3 ms·

It may have escaped games developers attention whilst rushing between deadlines, but the human race wasn't just beamed down like something out of star trek. Wo

by motters 17y ago

It may have escaped games developers attention whilst rushing between deadlines, but the human race wasn't just beamed down like something out of star trek. Women occasionally give birth to...shock!...new humans. New games developers even. It's just a reality today that many parents are single, so maternity benefits are essential if you don't want to cause harm to children at an age when they're especially vulnerable. Any business which can't deal with the realities of modern human civilization isn't really a viable business, in my opinion. I agree that maternity and paternity benefits should be equalised, so that the costs of employing a man or a woman become similar. These days it's not only women who choose to stay home to raise young children.

eru 17y ago
You may want to have a look at the Swedish sitiuation.
Tichy 17y ago
"so maternity benefits are essential if you don't want to cause harm to children at an age when they're especially vulnerable." But why is that the problem of the company? It is a problem of society, and of the parents. Putting the burden on companies is just exploitation.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  The reason it is societies problem, is because society doesn't want to pay higher taxes so the government forces the burden on to companies who can feel free to lower its employees wages across the board to cover maternity and sick leave expenses. I know in France parental leave is paid primarily through social insurance (IE the government) because the French have little problem in paying for services they want. The US is not the world, please do not base your judgements of the way parental leave works on the way it works in the US.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "who can feel free to lower its employees wages across the board" Companies can not just arbitrarily lower wages, it is a market. I think in Germany the state pays money for maternity leave, too, but there are still other laws that burden the companies, like having to keep the job open. Not sure if it is so perfect in France?
jerf 17y ago
Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them. Turning companies into charities is a terrible idea, because it is companies who are the ones who fund the charities, in the end. Forcing them to become charities leads to the effects described in the article, where a company is more reluctant to hire a woman in the first place due to the potential expenses they may end up with. Something has to be generating wealth, if you want to spread the wealth around; be very careful about directly fiddling around with companies. You can't necessarily let them do whatever they want, either... I'm saying, be careful. Some people reach for simplistic regulations almost by instinct, but you really need to be careful here, because if you don't consider second-order effects, your simple answers will end up hurting, not helping. Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire. It's a hard problem. I don't have a solution to offer. I just know some of the solutions being offered are bad ones. Showering people with benefits is fine and dandy as long as you only consider the first-order effects, but reality doesn't stop there.
- ewjordan 17y ago
  Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them. These are people that have already produced significant value for a company, so the notion that this is "charity" is really pushing it. Given that many countries are having serious economic problems because of low birth rates, there is a strong need to encourage people to have children; ensuring that they don't go broke and lose their jobs as a result of having kids and properly taking care of them is not a knee jerk reaction, it has a very important economic function. Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire. ...and the market should correct for this by reducing wages by exactly the amount necessary to cover the lost productivity. While we're on the topic of higher order effects: removing these benefits from women would cause an increase in wages, as well as a disincentive to have children. That disincentive to have children has a real economic cost, and I'm not seeing any effects that would tend to offset that. I would question whether this is really a knee-jerk reaction - to me, it seems to have many of the qualities of useful government intervention, in that nobody would be likely to offer it on their own, but it has positive value to the overall economy if everyone does it (in other words, the second order population growth benefits are spread throughout the country, so there's no direct incentive for an individual company to do their part to spend money to cause them, a typical prisoner's dilemma situation).
jacoblyles 17y ago
Three years seems a bit extreme. But then again, I'm not European.

by motters 17y ago

eru 17y ago

You may want to have a look at the Swedish sitiuation.

Tichy 17y ago

"so maternity benefits are essential if you don't want to cause harm to children at an age when they're especially vulnerable." But why is that the problem of the company? It is a problem of society, and of the parents. Putting the burden on companies is just exploitation.

electromagnetic 17y ago
The reason it is societies problem, is because society doesn't want to pay higher taxes so the government forces the burden on to companies who can feel free to lower its employees wages across the board to cover maternity and sick leave expenses. I know in France parental leave is paid primarily through social insurance (IE the government) because the French have little problem in paying for services they want. The US is not the world, please do not base your judgements of the way parental leave works on the way it works in the US.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "who can feel free to lower its employees wages across the board" Companies can not just arbitrarily lower wages, it is a market. I think in Germany the state pays money for maternity leave, too, but there are still other laws that burden the companies, like having to keep the job open. Not sure if it is so perfect in France?

jerf 17y ago

Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them. Turning companies into charities is a terrible idea, because it is companies who are the ones who fund the charities, in the end. Forcing them to become charities leads to the effects described in the article, where a company is more reluctant to hire a woman in the first place due to the potential expenses they may end up with. Something has to be generating wealth, if you want to spread the wealth around; be very careful about directly fiddling around with companies. You can't necessarily let them do whatever they want, either... I'm saying, be careful. Some people reach for simplistic regulations almost by instinct, but you really need to be careful here, because if you don't consider second-order effects, your simple answers will end up hurting, not helping. Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire. It's a hard problem. I don't have a solution to offer. I just know some of the solutions being offered are bad ones. Showering people with benefits is fine and dandy as long as you only consider the first-order effects, but reality doesn't stop there.

ewjordan 17y ago
Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them. These are people that have already produced significant value for a company, so the notion that this is "charity" is really pushing it. Given that many countries are having serious economic problems because of low birth rates, there is a strong need to encourage people to have children; ensuring that they don't go broke and lose their jobs as a result of having kids and properly taking care of them is not a knee jerk reaction, it has a very important economic function. Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire. ...and the market should correct for this by reducing wages by exactly the amount necessary to cover the lost productivity. While we're on the topic of higher order effects: removing these benefits from women would cause an increase in wages, as well as a disincentive to have children. That disincentive to have children has a real economic cost, and I'm not seeing any effects that would tend to offset that. I would question whether this is really a knee-jerk reaction - to me, it seems to have many of the qualities of useful government intervention, in that nobody would be likely to offer it on their own, but it has positive value to the overall economy if everyone does it (in other words, the second order population growth benefits are spread throughout the country, so there's no direct incentive for an individual company to do their part to spend money to cause them, a typical prisoner's dilemma situation).

jacoblyles 17y ago

Three years seems a bit extreme. But then again, I'm not European.