a national system supplemented on a state by state basis. I mean, right now, I live in a state that has no family leave, but I work in a state that does, for a company that does. I've got no idea what I'm really entitled to, and it's hard to get a hold of HR to get me a straight answer...

duxup 6y ago

Company I worked for a number of years ago publicly announced they had paid parental leave for all employees. Then I applied for it and they said "no it is just for the people in California". So I had to take unpaid leave. Whatever happens it needs to be on a national level.

flycaliguy 6y ago

I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a critical stage in their life.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foogazi 6y ago
Replace citizens with children and you would be more on point If you will be having kids why not save up to be away from work for a year and the take leave paid by your own family?
- baq 6y ago
  Because biology? It’s hard to save when you’re 20-24 and that’s the best time to have a child. It’s completely insane that 30 is considered early for a firstborn.
Fezzik 6y ago
The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other peoples’ decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6 months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute.
- dudul 6y ago
  You're subsidizing the replenishing of the population of the country. You're subsidizing the creation of new people to be your friends, customers, colleagues. You're subsidizing the people who will become cops to protect you, or nurses to take care of you, or engineers who will create new tech and maybe keep you alive a little longer. It is really astonishing to see this comment again and again on this thread. New human beings are necessary.

ngngngng 6y ago

It's a strong case, but it still feels like a band-aid on the wound that is normalized double income households. My wife is a novelist. She chose to do that so she could have flexibility to stay home with children. It helps that she's a fantastic writer. I chose my current job because of 6 weeks paternity leave, as we plan on having several more children. I recognize my immense privilege being able to make choices like these, but it was not without sacrifices. For the first few years of our marriage we could have easily doubled our income if we were both working. All this to say, is a return to single income households wanted, reasonable or possible? I can't help but feel that "working" and "raising children" is having your cake and eating it too.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I think about this a lot too because my family could live off of my income alone. We might move to this at some point, but for now my wife prefers to work. That said, I'm genuinely curious if "single income households" were ever a norm, or if it was only a norm for the upper class (or perhaps for the middle class for a very short time, such as for a few decades in the 20th century).
- yters 6y ago
  I think "everyone in the family works" used to be the norm.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    It’s always been true, but the answer to the question “for whom?” has changed a few times, like in the agricultural and industrial revolutions.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  Single income households were only ever a norm for the upper classes, whether aristocracy or haute bourgeoisie. Almost as soon as that changed society did. Mass leisure society with many single income households were a post WWII US thing. The richest country in the history of the world sustained that from maybe 1945 to 1970, by which time feminism was in full swing. Capable women got bored and wanted meaningful non family work.

technick 6y ago

I don't think it should be on my shoulders to pay for someone else deciding to breed, and I wouldn't expect them to pay for me. Over population is going to kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits.

lghh 6y ago
> Over population is going to kill this planet Source on this very big claim?
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Except the population is not exponentially growing...
dudul 6y ago
Except that overpopulation doesn't come from the US, or any first-world country really. And don't twist my words, I'm not saying that Americans aren't largely participating in killing the planet. But that has nothing to do with overpopulation, it is a lifestyle thing.
tengbretson 6y ago
> Over population is going to kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits. If you're not leaving this planet with any progeny then I hardly see why you should care if that happens to be our planet's future.
lutorm 6y ago
First-world countries are usually below replacement birth rate. If we disincentivize people from having children, we're going to need a lot more immigration to avoid a population inversion. Is that your preferred alternative to ensure there are enough people of working age to support all the retirees?

paulcole 6y ago

Happy to be in favor of this as long as there's an equivalent benefit for those who are childless. For anyone downvoting: People should be incentivized to avoid having kids. It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to combat climate change.

lghh 6y ago
> It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to combat climate change Climate change doesn't matter if there are no people left.
- qu83rt 6y ago
  I don't think that's going to be a problem any time soon...
- thomaslord 6y ago
  We are in zero danger of dying out as a species due to a low birth rate. The Earth is massively overpopulated and the only ethical way to combat that is to incentivize everyone, equally, to not have children.
  - lghh 6y ago
    > The Earth is massively overpopulated Source?
    - zanny 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction The combination of our global population and our resource consumptions per capita have devastated ecologies the world over and led to the deaths of innumerable species and biospheres. You basically have the choice, then - massively reduce the resources consumed per-capita such that having billions of people doesn't negatively impact the planet or displace the last remnants of nature unsullied by human encroachment, or reduce the population so that the people you do have can consume resources without causing a mass extinction event. When population reduction is as simple as "stop having kids" that is by far the least harmful mechanism to currently living humans to mitigate the ongoing disaster we are causing the planet. Trying to tell the current first world or developing countries to stop building roads, driving cars, building houses, using convenience products like plastics, stop building technologies that require scarce rare earth minerals that require extraction, stop using electric power in its myriad forms, etc is way more disruptive and harmful to those living today.

skapadia 6y ago

First world nations have mind-boggling tax revenue, so they should fund programs like paid family leave and higher education (within reasonable limits). (I feel like humanity is inexorably tending towards the attitude "everything should just be provided to us, no questions asked", so I really hope full-scale automation happens in my lifetime. I think it's the best way we can maximize happiness across the planet.)

whiddershins 6y ago

I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional and possibly practical level. I do wonder, though, if it’s really fair to households that choose to have one stay at home parent ... so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent who is also staying at home, but used to work? It seems confusing. Edit: I guess I’m wondering, should we by this logic extend a salary, even if temporary, to all new parents?

skapadia 6y ago
> so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent > who is also staying at home, but used to work? You can extend that argument to any benefit provided by a government. I'm sure there are (many) benefits you (and I) receive that are in part funded by those who receive no direct benefit from it. We are all interdependent and interconnected in many ways.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby" present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's health and getting back to work ASAP. So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity leave.
- foota 6y ago
  I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation. The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.

anonymousiam 6y ago

It's always easy to give away other people's money.

baq 6y ago
That’s the point of having a country.
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  I'm certain that Nicolás Maduro feels the same as you.
  - baq 6y ago
    you're welcome to not pay taxes there, it's quite likely nobody will come after you.

eganist 6y ago

If we're to successfully drive wage equality, we can't make mistakes like allowing employers to use maternity leave as an excuse to depress wages by gender. The only two ways to fix this are to eliminate (this option is untenable) parental leave or to make maternity leave apply to everybody. Besides, give both parents the ability to support a family during those formative months and the next generation will be healthier for it.

programminggeek 6y ago

One could make a case that the nation was better off when not everyone was forced into being a two income household and more parents stayed home to raise their children. Closer knit families, better long term relationships, more skills and wisdom passed down from generation to generation. Paid maternity leave doesn't fix time apart from your children over the first two decades of their life.

wegs 6y ago

Somehow, all the comments assumed that the article meant parental leave. The article said "maternity leave," and showed a stereotypical photo of mother with child. The PR piece was written by Patty, and the study by Amy. Amy's hobbies listed on her Stanford page include -- and I kid you not -- "learning how to cook." She's a member of several girl's-only clubs. This would have been wonderfully progressive in 1960. (As with most posters, I'm 100% in support of universal parental leave. However, something about this whole thing feels like a bizarre parody piece.)

ljf 6y ago

I work for a company that offers 6 months maternity and paternity at full pay to all employees from day 1 of employment. This covers adoption too. Parents can take additional unpaid or statutory paid leave as desired. As you might imagine it is a company that people want to work for, that retains staff and that has a good work life balance. In most roles asking to work compressed or reduced hours is a possibility. Even though I missed out on this perk personally, it makes me happy to work at a place that treats employees so well, and doesn't hold people back just because they want to have a family. Compared to other companies I've seen, far more women here return to the workplace after having children.

maerF0x0 6y ago

One problem with this article (and many others) is it confounds the benefits of taking leave with _paid leave_. I don't think there is a strong challenge against women taking a break after giving birth, but there is a moral/values argument about who pays for it. Potential sources of funding include: 1. Government (on various levels) 2. Employer 3. Savings 4. Debt (maternity loans?) 5. Partner/Father, other family We'd have to control for and examine interventions in the sources of funding to determine if governmental paid leave for all is a good policy. Sadly the article also focuses, myopically, on just maternity leave instead of Parental leave. afaik it's proven that children do better with 2 parents present. (lets ignore gender arguments for a moment and see the obvious-- access to twice the parental figures will be more robust and have more resources)

msla 6y ago

Now that we have same-sex marriage, making it only maternity leave is unjustifiably discriminatory against same-sex unions, not to mention against nonbinary parents. Making this leave completely gender-neutral is simply the simplest, most reasonable option.

einpoklum 6y ago

Only in the US does such a case need to be made.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

RabbitmqGuy 6y ago

For whatever reason, I had always thought that paid maternity leave was available universally in all countries. I hadn't even fathomed that the opposite could be true. America continues to surprise me.

OctopusSandwich 6y ago

Instead of paying more in taxes to fund other people's wives to go on a maternity leave, I'd rather use that money for my wife.

godelski 6y ago

I think the case for parental leave is pretty obvious: we want healthy children. Not only are babies difficult to take care of, but frequently want to be constantly held. If you want a healthy society and to ensure that your next generation: is healthy, has more opportunities to climb the ladder, lower crime rates (more healthy home environments), etc, then you want parental leave. I don't think anyone on the left disagrees. But I don't understand why the right shouldn't. These things also make a lot of economic sense. It is like a mutual fund where we're investing in our next generation. Returns are even proportional to your investment. If you're wealthy you're likely to either own a business or stocks (or both!). You get a return by efficient workers who make businesses grow. This has a clear effect on GDP (I'd actually give similar arguments for education and health care, but I don't want to deviate too much from the topic (p.s. I don't identify as a socialist either)). As to why I'm saying parental leave and not just maternity leave, I'm worried about consequences of just maternity leave. Having just maternity leave does generate bias towards women because... well women are the only ones that give birth. On the other hand, a parental leave should generate less bias because males will have to be given the same leave (I don't think it'll completely wash out the bias towards women, but I suspect it would decrease it). This should also have obvious consequences of reducing stress in relationships (again, leading to lower crime because better households) and especially less stress for women, who are (given social norms) the primary care givers of children. TLDR: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

shahg4 6y ago

I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries, and didn't they state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline). https://www.multimeter-uses-hindi.com/ https://www.multimeter-uses-hindi.com/

randyrand 6y ago

Having those that cannot or will not have children directly pay for other people's salary is unnecessary and arguably unjust. 2-6 months salary is not an insignificant amount of money. It would make more sense to be paid entirely by additional income taxes on those who file taxes with dependents, or those who benefited from this program in the past.