13 ms·

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 a

by 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"
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    There is no abuse involved. You employ a young woman, and in a year she gives birth and is out for a year or two. Nothing wrong with that, and many businesses with large employee turnover won’t care, but other businesses, especially small ones, which require significant training for company-specific processes, or which have small pool of candidates, will be very unhappy about the fact that now they have to find and train a temporary replacement.
    - learc83 6y ago
      We already have a very similar situation with respect to hiring military reservists. It seems like we could use that data to see if there's really a big enough problem to worry about. Anecdotally, I've never met someone in the reserves who had a hard time finding a job.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        Do the military reservists have to disclose to potential employers that they are reservists? How often the reservists actually called for service? This is an interesting point, and I'm asking because I have no clue about the realities the military reservists face.
        learc83 6y ago
        There's no requirement to disclose during an interview, but most people I know depended on their time in the reserves/active duty pretty heavily on their resume, so I'd guess it was pretty rare for an employer to not know or at least suspect. Also they have have leave to train for 2 weeks per year, so the employer would need to know at some point. As for chances of being deployed, in the last decade it was probably a good bit higher than the chance that a reproductive age woman gets pregnant for a given time period. They can also end up deployed for longer than most countries paid maternity leave lasts.
        xyzzyz 6y ago
        And I take it that when they are deployed, their employers are in some way required to guarantee them employment when they return?
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    > But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Because employers, at least in the USA, believe they have a right to nearly of their employees' time on or off the clock, and a right to exert some control over their employees' personal lives and even political choices. Enjoyment of this control is part of why people become employers or managers.
- mapgrep 6y ago
  A great example of why not just maternity leave (per the link) but parental leave broadly is a good idea. And why both parents need to take it. Otherwise it will be used by some as an excuse to discriminate against birth parents. Of course there are many other benefits to both parents taking leave, including that studies have shown that non birth parents who take leave tend to be more involved in parenting long term. Also, it’s hugely rewarding emotionally!
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > And why both parents need to take it I think this is key to addressing discrimination (simply making discrimination illegal is insufficient because discrimination is so difficult to prove); however, getting both genders to take it in roughly equal proportion is probably nearly as difficult, at least apart from mandatory leave, which would be authoritarian and awful. EDIT: Genuinely curious: why the downvotes? Do people not believe that taking leave in equal proportions is necessary to combat discrimination? Or do they think that it is easy to make people do this ethically? Surely no one thinks we should force people to take leave against their will?
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      You don’t support forcing men to take paternity leave. Many people do. That’s why you’re being downvoted.
      - gknoy 6y ago
        People support _forcing_ parents to take {ma,pa}ternity leave? I am skeptical, as this is a position I have never ever heard of before. As a parent, I can see why one could advocate for equal (+generous) paid parental leave (disclaimer: I support that idea), but I've never heard (nor would I understand) the idea that one should be forced to _take_ such leave.
        barry-cotter 6y ago
        If you’ve just given birth do you want women like Sheryl Sandberg to be allowed, who take three days or a week off and then are back at the office? Or do you want everyone to compete on a more level playing field, where everyone must take three months off? Because those for whom family comes second to work will get promoted faster anyway but if you let them work even more the advantages just compound. For an example of the Harrison Bergeron attitude see https://twitter.com/hoovergreen/status/1258070856745529344?s=21 https://twitter.com/hoovergreen/status/1258070856745529344?s... https://twitter.com/r_rusha/status/1258496895824957440?s=21 https://twitter.com/r_rusha/status/1258496895824957440?s=21 https://twitter.com/extendedhuckel/status/1258065461951918080?s=21 https://twitter.com/extendedhuckel/status/125806546195191808... https://twitter.com/kmpjones/status/1258214473757794305?s=21 https://twitter.com/kmpjones/status/1258214473757794305?s=21
- klipt 6y ago
  Which is why maternity leave without similar paternity leave is a bad idea. But apparently whoever wrote this article didn't think things through that far.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I'm all for paid paternity leave, but I've also heard that it does relatively little because men are much less likely to use it, and when they use it they use less of it.
    - klipt 6y ago
      Some countries have had good results from making it mandatory.
      - foogazi 6y ago
        Are there countries that force people to take leave with their children?
      - manfredo 6y ago
        I am not aware of any country that has mandatory paternity leave. Do you have an example of this?
        CJefferson 6y ago
        I wonder if the grandparent meant "non-transferable" -- some countrirs have a shared pot (and then women often take all the pot), other countries enforce some amount of the pot to each parent. You do not have to take it as the man, but you lose it if you don't.
- jayd16 6y ago
  A useful equalizer is to give paternal leave as well.
- foogazi 6y ago
  What is the barbaric alternative?
  - syshum 6y ago
    Personal Responsibility... That is barbaric these days
thefz 6y ago
I live in a country with paid maternal leave and paid paternal leave up to an extent. I've always been in favor of it but since I have joined the workforce I'm kinda on the fence if not against it. The amount of people exploiting it is enormous (at least where I live). I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100%. Others getting pregnancy leave while planning to resign the day they have to come back to work, sucking up all that their employer has to give and then leaving him. Employer bias exists for a reason, and it is precisely the existence of this behavior. The ways in which a system like this can be exploited, in my opinion, are countless and far outweigh the benefits. And since maternal leave is paid for with tax money, I as a taxpayer, am against use of public money to fund private activities. If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning, it is not my problem to solve.
- mc32 6y ago
  There is a benefit to society replenishing its population and a benefit to the individual not to have to think about income loss or worry about their work status upon return. Perhaps it would make sense to have policies like when your employer sends you off for schooling, you are expected to stay for x-months and if not you owe them. So a guy goes on paternity leave, resigns after coming back, he owes the co. some amount discouraging this practice? If the move is worth it, then they would afford the penalty. Kind of like withdrawing from retirement before maturity.
  - thefz 6y ago
    I wish some policies like this would exist, but sadly in a country of heavy catholic descent, it all falls under the "life is sacred" umbrella.
  - zanny 6y ago
    I'd strongly argue you want to deplete reserves of foreign immigrants that want to come fill in any population deficit you have before you start subsidizing reproduction. Humanity as a whole is still growing, that population growth is largely limited to poorer nations, and as such it just doesn't make financial sense for nations to be paying people to have kids (and bear the associated stresses, complications, and expenses from having often full time laborers also burdened with trying to raise a family) when there are billions in poverty that immigration could uplift. It also has historical context. Colonization around the world happened on the back of permissive immigration - when early America needed labor it didn't pay every family to have more kids, it brought the poor over from Europe with the promise of opportunity. And while the investments needed to make a worker productive are much higher today than back then it applies to both a natural born or immigrant citizen all the same. A lot of it is cultural though. The unrealistic expectations heaped on most western working class peoples to both have a successful career and somehow produce a well adjusted functional progeny feels to me like the same kind of fantastical unrealism of the titular American Dream - where everyone could have two cars and a separated house anywhere, drive everywhere, and that scaling that up to hundreds of millions was both practical and optimal. In practice, no, very few members of the working poor are skilled in parenting enough to somehow magically balance 40 hours a week between two parents on subsistence income with raising children effectively. Perpetuating that lie causes real harm to everyone involved. Its the same kind of doublethink that keeps global warming off the agenda as a legitimate threat - the need to protect culturally established norms even if they cause real harm to perpetuate.
koheripbal 6y ago
I can tell you that discrimination against women of common child-bearing ages for lower-income jobs is still common in countries where full benefits exist. In Canada, companies refuse to hire women in certain positions because the maternity leave is 1-2 years, and the disruption of having to train and then replace someone can be painful. As an anecdote, my last company had 3 accountants in 3 years because each one would come in, work for a year, and then take 2 year maternity. It became impossible to handle the stability for a complex position like that. They ultimately refused to hire women, and the man in that job has now been there 5 years.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Wouldn't the first ones maternity be over by the time the second one took maternity?
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Yes, but often they simply decide not to return to work at all.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Why not?
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        It's pretty common for women to decide to become a full time stay at home mom after having a kid. But naturally, you would use up all of your maternity leave before making that final decision.
    - godelski 6y ago
      That sounds like an additional variable that's part of a coupled system.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  On the flip side, it’s common for teachers to time pregnancy so the due date will be (end_of_school_year - maternity_leave_duration) so that they’ll get an “extra” three months leave.
dominotw 6y ago
> if we want the next generation of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, Then we should stop having children and let people from high growth countries immigrate here. I don't see adding more carbon by increasing the planet's population is providing the next generation "healthy childhoods"
- elindbe2 6y ago
  If your goal is carbon reduction, then allowing people to immigrate is almost as bad as people reproducing. Someone coming from Mexico or Vietnam or Nigeria coming here will likely produce way more CO2 than if they remain in their country of origin. Reducing the total western world population should be the goal.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > we should stop having children and let people from high growth countries immigrate here. Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. Why did you ignore first part of the sentence and just address the second part.
    - elindbe2 6y ago
      I didn't ignore it at all. The point is that allowing people to immigrate in place of having children would do very little to reduce carbon output of Western countries. Stopping both would be required.
tathougies 6y ago
> it seems imperative to provide as much assistance as possible to enable that environment. While I agree with this in the short term. In the long term it's actually imperative to make sure that every adult has the potential to provide this environment based on their own earnings, not to focus solely on providing assistance, which -- while a reasonable and indeed morally imperative short-term arrangement -- does not make society grow.
- pm90 6y ago
  > to make sure that every adult has the potential to provide this environment based on their own earnings The idea that the only value adults provide is by what they get paid in money is a deeply flawed idea; as is the desire to make everyone self-sufficient irrespective of their profession. We have the ability to provide healthcare to everyone and we should be doing so; healthcare and childcare benefits should be a right not a privilege. Some people are lucky enough to work in organizations that provide generous parental benefits; most are not that lucky. We can't leave them out in the dust just because of circumstance.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    > healthcare and childcare benefits should be a right not a privilege. Sure... when no human needs to be paid to provide these things, then they should certainly be a right. Fortunately, right now, you can't compel another human to take care of your health or your child without paying them. > The idea that the only value adults provide is by what they get paid in money is a deeply flawed idea; Money is a measure of how indebted someone is to you. That is all. To be 'paid in money' absolutely gives a good impression of the value you provide. When you do something for your neighbor without exchanging cash, you are still making money, because someone -- usually through social conditioning -- now owes someone to you. Woke people call this community building; accountants call it good will, and it absolutely has a monetary value, whether you determine it or not.
foogazi 6y ago
> 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 Define happy Also what does “as much assistance as possible” mean? This sounds like a feel-good vague statement Ultimately you are asking people to provide more than what parents are willing to do for their kids I live in a state that provides free lunch for school kids There are people in my community that can’t even provide lunch for their kids school Are those parents doing “as much as possible”?

by pm90 6y ago

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"
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  There is no abuse involved. You employ a young woman, and in a year she gives birth and is out for a year or two. Nothing wrong with that, and many businesses with large employee turnover won’t care, but other businesses, especially small ones, which require significant training for company-specific processes, or which have small pool of candidates, will be very unhappy about the fact that now they have to find and train a temporary replacement.
  - learc83 6y ago
    We already have a very similar situation with respect to hiring military reservists. It seems like we could use that data to see if there's really a big enough problem to worry about. Anecdotally, I've never met someone in the reserves who had a hard time finding a job.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      Do the military reservists have to disclose to potential employers that they are reservists? How often the reservists actually called for service? This is an interesting point, and I'm asking because I have no clue about the realities the military reservists face.
      - learc83 6y ago
        There's no requirement to disclose during an interview, but most people I know depended on their time in the reserves/active duty pretty heavily on their resume, so I'd guess it was pretty rare for an employer to not know or at least suspect. Also they have have leave to train for 2 weeks per year, so the employer would need to know at some point. As for chances of being deployed, in the last decade it was probably a good bit higher than the chance that a reproductive age woman gets pregnant for a given time period. They can also end up deployed for longer than most countries paid maternity leave lasts.
        xyzzyz 6y ago
        And I take it that when they are deployed, their employers are in some way required to guarantee them employment when they return?
- bediger4000 6y ago
  > But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Because employers, at least in the USA, believe they have a right to nearly of their employees' time on or off the clock, and a right to exert some control over their employees' personal lives and even political choices. Enjoyment of this control is part of why people become employers or managers.
mapgrep 6y ago
A great example of why not just maternity leave (per the link) but parental leave broadly is a good idea. And why both parents need to take it. Otherwise it will be used by some as an excuse to discriminate against birth parents. Of course there are many other benefits to both parents taking leave, including that studies have shown that non birth parents who take leave tend to be more involved in parenting long term. Also, it’s hugely rewarding emotionally!
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > And why both parents need to take it I think this is key to addressing discrimination (simply making discrimination illegal is insufficient because discrimination is so difficult to prove); however, getting both genders to take it in roughly equal proportion is probably nearly as difficult, at least apart from mandatory leave, which would be authoritarian and awful. EDIT: Genuinely curious: why the downvotes? Do people not believe that taking leave in equal proportions is necessary to combat discrimination? Or do they think that it is easy to make people do this ethically? Surely no one thinks we should force people to take leave against their will?
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    You don’t support forcing men to take paternity leave. Many people do. That’s why you’re being downvoted.
    - gknoy 6y ago
      People support _forcing_ parents to take {ma,pa}ternity leave? I am skeptical, as this is a position I have never ever heard of before. As a parent, I can see why one could advocate for equal (+generous) paid parental leave (disclaimer: I support that idea), but I've never heard (nor would I understand) the idea that one should be forced to _take_ such leave.
      - barry-cotter 6y ago
        If you’ve just given birth do you want women like Sheryl Sandberg to be allowed, who take three days or a week off and then are back at the office? Or do you want everyone to compete on a more level playing field, where everyone must take three months off? Because those for whom family comes second to work will get promoted faster anyway but if you let them work even more the advantages just compound. For an example of the Harrison Bergeron attitude see https://twitter.com/hoovergreen/status/1258070856745529344?s=21 https://twitter.com/hoovergreen/status/1258070856745529344?s... https://twitter.com/r_rusha/status/1258496895824957440?s=21 https://twitter.com/r_rusha/status/1258496895824957440?s=21 https://twitter.com/extendedhuckel/status/1258065461951918080?s=21 https://twitter.com/extendedhuckel/status/125806546195191808... https://twitter.com/kmpjones/status/1258214473757794305?s=21 https://twitter.com/kmpjones/status/1258214473757794305?s=21
klipt 6y ago
Which is why maternity leave without similar paternity leave is a bad idea. But apparently whoever wrote this article didn't think things through that far.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I'm all for paid paternity leave, but I've also heard that it does relatively little because men are much less likely to use it, and when they use it they use less of it.
  - klipt 6y ago
    Some countries have had good results from making it mandatory.
    - foogazi 6y ago
      Are there countries that force people to take leave with their children?
    - manfredo 6y ago
      I am not aware of any country that has mandatory paternity leave. Do you have an example of this?
      - CJefferson 6y ago
        I wonder if the grandparent meant "non-transferable" -- some countrirs have a shared pot (and then women often take all the pot), other countries enforce some amount of the pot to each parent. You do not have to take it as the man, but you lose it if you don't.
jayd16 6y ago
A useful equalizer is to give paternal leave as well.
foogazi 6y ago
What is the barbaric alternative?
- syshum 6y ago
  Personal Responsibility... That is barbaric these days

thefz 6y ago

I live in a country with paid maternal leave and paid paternal leave up to an extent. I've always been in favor of it but since I have joined the workforce I'm kinda on the fence if not against it. The amount of people exploiting it is enormous (at least where I live). I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100%. Others getting pregnancy leave while planning to resign the day they have to come back to work, sucking up all that their employer has to give and then leaving him. Employer bias exists for a reason, and it is precisely the existence of this behavior. The ways in which a system like this can be exploited, in my opinion, are countless and far outweigh the benefits. And since maternal leave is paid for with tax money, I as a taxpayer, am against use of public money to fund private activities. If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning, it is not my problem to solve.

mc32 6y ago
There is a benefit to society replenishing its population and a benefit to the individual not to have to think about income loss or worry about their work status upon return. Perhaps it would make sense to have policies like when your employer sends you off for schooling, you are expected to stay for x-months and if not you owe them. So a guy goes on paternity leave, resigns after coming back, he owes the co. some amount discouraging this practice? If the move is worth it, then they would afford the penalty. Kind of like withdrawing from retirement before maturity.
- thefz 6y ago
  I wish some policies like this would exist, but sadly in a country of heavy catholic descent, it all falls under the "life is sacred" umbrella.
- zanny 6y ago
  I'd strongly argue you want to deplete reserves of foreign immigrants that want to come fill in any population deficit you have before you start subsidizing reproduction. Humanity as a whole is still growing, that population growth is largely limited to poorer nations, and as such it just doesn't make financial sense for nations to be paying people to have kids (and bear the associated stresses, complications, and expenses from having often full time laborers also burdened with trying to raise a family) when there are billions in poverty that immigration could uplift. It also has historical context. Colonization around the world happened on the back of permissive immigration - when early America needed labor it didn't pay every family to have more kids, it brought the poor over from Europe with the promise of opportunity. And while the investments needed to make a worker productive are much higher today than back then it applies to both a natural born or immigrant citizen all the same. A lot of it is cultural though. The unrealistic expectations heaped on most western working class peoples to both have a successful career and somehow produce a well adjusted functional progeny feels to me like the same kind of fantastical unrealism of the titular American Dream - where everyone could have two cars and a separated house anywhere, drive everywhere, and that scaling that up to hundreds of millions was both practical and optimal. In practice, no, very few members of the working poor are skilled in parenting enough to somehow magically balance 40 hours a week between two parents on subsistence income with raising children effectively. Perpetuating that lie causes real harm to everyone involved. Its the same kind of doublethink that keeps global warming off the agenda as a legitimate threat - the need to protect culturally established norms even if they cause real harm to perpetuate.

koheripbal 6y ago

I can tell you that discrimination against women of common child-bearing ages for lower-income jobs is still common in countries where full benefits exist. In Canada, companies refuse to hire women in certain positions because the maternity leave is 1-2 years, and the disruption of having to train and then replace someone can be painful. As an anecdote, my last company had 3 accountants in 3 years because each one would come in, work for a year, and then take 2 year maternity. It became impossible to handle the stability for a complex position like that. They ultimately refused to hire women, and the man in that job has now been there 5 years.

thatcat 6y ago
Wouldn't the first ones maternity be over by the time the second one took maternity?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Yes, but often they simply decide not to return to work at all.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Why not?
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      It's pretty common for women to decide to become a full time stay at home mom after having a kid. But naturally, you would use up all of your maternity leave before making that final decision.
  - godelski 6y ago
    That sounds like an additional variable that's part of a coupled system.
pyuser583 6y ago
On the flip side, it’s common for teachers to time pregnancy so the due date will be (end_of_school_year - maternity_leave_duration) so that they’ll get an “extra” three months leave.

dominotw 6y ago

> if we want the next generation of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, Then we should stop having children and let people from high growth countries immigrate here. I don't see adding more carbon by increasing the planet's population is providing the next generation "healthy childhoods"

elindbe2 6y ago
If your goal is carbon reduction, then allowing people to immigrate is almost as bad as people reproducing. Someone coming from Mexico or Vietnam or Nigeria coming here will likely produce way more CO2 than if they remain in their country of origin. Reducing the total western world population should be the goal.
- dominotw 6y ago
  > we should stop having children and let people from high growth countries immigrate here. Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. Why did you ignore first part of the sentence and just address the second part.
  - elindbe2 6y ago
    I didn't ignore it at all. The point is that allowing people to immigrate in place of having children would do very little to reduce carbon output of Western countries. Stopping both would be required.

tathougies 6y ago

> it seems imperative to provide as much assistance as possible to enable that environment. While I agree with this in the short term. In the long term it's actually imperative to make sure that every adult has the potential to provide this environment based on their own earnings, not to focus solely on providing assistance, which -- while a reasonable and indeed morally imperative short-term arrangement -- does not make society grow.

pm90 6y ago
> to make sure that every adult has the potential to provide this environment based on their own earnings The idea that the only value adults provide is by what they get paid in money is a deeply flawed idea; as is the desire to make everyone self-sufficient irrespective of their profession. We have the ability to provide healthcare to everyone and we should be doing so; healthcare and childcare benefits should be a right not a privilege. Some people are lucky enough to work in organizations that provide generous parental benefits; most are not that lucky. We can't leave them out in the dust just because of circumstance.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > healthcare and childcare benefits should be a right not a privilege. Sure... when no human needs to be paid to provide these things, then they should certainly be a right. Fortunately, right now, you can't compel another human to take care of your health or your child without paying them. > The idea that the only value adults provide is by what they get paid in money is a deeply flawed idea; Money is a measure of how indebted someone is to you. That is all. To be 'paid in money' absolutely gives a good impression of the value you provide. When you do something for your neighbor without exchanging cash, you are still making money, because someone -- usually through social conditioning -- now owes someone to you. Woke people call this community building; accountants call it good will, and it absolutely has a monetary value, whether you determine it or not.

foogazi 6y ago

> 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 Define happy Also what does “as much assistance as possible” mean? This sounds like a feel-good vague statement Ultimately you are asking people to provide more than what parents are willing to do for their kids I live in a state that provides free lunch for school kids There are people in my community that can’t even provide lunch for their kids school Are those parents doing “as much as possible”?