7 ms·

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

by 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.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Most advanced economies are experiencing internal ZPG. Many are unused to lots of foreigners coming in. Many are relatively overpopulated. It would also dilute local culture and for small countries it would certainly overwhelm the local culture. On the other hand they need to remain a “going culture”, i.e. not dying out. Korea’s pop nosedive should not be seen as the antidote for badly planned demographics elsewhere. Sure, if they want to that’s okay but they certainly aren’t obliged to. Let’s imagine what would happen to Bhutan if they opened their doors to their neighbors.
  - victorhooi 6y ago
    If you follow your logic through to completion, you will see it leads to multiple issues. I'm not saying that immigration is bad. However, having a country advocate zero childbirths - and trying to keep population up entirely foreign migration is a recipe for disaster.
    - zanny 6y ago
      Its not about advocating for. That would be paying people to not reproduce, which is another perverse incentive. Presently a relatively small fraction of western populaces can afford children without assistance. Trying to artificially prop up birthrates is putting a bandaid on a gushing wound of wealth inequality. If productive gains weren't being realized by capital to such an absurd degree more people would be able to afford doing zero-revenue labor like raising children for longer periods of time.
      - victorhooi 6y ago
        What you described is a Ponzi scheme. In Australia, we call it the population (or migration) Ponzi. Another way to look at it is - you're essentially borrowing from your future generations, in order to fund your current lifestyle. Those future generations are going to be the ones looking after you in your old age (through being taxpayers to provide services - or in some cultures maybe even literally being the ones to house/care for your), and also because that's how your culture/society continues. Society/culture is more than just a input/output machine that eats, s*hits and sleeps. I don't particularly like the arts, but I understand that as a whole, our government funds things like that for the betterment of society. I am fortunate I don't have any major disabilities - but if I did, I know my society looks after those less fortunate (or I hope they do).
pm90 6y ago
You are entitled to your opinion. Be aware that it’s only an opinion, though. The only way to objectively talk about benefits of policies is by using research and studies, not relying on anecdotal incidences of “waste”. Despite people “exploiting” the system as you say, over the entire population it provides more benefits to society than it costs.
- thefz 6y ago
  I noticed that usually Americans are in favor of family planning and family support policies like these. And I, as an European, have seen the dark side of it and am becoming a bit wary of flat out, all trust social policies like these. "who cares, in the long run the benefits will outweigh the costs". Not my opinion. I might be wrong, though.
  - economicslol 6y ago
    I have seen Europeans spit on people in my country and treat them badly. I as an American have seen it and have become wary of trusting Europeans. I saw it with my own eyes so therefore all Europeans are bad. I might be wrong, but let's be honest I don't actually think I am, my anecdotes are better than your data. That's you, that's how you think.
    - thefz 6y ago
      Well to be honest from my very first post I state mine to be a personal experience, not raw global scale data followed by any somewhat serious study; and secondly, if you look at this thread almost every other reply is a personal account of some sort. I don't imply to be right, I'm just stating my opinion.
      - economicslol 6y ago
        Well in an argument about Nationwide social policies your opinions and anecdotes are perfectly irrelevant and useless.
  - 6y ago
blueboo 6y ago
> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100% Your "exploit" is another's due compensation. You might examine where precisely your resentment comes from.
inetknght 6y ago
> 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. I have a lot of trouble believing that people would time their pregnancies specifically to screw over their employer. That's so outrageous to me that it casts a lot of doubt, in my mind, to your entire reply. Of course: if any business has poor relationships with their employees, it is not my problem to solve.
- tome 6y ago
  thefz didn't say they timed pregnancies to screw over their employer but to maximize time off work.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > 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. I think you're being pedantic; the entire tone of @thefz's comment is that employees time their pregnancies to maximize time off work and effectively screw over their employer
    - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
      > I think you're being pedantic But I don't think it is pedantic to point out there is a difference between 1. Maximizing your time off work, even if it screws over your employer. and 2. Timing your pregnancy in order to screw over your employer. You're being disingenuous by making it sound like GP is arguing that they are doing it in order to intentionally screw over their employer, when clearly GP is saying they are doing it to maximize their paid leave, which also screws over their employer.
      - gnu8 6y ago
        The premise of 'screwing over their employer' is what is broken here. This is the narcissistic viewpoint of a small business owner who sees dollars already counted as his own going into someone else's pocket. No well managed business is running at such a tight margin that it can't afford to meet its obligations to its employees. The employer is only getting screwed in the sense that the owner can't buy a new boat this year.
rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
>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. But the child's future problem will become yours, then, unless you somehow manage to escape society.
hyko 6y ago
I agree, instead of targeted support for parents we should just give everyone the same basic standard of living so they can choose to support themselves independently if they choose to procreate. Edit: I can understand the notion that some want to maximise their time away from their employer, but the idea that birthing and caring for a baby is time off work is somewhat naive :)
andrepd 6y ago
>If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning I think this is pretty telling of your attitude to the whole thing. In a time where virtually all developed countries face a demographic crisis in the coming decades, where record numbers of young people cite "financial reasons" for not starting a family, you still think that if somebody is poor then the cause is "poor financial planning".
- thefz 6y ago
  Maybe the time has come to flatten the growth curve. Infinite growth in a system of finite resources is unfeasible. Let's face the fact that pronatalist agendas have been pushed by the major religions for centuries in order to better control the population.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Ah, eugenics by wealth. We've seen it before, here it is again.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    The curve has beyond been flattened already. It's nosediving. We're below replacement fertility and falling. I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". And mind, this is coming from someone very much opposed to unrestrained growth capitalism. A proponent of "degrowth" if you will.
    - godelski 6y ago
      I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries[0][1] and didn't state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. there is population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline). [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=US-1W-EU&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=1W-1A-ZG-Z4-IN&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
myspider 6y ago
> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, How on earth can you know that? 'I have seen' - excuse me, but what? Are you going to tell us that you work at a company where people's reproductive plans are common water cooler discussion? Do you work a tech company? I'd find that mind-boggling. 'timing a pregnancy'? Only someone who's never tried to get pregnant could take that seriously.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  My wife and I tried (and succeeded) to get my leave period to overlap with the winter holiday (during which my office is closed). I've had conversations with friends on academic schedules attempting similar things. Obviously, plans often don't survive first contact with reproductive biology, but sometimes they do, like in my case.
- thefz 6y ago
  > 'I have seen' - excuse me, but what? Are you going to tell us that you work at a company where people's reproductive plans are common water cooler discussion? No, but sort of, yes. I have witnessed many cases in which some employees practically disappeared, to the point of having to hire others to substitute them, for years. Timing a pregnancy is not as uncommon as you'd think.
  - myspider 6y ago
    > Timing a pregnancy is not as uncommon as you'd think. I'll take a chance and guess your gender. Timing a pregnancy is not as easy as you think.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      We had no trouble choosing the month of our three boy's birthdays. Your mileage may vary of course.
    - thefz 6y ago
      Oh my god. Are. You. Assuming. My. Gender.
AlexandrB 6y ago
> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100%. I don't get it. This is exactly the kind of thing companies do to optimize their own profits. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Unless you're saying that the kind of ethical framing laissez-faire capitalism encourages is bad for society.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Wait - the whole point of the government program was to assist families. Some families take them up, and suddenly its a problem? "Exploited" and "used for the intended purpose" are not interchangeable phrases. Having children is not some accident nor disease that must be insured against. The purpose of such government programs is not to alleviate misfortune. There seems to be some deep misunderstanding of the issue here.
- thefz 6y ago
  > "Exploited" and "used for the intended purpose" are not interchangeable phrases. Which is, precisely, the issue at hand here.
- spacephysics 6y ago
  I think when mentioning exploitation, this was in relation to the precisely timed pregnancy to gain full benefits, or leaving directly after the benefits period ended. Not necessarily the use of the program, but the “playing the system” aspect.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    ...and you would recommend they choose a worse setup? Don't we all use programs (e.g. buy insurance then go see the dentist) routinely like this?
    - spacephysics 6y ago
      There are numerous differences from a tax-funded maternity program and insurance. (the hope of) free markets determining insurance prices, ability to opt in or out of specific coverage, the source of funding to name a few. The point isn't to trust people not to scam the system (because just like banks have found another way to abuse (now commercial) mortgage backed securities (CMBS)[0], market dynamics can be applied to people finding a way to abuse the system), but to design such a system best we can that gives the benefits to those the program is intended for, and to prevent abuse from malicious actors. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/whistleblower-wall-street-has-engaged-in-widespread-manipulation-of-mortgage-funds https://www.propublica.org/article/whistleblower-wall-street...
surfmike 6y ago
Not sure what country you live in, but’s it pretty hard to game this. You have a fixed number of weeks. And it’s pretty hard to fake having a baby. People should get the same benefits even if they plan to quit after, which would address the issue of people quitting after. If you’re against social insurance as a whole though, then opposition to maternity leave makes sense.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gnud 6y ago
At least where I live, the employer only has to send in tax forms during the parental leave. They don't pay the salary - the state does. So, if your employee quits at the end of their leave, that's probably not a huge issue. They will likely give you plenty of warning, and you can offer the position to the substitute that you had to hire anyway. Of course people are counting months and planning when to have children. That's the whole point! We decided that it should be easier for an average two-income family to have children. That's the reason for the rules.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago
Your two examples are just showing parental leave being used, not abused. The amount of days allotted are still the same. Same goes for people quitting right after: the allotted days are the same, independently of quitting or not. What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. And that overlooks the other side of things too: In the first case, the person might have had some issues with the newborn. My daughter had problems breastfeeding for basically 3 months, is this possibility accounted in the "maximizing time off"? Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Or maybe they want a part time remote job, so they could afford having kids with them at all time, without resorting to child care. Granted that you could make points for parental leave being too long (sure!), that can be balanced by law, but the simple fact that it's used it's not abuse.
- thefz 6y ago
  > What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? See, this is the best example of informative asymmetry. The mother knows she'll be milking every cent out of her employer, and quit on the spot upon returning. He has to, on the other hand, keep on paying for her in the hope she'll come back work, maybe working understaffed because he cannot afford to hire one more or to substitute her. > Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. "having better human beings" especially when having other human beings was not other people's choice, is no one else's responsibility except the parents'. > Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. I don't. She's just acting antisocially. > The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Then do it, just not out of other people's money.
dominotw 6y ago
Yea makes sense to use whatever free time to look for a better paying job, train for interviews ect. Not sure why someone wouldn't do this. I would definitely do that.
tappio 6y ago
The worldview described in the comment and by people who upvote is something that I'm not jealous of. But as this is not a moral lecture about gender equality, how important decent childhood is or whether the society would be better without reproducing, I'd just like to point out one immediate bias/flaw you express: The parents who can abuse parental leave are quite privileged. -Have a reliable partner who wants to have children with you -Have required fertiliry to "time" pregnancy -Work for a stable company (rules out small business owners, self employment...) -Be employed in the first place How many % you think this would represent of the women aged 20-35 in your country? Do you believe that these women will contribute less taxes to the society than society uses on them? Are these tax payers net-negative part of society?
novok 6y ago
Children are a literal economic investment in the future. The taxpayers pay for them so they reap the benefits of their future productive tax revenue when they are old and can't make any more tax revenue themselves anymore. It's the entire cycle of life, or the original retirement plan.
suchire 6y ago
A job is a contract. If you don’t want the contract to be used that way, don’t write it that way. I don’t feel bad towards my employees or coworkers who wait to give notice until shortly after annual bonuses are given out. My previous boss encouraged me to stick out my job another couple weeks until the next stock vesting date. As long as both sides sign the job contract willingly, without a severe imbalance of power, it’s not abuse. It’s business.

by thefz 6y ago

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.
- mc32 6y ago
  Most advanced economies are experiencing internal ZPG. Many are unused to lots of foreigners coming in. Many are relatively overpopulated. It would also dilute local culture and for small countries it would certainly overwhelm the local culture. On the other hand they need to remain a “going culture”, i.e. not dying out. Korea’s pop nosedive should not be seen as the antidote for badly planned demographics elsewhere. Sure, if they want to that’s okay but they certainly aren’t obliged to. Let’s imagine what would happen to Bhutan if they opened their doors to their neighbors.
- victorhooi 6y ago
  If you follow your logic through to completion, you will see it leads to multiple issues. I'm not saying that immigration is bad. However, having a country advocate zero childbirths - and trying to keep population up entirely foreign migration is a recipe for disaster.
  - zanny 6y ago
    Its not about advocating for. That would be paying people to not reproduce, which is another perverse incentive. Presently a relatively small fraction of western populaces can afford children without assistance. Trying to artificially prop up birthrates is putting a bandaid on a gushing wound of wealth inequality. If productive gains weren't being realized by capital to such an absurd degree more people would be able to afford doing zero-revenue labor like raising children for longer periods of time.
    - victorhooi 6y ago
      What you described is a Ponzi scheme. In Australia, we call it the population (or migration) Ponzi. Another way to look at it is - you're essentially borrowing from your future generations, in order to fund your current lifestyle. Those future generations are going to be the ones looking after you in your old age (through being taxpayers to provide services - or in some cultures maybe even literally being the ones to house/care for your), and also because that's how your culture/society continues. Society/culture is more than just a input/output machine that eats, s*hits and sleeps. I don't particularly like the arts, but I understand that as a whole, our government funds things like that for the betterment of society. I am fortunate I don't have any major disabilities - but if I did, I know my society looks after those less fortunate (or I hope they do).

pm90 6y ago

You are entitled to your opinion. Be aware that it’s only an opinion, though. The only way to objectively talk about benefits of policies is by using research and studies, not relying on anecdotal incidences of “waste”. Despite people “exploiting” the system as you say, over the entire population it provides more benefits to society than it costs.

thefz 6y ago
I noticed that usually Americans are in favor of family planning and family support policies like these. And I, as an European, have seen the dark side of it and am becoming a bit wary of flat out, all trust social policies like these. "who cares, in the long run the benefits will outweigh the costs". Not my opinion. I might be wrong, though.
- economicslol 6y ago
  I have seen Europeans spit on people in my country and treat them badly. I as an American have seen it and have become wary of trusting Europeans. I saw it with my own eyes so therefore all Europeans are bad. I might be wrong, but let's be honest I don't actually think I am, my anecdotes are better than your data. That's you, that's how you think.
  - thefz 6y ago
    Well to be honest from my very first post I state mine to be a personal experience, not raw global scale data followed by any somewhat serious study; and secondly, if you look at this thread almost every other reply is a personal account of some sort. I don't imply to be right, I'm just stating my opinion.
    - economicslol 6y ago
      Well in an argument about Nationwide social policies your opinions and anecdotes are perfectly irrelevant and useless.
- 6y ago

blueboo 6y ago

> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100% Your "exploit" is another's due compensation. You might examine where precisely your resentment comes from.

inetknght 6y ago

> 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. I have a lot of trouble believing that people would time their pregnancies specifically to screw over their employer. That's so outrageous to me that it casts a lot of doubt, in my mind, to your entire reply. Of course: if any business has poor relationships with their employees, it is not my problem to solve.

tome 6y ago
thefz didn't say they timed pregnancies to screw over their employer but to maximize time off work.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > 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. I think you're being pedantic; the entire tone of @thefz's comment is that employees time their pregnancies to maximize time off work and effectively screw over their employer
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    > I think you're being pedantic But I don't think it is pedantic to point out there is a difference between 1. Maximizing your time off work, even if it screws over your employer. and 2. Timing your pregnancy in order to screw over your employer. You're being disingenuous by making it sound like GP is arguing that they are doing it in order to intentionally screw over their employer, when clearly GP is saying they are doing it to maximize their paid leave, which also screws over their employer.
    - gnu8 6y ago
      The premise of 'screwing over their employer' is what is broken here. This is the narcissistic viewpoint of a small business owner who sees dollars already counted as his own going into someone else's pocket. No well managed business is running at such a tight margin that it can't afford to meet its obligations to its employees. The employer is only getting screwed in the sense that the owner can't buy a new boat this year.

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago

>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. But the child's future problem will become yours, then, unless you somehow manage to escape society.

hyko 6y ago

I agree, instead of targeted support for parents we should just give everyone the same basic standard of living so they can choose to support themselves independently if they choose to procreate. Edit: I can understand the notion that some want to maximise their time away from their employer, but the idea that birthing and caring for a baby is time off work is somewhat naive :)

andrepd 6y ago

>If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning I think this is pretty telling of your attitude to the whole thing. In a time where virtually all developed countries face a demographic crisis in the coming decades, where record numbers of young people cite "financial reasons" for not starting a family, you still think that if somebody is poor then the cause is "poor financial planning".

thefz 6y ago
Maybe the time has come to flatten the growth curve. Infinite growth in a system of finite resources is unfeasible. Let's face the fact that pronatalist agendas have been pushed by the major religions for centuries in order to better control the population.
- grumple 6y ago
  Ah, eugenics by wealth. We've seen it before, here it is again.
- andrepd 6y ago
  The curve has beyond been flattened already. It's nosediving. We're below replacement fertility and falling. I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". And mind, this is coming from someone very much opposed to unrestrained growth capitalism. A proponent of "degrowth" if you will.
  - godelski 6y ago
    I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries[0][1] and didn't state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. there is population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline). [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=US-1W-EU&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=1W-1A-ZG-Z4-IN&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...

myspider 6y ago

> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, How on earth can you know that? 'I have seen' - excuse me, but what? Are you going to tell us that you work at a company where people's reproductive plans are common water cooler discussion? Do you work a tech company? I'd find that mind-boggling. 'timing a pregnancy'? Only someone who's never tried to get pregnant could take that seriously.

neutronicus 6y ago
My wife and I tried (and succeeded) to get my leave period to overlap with the winter holiday (during which my office is closed). I've had conversations with friends on academic schedules attempting similar things. Obviously, plans often don't survive first contact with reproductive biology, but sometimes they do, like in my case.
thefz 6y ago
> 'I have seen' - excuse me, but what? Are you going to tell us that you work at a company where people's reproductive plans are common water cooler discussion? No, but sort of, yes. I have witnessed many cases in which some employees practically disappeared, to the point of having to hire others to substitute them, for years. Timing a pregnancy is not as uncommon as you'd think.
- myspider 6y ago
  > Timing a pregnancy is not as uncommon as you'd think. I'll take a chance and guess your gender. Timing a pregnancy is not as easy as you think.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    We had no trouble choosing the month of our three boy's birthdays. Your mileage may vary of course.
  - thefz 6y ago
    Oh my god. Are. You. Assuming. My. Gender.

AlexandrB 6y ago

> I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100%. I don't get it. This is exactly the kind of thing companies do to optimize their own profits. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Unless you're saying that the kind of ethical framing laissez-faire capitalism encourages is bad for society.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Wait - the whole point of the government program was to assist families. Some families take them up, and suddenly its a problem? "Exploited" and "used for the intended purpose" are not interchangeable phrases. Having children is not some accident nor disease that must be insured against. The purpose of such government programs is not to alleviate misfortune. There seems to be some deep misunderstanding of the issue here.

thefz 6y ago
> "Exploited" and "used for the intended purpose" are not interchangeable phrases. Which is, precisely, the issue at hand here.
spacephysics 6y ago
I think when mentioning exploitation, this was in relation to the precisely timed pregnancy to gain full benefits, or leaving directly after the benefits period ended. Not necessarily the use of the program, but the “playing the system” aspect.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  ...and you would recommend they choose a worse setup? Don't we all use programs (e.g. buy insurance then go see the dentist) routinely like this?
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    There are numerous differences from a tax-funded maternity program and insurance. (the hope of) free markets determining insurance prices, ability to opt in or out of specific coverage, the source of funding to name a few. The point isn't to trust people not to scam the system (because just like banks have found another way to abuse (now commercial) mortgage backed securities (CMBS)[0], market dynamics can be applied to people finding a way to abuse the system), but to design such a system best we can that gives the benefits to those the program is intended for, and to prevent abuse from malicious actors. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/whistleblower-wall-street-has-engaged-in-widespread-manipulation-of-mortgage-funds https://www.propublica.org/article/whistleblower-wall-street...

surfmike 6y ago

Not sure what country you live in, but’s it pretty hard to game this. You have a fixed number of weeks. And it’s pretty hard to fake having a baby. People should get the same benefits even if they plan to quit after, which would address the issue of people quitting after. If you’re against social insurance as a whole though, then opposition to maternity leave makes sense.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gnud 6y ago

At least where I live, the employer only has to send in tax forms during the parental leave. They don't pay the salary - the state does. So, if your employee quits at the end of their leave, that's probably not a huge issue. They will likely give you plenty of warning, and you can offer the position to the substitute that you had to hire anyway. Of course people are counting months and planning when to have children. That's the whole point! We decided that it should be easier for an average two-income family to have children. That's the reason for the rules.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago

Your two examples are just showing parental leave being used, not abused. The amount of days allotted are still the same. Same goes for people quitting right after: the allotted days are the same, independently of quitting or not. What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. And that overlooks the other side of things too: In the first case, the person might have had some issues with the newborn. My daughter had problems breastfeeding for basically 3 months, is this possibility accounted in the "maximizing time off"? Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Or maybe they want a part time remote job, so they could afford having kids with them at all time, without resorting to child care. Granted that you could make points for parental leave being too long (sure!), that can be balanced by law, but the simple fact that it's used it's not abuse.

thefz 6y ago
> What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? See, this is the best example of informative asymmetry. The mother knows she'll be milking every cent out of her employer, and quit on the spot upon returning. He has to, on the other hand, keep on paying for her in the hope she'll come back work, maybe working understaffed because he cannot afford to hire one more or to substitute her. > Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. "having better human beings" especially when having other human beings was not other people's choice, is no one else's responsibility except the parents'. > Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. I don't. She's just acting antisocially. > The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Then do it, just not out of other people's money.

dominotw 6y ago

Yea makes sense to use whatever free time to look for a better paying job, train for interviews ect. Not sure why someone wouldn't do this. I would definitely do that.

tappio 6y ago

The worldview described in the comment and by people who upvote is something that I'm not jealous of. But as this is not a moral lecture about gender equality, how important decent childhood is or whether the society would be better without reproducing, I'd just like to point out one immediate bias/flaw you express: The parents who can abuse parental leave are quite privileged. -Have a reliable partner who wants to have children with you -Have required fertiliry to "time" pregnancy -Work for a stable company (rules out small business owners, self employment...) -Be employed in the first place How many % you think this would represent of the women aged 20-35 in your country? Do you believe that these women will contribute less taxes to the society than society uses on them? Are these tax payers net-negative part of society?

novok 6y ago

Children are a literal economic investment in the future. The taxpayers pay for them so they reap the benefits of their future productive tax revenue when they are old and can't make any more tax revenue themselves anymore. It's the entire cycle of life, or the original retirement plan.

suchire 6y ago

A job is a contract. If you don’t want the contract to be used that way, don’t write it that way. I don’t feel bad towards my employees or coworkers who wait to give notice until shortly after annual bonuses are given out. My previous boss encouraged me to stick out my job another couple weeks until the next stock vesting date. As long as both sides sign the job contract willingly, without a severe imbalance of power, it’s not abuse. It’s business.