For those who want a family, do your best to make a second income optional. Our economy depends on people buying crap and promotes constant dissatisfaction. You don't have to be a part of this. This doesn't have to apply to you.
Future moms and dads, your values change so much when you have kids. For those who remain career-motivated, you quickly learn that life with children and a traditional working week do not work together. You have to have a solid network (daycare hours are not enough) of dependable childcare. If you are fortunate enough to plan, you have a choice. You don't have to start out wealthy, but you do have to make a lot of unpopular choices early on, well before kids come into the picture.
For those without children, less reliance on two incomes will greatly reduce the amount of your precious time spent covering for others. If mom or dad can stay home, you won't go months doing someone else's job. Who knows, maybe your value in the workplace will increase because there are fewer people fiercely trying to hang on to a job.
My career is shot. I don't care. It is a risk and choice I made with full understanding of the possible outcomes. Right now, my life is good and fulfilling. You don't have to buy into what success looks like according to those who profit greatly from your constant struggle to keep up.
We absolutely need better parental leave in this country, but if you can set yourself up not to depend on it, even better.
9
California can just raise taxes. I'm sure its residents won't mind...
7
Maybe the governor should visit Canada to check things out. Paid maternity leave is 12 months, though the payments may be spread out over 18 months and may be divided between the parents. Payment is through employee contributions to the Employment Insurance plan, so it is self-financing. Employers (I am one) have learned to live with it and hire replacement staff on a one-year term. The system is beneficial to parents, babies and society as a whole.
5
Particularly hard for California to pay for because we are already saddled with millions of illegal immigrants and many millions of legal ones who work for 1/3 of a living wage salaries (why "liberal" open borders advocating California 1% business owner employers are so rich). Many millions of immigrants who don't pay enough tax now to pay to educate their kids ($10,000/year, + food stamps for low income, + free medical care if in poverty, + free college etc) let alone contribute anything to finance paid parental leave for 6 months which they will no doubt have their hands out for in a big way too.
10
OK, great for parents but what about those of us without children who also may need time off work for equally pressing issues? Yes, I know - we don't count.
And when those new parents take off work for 6 months, exactly who is going to step in and take over their work until they return? It will be those same non-parents, who for 6 months will be burdened with working two jobs for a single paycheck. We will not receive thanks, because it will be expected, just like it is expected that we will always be available to work late so that parents can attend their children's ball games, plays, school events, etc.
My account manager recently took a 4 month maternity leave and naturally my employer did not hire a temporary replacement. Instead it was just assumed that I would do her work as well as my own, when meant sacrificing any vacation I had planned to this maternity leave.
15
"The absence of paid family leave...has been found to be the major reason that more women aren't working in the United states." Actually, a two income family suffers such tax inequities that it often makes sense for one member of the couple to "stay at home," sometimes even after benefiting from the paid parental leave. The marriage penalty still exists, lower family income can yield $15-20,000 in affordable care "subsidy," and $6,000 in earned income tax credits. Plus New York State expels you from the recently initiated free college tuition benefit if your combined income is $120K. Oh and you are more likely to have to fully repay your college loans plus you receive lower scholarships from private colleges who base tuition on "affordability." And you have to pay for child care.
The smart parents in our society understand that hard work is penalized with higher taxes and reduced benefits. How could they not stay at home?
7
The Union of Socialist California Regulators (USCR) will have no problem taxing the productive to pay for it. And the productive will have no problem continuing to exit the state in droves.
10
This is definitely a Solomon cutting the baby in half issue. What is fair? depends on whether you or the beneficiary of this leave policy or a victim of it. It definitely is a moral killer for those who have to pick up the load.
Having children is a choice, whether you want to believe it or not. People make many choices in life that are good, bad or indifferent. What is the trade off for those who chose not to have children and there are more and more of these every year.
In some respects this is similar to the argument on group insurance. Why should a single person or a childless couple subsidize an employee with a family? Under ideal group policies, the total premium for the group is divided by the number of members. This has never been the case with health insurance.
No matter how this issue is settled there are going to be many people that believe they are the victim in this situation. Here a fellow worker gets to stay home and get paid for it, probably earning annual leave during this time off, but they have to come in, work and carry some of that person's workload.
What is next, a push to compensate those that never use this benefit?
As one who raised children in the age without any of this parental leave, I am tired of this push to reward people for not working. If we need to toss benefit after benefit plus higher pay to this generation of worker, perhaps we do not really need their work.
13
@mjbr
And perhaps we do not really need their offspring, either.
6
@mjbr Bringing the next generation of workers into the world. What a choice we have.
When corporations can have their headquarters anywhere in the world to avoid taxes, yet can profit across our nation, often at the expense of taxpayers to offer incentives, we need NATIONAL solutions to this problem. To me it is very simple. The tope CEOs and Executives receive outrageous salaries and benefits....trim some of that, and the employees who are the cogs in the money-making wheel can enjoy quality of life and raise future generations who are nourished in their infancies. One would think that all those "Pro-Life" activists would be as concerned about a baby's start on the path to becoming a productive part of our country as they are about preserving zygotes. Caring for our children and our family relationships should be a natural concern.
In a time when our "economy is booming" according to Trump and others, instead of the shortsightedness that the kind of boom is further killing our planet, we need leaders who have the ability to look at cause and effect, evaluate the complicated integration of human residency on the planet, and put forth plans that benefit the earth.
Too bad Newsom is so new to his office. I always thought (when he was Mayor of SF) that he would make a great president.
So think nationally...and remember all those tax breaks the corporations and One-percenters are getting. There IS money there to truly make America Great(er).
4
Wow. So many of the comments here are short-sighted and self-centered. "Why should they get maternal leave if I don't?" "It's not fair!" " It means I have to 'take up the slack"." Honestly people, get real. Giving and caring for a new life is not a "hobby" as one person put it. Nor is it "going on vacation." It is the hardest work a person can do. You're up two, three, four times a night. You never get a raise for changing that 10th diaper of the day instead of 2. It's the end of privacy and quiet time - for good.
The undertone of much of this conversation is a product of parasitic capitalist thinking. "If you win, I must lose." "My gain must be your loss. Too bad." Why can we not see that giving to another does make me poorer? Can we not help each other and all benefit from it? Are we so uncreative and so defeated that we cannot imagine a society built upon kindness?
23
@Amy Haible
If it's so hard that you can't do it without complaining and without picking someone else's pocket, don't do it. Simple.
We childfree are living our one and only life on planet earth here and we want to spend the fruits of our labor to subdidize what we value, not what you value.
It's long past time that both the childed and the childfree pay the same tax rates and have the same eligibility for any beneficial public policy.
12
@Earthling Oh earthly, please find your inherent generosity. I get that some people don't think it through, but the truth is, you and I will BENEFIT from the children others have. They will work when we are too old. Their labor will help our retirement income - whether you get it through investments or social security (which may or may not be around.) They will bring new ideas, new creativity, a new way of seeing solutions to problems WE have created or helped create. I don't have biological children. We adopted. And I am SO grateful to my child's mother for having her.
10
@Earthling You child-free folks, get a clue. You were a child once, were you not? Wouldn't it have been lovely if your mother wasn't the one who had to carry that entire load on her shoulders, giving up her hopes and dreams?
5
Too many commenters here who think their decision to not have kids is just as important as taking care of those who do, and therefore they should get some sort of benefit. Big fat nope.
Get out of your selfish mentality. Think about the future of our country (HINT: future generations and the furthering of the country happen when people have kids). Look at the data on paid parental leave and what other countries do, and the outcomes.
You aren't going to have kids? Great. The rest of us are going to have to take care of you when you get old since you don't have any kids to do it for you.
So shut up and recognize the greater good.
8
@SamwiseTheDrunk
YOU think of future generations. You think they are best served by unfettered, willy nilly breeding? And do breeders ever think about other species?
They like to think they are creating a "benefit to society" but consider:
Benefit to society from the childfree: We pay the highest taxes by proportion of income compared to the childed (about $7K a year more in my case compared to a family of two kids at the EXACT same income level), we pay full SS and Medicare but create no liability for minor disability or survivor & survivor caregiver benefits, no offspring to collect lifelong SSDI if they are disabled. No liability for the healthcare system, no extra burden on employer benefits, no burden on schools, family courts, criminal courts, physical infrastructure, no 15,000 diapers to the landfills and other solid waste, no teen parents, no criminals, addicts, abusers, etc.
All of the above benefits to society are 100 percent guaranteed. Those who have children MIGHT create a productive, healthy and responsible citizen, or they might produce a low intelligence/disabled/addiction-prone/criminal/unmotivated/unemployable/teen parent/etc. who will be an adult economic drain on society for decades to come, and that's after all of the reduced taxes parents pay due to having kids, after the initial drain on healthcare, education, the environment, perhaps family courts, etc. They roll the dice and the rest of us pay.
Who's really contributing to the greater good?
10
Amazing comments here. You know that we get 6 weeks in Texas, and even that is only really 4 weeks because you have to save up vacation to use as the qualification period. And our kids dont even get vaccinated until 2 months. (Those, of course, who actually get vaccines for their kids).
It's stunning to me the stuff that Americans tolerate in the name of enriching the rich.
3
@Jeff
This isn't about enriching the rich, it is about the fact that there is no such thing as free.
4
Here's the BIG problem, and the (grim) reality for everyone, not just women. In First World economies, having children is, in reality, socially and economically, if not emotionally, very little different from having a very demanding and expensive hobby. We're no longer on the farm where kids can be productive and valuable from an early age, and we've abdicated to government and large institutions most of what which used to make families, and thus children, an asset. What's more, one's IRA/401k/Social Security/Medicare is much more likely to take good care of one in one's old age. (It was MUCH different in the bad old days...) Yes, yes, I know, that's "not how it should be" or for some people how it still is, but take an honest look around you. The upshot is that I'm no more enthusiastic about subsidizing your hobby than you would be about underwriting mine. Likewise, your boss isn't much interested in making special and costly allowances for your hobby, either. On a human level, that's terrible, but that's exactly what's happening in our "modern," grossly overpopulated, society/economy. Thus, the widespread lack of enthusiasm or support for breeding is entirely understandable. What to do? I do not know.
10
@AlexanderTheGoodEnough
It's not "terrible." It's a natural evolution.
Human survival now depends more on our NOT breeding than it does on breeding. We've passed a tipping point.
What is wrong with building a life around protecting the ecosystem, caring for other species, developing one's mind and one's talents -- instead of making the central focus of human existence the sort of bio-reproduction that gerbils can do -- and do better!
4
Gavin Newsom is going to bankrupt California implementing his socialist agenda.
Mark my words.
8
A woman who has a demanding career can't take more than 6 weeks away from her job without unfairly neglecting her co-workers and subordinates. Even a month was tough and I was available by phone most of the time.
While it's true that this makes having children harder on women than on men, that's biology.
I thought it was fair that I was allowed to use accumulated sick leave and vacation time to cover my maternity leave and then FMLA for the rest up to 3 months.
Women in less comfortable circumstances certainly need more support, but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to offer it for such long periods or for an unlimited number of children. And it seems dramatically unfair to childless workers.
5
It’s funny, it’s kind of a build and they will come scenario. If people know what you’re going to do, people make it work. We get 1 year maternity leave guaranteed here in NZ with 16 weeks paid by the government. People expect it so it’s factored into decisions when someone announces they’re pregnant.
Literally days before my son was born, my wife was told she would be made a partner in her law firm upon her return from maternity leave (and some extra time).
10
I would like a year of paid leave for not having a baby, please. Seriously, the rest of us get to fill in the gaps during your absence due to a personal decision you have made and not obtain the same benefit? You've got to be kidding. Level the playing field for those of us who have decided not to have children (like if I want to go travel the world for a year), and I am all for it.
16
@Eunice
Having a baby ultimately benefits the entire society, not just the family in question. Without all these babies, there would be no society and no country in a generation. (Imagine if the youngest American was 40). In the end, as a nation, we are all in this together. It is sometimes difficult to extrapolate the larger picture from an individual decision, but that's how it is. This is also, by the way, why teachers should be more highly valued. Without good teachers, (in the extreme, no schools at all), our country would be finished in short order. Vacationing for a year is not, by contrast, a decision with societal implications.
8
@Eunice Well then, if you injure yourself slipping on a wet floor at home, I should not be expected to cover your work if you need to be out for surgery. That is the type of thinking you espouse. I, on the other hand, think we need to support people when they have injuries so they can come back to work, when they have pregnancies and when they have family members who may need their assistance.
1
@Mitch
Stop telling yourselves you are doing society a great favor!
You have just as good a chance of foisting off a losers/user/abuser/abandoner/addict/ low-intelligence/unemployable/teen parent or other burden on "society" as you do of producing a productive human being.
Take a good look around any public venue at the output from all of the parents of the past 25-50 years and see if you can make a case that we really needed all of their output. Try.
Giving childfree the time and ability to develop creative talents, to start businesses, to volunteer, to garden, to be inspired is JUST as important if not more important to the sustenance of a civilized society than creating yet another waddling, over-consuming little American shopper.
7
As long as I don't have to have a kid to get it, I'm all for 6-months paid leave for everyone! Unless this paid leave thing doesn't include those of us who don't contribute to the global crisis of overpopulation, it's discrimination. Plain and simple.
16
Canada had 6 month maternity leave when my kids were born in 1997 and 2002. It went up to 1 year shortly after and last year went up to 18 months. This allows families to have lower day care costs for early childhood, allows mothers (or fathers) to spend that crucial first year with children and allows a more even playing field for women who what to have children but also continue to persue careers after the maternity leave. Women who are low income or have demanding careers would be forced to quit their jobs otherwise.
4
I understand the backlash from childless adults who feel like they are being taken advantage when their tax dollars are used to fund other people’s children. I felt the same when I was young and childless.
There are in fact very good and entirely selfish reasons for you to fund such entitlements. Those very same children will be funding (among many other things) your Medicare and Social Security which incidentally consume roughly 50% of the Federal budget. Your geriatric years are far more expensive than childhood. If you don’t want to take care of other people’s kids, there won’t be enough of them to take care of you.
As for folks who complain that they have to pick up the slack for coworkers on parental leave, I would suggest that perhaps they work for a company who’s business model is unsustainable.
8
@Julie
i've been in the workforce for 38 years, never on the dole, always a net taxpayer - at a far higher rate than the childed at the same income, which has helped fund WIC, SNAP, TANF, early childhood education, USDA nutrition programs, housing programs, the Earned Income Tax "credit" and other welfare, Medicaid and more -- all mostly available only to the childed. My payroll taxes fund social security disability and survivor benefits for minors, their caregivers and retirement benefits for stay-home spouses - again all programs unavailable to the childdfree, so i put in with no chance ever of being a liability for those programs.
My property taxes at home and those that my family (now me, solely) have paid for 80 years at a cottage have helped fund that community's school system again with no liability, nor have we ever utilized police, fire, EMT or other services in that community.
I give a five-figure sum each year to Planned Parenthood, plus public TV, several animal charities, the local domestic violence shelter (including its new pet arear) and a charity that provides dental care and Christmas boxes for tens of thousands of poor kids in my area. I volunteer for fundraisers that benefit my area's children's hospital and a program that helps disadvantaged women into the workforce.
And much more, so spare me the finger-wagging and that "you need our kids to pay your SS" tripe. They will have to do a lot more than that, to be as useful as many childfree.
7
@Earthling - The current birth rate according to the CDC is 1764 births per 1000 women while the replacement rate is 2100 birth per 1000 women. The birth rate is declining pretty rapidly down 3% from 2016.
You are clearly making an amazing personal and financial contribution to your community and our country. This is not a value judgement. Its a question of economics. If our society discourages the creation of new humans by making it exorbitantly difficult for those otherwise willing to have them and the population declines, what will that do to our society, economy, national security, and yes, your and my SS during our lifetime?
I’m personally fine with replacing the population shortfall with immigrants and accepting the associated cultural and ethnic changes but clearly a large swath of the country is not.
2
The Republican big lie is "tax cuts and incentives will be good for everybody - just wait for the trickle down". But the Democrats big lie is - "someone else will pay for it". In Bernie Sanders case - no one will have to pay - a street (Wall Street) will pay.
What they have in common is buying votes with taxpayers money.
7
I am a feminist who chose to not have children. As a government administrator I internally cringed every time a woman told me she was pregnant. Covering her shift and workload was a nightmare. There was no temp pool for state staff, no extra employees to tap. We gritted our teeth and counted the days till her return. More than once at the end of her parental leave she did not return. If we weren’t in a hiring freeze I could look forward to at least another six months till the position would be filled. Unfortunately the US doesn’t have a work culture that allows any flexibility when fulfilling this statute.
13
@Lorene Melvin So is your complaints with with the pregnant woman, or or with your employer's failure to hire sufficient staff?
"What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all"
J. S. Woodsworth
1
Funny that there isn't an article: "Trillion dollar tax cut for the rich - How are we going to pay for it?"
11
I don’t get it. Here in Canada plain old unemployment insurance, that’s already paid into anyway, covers the 1-year parental leave (or family leave for a sick relative). You don’t receive full salary, but you are guaranteed your job upon return. For all those commenters complaining about having to pay for someone else’s kids (oh, the horror of helping out your future tax base):
• Each individual pays a portion of their own UI with the balance paid by the company, so you wouldn’t have to fork over 1 cent.
• Plus, it’s MUCH easier to find/train a replacement for 6 months — of course a company will require staff to cover for the parent gone for only for 6-8 weeks.
• Finally, that temporary employee gets to benefit from a long-term contract with all the opportunities it offers. It’s win-win for everyone!
Come on, America--it's not that complicated.
11
@Schumi Exactly!
Why not make these proposals incentives for companies with the scale and financial capacity to offer these benefits. A small business with one or two employees cannot survive with a employee on leave for six months.
5
I'm genuinely curious as to why the reporters are assuming that this system would need "new" funding? Past expansions of Paid Family Leave have been built into the current system, funded through the state's disability payroll tax.
2
It's funny how no one seems to have a problem with our tax dollars going to the military for weapons and all that, which are designed to take people's lives, but when it comes to keeping tiny humans alive, and bonding with them so that they don't become sociopaths, everyone freaks out about who's going to pay for it. Hello?! We're ALREADY paying taxes. How about we just use less of it for war, and more of it for life?
12
@Elle
Many of us would rather that fewer of our hard-earned tax dollars go for military/defense spending AND the promotion of more human beings, and more toward preserving other species and the eco-system. It's not either-or.
7
I find it interesting that just as we reach a time when childbearing is dropping off substantially, benefits are finally showing up. My underlying issue with these policies is that it is simply one more burden I need to cover for at work, while being left to fend for myself or fight for anything family related I might need. Often if you do not have children, you are providing the aging parent support, support for completely single friends, and other dependents. If you are single, your existence can be very fragile, especially if you get an illness.
I think when policy starts recognizing these things, I will be much more supportive of it. Otherwise, I feel kinda "meh.'. I happily pay lots of taxes for good public schools and safe neighborhoods for kids to grow up in. I can't see myself covering for the 6 weeks off multiple times a year without seeing something for single and childless couples.
7
@Caesonia
When we single and childfree pay the same tax rates as the married and childed, and when we get the same benefits from public assistance programs (which today largely exclude single, childfree adults) and from SS/Medicare (which today provides a huge financial boost to married households with stay-home spouse, compared to the payout to singles who made the exact same contributions as the married household) then we can talk about boosting benefits for everyone else.
First, we need parity for all lifestyle choices and household compositions. I'm tired of being the cash cow for people who are boosting human population to obscene levels.
11
@Caesonia "Often if you do not have children, you are providing the aging parent support,.... and other dependents." Just as many parents are also providing this care & support - hence the term "the sandwich generation". And most of that responsibility falls to the woman.
"What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all"
J. S. Woodsworth
I agree that a way should be found to extend the period for paid maternity leave but there are some problems.I have a small manufacturing company (40 employees) and some of the employees have key positions.They could not be replaced for 6 months.I understand that large Silicon Valley firms would not have the same problem.The most important support young mothers who work for us need is child care so they can work ......and they need it badly.It's nice to talk about bonding and the improved achievement of these children as adults but what about the kids whose mother doesn't have a job and can barely afford to live. I voted for Newsom and think he is on the right track but he may have lived in San Francisco for too long.
4
Paid leave is fine with maybe a surcharge tax on the wealthy and high earners to help pay for it.
And while at what about paying for all the extra work dumped currently without compensation on the remaining employees while daddy or mommy are off taking care of their new bundle of joy?
5
Why should this even be controversial in rich California? I live in Quebec, a much poorer jurisdiction than California, and parents get one year in maternity leave that they can share. Nobody finds this excessive or wrong. It's just what we do to encourage the formation of families, help young families cope, protect women's careers and maximize our chances of raising healthy, happy children.
9
@Grant Ditto from Vancouver. I don't see why the richest nation in the world can't treat families at least as well as Canada does.
5
@Grant In the meanwhile, your Quebec government is o stingy with its benefits, no other province accepts its Medicare cards, an anomaly in Canada.
2
I am quite surprised at the amount of venom and anger in the comments on this article about paid family leave. Large corporations and the Republican Party have certainly won the propaganda game with a large number of people in the country with their zero sum game politics. Anything given to anyone else is TAKEN from you. There is another, more accurate way to look at this- that providing care to our citizens, especially those who are raising the next generation who will be taking care of us in our old age, is good for the economy and for the country.
As for those saying that California is unrealistic and terrible because we have been on the forefront of family and environment friendly policies- it certainly has not hurt our economy. The state is wildly successful economically.
12
@Lauren Is California "wildly successful economically" or is it just great at putting things on a tab? According to Forbes. California has over 1.3 trillion in debt, including massively underfunded pensions. Anyone with a fistful of credit cards can live large and brag about being successful, for a while. Eventually, the bill comes due.
15
@Ed
Thank you Ed! Over $375 billion in [Calpers] pension liabilities and growing. Who is going to pay for that shortfall? Cut teacher and state workers pay? LAUSD is ready to strike if they don't get a raise.. Thousands of teachers and state workers are getting set to retire in the next 5 years and the money isn't there and Lauren considers this "wildly successful" ...?? Really?
8
@Lauren I agree that the right wingers can be found in their need to be snarky, instead of mature. But for those of us without children, it's one more burden at work we need to carry, with little commodation. I think 6 weeks is fine, but just because you don't have children, doesn't mean you have no one who depends on you, or family obligations, or simply the need for some serious recovery. I could have used 6 weeks to bury my best friend, and get his estate settled, after his untimely death.
7
Gavin Newsom's bold proposal is good news. While we do not know how California will handle paid family leave or even whether California can fund paid family leave, it is good to see a Governor put paid family leave on the table along with a commitment to make it succeed. That is bottom up, not top down, democracy.
California leads the way. Bravo Gavin Newsom.
4
How about six months’ paid leave for any reason? Or nine months? Come to think, why require any work at all? Simply mandate companies to pay people, whether they’re employees or not.
19
Besides the inability to pay for it, the notion of the government forcing employers to provide “free” paid maternity leave suffers from major flaws that ultimately are harmful to the future employment of women of childbearing age. Any policy made ignores certain basic facts, namely that while a woman is on maternity leave, the things she was responsible for in that work setting must continue, which opens 2 possibilities:
1) That the roles and productivity the woman was responsible for must now be performed by either temporary workers, or by her coworkers pulling overtime hours to cover her slack while she is gone. In either case, this is incredibly expensive for her employer because not only is he paying her NOT to work, but he is having to pay others more to cover for her while she’s on maternity leave.
2) Her workload is distributed to her coworkers without them having to work extra (or nobody has to pick up her slack at all), which means that her role in that business was unnecessary to begin with, and that employer would be just as well off without her.
In either case, this will only cause many employers to seek reasons not to hire women of childbearing age or to find reasons to force them out, since it would be bad economics to employ them.
15
You want to have child? Great. That’s YOUR business. Why should your employers, co-workers, and fellow citizens have to pay you for it?
28
@Shenoa
Actually, having children and raising them well is a benefit to the country. You do not live on island that is uncontaminated by the actions of others in this country. If we want a strong, productive country and economy, then providing the parents of future generations with the tools they need to raise healthy, productive children is good for everyone.
6
@Shenoa
because it benefits the entire country?
and, of course, if every other western democracies can have maternity/paternity leave, national health care plans, more vacation time, why can't the country that always tells the rest of the world how superior it is.....
7
@Shenoa You want roads & bridges so you can get to work? Great. Build them yourselves.
You want ambulances, a fire department, hospitals, police, courts? Great. Hire your own.
It's absolutely disheartening how short-sighted and selfish so many people are.
pathetic compared to virtually, if not all, western democracies, but at least it's a start for the self proclaimed world leader of family values.
6
@brupic
This country was founded on the core belief that we are specifically NOT like all those other countries, and not being like all those European countries is exactly why we are “the leader of the free world.”
The bigger question for you is this: a woman is now provided free birth control, has open access to keep or terminate her pregnancy, and (thanks to EMTALA laws) can deliver her child for free since she cannot be turned away if in labor... so at what point, in your opinion, is that woman expected to be responsible for the child she CHOSE to bring into the world?!?
14
@Tom
you're in the usa, not I.
Canadians take national health care for granted. we're not alone in that.
we are willing to triage so everybody can have it.
the birth rate has dropped steadily over the past several decades.
we, and many other countries, have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates , way way lower per capita costs for universal coverage and can go for treatment before it's too late because we couldn't afford to go to a doctor.
what about rapes, a fetus with terrible defects or any other issues?
finally, the woman's partner might have some responsibility for the child too.
3
@brupic Thanks for that important point.
@Tom Did you get it? " the woman's partner might have some responsibility for the child too."
Wow....health care for illegals, paid family leave, a green agenda...one problem...who pays? Doesn't matter...we're liberals and we mean well.
22
France has the most generous parental leave. Notice they aren't doing so well. I go the other way, people who can't prove they can raise$ a child can't have one.
11
To be fundamentally fair, all people should be permitted to take six months of paid leave at a time for whatever pursuit is important to them. Who is to say that child--rearing is fundamentally more important than taking care of a sick family member, or being a sober companion to someone with an addiction, doing a job retraining, or simply writing the Great American Screenplay That Will Change Lives?
22
For this POV to be valid the alternatives would have to be responsible for a human being. A newborn baby requires human interaction, and no one would argue ideally from its mother. Zero time is devastating; 6 weeks of government sanctioned pay is barely going to satisfy the new human being; 12 weeks allows for initial bond when mother nor child knows day from night; 24 weeks promoted by Newsom and dozens of our top gold standard companies gives mother, father and child the experience of family life set up for success. For 6 months of paid maternity leave it to be government validated and not only the perk of privileged employees would result in a more healthy and productive constituency, yielding economic advantage. Happier families are just an opportunity cost.
4
@Sara - the opinion is completely valid. Long term leave should be granted to all. Let it be a capped bank of time that all employees can tap into at any point in their career, with no value judgment on the reason.
11
@Observer of the Zeitgeist I don't entirely disagree, except that some these pursuits are more critical to society than the others and we need to start somewhere. So let's prioritize these on our way to a more humane & caring society. I'd start with child-rearing. You've done a good job in the order that you've listed some possibilities.
Many posters complain that 6 month paid leave, or more should not be limited to parenting. Why not care for an ill spouse or partner, or a dying parent and on and on.
The solution is simple--just give everyone 6 months off in addition to sick leave, vacation, holidays and mental health days.
10
What if instead of 6 months paid leave, require companies of a certain size to provide in office child care? That way parents can go to work, but their kid is just down the hall for breast feeding, bonding time, etc... seems like a good compromise and would create some extra jobs (babysitters) at that.
5
Socialists are very adept at legislating feel-good policies and then making taxpayers pay for it. In this case you are picking the pockets of all the other folks, either through higher taxes, or lower pay & benefits if you mandate employers provide this perk.
When I was a young man I worked 2 jobs so my wife could stay home with our son. I had also saved up vacation time to use when he was born and for the weeks afterwards so I could be there to help.
People need to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are you listening?
20
I fail to understand the claim that providing paid leave has the effect of keeping a woman in the job market.
Understand it keeps her on the payroll.
Being on the payroll is not the equivalency to being in the job
market.
If you stop working then you are no longer in the job market even if you are on the payroll.
7
I don't see why others have to pay for somebody to have kids.
Pretty soon, I can see where employers will only hire single men from now on, just to avoid those crippling extra costs.
19
@David R
At my employer we no longer bother with women of childbearing age, having been burned several times.
7
@Earthling but will hire her husband/partner/middle age man...who could all become a parent.
Men don't have parental responsiblities in your world?
In Canada, one parent can take it all or even better parents can split the maternity leave.
What would your employer do?
1
@LisaW
We hire people who will show up and do their work. How they manage it is not our concern.
Historically young(ish) mothers are the least reliable, so we’ve nixed them. Again, their division of labor with partner (if any) is not our problem to solve.
2
This is California...NOT Denmark. Who’s going to pay for this generosity? Is Gavin Newsom going to do for the California what he did for San Francisco? If so, there will be yet another mass exodus of business and industry from the state. How’s that going to work out for you and your ‘parental leave’ plan, Mr. Newsom?
14
How do you suppose to handle discriminating against a non-parents? Why parents get 6 months of paid leave for bonding, then ANYONE should be able to take FL for bonding purpose.
Are you discriminating woman who cannot get pregnant?
14
@Midnight CBD
No. Current California partial paid leave is open "to bond with a new child entering the family through birth, adoption, or foster care placement." As they expand the length of leave time, it would be highly likely that this would remain the case.
1
Give the guy a break. Between sleeping with his friend's wife, making outlandish promises, and figuring out how to run through the $14B surplus that Brown left him, do you expect him to have the time to worry about minor details such as how to pay for it?
We Californians have elected a vapid pretty-boy, and we're going to be paying the price a for a long time.
13
The politicians in California often have great ideas that they never know how to pay for. Illegal immigrants? "Let them ALL come here. If the state runs out of money, well......." And middle class workers in California cannot afford single family homes because the houses are too expensive: the California politicians don't bother to fix that problem. The California roads are clogged with drivers so commuting is a daily nightmare: the California politicians don't bother to fix that problem either.
14
@Iris
The reason that housing costs are so high and the roads are congested is because California, with all of its innovative policies and programs, is wildly successful economically. So, that seems to cut against the point you are trying to make.
2
@Lauren. Is a state wildly successful if a sizable chunk of the population can’t afford housing? And is bringing in more low skills workers to compete for scarce housing an innovative idea?
6
Plenty of light-weight macro and micro economists in the comments section blathering on about how we don't have money and how it is their income that is going to pay for the benefit. This is one of the greatest propaganda victories of the GOPer party since the 1990s. They managed to convince a lot of the middle class that it is their taxes that are going to pay for everything the government does. They have taught people to think like Green Grocers and Butchers and small business folks. Everthing is like a business yes. Have to make a payroll yes. Income and Expenditure yes. All these small business people should just consider one fact, during the Eisenhower administration, the tax burden on the Corporations brought in roughly 30% of the revenue. Mom and Pop operations paid bupkiss. Every small business Mom and Pop shop owner and Executive Briefcase Consultant seems to think that it is their dollars that is going to fund everything. Utter balderdash. California has plenty of billion dollar corporations like Apple and Google that have cheated America and California out of billions of dollars of tax by paying K-Street lobbyists and corrupt politicians to write in loop holes in the tax code they have used to swindle our nation and society. Get all the money back and we will have enough to pay off all the debt and spend on America and INVEST in AMERICANs and their FAMILIES.
9
The incoming Governor wants more family and maternity leave benefits.
Most middle and upper income Americans are too cheap to even leave a measly quarter in the tip jar at their local Starbucks when they purchase their five dollar lattes, let alone pay more taxes to support these social programs.
Same reason why so employers and consumers are okay with cheap labour and consumer goods via illegal immigration.
It surely is the land of the "haves" and "have-nots."
2
Liberal politicians never say how they are going to pay for anything because we already know how: higher taxes.
10
As Molly Millwood writes in her forthcoming book, "To Have and to Hold: Motherhood, Marriage, and the Modern Dilemma," women do not always "bounce back" from having a baby, especially since so many women are now having C-sections.
I'm halfway through the book and cam upon this (unbeknownst to me) fact. When the men were fighting overseas in WWII and the women were sent to work, well, what happened to their children?
Here's what: The government funded affordable childcare centers that not only looked after the children, but also provided lunch and snacks for the equivalent of $7 per child per day in today's dollars. As soon as the war ended, the centers closed? Gotta put those women back in their place ...
If our government truly was pro-family, it would help today's parents (and I would argue anyone who has to caregive, whether aging parents or sick siblings) be able to do that. Caregiving is essential to society, and it's not just a woman's job. If we did it once, we can do it again.
18
Rather than mandate an expensive benefit that companies are required to cover where new parents get paid for not working, extended parental leave could be included under short term disability insurance.
4
As someone who is just coming off of PFL in California, I am grateful for program as it afforded me time with my children that I would not otherwise have had. PFL did not replace my entire salary, and while I appreciate the partial replacement, it would be very difficult for my husband and I to afford a six-month leave. We have two children, we both teach full-time, and going six months (or even a year if we linked our leaves together) would be tough on anything but full salary. As for people who complain that a woman or man (my husband is heading out on PFL in a few days) leaving the workplace forces others to take on the work, I have to question why your company isn't hiring a replacement. My leave was less expensive for my workplace than having me present. My bosses hired two part-time workers at a much lower rate. They didn't get retirement contributions or health insurance. Maybe smaller companies cannot afford to hire a part-time replacement or the workforce can't support that, but it is an affordable option. Lastly, I would hope that this new policy is also offered to non-birthing parents. As an adoptive mother, I have needed time with my children post-placement just as much as other new parents.
6
You don't feel for the two part-time workers "at much lower rate with no retirement or heath insurance," and you are a teacher. Puzzling.
13
Duh? How does any politician ultimately pay to find their proposal? How do you spell T-A-X-E-S!!!!! Surprised????
9
Great, another entitlement that will make people feel better intellectually, but will make us poorer, fiscally.
We already have a 13.3% income tax, an 8,75% sales tax, a 1.2% real estate tax, a 10% cell phone tax and $1.50 per gallon gas tax.
And he is just getting started. He wants a 10% payroll tax for healthcare (a job killer) and who knows what else.
It must be great to be super rich like our governor and thus insulated from all these new taxes when his money was earned with low capital gains tax rates and when his assets take care of him. Meanwhile.... we try to survive.
30
How come that premiums of the health insurance that are 10% of salaries or more are not job killers?
1
@Roy P writes: "Great, another entitlement that will make people feel better intellectually, but will make us poorer, fiscally. "
Anyone who thinks the only benefit to family leave is intellectual is sadly mistaken.
4
Easy to preach nirvana and offer no realistic plan for its achievement.
Perhaps we should try what once worked quite well; women worked until they had children, quit for a few years until the children were in school full time and then went back to work.
Of course, this worked due to women having their children in their 20's - still lots and lots of years for a career that re-starts when one is in ones early 30's.
It worked and did not cost taxpayers or corporations one single penny.
13
Work for whom? I doubt it worked well for women whose careers were put on hold and as results they had much less financial security than men. yeah, slavery worked very well for slaveowners, but not for slaves.
4
@yulia I know many women who have done just that, and have very successful careers, not just jobs. No slavery involved!
2
@India - This doesn't work for women pursuing careers in academia. To succeed in academia, you have to go straight into a tenure-track position as soon as you receive your Ph.D. or complete a post doc. Then you work long hours (publish or perish) in an untenured position for about seven years until you get tenure or you don't (up or out). No one is going to stop the tenure clock for you at any point along the way. And of course, your biological clock is ticking at the exact same time. Delaying the pursuit of tenure is not an option for anyone, much less women who think that having children is more important than a career.
1
Funny thing about paid family leave, those who are younger and have no need for it often not only oppose it but often resent the idea... until they have a need for it. At that point these same folks not only shift to support family leave, but will often complain about how time is given.
Don’t get me wrong, I love America, but it seems like much of the U.S. population only wants what they view as being in their immediate best interest, and they don’t want anyone else to get what they view is a hand out or even a hand up (the Tea Party movement seems to be a great example of this type of rugged individualism).
When are we, as a society, going to figure out that when we support one another, we ultimately end up benefiting ourselves... it really does take a village!
23
@Scott Man
As CNN's Jake Tapper once said, the attitude of the typical American is "I want my government benefits, but I don't want you to have your government benefits, and I don't want to pay for any of it!"
6
I'm not Newsom's biggest fan but I do give him credit for being one of the few politicians who is really thinking about what AI / Automation will do to jobs in the future.
AI is rapidly taking over factory work and making increasing gains in the service sector (anyone remember when grocery story cashier was decent, working class, career? Bank Teller?)
We will eventually have to find a way to give people a guaranteed minimum income. Extended parental leave is a humane way of inching us towards such a policy. We eventually *need* to find a way to pay for such a policy.
5
I suppose it's hard to offer paid leave to new parents when you have just given a trillion dollar tax break to the billionaires and corporations instead.
26
@joyce
(1) Why should a parent get leave that a childless worker - a worker who may have ill elderly parents or spouse not get?
(2) Why should someone get paid leave because they have overactive glands AND be able to stick co-workers with doing their work while they are out CHOOSING to breed?
(3) And who would get tax breaks in your world? The 47% that do not pay any income tax ?
There is not as much money out there as your think
Median per capita income is around $33000
Take the total person income in the US, divide it by the population and you get an AVERAGE per capita income of around $62000.
THere is not the money for all the goodies that you want - free healthcare, free sit-home-with-the-rugrat-after-breeding, free college, fee simply everything......
28
Because these children will pay for Social security and Meducare of the people who don't have children.
5
@AnnS PFL is available to you if you are caring for an elderly or ill parent or spouse or child. It even covers you to care for family who live out of state. I realize this new policy may only apply to those giving birth, but currently, the program doesn't limit the benefit to birthing parents.
2
Paid leave pays society back 13%. That's the rate of return on the intelligently-applied dollar spent on a small child, under age 5.
It comes back in better attachment among the babies and that relates strongly to emotional self regulation which underlies resilience and inner strength. More breastfeeding means fewer allergies, less diabetes, etc. Interventions like Nurse Family Partnership pay back their costs before the babies are in kindergarten. This would too. It could be especially effective if some really basic parenting supports/education were part of it.
We have a lot of un-self-regulated people in this country-- so many, we coughed one up to lead us.
15
Some of the commenters have written that throngs of people and businesses are moving OUT of California....I sure am not seeing any evidence of this. Indeed, everywhere I turn in Silicon Valley there is construction, obnoxious construction sometimes on streets that used not to be busy. Traffic is about twice what it was when I moved here in 95.....I'd love for some people and businesses to move out of my great state, but I'm sure not seeing it. Giving families paid medical leave is one way to combat the chaos of so many people living here.
5
So who - of those still at work - does the work while the parent is off doing the kiddie thing?
We are now retired but had a small boutique law firm specializing in a very esoteric area of law. (And no - recent grads or a general practitioner know NOTHING about it)
There were the 2 of us and 2 associates plus 6 paralegals.
We did TRIAL work. We all had to make court appearances. No telecommuting for that!
If 1 lawyer floated off for 12 months because of their Baabbbyyyy....... that mean the other 3 had their work load increase 33%!
Go from 45-50 hours a week to 60 - 67 hours a week.
Not gonna happen.
ANd there is no such thing as a 'temp' attorney to fill in for 1 year who would have had the expertise (in that specialized field) & experience (in the field & in litigation) & live in our area (so few of did that area that we all knew each other anyway)
Not all businesses have 8 or 12 people working in similar jobs who can pickup the slack.
Not all jobs can be filled by a temp.
IT would be the height of indignity to expect a small employer to keep shelling out $15000-24000 for the absent worker's health insurance
The absent worker gets to sit home for 12 months while the other 3 work 15-17 hours a week more
I don't care if "having a baby is hard". It is hard to clear 5 acres with an axe & build a house or climb Mt Everest. None of those activities justify sticking co-workers with a 33%+ increase in their workload because of a CHOICE made by someone else!
45
@AnnS
I worked at a small design consultancy in Australia - 3 researchers / designers and a couple support staff. The principal had a baby. She was gone for 3 months. When she came back, one of the other designers had a baby and took ~4 months paid leave at whatever the government's minimum wage was at the time. This represented over a year of compromised capacity.
Was it ideal? No. Was it workable? Yup. The business was certainly less profitable for a while, fewer billable hours. There are some cases where one employee leaving would legitimately sink a business, but not many. Have you thought about what might happen if someone got in a car wreck, or just quit unexpectedly?
It's not about how "hard" it is to have a baby, it's about life being wonderful and meaningful and, actually, birth and new life being more important than inconveniencing business owners. It's seriously more important to force someone to leave their new baby at home in order to sustain workload? Gotta get that dough...
19
@Dan If someone quit unexpectedly, they would be usually be replaced with a new employee. Companies will not hire a new employee for six months, but will shift work onto others. Those companies that are driven by their stock valuations don't work with the concept of "comprised capacity."
It's also not about sustaining workload, as you say. It's about others having to work overtime, for which they are not paid if they are exempt salaried employees. Somehow, their time is not nearly as valuable. Make it a law that no work will be shifted onto existing employees without getting paid for it.
18
I don't see much problem - paid the employees more money for overtime or hire the temps. If the leave becomes the norm, temps will be readily available. it will probably require some time to get used to idea that your employees do have life outside your company, but after all, many of employees got used to gig economy, don't see why employers could not show same flexibility.
7
"[Newsom] is expected to introduce a proposal to give families six months of paid leave after the birth of a child.
What’s unclear is how California would pay for it."
Taxpayers will pay for "it," not Newsom. That's cool, send them the bill as we moved to Oregon. But, gosh, you know, what starts in CA has this tendency to migrate to Berkeley-North.
11
Make it Federal. Like civilized nations the world over. I know, a stretch for uncivilized America. Never mind
4
People who support paid leave are pro life
People who support universal healthcare are pro life
People who support universal day care are pro life
People who only support fetus while in the womb are pro fetus but not pro life
Call them what they really are
14
Ahhhhh, the eternal conundrum for liberal’s progressive policies-you eventually run out of other people’s money to pay for your things.
21
Contrary to conservatives, who never have the money to invest in people and in country, but always have money to offer tax cut for rich
3
Good luck paying your rent on 1200 per week.
2
Yup, California, where sunshine and unicorns elliptic basic arithmetic.
11
@Tom Stoltz
Which is why it's economy is in the tank. Ahhh, if only it were run as well as Alabama.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/usa-states/compare/alabama/california
@DanInTheDesert
The same State of California that has the greatest population of people below the poverty line? Ranks 15th in percentage below the poverty line, and #1 in poverty when you adjust for geographical cost of living? You mean that California, Right? [1].
New York takes first place on Gini index (income inequality). I was surprised that California only came in 5th for inequality, so yes, the economy of California does really well for some people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate
1
The usual Democratic modus operandi: dream up something, then -- like a cuckoo -- leave the egg in the nest for somebody else to pay for it.
14
As far as I remember, Reps are famous to run up the deficit using only one very old idea of tax cut that proves over and over again, never pays for itself.
2
Well written Ms. Miller. (at least the headline) It proves the NY Times, although certainly skewing liberal, is not the knee jerk liberal publication that conservatives accuse it of.
This is very similar to the corporate welfare tax cut given out by Trump. Everybody loves a tax cut but don't love a trillion dollar plus deficit.
Now if you could only do it with your incredibly biased reporting on other gender issues where feminists are always right and men are always wrong.
2
There goes Jerry Brown's eight years of hard work keeping California out of the red. If Newsom goes through with this, California bonds will be back to being junk rating in no time at all. Governor Brown, if you are reading this message, Please roll up your copy of the NYT, wack Governor Newsom on the nose and tell him to stop it.
11
@Greg Stec
Then wait till what Gavin does. I bet you will move to another State very soon. Jerry did a phenomenal job of fiscal prudence. It is a different story with Gavin since he cares only for cheap stunts. I feel sorry that we elected an incomptent clueless politician who would help to enrich the propaganda machine of the opponent party to label democrats as Tax and Spend party.
4
If something helps a women and her children it is a radical proposal, if something helps just white men then it is already an established law.
10
Like climate change, when Republican voters and politicians actually see, with their own eyes, the result of more White women having fewer children, they might actually do something - but it will be too late. Population growth among the White middle class is plunging and of course rising costs have to do with it. They are craven hypocrites to the core.
3
There are seven national agencies for the health of women and NONE for men.
These exist:
http://womenshealth.gov
http://girlsshealth.gov
These don't
http://menshealth.gov
http://boyshealth.gov
The US NSF spends billions on special programs for women and none for men.
If you want to pay for paid leave, it is time to cut back on female privileges.
8
Sorry, Gavin- stupid idea. You just got elected- don’t you have any priority? Please control air in your head because vast part pf California is blue. Your immature leadership will convert blue to red in the next election. Hope you have learned sbout leadership from the outgoing Governor Brown. He managed the State with fiscal prudence leaving the State with $7 billion for the rainy days. Given our economy, it can happen any time. Money does not come from a tree- please anstain from cheap populist measures which will make the State bankrupt. Please also keep in mind that our Presidential election is next year and behave like a mature leade.Your immature steps will be used by the Republican propaganda machine to damage the chance of getting back the White House. Please do not squander the opportunity to lead a great State.
2
How to pay for it? smh. Democrats....
Republicans NEVER consider this, and people from the poorest states keep electing them over and over.
Of course, not in California....
1
Planned Parenthood is looking better and better
4
Newsflash: When you elect Fathers and Mothers, vs. Grandfathers and Great-Grandfathers (who aren't that great), you actually have leaders who aren't clueless. Who'd a' thunk it. Duuhhhhhhhhh....
1
What about the rest of the employees who have to pick up the work that those on maternity/paternity leave used to perform? Rarely will companies provide additional resources (I cringe at that word), but their tasks will be shifted onto existing members of the team. And that means more unpaid overtime and longer hours for exempt salaried employees.
I predict that Silicon Valley companies will support this wholeheartedly, as many already have generous maternity/paternity leave policies. But they also have a nice amount of complacent H-1B and OPT workers that are "willing" to pick up any additional work.
7
Well, they can raise taxes on Californians.
2
The problem with Jerry Brown was that he was just a old guy who thought like an old guy. He thinks that just because there have always been recessions in the past, there will be another one, and just because interest on debt has almost always been higher, it will get higher again. That is so yesterday, so out of date. The experts have solved those problems now and can just call any money spent on women and children an “investment” and borrow. No worries.
Anyone who questions it on affordability grounds is just a racist who doesn’t want to support other races children. Mean.
3
Politics involves compromise. Paid parental leave for the first two children.
7
paid parental leave?...how about the parents saving up enough money before the baby is born to pay for 2-6 months off for one parent once the kid is born?...or, how about only one parent working for the first few years of the baby's life?
16
What a horrible idea, considering stagnated salaries and gig economy.
@yulia
My parents did it on low wages, 55 years ago.
If people are so precarious they can’t save, they certainly have no business producing dependents for the rest of us to support.
4
Funding could be diverted to subsidize child rearing in the economically and socially responsible classes by cutting it from welfare recipients and children born out of wedlock. In California, for example. Since such policy would be politically impossible, it won’t happen short of a revolution. We’ll be getting to that point any day now.
4
Be careful what you ask for. Swords, as well as benefits cut both ways.
The person taking the leave may, by their absence, prove to the employer they were not needed as it was demonstrated they could now be done without, or the rest of the employees easily picked up the work load.
In addition, how about the Gay couple who cannot easily become parents, or the heterosexual couple that cannot have children. Will they be discriminated against. Will they be able to take paid leave for many other reasons, say buying a new home.
When the economy changes and layoff is required who then decides who stays and who goes. Certainly this is a managerial, not government decision.
How about the millions of unwed mothers with the person who fathered the child having no other connection but some child support. Can he claim parents leave as he is in fact a parent.
What of the person who now gets a reduced pay amount that is insufficient, or now puts them below the poverty line. Do they now get welfare benefits which now is a further government expense.
Why should people past child bearing years now have to pay for benefits to others they were never allowed and in no way could ever benefit from.
5
I wouldn’t call a proposal with no plan “bold.” I’d call it a wish.
3
I am surprised, in fact, pretty shocked -- to see that NYS is not mentioned in this article. New York now has one of the most generous paid leave policies in place, and is currently rolling it out.
Given that this is an article from our most prestigious paper here in New York, and seen as the paper of record for many nationally, it would be great if you can correct this omission -- and recognize the leader that NYS is, on so many family-friendly policies, including minimum wage, universal prekindergarten -- other topics referenced in this article that are so essential to families
1
To the woman who said her career never recovered and never will after having her first child, and who cobbles together paid leave, as does her husband since he too does not have leave, consider this: perhaps *no* children! As a childless-by-choice careerist, something’s gotta give! You really cannot have it all. There is an entire battalion of competent, energetic and accomplished individuals forced into early retirement at the first wisp of grey hair, some of whom missed the signs of ageist bias creeping into their organizations and are now living on food stamps, working as Walmart greeters to make ends meet, while also caring for their very old parents. Who is advocating for them?
11
Get ready for even higher taxes, Californians. Your position as the highest taxed state in the union is not about to be challenged anytime soon thanks to the tax and spend Democrats who control Sacramento.
7
Yay, let’s encourage more women to not stay home and go off to work instead so that strangers can raise their children. That sounds great!
7
Great idea. However, I have had 2 females in senior mamagement take 8 months at my company. I took over their jobs both times. Someone gets stuck with the work.
9
I once was on a business trip to Russia, where my Russian counterparts touted their 3 year family leave for the birth of a child. I, a corporate executive, said, “so let me get this straight, I can leave my job for three years and stay home to raise a child, and then can return to my high level, excellent salaried job and displace my three year substitute?” Their reply, “oh no, we would never hire a young woman (translation, one of child bearing age) for a position with a lot of responsibility. We only hire them to run the copy and fax machines, and answer the phones.” So be careful what you wish for. There is a lot of invidious sex discrimination, and it could get much worse when implementing some noble sounding social policy.
14
No way Jose. Getting Healthcare for the masses is more important. This is a waste of time, energy, and resources. A politicians carrot on a stick for voters that leads them nowhere!
6
6months....the longest? Something is wrong with the American society. We now have 18 months in Canada and everything is fine. What prevents the richest country on earth for a while now from taking care of its people but yet fund oodles of money to go to wars?
9
Get ready for a new wave of Californians to leave the state if this six-month paid parental leave bill ever passes. Not only are they forced to pay higher taxes for illegals crossing our borders and residing in the state but now they will have to pay for this new bill if it takes effect. There will be a mass exodus and those remaining will be the ultra rich and very poor. The middle class will disappear all together. They will move to those states where they will get more and pay less.
6
Really? I guess it will solve the housing crisis.
2
If you want nice things you have to pay for them. Guess what? As a nation, we have more than enough money to pay for these nice things. Just need to depose the greedheads and their lapdog politicians.
5
Can’t wait till Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez realizes that health care for all will actually cost money.
7
@Jay Lincoln
I'm sure she does. I can't wait for conservatives to realize that:
—the money already exists (see: bloated defense budget)
—the spending of that money can be reprioritized
—not being enslaved by fear of bankruptcy and, therefore, tethered to one's employer, means happier workers
—happier workers and a healthy population means higher productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurship
—and that might help make America great again. I think someone said that once.....
8
More fiscal irresponsibility in California. Next thing you know, they will be implementing sniffle leave, every time a child has the sniffles the parents get to stay home. Newsom just doesn't get it, you can't keep piling this stuff on the backs of the taxpayers.
7
It is a California dream for parents who can have their child care paid for by others. But it is a nightmare for the people forced to pay—including their fellow employees who have to make do at work while the parent is gone for months. No wonder people continue to flee a state that is a natural beauty dream but a nightmare for responsible people living under “progressive”tyrants.
7
Can we cap it at two children, I work with evangelicals and Muslims who would never work again until they are 50.
14
"“My career never recovered and never will,” said Charlotte Brock, 39, a mother in Vienna, Va. When she had her first child eight years ago, she quit her job as a think tank analyst and moved in with her parents because she had no paid leave."
When she had a 'first' child? Any chance that re-orienting your priorities to child rearing had more of an impact on your career arc than did the fact that you'd saved no money to have that first one. Maybe?
The entire topic of paid parental leave troubles me because it feels like we have passed the point of too many people on mother Earth already. Why subsidize more??
12
It is interesting that the California legislature is concerned about how to pay for parental leave. Usually liberals propose and pass social programs with nary a concern about where the revenues will come from. Having never worked for a paycheck, like the Obamas and other pseudo socialists, they have no sense of finance fundamentals. Good to hear that the tax burden has surfaced in the discussion.
3
Contrary to conservatives, who work so hard to drive up debt without any social spending.
3
This is interesting, but why does there never seem to be a discussion for the other end of the spectrum - terminal illness or death leave? I took care of my father who had cancer for months before he passed and it was a lot of work and time. I had to go through all my vacation which went towards family leave. When that was through, I went through what little else was left of family leave and had to take the rest of the time off without pay. And while the event of having a child is (hopefully) a happy one, a death is not and is very stressful. I am not complaining as I would do it all over again, and am not having a pity party. And maybe this is the wrong place for this post. I am just honestly wondering why this topic doesn't seem to get the same recognition or coverage.
11
We do it here in the province of Quebec. You might to check how it's done.
2
This needs to be family leave, not just parental leave. If you have sick parents to care for, this paid leave should be equally available to you.
10
Gee. I wonder how every other first world nation manages to provide family leave —and even vacation time.
3
I suppose if an employer can do without you for six months, your position wasn’t that secure in the first place.
In any event, leave it to so-called ‘progressives’ to give companies yet another reason to relocate from California.
6
Simply put,
What is clear, contrary to this headline, is the total disregard for the working and providing legal US citizen in California.
4
Motherhood is the biggest career-killer for women. That's well-known. If you choose to have children, it's going to be a financial burden and damage your career. That's the choice. Make it, or don't. It's not the government's responsibility, and it's not the responsibility of business either.
11
I will support paid parental leave only if it is paid family leave. You should not have to have kids to get this. If you have sick parents to take of, this paid leave should also be available.
14
Sweden provides 16 months of paid aprental leave to parents of both genders at 80% of their salary. If Sweden can do it then surely the world’s largest economy can do it - why don’t proponents look into how Sweden pays for this enefit??
4
@Bemused Observer There are roughly four times as many Californians as there are Swedes. The scale and costs aren't the same.
Additionally it is much easier for disgruntled Californians upset by higher taxes or other policies to decamp to say Texas or South Dakota than it is for Swedes to move to I don't know, Poland.
Lastly now that Sweden has a significant and growing population of people who are not ethnically Swedish and generally cost more than they put into the system, some indigenous Swedes are starting to rethink their country's generous social network and attempt to restrict it to people who are actually Swedish. This isn't any calumny on Swedes. It's much easier for homogeneous societies to support lavish social welfare states.
2
What is Gavin Newsom doing to assist the many homeless living on the streets in San Francisco? Don't they deserve a little help from the government too? They appear to have been all but forgotten in this rich city. Do you think he could at least throw a few crumbs their way? Now that would not be asking too much would it?
12
Most of the "how to pay for" handwringing would ::poof:: disappear if only the U.S. fixed the most noxious, anti-American element in the tax code: endless free pass exemptions for every religion, every corporation and organization with any tangential affiliation to any of the Abrahamic ancient cults, every street corner "ministry", every megachurch Elmer Gantry snake handler, every so-called school and associated "charity" these con artists run on the side. Not only is it financially devastating to the nation, most of these municipalities superstitious shaman commercial enterprises don't even pay property taxes on those schools and churches. It was Jefferson's and Madison's intent for the U.S. to enjoy freedom FROM these freeloader, corrupt antediluvian superstitions that had so devastated Europe and the world after the fall of Rome, not for those businesses to run the government, culture and society. The sane, educated non-believer Americans have alway been held hostage to pay the local, state and federal tax burden for all the hundreds of thousands of religious businesses that every day steal from the nation' coffers and deny the American people essential processes and a higher quality of life.
8
@Maggie Oh, I thought the money would come from shutting down the Pentagon, or increasing the tax rate to 70% or maybe Mexico will pay for this once they have paid off the wall.
3
What a laugh! What do you mean they don’t know how they will pay for it? They’ll pay for it like every other socialist entitlement program....by taxing those earning the money to subsidize those who aren’t. And what a boondoggle for building a growing future constituency have ten kids and get five years of paid leave. Oh but the state doesn’t have to pay for it ....they can just require that the employer pay. And some will actually buy into the ruse that doing so isn’t a tax or even if so it doesn’t affect them. Well guess where that added expense ends up folks....in the price you will pay for that employer’s goods or services, that’s where. As my grand daddy used to tell me regularly “Son, they’s Jus’ no such thang as a free lunch.”
9
It's a good thing Gov Brown left a big surplus. Now it will promptly all get spent. Gavin Newsom, a pretty face with too much mousse in his hair.
6
Oh good, another incentive to increase the population of a world that is already over-populated. Pumping out children in this age and under current world circumstances is the epitome of selfishness.
11
Free everything for everyone. Right.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."
8
The quicker the Cali pols run their state up on the rocks, the better (for the rest of us). Why not throw in a state-funded “Medicare for all” plan also? It would serve as an example to all the other blue states. (And reminds me of the Monty Python restaurant glutton scene. “Sir, please, just one more chocolate bon bon?” LOL)
2
Paid parental leave (for either parent) and affordable daycare are both needed to keep mothers in the workforce. This is the best option for the many mothers who choose to continue working and also makes economic sense. See https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2011/06/22/quebecs_childcare_scheme_pays_for_itself_economist.html
1
How about reducing the time people are incarcerated for minor crimes and using the savings to pay for people to take care of their babies?
2
Six months maternity leave and decent child care may seem like a dream to folks in the US, but it is a lovely reality in Canada and most all of Europe. In many countries family leave can inexpensively extend up to a year and a half, and include both parents, not just the mom.
To think of the outrageous costs and pressures vulnerable young families in the States go through is heart wrenching.
7
As a parent who has gone through this and watched many other parents go through this, it IS heart-wrenching. There is money and then some for all of this. And for the people who think the world is over-populated and that no American should ever have children again except the rich who can afford it, they'd better be ready to let in the rest of the world's children to take care of them and the rest of the country when they get old.
5
Newsom has campaign on this issue - but I doubt anyone expected leave to be six months. Obviously at issue is how is he going to pay for it?
But there seems to me to be a more immediate need and having been the mayor of San Francisco he should know it well. Both cities central downtown areas are embarrassing disasters. Streets littered with needles and open drug use, strewn garbage and the homeless sleeping on the sidewalks.
I would hope that "cleaning-up" this disgrace and then attacking its cause is high on his priority list. But his San Francisco failure is a troublesome history?
4
It's nice to see that some American states are catching up with European nations.
How to pay for it? Simple. Temporary contract employees.
I mean, half of the "skilled" workforce is already on contract and no one seems to give a hoot that businesses won't hire them permanently if only because of having to pay for health and/or unemployment insurance.
2
How to pay for the California dream for paid leave? Simple. Increase taxes on those who can still afford to live in California and don't need paid leave. Tax and spend has switched parties in congress. Let us see what happens in 2020. In the mean time middle class Californians will be moving by the thousands to states with no state income tax like Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Alaska or overseas.
8
Dear Parents,
Your procreational activities were entirely within your control,
and are not my responsibility. The fact that you have decided to give yourself a legacy does not also mean that the rest of the world should give you (additional) paid time off. Isn't it enough that I also pay taxes for the schools which I-- who have neither children nor any desire for children-- will never make use of? School taxes at least are a collective burden; what is not a collective burden is when your co-worker takes months of fully paid leave, and has their job protected: what this means is that everyone else has to pick up the slack, and no, additional help is not coming, because that salary is already going to someone who is engaged in an activity of zero benefit to the company.
How abut this instead-- employees are allowed to accrue unlimited vacation time in advance of this perfectly forseeable and controllable event? That seems way more fair than a handout.
15
Is this even a hard question?
Calculate what is needed. Increase state taxes of the top 5 percent progressively all the way up. Ask for some help from Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich both at Berkeley, and both brulliant economists. If they want I am sure Peter Diamond will pitch in from out of state.
Time for the wealthy to do something for society except for making profits. Some like Wells Fargo’s of dubious legitimacy and Facebook’s of real sketchy ethics. Both companies are in the state as you all know.
And if someone says they can move somewhere else, let them try.
5
I’m not knowledgeable really about this. When my wife and I had our children we decided she would stay home. I worked as much overtime as I could to compensate for that salary loss. There wasn’t any kind of paid leave 1980’s. To say it impacted upon our finances in the long run is an understatement. I worked in law enforcement a civil service job middle middle class.
I think it’s a good idea I wish we had the 6 months a year would be great. But is there a limit to the number of children? I worked with a woman who had seven children where I worked how would that work?
And the article uses Canada and Great Britain as examples but they were caviated with “some” and “most” so that’s not all then. And how in those countries is it paid for?
It is a good idea but I can see abuse and who exactly pays for it?
6
How to pay for government mandates? That's always the case, no?
It's just weird to expect to be paid for not working. If you want some sort of "temporary disability insurance" then buy some, or use taxpayer funds for it. Employers only owe you for what they contract with you.
4
I tend to vote mostly for Dems, but they have taxed and spent California into a fiscal pickle. Another tax reform ballot initiative will ultimately arise, one that limits state taxes on income to the average of the other 49 states.
Here's why:
The income tax here relies largely on cap gains for the wealthiest, and when recessions occur, the bust is horrible. when times are good, they spend every penny, raising the bar of budgetary requirements, when is insane. Then they raise the tax rates again. this cycle needs to end.
2
I'm a liberal progressive, and acknowledge the importance of Mom's at home with newborns , but oppose the entire proposal . There is NO clause limiting the # of babies any couple can have, nor the government sponsored benefit proposed. Until ZERO POPULATION GROWTH principles are built into such a scheme there will be fertile ground for immigrants to exploit the plan. The Earth can not withstand all the hopes and dreams of 8 billion people .
12
Okay we need some definitions of some words and phrases.
Early childhood education simply means state-mandated socialist indoctrination. That is how we end up with this statement from the article. "Around 80 percent of Americans consistently say they support paid parental leave,". We already have a significant portion of the population that has been "Early Childhood Indoctrinated" and they believe that everything ( for lunch , for healthcare , for housing , for transportation , for unlimited high speed internet service , for telephone service , for anything that they think is a necessity of their life) should be free because as a child in the Indoctornation Center, it was free.
They do not get math questions on how to calculate the amount of tax and individual would have to pay in order to provide any or all of these services.
Instead what they get is the Marxist ideal government owns everything and everybody and therefore government has unlimited resources.
4
Parental leave is a child tax credit in a different guise. In a world that cannot support the humans we already have at a middle class standard of living without massive environmental degradation, it is unwise to encourage higher rates of procreation via any form of public subsidy. Zero (and especially negative) population growth is a good thing for the planet and our survival as a species. Given the negative externality of bringing children into an already crowded world, a strong case can be made for an annual tax surcharge (not a credit) that increases exponentially on offspring beyond one child per family.
8
I have an idea as to how to pay for the California parental leave bill. We could defund Planned Parenthood the $500,000 that they receive each year and put that money towards the parental leave bill. Now that is what I call truly PRO LIFE. My pro life supporters would gladly agree to this.
3
For a governor so concerned about climate change, it disappoints me that Newsom’s first two major policy proposals are giving incentives to people for having children.
10
California is already the highest taxed state in the country not to mention a one trillion unpaid state and municipal unfunded pension liability which will certainly require higher taxes in the future and a current proposal in Sacramento to tax cell phone texting. Why young parents with families would want to be here is beyond me. Why not have employees of companies who intend to have families pay into a personal fund through their salaries matched in some way, by a willing employer, that can only be used for parental leave.
California is now a one party, far left of center state with a huge low wage population that cannot keep up with this kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Parents should try to stay home when infants come into their lives. But the current wave of socialistic thinking is something that will result in an unrecognizable US In the future.
4
Newsom will prove to be a fiscal disaster. Has none of Moonbeam's political instincts. In short, a gift to the GOP that will keep giving.
6
I have no problem with a new parent receiving 6 months of unpaid leave. But 6 months of paid leave is ridiculous--where is the money coming from to pay for it? Also, I can imagine that it would cause many problems in the workplace because other workers would really resent it.
13
Scientific studies show that the longer the parents, and especially a breastfeeding mom, stay full time with a newborn from ages 0-6, the more physically, intellectually, and emotionally healthy the child is.
On the other hand, given that the human species has created a mass extinction event via population overshoot, and more and more of us are choosing not to create new children but to be childless or adopt, I object to any subsidy and encouragement of childbearing.
At this point in our overpopulation disaster, a better public policy would be to reward people for not making new humans.
And really, given the way the world is heading towards dystopia and biosphere collapse, why would any rational, compassionate, ethical person want to create a new, suffering sentient being?
6
California is the best State of the Union. California is a country within a country. California will find a way to pay for it.
2
THAT headline:
"California's incoming governor is expected to propose six months of leave for new parents. What's unclear is how to finance it."
For some bizarre reason in America we will never see a headline that says: "Six months leave for new parents proposed!". No, it has to also say "How will it be paid for?". I have heard this in various forms for 40 years, after having my own children in Sweden. Somehow there is never money for a basic human right; that parents can feel secure while spending valuable time with a newborn. Always the anxiety over having to go back to work as soon as possible. Then the huge cost of childcare on top of that. Yet we can give tax breaks to billionaires and spend unlimited money on military. It is backwards, cruel and damaging. Instead of screaming "no abortions" how about screaming "family leave for all"?
4
@Linda Petersen: you are entirely free to stay home as long as you wish.
JUST DO NOT ASK ME TO PAY FOR YOUR LEAVE TIME.
Also: a newborn needs you least of all. They sleep all day. They do fine in day care or with a sitter.
The time your child NEEDS a full time parent is roughly 10 months to 3 years.
So do you expect us to pay for you to stay home for three years?
And for how many kids? 2? 3? 4? 5?
2
The new California Governor upholds the tradition of the old Wild West, shoot first and then, may be, ask questions later.
The irresponsible promises from the left creates serious backlash from those who are affected. Cost implications of a six-month leave and the impact of employee absence on businesses are not concerns for this weird politician.
A week after Mr. Newsom was elected, Amtrak announced that it was relocating its reservation center from Riverside to Philadelphia, eliminating 550 positions and joining the list of some 10,000 businesses that already has left an overtaxed and over-regulated not so Golden State. Under Newsom, the quiet exodus becomes a stampede.
The 60-year local burger icon moved from LA to Nashville. North American Nissan had already moved to Nashville. Add to that Toyota’s move from Torrance to Dallas. California’s own Jacob’s Engineering Group relocated from Pasadena to Dallas with its $12 billion annual revenue and 60,000 employees worldwide, inflicting major blows to the local economy.
The relocation of the $26-billion company, Nestle, from Glendale, CA to Rosslyn, VA was reported to be partly due to the relentless loose talk of California politicians who treat corporate leaders as rapacious bandits and not as wealth creators of the community. Higher taxes, insane housing costs, anti business PR campaigns run by elected officials, and wacky lawsuits against wealthy corporations have accelerated the avalanche.
Way to go, Gov. Newsom.
7
How many children can I have and get 6 months leave for? If I have 4 kids I can get 2 years off (over time) with pay? :)
6
correction:
California has an Assembly and a Senate, not a House.
Democrats have supermajorities in both the Assembly and the Senate.
It should be paid for federally but we need to have money on hand to bail out big banks (so they can give their corrupt execs golden parachutes) and what about all these awesome new tax rates for companies? Companies are people too.
1
Why don't we start by guaranteeing all American workers receive some sort of paid vacation and sick leave before singling out a sub-set of those who a.) work for a firm that already provides paid leave; and b.) have a kid. What's missing from this article is the little factoid that all these other nations that provide paid parental leave also mandate that employers provide every worker some form of paid leave.
This is nothing more than a political sop for affluent women who "want it all" - kids and a career.
7
Newsom has campaign on this issue - but I doubt anyone expected leave to be six months. Obviously at issue is how is he going to pay for it?
But there seems to me to be a more immediate need in L.A. and having been the mayor of San Francisco he should know it well. Both cities central downtown areas are embarrassing disasters. Streets littered with needles and open drug use, strewn garbage and the homeless sleeping on the sidewalks. I would hope that "cleaning-up" thsee disgraces and then attacking its cause is high on his priority list. But his San Francisco failure is a troublesome history?
Another issue many will be watching is the sanctuary State just declared which he inherited from Jerry Brown. California already has by far the most illegal immigrants in the U.S. And then there's Brown's controversial discussion about free Medicare for the immigrants.
So the surplus of $16 billion left by Brown might be called on for many demands?
3
I'm so sick of hearing the same vapid argument that "free isn't free" over and over again in these comments, as if we don't all know that. Free is simply a shorthand for redistribution -- and that's a GOOD THING. As a tech worker in Silicon Valley, I am happy to pay more taxes in exchange for a better society.
7
California could build market rate high rise apartment and for sale condo buildings in the most housing starved areas and use that money to finance family leave and daycare . They could build the buildings as models of green architecture and energy efficiency and situate them near subways as demonstration models of how we need to build to combat climate
Building seriously in the city will concentrate people in the area where the services are and allow people who currently commute long distances by car to have a life.
Building seriously in the city will allow people to stay and not move into the wildfire zone
2
I chose not to have children, in large part because doing so would have ruined my career and/or my financial future. I was faced with the idea of handing my child over to someone else to raise them after 5 weeks maternity leave (insane) or giving up my job and entering poverty (also insane). Social support policies like this would have made having a child so much more possible. It's a painful to think that now, after I have made the decision not to have a child and now that I am past the age of being able to have children, the state may finally pass some kind of parental leave policies. I feel a little resentful knowing that other people may be enabled to have children with the benefit of substantial parental leave while I was not. However, my wiser, less emotional, self knows that this policy is still best for society, and I support it Other comments here indicate I am not the only person, however, who may feel some resentment over paying for this social benefit while not being able to access it myself. It would be better if the paid family leave policy included the ability for people to take time off to care for family members who are seriously ill. I dealt with a major illness this year, and it would have been a huge relief to my partner and I if she had been able to take time off work to assist me while I was very sick. Expanding the way that paid family leave could be used would provide fairness to families who have chosen not to have children.
7
@C I wonder how families have had children for decades (OK, centuries) without paid family leave?...
6
Unemployment generally is always lower in the US compared to say Australia or Canada. Reason there is nothing called "permanent" job. Hire and fire at will without being loaded with large taxes allows US employers to hire even if there is an expectation of work. While in Australia to create a permanent position would entail costs if the new business does not come on. In the US one parent can take time off for child care and come back when they are ready. Many US companies offer on-site child care as well. I am not sure what works in Germany or Canada is necessarily required for the US. Our work force is contracting and there is a general xenophobia against H1B, legal and illegal immigration that makes the labor availability even a bigger problem. Giving a year or so off for each child for a parent would stress the total number of people employment, which has been falling for some time now.
1
Lets offer parents the option of returning to work PART-TIME. The 40+ hour work week is an archaic concept.
10
@Marc A
Then let's offer everyone the option of working part-time.
5
However much this should be the law, without a plan to finance this benefit, it is an empty proposal. That is disappointing given that Mr. Newsom has been playing a very long game to become Governor of California, and perhaps president. One would have hoped that he had put in the hard work of understanding how to finance his initiatives.
6
Pay me now or pay me later. Paying for healthier, more involved parents has to benefit the child. Healthier children, physically, mentally and socially, generally grow into healthier adults. Healthier adults are more productive. As said by another commenter, we will adjust and be a better place for it.
14
Or we could block policies and programs that encourage profligate reproduction and fill our needs through immigration. Not enough truck drivers, encourage truckers from Mexico to apply for citizenship. Too few doctors, cull Indian medical schools and offer income tax breaks to migrate. Likewise, offer incentives to current foreign students attending colleges in this country to stay here after graduation.
3
40 years ago, under a new progressive conservative government, I was given the task of reviewing Canada's unemployment insurance (UI) regime. Newspapers proclaimed that, as a conservative, I would recommend eliminating Canada's embryonic maternity leave benefit.
Lobbying was fierce. Some small businesses argued our maternity leave benefit would destroy their competitiveness. But, other businesses (IBM comes to mind) argued that employers should have the option to grant 2 years of maternity leave under UI - so great were the benefits to employers and society of providing maternity leave.
Canada decided to retain our (roughly 1 year) maternity leave. benefit period under UI and allowed employers to opt into a 2 year maternity benefit.
40 years experience is now in. The one year maternity leave benefit did not destroy small business. But, it did create a huge societal change - female participation in the labour force in Canada grew to a level far higher than in the USA.
Many employers now grant 2 years of maternity leave. The data from the social experiment is convincing - paid maternity leave leads to a stronger, more vibrant, national economy. After completion of their maternity leaves, women return to the labour force and remain attached to the labour force.
Correlation may not be causation; but the observed results from Canada's social experiment in providing long term paid maternity leave are very convincing. Society, as a whole, benefits.
14
@formerpolitician
"two years of maternity leave"
Sheer nanny-state rubbish. Which pile of the Stone Age do they return to after 2 years? They would need the equivalent of two years re-education to pick up where they left off.
3
@shreir Sorry to disabuse you; but, after politics, the consulting firm I joined adopted the 2 year benefit.
Our reasoning was that we had invested so much time, money and effort in developing our staff that we wanted them back. And, our female staff made the case to us that they would come back after 2 years off after childbirth. They did. It worked both for us and for them.
Two year maternity leave is very prevalent among teachers too. They don't get more pay; but they do have a position to return to at the end of the 2 years.
1
It's a lovely idea at first glance. As a parent of 2 young kids, I would have loved this privilege! But... it's not fair to the others in the workplace who choose not, or try and fail, to have kids. It's not good social policy for the government to encourage population expansion.
25
@FlyLiz So let’s say about 90% of population has kids at some point. Most commonly around the age of 30 (sweet spot between being economically secure and too old) when they also happen to be neck deep in mortgage payments etc, and a paid leave is a tremendous benefit for them. And it’s not free, mind you, the cost is just distributed across age groups via taxes, paid by nearly everyone and used, at some point, by nearly everyone. By your logic, you can also argue against tax-paid education. If 10% of people are not interested, isn’t it unjust to use their taxes to educate the others? Using that argument, schools should be all private and quality education only accessible to the rich. Do you agree?
Fine, wonderful. As long as Women ( and it’s nearly always Women ) can get the same leave for caring for elderly, dying Patents. I’m as liberal as they come, but the very last thing we need to encourage is increasing our population. Limit leave to only one, or at most, two Births. Higher number of paid leaves for Adoptions. Works for ME.
27
The United Kingdom has mandated 6 months at full pay or 12 months at half pay since it joined the European Union for companies with 25 or more employees. Often there is no additional funding, which places burdens on co-workers. Overall though, it seems to work well enough.
3
It's the right thing to do, but on the backs of the wrong people. And it focuses on one kind of family to the exclusion of others.
I'm a single woman without kids -- largely because in my childbearing years, it simply would have been untenable in my field to have kids. I was never in a position where I could afford to give up working to have kids. As a childless person, I pay a ton of income tax. If I could afford to own a home, I could offset part of that with property tax. But thanks to high
Cali (undeductable) rents and high Cali income tax, I can never save the downpayment on ever-inflating Cali home prices. So the cycle continues.
Now at a place in my career where I finally do have some "family leave" available, I recently had an emergency related to older family living out of state. Was told I couldn't use my family leave for that. Thanks a lot.
Yeah, young families deserve the breaks we didn't have. But if you're asking older single people to cough up for people with kids yet again while being denied the family leaves we need -- this is getting to be a bit much.
33
While working, we pay into an unemployment insurance plan: our contributions are matched by our employers on a sliding scale. New mothers are given one year's maternity leave drawing from that fund, with a possibility of a second year at a reduced amount (70%?). Within the last few years, paternity leave has been offered too, at the cost of the mother receiving less maternity leave.
Other wealthy nations manage to offer long maternity and paternity leaves too. Look around! Do some research Americans! You're not doing anything new here.
Having been privileged to look after our new son for his first couple of years, and being involved in that remarkable stage of life, I simply don't know how American mothers give their babies up after just a couple of weeks. I was appalled, when I worked in California, to find this was the case. Good for Newsom for seeking to find a way to give kids and their parents a way to better bond, if only for six months.
11
Every family should have family leave when a new child enters the family, whether by birth or adoption. As a social worker, it is obvious to me that families need time to integrate a new child into their homes and their lives. New mothers need time to recuperate from childbirth and new fathers need time to adjust to changes in their family life when a child of any age arrives.
I'm not sure it needs to be six months, but perhaps that is an issue for negotiation. Jobs might be safe in periods of high employment like now, but what about when unemployment is high?
And how will the state pay for it? The first comment I read here was from a woman who chose not to be a mother stating that she does not want to pay higher taxes. But perhaps financial efficiencies can be found so that taxes don't need to be raised. I am not familiar with California's tax code, so I can't judge.
This will be interesting to follow.
7
As a life-long California resident—I’m not interested in paying higher taxes to give women having babies more parental leave.
We already pay an enormous amount in taxes here—compounded By the increase in taxes I will now pay because of Trumps disastrous tax cut to corporations.
I pay more California taxes now than I can deduct from my federal tax bill...and as a woman who chose not to have children I just don’t think it’s fair to ask me to pay more for women who choose children.
37
@Jenniferlila Never mind the benefit to society. How do you feel about paying taxes to subsidize agribusiness?
1
The business lobby always screams blue murder and apocalypse at the first whisper of legislation the will actually improve people's lives. First it was laws limiting, then banning child labour and then it was resistance to safer working conditions. Every raise in minimum wage brings cries of "It will drive businesses into bankruptcy." But somehow businesses continue and we all live in a better society. Paid parental leave is just the next logical step, one that most developed countries took years ago. Why does the US always seem to be dragging its feet when it comes to helping its citizens?
11
Some background on Newsom: Unlike a certain person who merely plays one on TV, Newsom is a highly successful and solvent businessman who also has extensive experience in governance. As mayor of San Francisco he instituted policies that were ahead of their time—most notably same-sex marriage and universal healthcare—that critics said couldn’t be done for various moral, practical or financial reasons, but in practice his policies have proven to be both workable and morally sound. The Newsom of today is somebody who studies an issue extensively before making a proposal. I look forward to his family- and environmentally-friendly policies for California that will be on the vanguard of change in this country.
9
@THanna
Willie Brown was first on same sex marriage..
1
@THanna*** all I hear about is how San Francisco is a complete mess now. Homeless everywhere with no affordable housing. My friends living in the the City & Bay area tell me the same thing. This all happened under Newsom. I saw him on BIll Maher a year ago and he seemed very shallow. I guess we shall see.
3
I just watched a local TV interview with Jerry Brown. He said California's wealthy pay +40% income tax and fears another tax will drive them [and their businesses] to states like Nevada where there is no income tax.
He also fears a middle class exodus..
California's pension system [Calpers] has $300 billion in unfunded liabilities. The education system is broke, the prison system is broke, all social services underfunded. There's the homeless crisis.. and California currently houses over 6.5 million "undocumented immigrant workers."
Pretty strange when we are the world's 5th largest economy. Brown said Democrats say yes to everything without carefully considering funding!
I hope Gavin watched this interview- It was sound advice and very foretelling of where this state is headed,
19
@Aaron The current top California Income Tax rate is 13.3%. You must have misunderstood Jerry. Perhaps he meant the combined Federal & State rate.
What does it mean to say that our education system is broke? Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? Here in Oakland the schools are open. Not saying they couldn't be improved but empty rhetoric about being "broke" just shows that you're not the sort of person who actually looks at what's going on.
And another interesting comment Brown made regarding California's homeless.. He said we can't just have them lay claim and remain in the cities- perhaps we need to move them and "work on a farm."
"Work on a farm" !! Now that was a suggestion from one of the most liberal, progressive governors of our time. Can you imagine if a Republican made that suggestion..? The liberals would be screaming, "Slave Labor!" so frighteningly loud, their service dogs would need service dogs to cope with the anxiety.
BUT it's OK when a liberal makes this suggestion because it's not "slave labor" .. it's now called a "Collective" or "Commune" or "Group health sanctuary"
3
@Jack Toner
No Jack.. I didn't misunderstand .. 40% of the total income tax paid in California is paid by CA's wealthiest 1%
1
Of course, "free" paid maternity/paternity leave is through the resources of the employer. As others have noted, most employers aren't behemoth corporations, and these type of policies strain them. I have acquaintances in their early 40s who started what became a very successful hospitality business with several locations in the Phoenix area. All four owners are college-educated, liberal socially, and conservative fiscally. They since opened locations in Colorado, Texas, and Georgia. Each thrives and provides good jobs. They're adamant, however, that they won't do business in California due to the high taxes and burdensome regulation. If that constituency of business owners recoils at such intervention by the government, it suggests the concerns are sincere.
10
@James Sincere doesn't mean intelligent or grounded in the facts. Strangely enough despite the boycott by your buddies we have plenty of restaurants here. And I'll go out on a limb and say many of them are better than what your friends are offering. I'm not generally a big fan of chain restaurants. Of course no one ever got filthy rich operating one restaurant.
1
The real question is how will Gavin Newsom govern California - Will he continue Governor Brown's policies that show fiscal restraint or will he support the traditional bigger spending plans of previous Democratic leaders?
Because I suspect Mr. Newsom sees a future president when he looks in his mirror, with the left wing of the party in ascendance, it seems likely he will revert to type. This would be very unfortunate for our state which needs to reform its sources of funding before going on a spending spree.
7
Governor Newsom must quickly emulate Governor Brown's style of rational, sustainable fact based governance if he is keep California growing (we are the 5th largest economy, by GDP, in the world). This will not happen if he folds into populist pressures of 'free'. Leadership is not giving the loudest what they whine about. Leadership is pursuing the best course for the majority and doing so by educating those unwilling to see it is the best course.
As Governor Brown stated in one of his 'farewell' talks, 'the governor's job is that of the governor on an engine, he(she) must keep the legislature from running out of control'.
10
@Jim - So, asking for affordable childcare is "whining"? So easy for men to say.
Personal responsibility is of course important but people who use this as a reason not to support people in creating strong and healthy families will no doubt be the same people complaining that government services are being cut and there aren't enough nurses when they're in their dotage and people have decided it's just too difficult to have children in our society and there is no longer the tax revenue or the people to support the economy we're accustomed to. We need to support people willing to have children for all our sakes.
11
By your logic, this means that we must have a constantly growing population. This is one of the biggest problems we have: the perception that increased housing starts are the holy grail and ever-larger markets are mandatory. What's needed is a way to make the economy work with the shrinking population we so sorely need. Sadly, this will never happen in today's America.
4
We're living in Germany and my wife just gave birth to our first child. She was able to stay at home six weeks before birth and eight weeks after birth with full pay. After that she and I can stay at home for another twelve months combined with 65% of our pay (we have to split those months however we like). After birth, which we hadn't have to pay a single cent for, a midwife visits us regularly to help us and check if the baby and my wife are doing well. This is also included in our health insurance.
I'm always struggling why other first world nations like the US can't do the same to support families...
39
This sounds great except you aren’t going into details of how much tax you are paying compare with your USA counterparts to determine who’s paying for the free visits and paid leaves you are talking about.
I think it is great to stay and to have free health care and paid parental leave but everything comes with a price. Nothing is truly free. I don’t have first hand experience living in European countries thus I’m very curious to learn. A friend of mine used to work in Netherlands and he said that the amount of pay they get is astonishingly low compare to what a similarly job would’ve paid in USA. He has great benefits such as 30 days of vacation as a new grad, fantastic unemployment insurance if he ever losses his job. At the same time, the taxes are also high and he could hardly save any money. He told me that is why Europeans love to have road trips in Europe by driving because traveling to other parts of the world is too expensive. Those European travelers I see in USA are all the upper echelons of the society.
His words, not mine. Hence I want to know because you cannot just get all the best of everything. Someone has to pay.
13
@Jackson Funny, the French speaking folks I run across around here really don't much look like they're from the upper echelons.
Then there's the thirty-something French fellow I met in Paris. He works as a bouncer at a club, not a high-end club either. He has travelled extensively in the USA, has caps for all but one NFL team. And no, his family isn't high echelon.
Then there's the crazed backpacker types I read about in the newspapers after they've been kidnapped by terrorist types in all manner of remote locations. They are quite often French although occasionally German.
The pay is lower, employers do have rather high social charges. But the French save more than we do. It's very standard to pay 50% as a down payment on a house or condo. And they've never heard of a second mortgage.
The number of Parisians who own a second house in the country is astonishing. And all those vacation days and paid holidays mean they have lots of opportunity to use those houses.
I don't want to paint an overly rosy picture. In particular it's clear that, just as here, folks in rural parts are having a hard time.
@Simon A very big part of our financial irresponsibility is our defense budget. My country spends 5% of its gdp on defense, which includes useless military items like the F35. It was obsolete before it left the design phase. Should the US remain the police force for the world, I don’t see any other option.
I am a New Yorker currently in Paris. I am not married nor do I have children. I am fully supportive of NY's family leave law and the accompanying taxes. I do not understand why the US cannot simply just do this. The article asks how companies will cope. How it will be paid for. These are things that have all been solved by almost any other advanced nation on earth. Just ask them. In NY, its implementation has been smooth. It is to our country's shame that we don't already have this nationwide.
27
@Tom
We don't do it because the simple fact is we do not need to subsidize -- more than we already do, which is considerable (check the childfree vs. childed federal tax rates, for one thing) the production of homegrown citizens. There will never, ever a be a shortage of willing immigrants to this country -- and they generally are more intelligent and better educated than the Walmart ilk our domestic parents are pumping out.
4
Wouldn't tapping the state's unemployment insurance work? In most states, the insurance lasts 6 months, payout dependent upon employment wages and duration, and infrastructure already in place. Would be an elegant solution that would just need a change in definition of 'unemployment'.
11
@Dave S
That is the way parental leave works in Canada, from contributions to employment insurance. The leave is for mothers and fathers, and includes adoptions.
1
California currently funds up to 18 weeks of paid leave (4 weeks disability before birth, 6-8 weeks disability after work and 6 weeks paid FMLA leave after disability) through disability payroll taxes. The rate increase to provide this is minimal - increasing to a total of 6 months would require just another small increase for a huge benefit to families.
21
How small, exactly?
1
The current withholding is 1% subject to a cap similar to Medicare. Most of this goes to short term disability claims so doubling family leave benefits would prob increase withholdings by about 1/4 of a percent.
2
Why is the entire population expected to financially support certain people that have made a personal choice to expand their family? It should be modeled as more of a use or consumption tax where people that decide to procreate contribute to an account or fund prior to the new family members arriving. That way the cost of supporting a child, including school, healthcare, and infrastructure, is concentrated more where the real family responsibility should be. With the people adding to the population and not distributing the burden to others who did not make that choice. Paying for your selections in life is the role of a responsible person.
67
If you extrapolate your argument to taxes, we should probably eliminate taxes entirely. Same goes for road and bridges I suppose. Why should the entire populace pay taxes to finance things like the national system of highways? Only those who use it should be made to pay an appropriate toll tax every time they use the roads ... and new roads and bridges should be built with funds that get collected from people who are interested in newer roads.
Now, you can say that most people will need to use roads and bridges at some point, so using taxes from the entire working populace as a funding source is pretty much an unspoken social contract — let’s invest in stuff that most if not all people use at some point in their life.
Birthing kids would then also amount to such an unspoken social contract — something that enough people in the society do, that warrants investments from the society and populace at large.
18
@Badger I thought that way when I was younger, but then I came to the realization that families are not optional in any community; they will simply continue to happen, whether we want them or not. It's literally a fact of life: babies keep gettin' born. It becomes a matter of how we all deal with them.
Think of families as infrastructure to any well-constructed society, like roads or water or electricity. We can choose to invest and support the infrastructure, minimize the negative impacts, and work (and pay) together so everyone reaps the benefits of well-adjusted children who grow to become productive fellow citizens and neighbors.
Or we can do the opposite. where all of us have to deal with the manifold negative consequences.
18
@Badger Why? Because, as the article explains, there are net societal gains of this investment on numerous fronts. More women and their talents contributing to the labor force and healthier children and families. Certainly parents will continue to bear enormous responsibilities -- financial and otherwise -- for their decision to have children.
8
Last year my company had unlimited paid time off. This year we went to a more traditional system of 16 vacation days a year accrued throughout. Had I been told it was switching, I would have left for one of the half a dozen or so other companies near me with unlimited PTO that have expressed interest in hiring me. Unfortunately, I wasn't told, and my wife is giving birth next week. So I get a lovely 4 days to stay home and help.
8
Unlimited ? Doesn’t sound so good for your company or your employer.
1
We have friends with a son and daughter-in-law in Denmark who recently had a baby. The mother continues to receive her living allowance while on leave for one year from third year university. The father gets six weeks paid leave. This allows them to maintain their lifestyle for 13 1/2 months and she can finish her education.
The interesting thing is, we understand from them, most people in the country are happy and get along well with each other. The mood of the society is generally very positive.
37
@Ron123987
Denmark’s population is just under 6 M. USA is 325 M.
Birth rate in Denmark is approx 10/1000, USA is 60/1000.
It is much easier and cheaper to administer these programs in a country with the statistics of Denmark. It is simply not a valid comparison.
5
Oh my what will Bill DeBlasio due now to stay on top.
Like most who have responded here expanded leave would be a great thing and supported by most. If the plan is for business, both small and large, to cover the cost this will drive even more businesses out of high tax states and create more burden for taxpayers.
14
After the initial 12-weeks of leave exhaust all creative options available to allow for telecommuting. In the smaller 'mom and pop' businesses with fewer employees, begin the telecommuting process at some point during the initial 12-week period so as to accommodate the extension. When/If the father is also participating is raising the child, the coordination of these telecommuting efforts become more feasible.
3
I would like to see the US move towards better policies in this area on a national basis rather than state. And tax the population, not companies, to pay for it.
But I am always a bit suspicious of then an advocate for an issue claims that adopting their position would make things wonderful without providing any evidence. And the same is true of this article. The authors claim that the US labor force participation is lower than in the rest of the industrialized world, and that the reason is the lack of mother friendly policies rather than any cultural differences.
Well, according to World Bank data, the US rate is competitive with the 5 big economies in Europe: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. It is higher than many other ones. It is only the Scandinavian countries where the rates are considerably higher, and I would claim that it is more due to cultural differences.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS
15
@M
The problem is costs would be obvious and paid up front, the benefits would be deferred and hard to separate from other variables. Also this is going nowhere nationally until we have comprehensive immigration reform that has a national consensus.
15
@John Wesley Priorities for heavens sake. But Americans seem to believe that there many issues more important than insuring a healthy citizenry, such as immigration reform and the military and most of all: welfare for the wealthy. Oh and of course: banning abortion. What you do with the baby is your problem.........
1
We've put a vast amount of wealth into nation-building and policing the world rather than into a social safety net. We spend more on our military than on the next seven countries combined.
That is our priority. That is our choice. We need a profound debate on what our national priorities are, and where they are taking us, but when will that happen?
28
Increase capital gains tax.
According to Georgist economics future generations and their demands are causally responsible for the increased the value of property. Basic supply and demand. Future demand goes up--so does price.
They will make the value increase, so they deserve it. It's only fair that they get their share--get off to a good start.
Provided the parents actually focus on them. Required schooling was created because parents can't be trusted to do the jobs of child care--nutrition and education. Make pre and post natal child care courses required. Problems of obesity and ignorance (worldly and civil) are due to bad parenting.
7
@Michael Kubara
I am for taxing capital gains exactly like work. Same marginal rates. Same FICA taxes. Everything.
1
@Michael Kubara You are delusional if you think increasing the capital gains tax will even come close to paying for this if it's turned into a nation-wide entitlement. Get real.
1
I am whole-heartedly in favor of paid maternity (and additionally some significant paternity) leave and subsidized child care, even if it means raising taxes. (Neo care?)
I have been to many countries where it exists, and in every one, there is a cultural acceptance of the importance of welcoming and nurturing newborns and toddlers into society.
I'm speculating that overall educational achievement and economic prosperity would rise. Social security for our seniors would become more robust. And serious crime rates would drop.
Imagine adding health care and elder care to the mix!
22
@magallag
Taxes should be raised only on those having children.
Why should they get a subsidized ride from those who mind their own business and just want to live their lives without anchors?
You want to have children, then you pay for it.
Don't get me started on "welfare babies." Those people should be paid to NOT have more children, and if they do, their entitlement should be reduced accordingly.
2
One of the reasons that the United States finds it difficult to pay for benefits such as paid family leave is that we spend so much more on our broken health care system. We pay almost 20% of GDP on health care compared to 10 to 12% of GDP (or less) in other developed countries. Our extra health care costs are due to high prices of services, and high administrative costs, not greater use of services. Government needs to regulate health care prices or establish global budgets, as done elsewhere, to reduce wasteful health care spending. A small part of the potential savings could adequately fund paid family leave. By way of comparison, we spend 2-3% of GDP more on the military than other developed countries, versus 8-10% more on health care. Wasteful military spending should also be curtailed, but it is much less than what we waste on our broken health care system because we tie the hands of government in controlling prices of health care services.
46
Why should federal, state and local governments give worker benefits that private industry does not have to give? Private or public employees, all should be entitled to the same benefits. Why do homeowners have to foot a bill that private corporations have been excused from under the current Republican tax giveaway to corporations?
9
@RLW
YEAH! Like Living Wages. Walmart and McD's do not have to pay living wages. Why should the US government? Everyone who is not rich should be working 60 hours a week, at least, and have zero benefits and zero paid vacation. Just like in the 1900's. And we are almost THERE! MAGA!!!!
Six months leave almost guarantees you coming back to a different work environment. Having a baby is a choice, and choices come with consequences. I’m the someone who’s always had to pick up the extra workload of those new moms and dads while they’re off. Where’s MY extra compensation for the extra hours, extra headaches, extra stress? We’re never allowed to complain about it, but believe me, it’s an issue.
123
I’ve heard this complaint a lot that it’s a choice and why should I pay for it. And it’s absolutely true. But what are the alternatives? Reduced birth rates require significant immigration to supply the labour needed for a growing economy. There are costs associated with immigration. So either you can pay for your current population to reproduce or pay to bring new people in.
And to the short sighted group that think any payments to incentivize having a child is a terrible idea - what kind of economy are you going to retire into if nobody has kids to replace your generation?
There are ample examples of government expenditures that don’t directly impact each person. It doesn’t mean they’re by default waste of money. You just need to look at it sometimes as what is good for the society you want to live in.
54
@Scott Klassen
Having children is not about economics, it is about values. Many countries that generously subsidize having children have substantially lower birth rates. If it were about economics, there would be a correlation within the country between wealth and having children. There is not.
People will cite economic factors in surveys but it doesn’t line up with actions. Who is going to tell the surveyor that they just don’t want to be bothered, that they are too into me, that they would miss the affair at work, or that they don’t like their partner that much and are staying open to a better deal from someone else?
Those people walking across the border and my ancestors living on the bottom rung of this society had plenty of children. They just had faith in it working out and it did and still does. If a woman wants a baby and she doesn’t have a crib then she will find a box that will do.
1
This is something that benefits all of us. It strengthens our communities and why should I be punished for having a child? Look at all the other countries who have paid maternity and paternity leave. These are all prosperous countries with higher reading comprehension and higher test scores. Sorry you work a little extra but it’s your choice not to have children, just like it’s my choice to have children. I am just as smart and competent as any man with or without children. I am just as valuable in the work place as anyone and I deserve the right to have the opportunity to be a part of that work force. Looking for ways to pay for this means looking to the federal government. We spend an inordinate amount on our military. Quite frankly it’s silly. There are many more places where so much of that money would be useful. We need more programs for the underprivileged, more programs for single parents who are on the brink of homelessness. These are all things that will better our country in the long run. No one likes taxes, I hate paying them as much as the next person. Why not tax the 1% more? They can afford it. Or go with a flat tax so there’s no secrets about who’s paying how much. There are plenty of ways to fund maternal and paternal leave, the money is there. It just needs to be allocated to places where it can do the most good. Universal healthcare for all!!!
3
I hope this goes through and sets the path for other states. The US fails to see that the first couple years (or six months) of a child’s life are extremely important for their future wellbeing. It pays off to support families in the beginning. I suspect it would save taxpayers a lot of money down the road. (I’ve worked a lot with children who have been neglected. It feels like we’re always chasing problems long after they started and it’s not efficient, nor is it humane.) go pro-QUALITY-OF-life movement!
22
Love your pro-Quality of life! I couldn’t agree more. We need to stop chasing our tails and start programs that are meant to stop problems before they become problems. This is not only beneficial to society but to the individuals. If we could nip problems like illiteracy and homelessness in the bud at an early age we would have a much more productive work force and a stronger economy. In Italy they work half the hours we do and they are just as productive. It’s because they invest in their citizens at an early age. We need universal healthcare, child care, paid maternity/paternity leave, paid vacation (something from Italy again), and better education for our children. They are our future and if we want to have a strong economy with bright leaders then we need to make bigger investments in our country’s children.
7
Americans spend their money and taxes differently than Europeans do. Suburban sprawl and related physical infrastructure costs swallow lots of money, A social infrastructure that satisfies human needs is labeled “socialism” and is not desired.
12
No problem paying for it. Raise taxes to pay subsidies and charge those who are savers.
5
What are the expected numbers on this proposal? Initial allocations of funding?
Who would be covered? What would qualify someone for this program? Would there be carve-outs for Medicaid recipients?
When I was on maternity leave I had to cover my own health insurance payments - would that be included in this proposal? Would this make the mother and baby temporarily eligible for Medicaid?
Would there be a minimum payment for all workers (part-time or full-time workers)? Maximum amounts?
What about people holding work visas? Illegal immigrants (new border surges by people misunderstanding eligibility, maybe)?
Doesn't anyone think this would create a baby boom in California - already stressed resources and housing?
It's nice to help people but the unintended consequences need to addressed.
This story isn't giving all the details.
5
Learn from the Australian experience - offer something enough to create an incentive for women to procreate with some support but not too much to stop employers from hiring women in their 20s who are seen as potential mothers in the short term. Nine months maternity paid leave here is absolutely ridiculous for an employer and they are justified in quietly resisting it. My boss tells me privately that he hired women who have had babies or are unlikely to do so.
To me the three months is a fair time frame.
16
I know multiple woman who left their jobs because 3 months was not enough time. What is worse for a company.
1
Said the man.
2
Here we go again! California is the 4th biggest economy in the world! Yet, conventional money and “wisdom” has it that California “can’t afford” paid family leave and Medicare for All? The only answer to this false conundrum is: it depends on your priorities! Payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and taxing the wealthy is the only answer. Maybe repatriate some trillions of dollars stashed off shore? By tending to and growing the electorate, economically, the overall financial health of the state is tremendously benefited. Either the government cares about its constituents or the wealthy only! There is always enough wealth to go around, the problem is that the trained seals in the legislature and mainstream media are compelled to threaten catastrophe and austerity if the quality of life is enhanced by public policy. Next we’ll hear that businesses will flee California! Not if this trend becomes national. “How can we pay for it?”: the old fashioned, American way, with some of your own and other peoples’ money. This narrative is tainted by fraudulence. If America can put a man on the Moon, and charge $17.00 for lousy Hollywood movies, then America can provide leave and healthcare for its workers. The wealth of a nation is its People, everything else is a shell game.
24
Absolutely agree it's overdue in America that new Moms need six months off with pay. Babies will be so much better off (and our nation)with their first teacher at home, their Mom, nurturing, talking, and interacting with them daily during the first crucial months of brain development. Companies & Government can share this important expense.
13
Here's an idea. Let's have the Fed conjure up 4.5 trillion dollars and give it to the young people of this country--instead of the old criminal banks that tanked our economy in 2008. We are only short of money when we need it to do something for ordinary people. The Fed really did conjure that money. Just pointing that out!
27
US corporations and their executives make money hand over fist while keeping it overseas to avoid taxes, and we have inequality that equals third world dictatorships. Where might we find the money? Is it a lack of money or a lack of political will?
American workers have been gradually losing more and more since Reagan, in terms of income and welfare, and now after decades of diminishing quality of life, the pendulum - I hope - is swinging the other way. Considering this country's culture, it won't swing very far, but anything to put it on an even keel would be a major improvement.
11
How do you pay for paid leave? By paying for it.
This piece says "But the governor will face questions about whether it would require a tax increase..." There is no question about it. There has to be a tax that supports this and that's not a bad thing. Europeans figured this out a long time ago.
It's the same old story in the USA: We put up with a lower standard of living in return for lower taxes. Call me a lefty, but I think that's a bad deal.
19
Most economies in Europe are fiscal wrecks and have growth rates far below those of the US. Citing them as examples to emulate is economic suicide.
2
@Fred Rick
Maybe, but comments to this article from Germany and Denmark suggest otherwise.
This is a harbinger of things to come from Gavin Newsom. 6 months paid leave, $15 minimum wage, “free” healthcare for all, $2billion a year for ineffective homeless programs. It will go on and on. This idea that government should mandate give aways as opposed to encouraging responsible, self reliant behavior is ridiculous and it will kill the State.
24
@Eileen- Your post caught my attention as I also live where you do but I disagree with your belief that self reliant behavior would be better than supporting new parents in bonding with their children. As you know, where we live is extremely expensive and our schools are supported overwhelmingly by homeowners who pass bonds and grand support through our private foundations but drive a few miles north and a different picture arises. I teach in a district where parents drop their children off as early as 6:30 A.M. because they have to work and cannot afford before school care. Most of our students rely on being fed breakfast and lunch at school and wait hours after school to be picked up or they walk 2-3 miles home to an empty apartment. I see the difference when kids are left to raise themselves. Ironically, I make at least 20k less by teaching in this district and I have to buy my own supplies. Some of our younger teachers qualify for low cost housing. It's easy to live in a bubble in a beautiful coastal town and my children benefited greatly; providing others with a bonding time and a bare minimum to work isn't much to ask to support our neighbors.
21
All the self-reliant behavior in the world won’t give women the opportunity to take longer maternity leaves. They either offer it, or they don’t. And if by chance you have enough money stashed away to take off 6 months on your own, your job will not be waiting for you when you get back. Our policy of 6 weeks of disability is a disgrace, always has been. Another person could have surgery and get the same benefit, but they are not bringing a child into the world. Big difference. A real maternity leave policy would give people the ability to take off 6 months with pay and come back to the same job. It would keep more women in the workforce and enable them to create salaries that are more inline with their male counterparts and allow them to save more for their retirements. It’s pretty obvious that the late 20, 30s and early 40s are the times when most people are climbing the career ladder and increasing their wages; it is also the time when most women, if they choose to have children, are doing it. Until we enact policies that take into account these facts, women will be shortchanged. Remember, corporate America was created by men, for men. And with a few exceptions, most of the policies that do not match up so well with women’s life circumstances are still in place. Sorry, but all the bootstrap pulling, personal responsibility and Horatio Algerisms aren’t going to cut it in a world that has changed drastically since 1950.
4
@Eileen
Yeah, kill the state. Like Norway, all of Scandinavia, Germany, lots of Western Europe. All dead countries wallowing in poverty and misery in their socialist quagmires.
Americans should strive for low tax, low regulation, like... well, there are no such successful countries like that in the world, but ... so what?
1
I live in Munich, Germany. Me and my wife had 14 month parental leave combined, where we received 67% of our pay. There is a cap at 1800€ per month though. It was a great time for us and our daughter, we'll do it again next time.
22
It is ridiculous that this would be the best paid leave in the nation. In Europe it would be considered the bare minimum. People there are willing to pay taxes to support a healthy society in which no one has to worry that having a child or an illness will upend their financial situation. The result is that almost all European countries now have higher life expectancies and much lower maternal and child mortality rates than the US. Americans no longer care enough about each other to sustain systems that will keep each other alive.
30
Just do as we do in Denmark. We have 52 weeks paid leave to share between mother and father/co-mother.
Financing requires miniscule taxraises.
Result: Happier parents, happier babies.
19
@Henrik Fleischer
Sadly, Americans think being stingy and having lower taxes are what really make you happy. We could learn a lot from Denmark. We could, but we won't.
4
@Henrik Fleischer
Denmark. Conservatives know it is exactly like failed socialist state Colombia. Exactly....
@Steve
Thanks, yes, we are generally horrified by the stories of money over people "over there".
http://theconversation.com/why-denmark-dominates-the-world-happiness-report-rankings-year-after-year-93542
3
This excellent program could be paid for by paying people who can’t afford kids not to have them. Everybody wins.
11
Kind of reminds me of "Life with Father." Father objects to hideous Pug dog. Then he gets the bill for Clarence's suit. Mother says I'll return the Pug dog and that will pay for Clarence's suit. !!! Moral of story: you can't get something for nothing; you're either paying for the Pug dog or the suit.
1
If only rich people are allowed to have kids, we will really need to open our borders. Who will be your nurse in old age? Pick up your garbage? Pack your groceries? Police your streets? Not everyone can be an investment banker with daddy’s money.
Democrats are replete with thoughtful, insightful, and genuinely useful ideas. If only they had the money to pay for them.
13
Is it fair to ask the childless to heavily subsidize those with children?
We already do, of course, in the form of school taxes we all pay. But at some point, enough.
Don't get me wrong - having children was the most blessed and wonderful thing my spouse and I did. It was our choice. We paid the childcare costs, lost wages, and college costs ourselves. Happily, we were able to do so.
Some people choose to be childless, or are unable to have children. Others have other expenses, such as caring for elderly parents, or disabled siblings. It seems inequitable to provide heavy subsidies for the obligations related to one of life's choices, but not to others.
71
@Alex Taxes spent on educating nascent members of society are beneficial to all - not just those who have children. The benefits seen from encouraging thoughtful and dedicated child care will also be shared by all. It's long past time we invested more in the core strengthening of our society at large - it really is in our national interest. Nothing is free, but sometimes the investment is worth it.
9
As someone who has chosen to not have children - yes, I absolutely support paying more in taxes to support children and their parents. The American ideal of individualism is incredibly harmful (not to mention dishonest - most people who "make something of themselves" benefit from familial wealth and/or education), and results in an obscenely wealthy country with a broken healthcare system, poor public school outcomes, high rates of homeslessness, etc.
17
Alex, I agree. Paid leave should be available for family care - caring for sick parents, for example - and not just for new parents.
4
Americans are always struggling to pay for what people in other countries routinely enjoy. It’s astounding how we never struggle to pay for crushingly expensive corporate welfare or excessive military spending.
Our “struggles” reveal sick priorities and a sick mindset—not actual problems paying for things we as taxpayers want, need, deserve and pay for.
22
CA will do it the only way they know how. Raise taxes and drive out even more businesses.
18
That seems right except for the big huge building/real estate owners: in south and east Redwood City they are on a crazy building explosion,, erecting huge (< 10 stories, tons of sq ft) office buildings for the next generation of companies that will choose to occupy them for Approximately 15 years, only to abandon them, move somewhere else that is cheaper to afford like South San Jose, or further South than Gilroy Calif.
Double edged - workers who want kids get paid time off. Workers who don’t want kids work harder to take up the slack by “filling in” and get no increase in benefits including all that paid time off that the family people get.
Glad to be retired.
34
The solution here would seem to be — the employees on leave receive x% of their salary from their employer with the remainder being redistributed to the employees picking up the extra work.
If employees prefer instead to pay the full amount of salary to the person on leave, they should be required to hire a temporary employee to pick up the slack.
Of course, situations differ among different types and sizes of businesses. So there should be room for flexibility.
1
We’re falling behind our economic competitors?
Utter nonsense. We're substantially ahead of most of our economic competitors, especially in the EU, and the gap is widening. That's in part because we insist that the primary purpose of work is work - not a financial support program for unchecked socialism.
18
@Chris
Do you have any data that can back up your statement?
1
@Chris
No nonsense...Fact check: The Fiscal Year 2018 U.S. budget deficit is $833 billion equal a minus of 2550 $ pr capitae.
We have a plus of 1000 $ per capitae here. And 52 weeks maternity leave pr child pr couple shared.
And a very liberal government, non-socialist. Yes, we are living the dream here.
1
Nonsense. What surveys/reports substantiate this? Have you been to Europe lately and seen how well everyone lives in comparison with the USA?
1
It’s an investment in the stability of families and the mental health of mothers and children. It takes little imagination to expect that this will have a positive — and tangible — ROI. It should be easy to model and estimate the benefit.
Let’s not be slaves to accountants and spreadsheets.
5
Great more disposable diapers in our landfills. Sarcasm aside, what about childcare while we are at it and compensation for grandparents. These are wonderful ideas, how to pay is the question. Meanwhile our oceans are dying.
8
Paid maternal/parental leave, like universal healthcare, is another area where “American Exceptionality” makes the USA different from most other developed nations. Canada and most European democracies provide for a minimum of six months to a year or more of leave, which can usually be shared by both parents.
This is how compassionate societies operate - with social structures and supports for all their citizens, and without moralistic judgements about who is more or less “deserving.
Join us.
7
Let's say you're a professional in corporate America. You work hard. Your colleague Bill gets to leave for six months, with pay, to care for his newborn.
I believe Bill should receive paid leave, but so should I. When my 93 years young father and 89 years young mother need me, I should be able to get paid family leave. I don't get any respite, nor do the millions in my shoes.
Why should my company or government be the ones to decide that newborns are more important than other family members?
They shouldn't. If there is paid parental leave, which we should and must have, there should be paid family leave as well.
105
There is! Come move to California! Caring for a close family member while ill (a legally defined situation) IS covered under our state paid family leave.
8
There are some safety nets for the elderly that do not at all apply to newborns (Medicare, social security). You can get up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for taking care of a sick parent (or child) and you can get paid, I think, if they qualify for Medicaid.
2
@Sarah
It goes beyond that, Sarah. Why should breeders get leave for something that supposedly they desire, and that enhances their life and makes them happy -- while the rest of us might -- might -- get paid leave only for misfortune such as caring for a dying or demented relative?
If we're going to mandate paid leave for optional lifestyle choices -- and bearing a child is 100 percent a voluntary choice -- then everyone should get it. Write a book, travel, daydream, garden, volunteer, whatever. Our contributions to "society" in those realms and more are worth just as much as the pumping out of yet another western consumer. And are far less destructive to the environment.
4
Society is already paying the cost of NOT having parental leave. Reframe the debate. Parental leave actually saves money.
9
We spend $610,000,000,000 annually on our military, more than China, Russia, France, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK combined.
Maybe we could cut their budget by say a measly 10% or $61 billion and use that for paternal leave.
7
Great. There are literally hundreds of California tax honeypots. Perhaps for this very valid and well intentioned policy we can draw funds from those at the very top, perhaps a fraction of income over $5M. They are here for the weather and the people anyway. You know, civilization. Like every other advanced country does it.
3
The U.S. is way late to the party on providing paid parental leave to benefit families and the economy. We've had paid parental leave in Canada for decades and it just keeps getting better.
There is 15 weeks of paid maternity leave, standard paid parental benefits for a maximum of 35 weeks, and extended paid parental benefits that can be take to a maximum of 61 weeks - (claimed within 18 months of the child's birth).
As I see it, paid parental leave is the embodiment of the saying "It takes a village to raise a child."
8
The advantages of not having to support a military and of collecting taxes from the entire population instead of just 52%.@Shelley B
1
@Shelley B
Canada’s taxes are dramatically higher and you have have chosen to shirk your collective defense responsibilities, preferring that others carry your water.
1
How can you characterize the California legislature as “fiscally conservative” when it levies the highest income taxes, most progressive income taxes (almost 50% pay nothing), highest capital gains taxes, highest sales taxes and 5th highest property taxes per capital in the nation?
California has $136 billion of unfunded pension liabilities. Medical liabilities for retirees are probably in that range as well. That is not responsible fiscal management.
28
We have developed a culture unlike that of most of the 20th century when motherhood has the highest and noblest profession into one in which women must work in order to provide basic needs of a family. Just how much leave is necessary to provide maximum benefit to a child? Most mothers would likely say permanent leave. Women simply can’t do it all! I have no idea how they do it and retain their sanity. The problem goes far deeper than providing a few months of paid leave. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Nature did not intend that mothers work a second job but we feel the need to push the nature envelope.
8
@Confused - Are you a man? Patriarchy says women must make babies and stay home with them, while the men chase self-aggrandizement in the workplace without having to "compete" with women. Women at work are for trophy sex and other entertainment.
I never wanted to stay home permanently and raise kids. I wanted a balanced life. I am a cerebral person and I wanted to use my brain AND be a mother. I have one adult child who turned out to be a great, empathetic young man. His father, on the other hand, thought he owned me and treated me hatefully because he was envious of my accomplishments and my creative friends, and he resented the fact that I made more money than he did. He enjoyed sabotaging me and interfering with my ability to work.
Maternal leave would have been a godsend for me. Too bad that we in the United States have to battle misogyny throughout our lives.
Do you think in ancient hunting and gathering societies, women stopped “gathering” after they gave birth? We know they didn’t. After a period of respite, they strapped that baby to their backs and continued working. Unfortunately, they don’t allow mothers to bring their babies to my work place. Yours?
2
It always makes sense to start with setting goals and looking for policies to achieve those goals. Too often, we start with a policy we think an electorate will like (read attracting votes), and worry about the goal later.
In this case, the goal is clear - increasing the size of the willing workforce (educated women otherwise committed to child rearing), making it easier for families to have children (thus increasing desirable population growth), and lowering the cost of family formation. All of the above will benefit our economy and society.
As for this policy, it looks and feels too much like it fulfills a catchy campaign soundbite (similar to the situation now causing our government shutdown). Any policy proposal should first re-evaluate the host of existing child rearing benefits and then roll them into a comprehensive policy that achieves the above goals. This is far more logical, efficient, and cost effective. US corporations would gladly support this approach...
3
This is a great move and have to be applauded even i will not benefit from it. The savings made from the withdrawal from Syria. Afghanistan etc could be huge sum and easily finance the bill.
2
California did not send troops to Syria or Afghanistan@Raj
"...including the biggest issue of all: how to pay for it. "
You forgot the other biggest issue - who provides the cover while the parents are on leave. I would suggest that at least as much of the resistance would be due to this factor as well.
43
Temps workers. in the big economy it shouldn't be a problem
@rtj
We are talking about state employees. Gravity will hold the chair down just fine.
1
Parental leave can be anticipated, planned for and saved for like any other lifestyle choice. My parents did it 55 years ago on low wages.
I’d rather my taxes support help for victims of involuntary misfortune, like cancer, to meet their living expenses, than to subsidize the production of more humans on an overcrowded planet.
83
Yes, but even if you can afford to take unpaid leave, your job might not be there after the 6 months.
3
@B
That's the breaks. If I took off time to volunteer, write a book, travel, work on saving the pollinators or whales, or just sit around and watch Price is Right all day, my job might not be there either.
We don't need more humans on this planet and we certainly don't need to rob fellow taxpayers and employers to support the lifestyle of those who feel like producing them. Any country experiencing a "demographic fallout" from low birth rates need merely adjust its immigration policies and all the future workers and consumers necessary will be on the spot.
This Ponzi scheme of ever-burgeoning human population must stop. Our public policies MUST stop subsidizing breeding at the expense of everything else.
5
Here is the key point in this article: “The share of American women who are working has stalled, researchers say, hurting families’ incomes and the country’s economic output, even as that share has continued to climb in other rich countries.” Rich countries like Japan, Switzerland, or Sweden? It’s no wonder why these countries are rich. They are the countries who have higher taxes and more regulation to improve and maintain their infrastructure and long-term development.
13
@William Carter Japan, Switzerland and Sweden also have much higher social cohesion and dare we say national identity.
Paying higher taxes and being subject to more regulation is dependent on pride in mutual goals and dependence.
Do you really see highly diverse, highly individualistic Americans who use every legal tool to fight for prizes and privileges really surrendering to this kind of happy collectivism?
20
Yes, I do, because Americans are in the process of rejecting the centralization and monopolization of power by individuals and private corporations espoused by the Trump Republican Party.
3
@CNNNNC
Have to agree with you. Tax Comparisons with compact, relatively homogeneous EU nations where there is less diversity and everyone speaks the same language literally (except in Belgium) and very small budgets for national and international defense aren’t a bit fatuous. I agree We can make progress here (raise top tax rate to say 49.9%, end the carried interest loophole, raise duration for long term cap gains treatment etc) but that still wont raise enough money unless we cut back on defense budget enormously. WE saw how that worked in the 1930’s....WE need EU to become more unified and have a robust integrated defense budget-thats not happening in our lifetimes unfortunately. Details details details -
3
I love the economic focus on this article. I'm hopeful the math shows that figuring out how to support families with new and young children actually more than pays for itself in preventing female workforce attrition and improving early childhood outcomes. Go, California!
I did have a fact check question, though.. We live in Massachusetts and are expecting our first child (children, actually- yikes) this year. I've been over our state family leave laws and don't know of any that guarantee paid family leave. If your company offers short term disability, this will provide a percentage of your salary for a few weeks, but nothing is guaranteed to all residents - and the STD is a piecemeal supplement at best. I also didn't see any mention of MA in the article that's linked. Could you clarify to which policy you're referring? I hope I've missed something, but I wonder if the reference may be giving MA too much credit in the world of paid parental leave. Perhaps you were referring to paid sick time? Important, but a different issue. Thanks!
2
@Bronwyn Alfred
The paid leave they are referencing was recently passed this past August/September and leave will be available on January 1, 2021. They established a system of paid family leave of up to 12 weeks to care for a family member (this includes maternity/paternity leave), and up to 20 weeks for your own illness. The tax that pays for it begins July 1, 2019. This will be a 0.63 percent payroll tax split roughly 50/50 between employee's and employers.
2
@Katherine Oh, fantastic. Thank you for the update!
What's the problem here? There is none since the obvious solution will simply be raise taxes. Already one of the highly taxed states in the nation, what's the problem with instituting another tax in California. Cheers!
23
So the initial funding plan is to increase the risk of the trust fund by lowering reserves. What could go wrong?
15
It is a growing conundrum - how do we pay people to not be active in the workforce?
We can't afford pensions, we are underfunding both pensions and 401Ks; we are retiring people earlier, often in their 50s as life expectancy rises and more an more we talk of raising retirement age.
We don't give adequate sick time to many employees, especially hourly employees and we don't give family leave to people even as the economy demands participation from both parents to afford basic living.
We can't afford to fund childcare to keep people in the workforce, even as people cannot afford to leave the workforce, and we cannot afford to fund (and likely don't really want to fund) longer school days.
And we are eliminating more and more jobs as we automate, leaving more an more people less and less necessary to the workforce.
But, we tie healthcare, retirement income to remaining active in the workforce, so that leaving it imperils people's most basic needs - food, shelter, medicine.
Our equation doesn't work, and the brunt of national policy has been to ignore it, and give more tax relief to people who have no need for it.
51
The solution is to reinstate conscription and draft every 18 year old male who attends public schools. Fill out the personnel need of the armed forces follows by federal, state and local agencies like police/fire/highway crews then place the excess in businesses that desire to slash their labor costs, perhaps on a market cap basis. If the military, all levels of government and large businesses could not only sharply trim their labor costs but also control these men from fathering children other cannot support as well as require them to live in assigned barracks, the problems would solve themselves. My employer does not allow supervisors and mid level management to have any interests outside of the workplace. It has made the company very efficient and more importantly highly profitable. Turnover is a severe issue but a draft would immediately rectify that. There wouldn’t be any rights issues because women would still be free to pursue the education as career of their choosing as well as continue to have absolute control over their bodies.
1
@From Where I Sit 'draft every 18 year old male who attends public schools.' So the wealthy get out of the draft, essentially state control over your life, because they will pay for private school?
And in this day and age, why only males? I see many civil rights violations here.
What about the rights of these young men? And It's not fair to not include women in your forced labor scheme. As outs not fair to exclude them from the draft.
I am all for this, but shouldn’t we ensure universal healthcare and adequate pre-K and general education funding first? Let’s make sure all our kids are well taken care of before encouraging people to have more of them.
19
Allow employers to restrict the ability of men to engage in any activity outside of their jobs and to procreate and the problem solves itself. Not only would there be much less demand for this sort of program but workplace efficiency would skyrocket.
1
@From Where I Sit What do you mean "...engage in any activity outside of their jobs...?" Last time I checked, we still live in a free country where people are free to do whatever they wish, seeking advanced education, gambling at the riverboat, even procreating if they so desire.
@From Where I Sit
"Workplace efficiency would skyrocket ..." and so would suicides, most likely.
Who would want to live under a system like this? Sounds totalitarian, Gotham. Or perhaps you are just a brilliant satirist.
A great start, but support should also extend to family caregivers. Just as with child care, US policy re: caregiving operates under a 1950’s-era, ‘stay at home mom’ model, which assumes that a financially supported woman will be available all day to provide care. In reality, many caregivers (who are generally female, yes) have to work, but are forced to reduce their hours or even quit in order to provide care to aging parents. How are they to react when asked to cover absent co-workers’ duties due
to parental leave? Or to pay extra taxes to finance the program? Support for families needs to be inclusive of the elderly and caregivers, as well as children and their parents.
16
@Jennifer Romanski
I lost more than $12k in after tax wages on unpaid leave, taking care of my dying of cancer mom, a situation we obviously didn’t ask for — while at the exact same time a coworker was on fully paid leave because she chose to bear a child.
Something is wrong with that scenario.
30
I am sorry for your loss, and any additional pain caused by your financial sacrifice.
Care is needed at both the beginning and the end of life. As we seek to improve our policy on caregiver support, we must not prioritize one form of care over another.
3
@Jennifer Romanski
How wonderful it would be if the time came that employees received paid time off to care for elderly family members. That might really change the face of society.
Maybe those same children that had pad parental support for 6 months might one day return the love and get paid time off for aging parents.
I lived in Germany and we had paid parental leave. One advantage of this is that it allows other people to do your job for a contracted period of time, giving a job opportunity to someone who might not otherwise have one. If you are hired as a substitute for someone on parental leave, you know that the job is ultimately temporary, but you get that year's work experience and contacts, and may very well land another job through that channel. So it's not the raw deal for non-parents it may seem at first, because it offers a good opportunity for non-parents to get at least a good temporary job and all of the tangible and non-tangible benefits that having a job provides. It's certainly better than unemployment, and with so many 50-plus people being entirely out of work here in the U.S., a program like that can be a path back into the workforce for them.
126
As a former owner of a company in Germany I can attest to the fact that while there are always those who take undue advantage of the system, it works well on the whole with the health insurance companies coming up for most of the cost. The structure of the social network makes this possible and the results have been positive. Would it work in the US, where people have been taught to think differently?
17
It wouldn’t work in the USA for at least another generation or so because it’s been so ingrained in the minds of people that social safety nets, as in the Italian, German or French models, are a bad thing, and that our taxes would be raised. Most Americans already think that they pay the highest taxes in the world, which I and you know not to be true even in the least, but getting them to understand this, and changing it all will take a lot of work. Good luck to California!
10
@Allison
Paper houses work in Japan. Think they would work here?
This isn’t Germany. Socially, it is some blend of Europe-Mexico-Africa-Ireland-Brazil-India plus. If it were Germany, the streets would be clean.
7
Of course in a civil society where people show reasonable care and concern for their fellow citizens one would expect that employers and their employees would work out suitable arrangements for parental leave following birth of child, without any legal mandate. As for what is "suitable", there are many factors to consider. There must be advance notice to the employer of course, the nature of the position to be temporarily filled must be considered, the size of the enterprise, the role of the employee, whether a part time role is more appropriate, and of course, the financial side. If an employee wants a parental leave, why not expect him/her to save for it, or at least part of it, the presumption would not be that the employer would continue to pay salary as if nothing was happening. The duration of the leave might vary if there are problems with the birth, or if the parent had support mechanisms in place. Not every arrangement would be the same, variations would be made to suit the circumstances, and employees in this civil society would not complain about unequal treatment. There is no way to legislate civility, and laws to mandate it may eliminate it.
3
With so much of the American population working more than one job and living paycheck-to-paycheck, saving enough money to survive a period of childcare seems to be an insurmountable challenge.
6
The problem is that liberals don’t see the inherent differences between the perks offered at the C-suite level to attract and retain talent and the hamster wheel that is general employee attitudes at the middle and below. It make sense to grant generous paid leave of all types to highly placed women but none whatsoever to force it upon male or female store clerks, truck loaders, factory workers or other low wage jobs. The value (and loyalty) just isn’t there.
4
Two basic truths: 1 - Parents-to-be always fear that children are not affordable, 2 - With planning, children are always affordable. Just as matter of saving and deciding what one can do without @Ostinato
This the most pure and compassionate PRO-LIFE policy this country has seen in years.
63
Caroline,
I would be willing to pay higher taxes for an increase in paid maternity leave if abortions ended in the US permanently. Many of my pro life brethren would willingly go along with this if abortions stopped for good. Just ask is.
@WPLMMT is "willing to pay higher taxes" to forcibly strip away the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent women with unwanted/untenable pregnancies. I wonder which of HIS rights we can take away from him...
1
What job allows a super vital individual 6 months off and seamlessly puts them back in and their replacement back out? Two months for each partner is not such an economic crush, would facilitate both parents being real parents and would improve gender equality and lessen workplace disparities. Let’s build in equality for both parents first. And by the way time spent nursing and pumping should count as housework hours. So load the dishwasher and scrub the bathroom floor when you get back from work.
Kids are fun but oodles of work.
5
most other industrialized countries give much more generous parental leave as well as vacation time. As a result they score much higher on overall happiness measures. American corporations are making us all miserable.
2
Straight up: anyone arguing feasibility or economic damage ad it relates to this policy is missing the point. Entirely.
And, I will wait patiently for the critics to actually live in an economically high-output part of the world. California is paying your bills. You’re welcome. You don’t pay enough bills in this house to tell me where my money’s going.
9
@Lex Diamonds I'm only a lowly New Yorker, but I can assure you that California isn't paying any of my bills. I have the checkbook to prove it.
8
I agree with what Stone said. Paid parental leave is a good thing. But not offering similar options to nonparents is unfair. Ultimately, becoming a parent is a choice and because of this, all employees should have similar benefits available to them. Nonparents should have paid leave available to them as well, perhaps in the form of 6 months for their own personal medical conditions or caring for sick relatives or parents, like the Family and Medical Leave Act offers now but with pay. I also believe that such long leave proposals will ultimately fail in legislature. They are a good idea, but they cost a lot of money. Three months? Maybe. One step at a time.
36
@Kristin
The law that was passed in MA in August 2018 covers more than parental leave. With this law, which will allow leave starting January 1, 2021, employees may take up to 12 weeks to take care of a family member, which includes newborn children and sick family members. Employees may also take up to 20 weeks a year to take care of their own illness. So, this may help cover those who don't have children or need to care for their own illness.
5
The 6 weeks of paid CFRA leave can be used to care for a sick family member as well, so it does apply to non-parents.
@Kristin
No, childfree should have paid leave to do whatever they want, not just in cases of misfortune. Procreators get leave to fund the lifestyle choices they desire, why should we only ve supported when something bad hapoens?!
4
Benefits like this should be paid for by the companies and should have been tied to the generous corporate tax cuts last year.
28
We here in Canada, really can't understand, with your massive population and tax base, why you cannot afford maternity or family leave?? Here we get up to 18 months which either or both parents can take. It is not great pay but your job is secure for this time. All other western nations seem to feel that child care and education is extremely important but you guys, not so much. We help parents with a government child bonus monthly for lower income families and pay our teachers very well to properly educate them.
216
Yes, Joan Williams. The US seems to be isolated from the rest of the world. Poverty, high cost of medical care, the lack of a social network could be factors responsible for a shorter life span. I know several well educated US Americans with good jobs living on the edge. There are many factors that contribute to the American Chaos.
15
Wages should be for labor expended and only labor expended. We’ve gotten so far off track on the issue of payments for. NOT working as to be at the epidemic stage. Paid holidays, which there is pressure to increase the number of. Paid vacation/PTO, again with the expectation of doubling the individual allotment every few years. My employer has moved all site managers to 1099 status with pay set at minimum wage for a 35 hour week. It is efficient for labor cost (every one of us works 65 hours) and never creates scheduling/cost issues over illness, vacation/holiday time off, doctors appointments, etc. in addition all payroll taxes are borne by the person who will ultimately benefit not the employer for whom there is no gain.
8
@joan williams
As a fellow Canadian, former employer (retired), I agree with Joan. In response to comments on this, The funding is through the Employment insutace plan which is similar to a payroll tax. Payroll taxes are really jointly paid, since they come out of the employers payroll budget.
I liked the program as an employer, mothers returned to employment refreshed and ready to work, instead of zombies needing a job. Fathers can share the time allotted. At the time I worked, it was one year off, allowing for us to recruit more capable people as replacement workers, and they frequently stayed on either permanently, or for a good transfer of knowledge.
13
6 months really isn't enough time. Children are usually home until they reach 18 years. Therefore, this should be an 18 year program for both parents for each child. Also, we should include grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. After all, it takes a village...
95
@Jeff - I bet you don't have children, or if you do, you make their mother do all of the work of childcare and homemaking. Ain't patriarchy sweet?
3
@Jeff pretty funny...thanks....
5
pretty funny.
4
This proposal is still well below what many European countries pay For example, in Germany a mother is entitled to fully paid leave 6 weeks prior and 12 weeks after birth. In addition there is a scheme called Elternzeit (Parents time) which entitles parents (fathers and mothers) to paid leave of in total 12 months spread over up to 8 years as of birth. The payment equals between 60 and 80% of the net salary and is paid by the government.
If countries like Germany, Holland, Denmark, etc. can afford this investment into better parenting shouldn't the much richer (as measured in GDP per capita) California not be able to afford that type of investment? There is circumstantial evidence that the pay out in terms of productivity, happiness, crime rates etc. is quite attractive. So, let's be brave and go for it.
51
@WGermany, Holland & Denmark aren't choking on $800 + Billion yearly defense budgets...and Californians are already the highest taxed citizens in the nation.
34
@Stone If Californians are now the highest taxed citizens, there's one and only one reason for that: the GOP tax "reform". Are you suggesting the GOP majority in the Congress were intentionally trying to hobble blue states? Oh, gosh, that just can't be possible...
5
@Bob Nelson No...I was just stating a statistical fact. I assume that both Democratic and Republican legislators situated in the California State Capitol have contributed to the tax burdens of its citizenry, over time. Increases in taxes, be it on a Federal, State, or local level, is typically a matter of bipartisan agreement.
4
I just completed my project for my Master of Science and part of the research I did took me through something called adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). I am thoroughly convinced that, in addition to the identified benefits in the article, paid parental leave can go a long way to properly supporting the development of the child, reducing the likelihood of a host of adult complications and diseases. While I understand that these programs may be expensive at first, the payback from them will be exponential.
41
Typical liberal response: let’s address the issue with a government program paid for with confiscated funds. Why isn’t the solution ever to eliminate the problem from occurring. The men who wire at my job who aren’t related to the founder are highly discouraged from any activity outside work, including socializing, dating, marriage, vacations, hobbies and more. It makes for an efficient workplace with limited distractions.
@Holly
I'm sure you studied very hard. But how many children have you raised?
Companies would leave California in a heartbeat if they were burdened with the cost of absorbing 6 months paid maternity leave. Business are already migrating from CA to lower taxing states.
As it is, this program would make it mandatory for individuals who CHOOSE not to have children, which is large percentage of adults, to fund maternity leaves for those who do ... which might cause some resentment when this information is digested by the state's working class. Taxpayers without children are already paying into local schools systems, without choice or recourse.
74
An informed, educated electorate is crucial to sustaining a democracy. Thus, for the health of our nation and system of government, I’m happy to fund the education of tomorrow’s American citizens and leaders.
55
@Incorporeal Being I've chosen to be childless, yet have happily paid yearly taxes for the education of children in the schools districts where I've owned homes, for 34 consecutive years. But, if I were young again, knowing that I was not going to be a parent, I would resent paying taxes for BOTH the education of "tomorrow's American citizens" AND the SIX month maternity leaves for their parents.
I don't think I'm outlier among adults who choose to be childless when expressing these feelings.
30
@Stone
"Companies would leave California in a heartbeat if they were burdened with the cost of absorbing 6 months paid maternity leave."
I see this kind of argument so often, and yet somehow the states/cities with the most regulations tend to have the best economies, generate the most wealth, and support the highest populations.
3
I’m just about to start my 8th and last week of paid maternity leave however I’m opting to also take 16 weeks of job protected unpaid leave as there is no way I could bring him to day care yet. I can really only take this much time as I’ve saved over the years for this type of event and my husband is also employed full time.
It’s a travesty that there isn’t a federal mandate on parental leave and I’m thrilled that Cali is looking to put something into place. As a resident of nj we have 6 weeks of ‘disability’ payments and another 6 weeks of ‘family bonding’ payments so I should consider myself lucky that I live in a state that has something for moms but it’s been a long process to get and not everyone knows about it. It’s only a faction of my actual salary but at least it’s something.
16
@Andrea Moy
“Travesty.” Really? Eyeroll.
Overbreeding on a planet where otger species are suffering and dying off daily is the travesty.
I want my hard-earned tax dollars to support environmental conservation, not tge production of more greedy, selfish, destructive consumers.
2
Nothing wrong with paid leave for new parents. I was born in the Netherlands and we already had this decades ago. So yes I support this.
22
@IJonah We have the same thing here in Canada - excellent government-funded parental leave that can be shared by both parents.
1
@IJonah
The Netherlands also is a homogenous, well-educated, low crime/high quality of life 17 million. That's less than the entire greater Los Angeles.
1
This plan is a great idea, although many will claim the incoming governor's plan is a half-way measure.
California's state employees already have very generous amounts of sick leave, paid vacation, and many paid holidays. They retire at a very early age to receive very generous retirement benefits. Addition of this 6 months of paid leave to state employees every time they have a child will mean that many employees will be paid more for not working that for working.
Paying state employees more for not working than for working is entirely appropriate. It is also fair and just to the taxpayers since state employees don't do much of value even when they are on job.
The only more appropriate compensation arrangement for state employees would be to simply give every one of them 12 months of paid leave per year, every year for life. And if that compensation arrangement were mandated on all private sector employers, supreme fairness would result. Everyone would be well paid with lots of time off to spend their money. Of course, there would be absolutely nothing to buy with their money because no one would be producing anything.....but hey, that is a small price to pay for being truly progressive.
42
@Errol
I realize you are trying to be cute/clever here, but in fact universal basic income makes a great deal of economic sense in advanced industrialized nations for exactly some of these reasons. Indeed, expectations during the industrial revolution were that the dramatic gains in per-worker productivity due to mechanization would allow the formation of a vast leisure class who could spend the bulk of its time pursuing activities of human interest.
Instead, we’ve created in America an odd duality: hyper productive workers operating advanced technology in service of an increasingly insecure rat race.
8
@RC, MD PhD
I agree with you that a universal basic income has some economic validity.....if done as replacement for all the piecemeal programs like welfare, social security, unemployment compensation, disability payments, etc., and this parental leave proposal.
However, the piecemeal approach that we now have is eminently more preferred by the self-styled "progressive" partisans since those piecemeal programs buy a great many votes from the beneficiaries of each program whereas efficient, sensible proposals like universal basic income do not.
4
@RC, MD PhD
p.s. to my other response to you here....
Universal basic income is essentially what conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed more than 50 years ago. It was then called the negative income tax.
1
California's birth rate is pretty low as might be expected from an expensive
state so the total number of applicants
for leave is likely to be tiny to the total
population.
Unemployment insurance and disability insurance rates could be increased to fund paid leave while at the same time
limiting the total amount of cash spent on this admirable idea. Start with something .
However, the state would be wise to be reminded that most of us turned out just fine with parents who worked hard, raised children and who did not receive full paid leave.
20
@Joe: Did we indeed turn out "just fine"? This country is full of unhappy people, and we have a huge mental health problem. Not saying that lack of parental attention is the main cause, but it is certainly one major negative added to the mix of negative factors - such as inequality, poor schools, and lack of opportunities for upward social mobility - which make Americans very unhappy people.
5
Republicans consistently voice the need to support the unborn and many place this priority above all else, but once children are outside of the womb these same people undermine the development of children: they push to reduce gov. spending on education; they support the elimination of school meals and other forms of food assistance; and have supported defunding CHIP. The reality is that every American should support the effort to extend family leave, and companies and government need to figure out how to pay for it. Studies have shown that longer leave helps the development of children throughout their youth, and improves employee satisfaction and worker productivity.
Over the years I have worked for several EU based employers that embraced more vacation days and longer family time leave in much of the world, but pushed for less time off for employees in the U.S. It’s about time that Americans demand what much of the rest of the industrialized world gets: more time off. We are a nation that not only gets less but tends not to take what we are given (US workers forfeited more than 200 million vacation days in 2017); enough is enough, things need to change and Newsom seems to want CA to at least lead the nation on family paid leave.
149
@Scott Man
I agree some childcare leave is not only important it’s essential. I’m in favor of funding food assistance, education, birth control and abortion. But I am not in favor of people having children they cannot support or raise. Having kids is not a right, it’s a responsibility.
My suburban publicly employed colleagues get very reasonable salaries and some paid childcare leave. They have the opportunity to take off 2 years for childcare but most do not take it. They say they cannot “afford” it. But they can’t afford it because they don’t want to change the lifestyle they’ve established. Having kids is not a right. Having the big suburban house and trips to Disney even less so.
22
@Suburban Teacher
Regarding the lifestyle change, my mother had “parental leave” to raise each of her children to age five. It was funded by my father working as a laborer and a “lifestyle change” of not owning a reliable vehicle, not having an indoor bathroom, growing or hunting most everything we ate—basically being poor. I wouldn’t call it poverty because we had enough to eat, to wear, clean water, and shelter.
The point is, if people really believe in supporting motherhood firmly enough as my parents did, they find a way. Just have to pay the price. Not to say that it wouldn’t be nice to lower the price. But nothing is free.
Paid leave is one one way to lower the price. Lowering the cost of living by removing policies that raise it is another. The advantage of the later is that it benefits everyone, just just a special group.
4
@Scott Man - Ummm, @Scott Man, YOU had the baby. Not the government. It's YOUR responsibility to turn that little boy or girl into a well-rounded, contributing member of society. Not the government's. Unless you're suggesting that the kid be turned over to the state once born? Take some ownership of choices made there, sir.
Yes, I'm one who does NOT support family leave for birth because I support PTO for any medical need in that person's immediate family. There's no need to carve out specific subjects, just allow a bank of hours to be used as needed.
California has a "history of fervent opposition to taxes"? Have the authors done any homework? California has one of the highest - if not THE highest - income tax rate in the nation. Why do you think huge number of people are leaving the state in search of lower-tax residences such as Nevada, Texas and Florida?
California politicians do not seem to be getting the message that taxpaying residents want less government spending so they can keep more in their pockets. Hopefully California will figure this out, or it risks the fate of New York and similar states that are now experiencing net emigration to lower-tax states rather than immigration.
57
@CC. Californians are concerned when they go to open carry-gun toting-stand your ground states. who wants to be in the old west and increased lawlessness and gun violence? No taxes mean no services. Calif is the big blue progressive diverse economic engine, #5 economy in the world so those who are tempted to go to Fla, TX & Nevada etc should go if taxes are their only concern...you get what you pay for.
3
@CC
The authors' follow the dictum: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
@CC If using NY emigration as your argument, surely you must consider that New York City is booming and steadily gaining population despite the high taxes you say are driving everyone away.
You can go a long way to pay for the 6 months of paid leave by having only the mother qualified for it. If the baby is healthy, the father should get back to work soon. To have men take advantage of such a program is hard to defend. Many mothers have their mother or mother-in-law help them out with an extended visit. And the reason offered here to justify men also receiving it, " they will be more involved in their children's lives " is a weak one, as they should naturally be motivated.
The company I work for took away a week of paid time off annually ( used for both vacation and sickness ) for those with both 15 years to 24 years, and 25 years plus employees to pay for 2 months of a new policy of paternity leave that goes in to effect this year plus some extra time for short term disability. I agree with helping more on short term disability though. At least my company is showing financial discipline in " taking from one bucket and giving to another bucket " of money as they have to compete in their field and did not want to incur a net increase in expenses.
California should only offer such a generous plan to the mother. Including the father makes it financially not feasible.
4
You’ll find more situations now where the mothers make more than fathers. That was my situation 30 years ago where I made twice the salary my husband did so we made the decision that he stay home for a year with each of our 3 children who are now adults. This is a reason why this leave should be offered to mothers and fathers - not to leave out families with 2 dads or 2 moms where either gender is equipped for parenting. It’s time to recognize that we’re not in the 1950s anymore where being a mom automatically means you are the designated stay at home parent.
79
There are so many reasons this makes no sense. What about single dads or two-dad homes who adopt or use surrogacy? Also, I make more than my husband. It would make more sense for my husband to take leave. But fortunately, here in NY, we both get leave.
8
@Robert With regards to getting the mother or mother-in-law to help out - maybe they have careers themselves. You thought of that, right? Right?
1
What's wrong with companies paying for it? There's so much government-sanctioned corporate welfare, it's time they do something in return for their employees, without whom there'd be no company in the first place.
152
@BenCompanies would leave California in a heartbeat if they were burdened with the cost of absorbing 6 months paid maternity leave. Business are already migrating from CA to lower taxing states.
As it is, this program would make it mandatory for individuals who CHOOSE not to have children, which is large percentage of adults, to fund maternity leaves for those who do ... which might cause some resentment when this information is digested by the state's working class. Taxpayers without children are already paying into local schools systems, without choice or recourse.
17
@Ben. What about small business owners who make up the majority of businesses in the USA? The corporate world is not the only business sector.
14
@Stone But Stone, isn't there a common good, like public education, public roads, public libraries, a well-educated, healthy next (and subsequent) generation we all have to contribute to? If not, I'd venture to say we have no country to hold together.
11
Once again CDNs are scratching their heads at the limitations of American health support. As a CDN who has had three maternity leaves and supported 100s more I can attest that interviewing only one woman who claims her career was negatively impacted really does not give a full picture. I am a Bank Director who was never impacted by my three years in total away from the workplace. In fact I timed my pregnancies in order to maximize my parental time with each of the three. Men are entitled to take parental leave and any stigma attached to this is rapidly diminishing. In my core leadership team I have one young man who just requested his second parental leave. After the first he couldn’t stop thanking me and the rest of my small team for carrying his workload during the months he was away. As women there was never any question of resentment as we had all been similarly supported in the past.
44
@CT I am a Canadian as well, and am always wondering why our southern neighbors expect so little from their elected, supposedly family-valuing government. Support for families, health-care and education must be priorities. "Canadian government mandates maternity leave, paid leave is offered for one or both parents through employment insurance plan. ... Either mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose." https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/maternity-parental.html
7
@CT unfortunately the U.S is not as socially cohesive as Canada or European countries where parental leave is generous and common.
2
@Cheryl
In addition, many places hire maternity leave replacements.
this is the same question that almost all liberal proposals face: combating climate change, free college, free health care, universal income.
I would really want to hear concrete cost estimates and changes in taxation policies, as well as whether illegal immigrants would qualify for these.
67
@ liberty: Haven't seen a budget for that right-wing wall of Trump's. He wants $5.6 billion, but hasn't even spent the money allotted last year to border security. He rejected the $26 billion Congress offered him in the last bill. How much is that wall going to cost? Where are the budget projections for construction? Where are the plans for maintenance? How much is it going to cost to maintain a thousand miles of wall? What is it going to cost us in lawsuits, when property owners sue the government for trying to take the land they own along the border? So much for the myth that the right are the fiscally responsible lot. They demand money for poorly conceived projects that have no specific budget and then shut down the government, holding the salaries of 800,000 employees hostage to their unreasonable, half-baked scheme.
2
@liberty - you’ll be waiting a long time. Everything is free and no one pays! “The problem w/ Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” - Margaret Thatcher
1
I’m not sure how “illegal immigrants” would be covered by such a benefit since they do not have the right to work in the United States. People working illegally can’t apply for unemployment benefits.
1
I like the idea and California being the 5th largest economy in the world should be able to find a way to afford those programs, I hope this goes through and other states start to pick up, I think 6 months is enough for parental leave.
8
@Victor Calderon - why not make it a year? Or for life? It’s free after all
1
It is potentially free for the whole world. Just kidding. Actually it depends on those part-time workers who do the same job for much lower rate with no benefits to replace those on leave. Some in the comment also mention it depends on those who do not have children or have grown children. The definition of irresponsible policy: Throwing money at part of the care shortage to create more conflicts.
1
Paid parental leave, higher minimum wages. California leads on what we all want but how do these policies mean anything to workers outside the corporate structure when, in California particularly, there is a large, thriving, unaccountable illegal workforce?
Google will have no problem with paid leave but the startups with 20-49 employees might. And they leave CA or hire strategically.
Why would small lower skill businesses even hire on the books when labor laws become more costly and they can freely hire 'undocumented' workers without any legal consequences? No payroll taxes if workers are not officially on the payroll.
We all want these benefits but any new initiative is undermined by a large shadow economy where both employers and workers are unaccountable for labor laws.
29