Maternity leave: Is it really necessary?

[woody60707]

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

 

[Old Hippy]

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

now your asking the impossible....
maybe you should ask someone from California

 

[bathsheba666]

Just like with most labor matters in the US.

I worked at a Union Carbide-owned company where it was a firing offense to even utter the word "union".

How about sending out letters on company notepaper ?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

Ah yes, the old "not with my tax dollars!" argument. The same argument, incidentally, that's successfully caused our fire and police departments to be underfunded, a rather alarming percent of the deficits you keep hearing about, education that fails at everything it's supposed to do because it just can't get money from those "hardworking taxpayers", et cetera.

Just saying.

 

[downtown]

I imagine the firm would pay for it, and the increased HR costs would either be passed down in the form of higher prices, or marginally lower compensation. Society would benefit by allowing more talented female workers to remain in the workforce, or compete for job positions they wouldn't normally go after.

I'd support that trade off.

 

[Aroddo]

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

oh, that's easy. just tell them it's socialism and they'll be happier for it.

 

[JollyRoger]

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

The business because they should not treat you mom or sister or daughter so shabbily.

 

[luiz]

I imagine the firm would pay for it, and the increased HR costs would either be passed down in the form of higher prices, or marginally lower compensation. Society would benefit by allowing more talented female workers to remain in the workforce, or compete for job positions they wouldn't normally go after.

I'd support that trade off.

The result of course would be for young females to be less attractive employees than young males, and for females that do not want to have kids paying the price for those that do. Why would you hire a young female for the same amount as a young male when you might be forced to pay her for months which she does not work?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The result of course would be for young females to be less attractive employees than young males, and for females that do not want to have kids paying the price for those that do. Why would you hire a young female for the same amount as a young male when you might be forced to pay her for months which she does not work?

The solution of course is to give males paid paternity leave as well. That way, they both look equally attractive to corporations.

 

[Aroddo]

The solution of course is to give males paid paternity leave as well. That way, they both look equally attractive to corporations.

Which is what some countries do.

But the state striving to make the country a better place to live in has apparently become an anathema to conservatives.

 

[downtown]

The result of course would be for young females to be less attractive employees than young males, and for females that do not want to have kids paying the price for those that do. Why would you hire a young female for the same amount as a young male when you might be forced to pay her for months which she does not work?

This is already the case. Even if you don't pay maternity leave, the costs of childbirth are added into your company medical insurance plan (in the US anyway, since we don't have a govt healthcare system). Besides, even with unpaid leave, you still have a loss of productivity with female employees that you won't get with males.

 

[luiz]

The solution of course is to give males paid paternity leave as well. That way, they both look equally attractive to corporations.

Yeah, creating a flexible system of maternity/paternity leaves as they do IIRC in some Scandinavian countries would actually help decreasing gender inequality. Which of course would still exist, as downtown mentions below.

It would still represent however a net subsidy of people who have kids by people who don't have kids. It can be argued that it is fair and desirable, but it's important to look at things as they are. There's no free lunch.

This is already the case. Even if you don't pay maternity leave, the costs of childbirth are added into your company medical insurance plan (in the US anyway, since we don't have a govt healthcare system). Besides, even with unpaid leave, you still have a loss of productivity with female employees that you won't get with males.

Some costs are added, which do indeed make women less attractive candidates even without paid maternity leave. But it should be obvious that any extra benefit mandated by law towards women would make them even less attractive candidates, thus widening pay disparity and unemployment. And further screwing the women who don't want kids, as they would still "pay" the price.

 

[Old Hippy]

It would still represent however a net subsidy of people who have kids by people who don't have kids. It can be argued that it is fair and desirable, but it's important to look at things as they are. There's no free lunch.



Some costs are added, which do indeed make women less attractive candidates even without paid maternity leave. But it should be obvious that any extra benefit mandated by law towards women would make them even less attractive candidates, thus widening pay disparity and unemployment. And further screwing the women who don't want kids, as they would still "pay" the price.

you would have to vote for a poltical party that dose not endorse family values, and here is the hard part ... win an election...
or your stuck with having to pay for child care, education, health care, childrens courts, and a host of other child related costs all subsidised by people who don't have childen... even Margrete Thatcher who might agree with your point... still said the family is the basic unit of society... so in reality even some of the most right wing eccomonists should still see a net benifit to family friendly policies

or you can get over all this rubbish about how giving benifits to some women actually is not in womens interest... by making the benifits "State" benifits and just carry on with free hand outs to corporations ... seems to be what happens in most countries

then its only a matter of deciding whether US corporations that do pay maternity leave without state laws ....are solicialist or not....

a far simpler question

 

[LucyDuke]

Maternity leave isn't socialist.

 

[peter grimes]

It would still represent however a net subsidy of people who have kids by people who don't have kids. It can be argued that it is fair and desirable, but it's important to look at things as they are. There's no free lunch.

Exactly. There's no free lunch. Just because you choose not to raise children doesn't imply you should not bear a fraction of the costs associated with raising the next generation of society - the very same people who will finance your standard of living when you're infirm

So explain to the avg US minded person as to who is going to pay for all this? And then why should they.

I think it's pretty clear: If we assume that 50% the labor force (35M) is female (likely overstating the case), and also assume that in any given year 6% of that female labor force will be unable to work due to pregnancy and early childhood responsibilities, then we're left with 2.1M women/men not ready willing and able to work per year-child.

Either we make all businesses pay both male and female employees equally for parental leave (thus negating any possible gender bias in hiring while preserving level playing field across businesses and industries), or we institutionalize parental care. If we institutionalize it this would add $10.5B to federal outlays (assuming a compensation level of 50k/year, for 1 year, per family, per 1 child).

To put that number in context, this is about equal towhat the Departemnt of Defense spent just on housing since 2008. It's not like this is a crazy expensive scheme, just to get in ahead of the "no taxes evarr" crowd here

As for why? Well, let's look at some data!

http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0107_1015_1702.pdf
"We study the impact of an expansion of maternity leave mandates from 6 months to 12 months on the health and development of children. Our advantage relative to previous research lies in a compelling policy episode which improves the causal nature of inferences and a detailed data source which allows the investigation of more subtle health and development indicators. We estimate a substantial impact on time at home for mothers, but only limited impact on breast feeding and measures of infant health. On child development, we estimate a strong impact on the age at which milestones such as feeding and speaking are reached, as well as some indicators of an improved parental environment,"


http://www.nber.org/papers/w6554
"More generous leave rights are found to reduce deaths of infants and young children. The magnitudes of the estimated effects are substantial, especially for those outcomes where a causal effect of parental leave is most plausible. In particular, there is a much stronger negative relationship between leave durations and post-neonatal mortality or fatalities between the first and fifth birthday than for perinatal mortality, neonatal deaths, or the incidence of low birth weight. The evidence further suggests that parental leave may be a cost-effective method of bettering child health."


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00971.x/abstract
"Considerable associations between early returns to work and children's outcomes are found suggesting causal relationships between early returns to work and reductions in breastfeeding and immunisations, as well as increases in externalising behaviour problems. These results are generally stronger for mothers who return to work full-time within 12 weeks of giving birth."

I have yet to come across anything that suggests the there are negative impacts on the family incurred from taking several months of parental leave.

[rant]
This is, to be quite honest, something the pro-family Repurblican base should be all over. The fact that they're not speaks volumes about where Repurblican loyalties truly lie:
-the very wealthy who don't have to leave their children to earn their money;
-the very wealthy who can afford to hire capable surrogates;
-the very wealthy who call it a crime when a penny of their non-earned income is re-invested in the society that enabled their perverse wealth;
-the very wealthy who don't give a flying puck about anyone but themselves.
[/rant]

 

[Formaldehyde]

How about sending out letters on company notepaper ?

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Traitorfish]

[rant]
This is, to be quite honest, something the pro-family Repurblican base should be all over. The fact that they're not speaks volumes about where Repurblican loyalties truly lie:
-the very wealthy who don't have to leave their children to earn their money;
-the very wealthy who can afford to hire capable surrogates;
-the very wealthy who call it a crime when a penny of their non-earned income is re-invested in the society that enabled their perverse wealth;
-the very wealthy who don't give a flying puck about anyone but themselves.
[/rant]

By pointing that out, you're engaging in Class War Rhetoric!

 

[Formaldehyde]

If the rich can no longer exploit everybody else, especially women, how does anybody expect them to become even far richer?

 

[Aroddo]

By pointing that out, you're engaging in Class War Rhetoric!

Exactly! You are discriminating against job creators! That's practically a hate crime!! You are just like Hitler!!! o_O

 

[Farm Boy]

Wages of childless, unmarried women under 30 are being savaged because of this


source

Good find.

I mention this to my younger female counterparts who are fresh out of university and have been taught by Baby Boomer professors - they usually flat out refuse to believe me.