Not sure the goal should be keeping women in the workplace (who may not want to be). But to give women/ families the best options to raise their kids.
That said, most workplaces, policies, culture are garbage for working parents. I see it w/ all my friends.
I say this as a happy working mom (2 kids 6 and 11) in a high income (sometimes high stress) career - but I work freelance and get to make my own schedule (massive quality of life issue). I also have a husband who legit does 50% of the work.
Getting to make my own schedule and having help have kept me workin and earning and saving quite the nest egg. I wish every family had this set up.
104
Well written article with supporting facts and very little bias. Thank you for showing that these issues are complex and not boiled down to one root cause. Keep up the great work.
42
Men and women are different and respond to incentives differently.
WOW.
Who would have thunk it???
40
The only guarantee in life is death, it’s just what you live through before you get there. I doubt as you’re closing in on those final moments you’ll be thinking “if only I had not stayed home with my child I could have earned more money over my life”. No, you will possibly be comforted that someone you love is with you and you are not alone. Life is for living and making things better for others around us, not acquiring possessions.
63
I suspect that most parents that go on paid leave develop a greater appreciation for what is truly important in life. Climbing the company ladder becomes less important after spending time with your kids. Tell me someone, how can you put a price on spending time with your kids? Life goes by very fast and I have never heard anyone say if I had only stayed in my cubical working those extra years my life would be complete. Less salary 10 years down the road...no surprise. Did you happen to ask in the survey if they are living happier more fulfilling lives though? Of course not, that is not a statistical benchmark that exists in a database. Is it obvious to state that money can only bring you so much happiness? Tell me in the end, who lived the richer life?
131
Maybe women just know and act on the obvious: work sucks and you should do as little of it as possible.
107
There are so so so many reasons. Corporations treat employees like just so much expense they would be better off not having if possible. The insanity of the lack of protection through the anti union movement in this country makes working or not almost moot. The pay typically one can get hasn't increased in almost 30 years relative to inflation, which most certainly has. What's the point of going back to work? Long hours, short pay, a government that doesn't care, no training anymore, no benefits at all, right to work only everywhere, fired at will with no recourse, no ability to bring suit if fired just "binding arbitration", non disclosure agreements at every turn, (bow to Trump as world leader there), non compete clauses for the rest of your life, actual pay if you can get it, otherwise draw against commission. Should I go on? What a country.
49
Women staying home for a minimum of six months is integral to the health of the infant, which isn’t even addressed in this article. Breast milk provides passive immunity and human milk oligosaccharides that help to establish the baby’s microbiota and immune system. Breast milk, not formula, is important for the infant’s health for years to come. This is one very important reason why Mother’s need time at home with their babies. The life style we are subjecting mothers and infants to is criminal. It needs to change.
92
Back in the the ‘80’s, my parental leave allowed me to use sick leave and vacation days that accumulated with each year up to three weeks which I had saved over the years in addition to six weeks so I actually could take over 6 months each time twice for each child. And I was a teacher so already scheduled weeks of school vacation and summer were not counted against the accumulation of those days in the bank for parental leave. Both children benefitted by having parental close attention, not in day care for infants. Also my spouse had been laid off so that was added to amount to one year for the first child. This was unheard of in those days. I continued to work until retirement for a total of 38 years of public service. Those conservatives who bemoan paying educators all these benefits and annual pay increases need to know this: for the last 15 years of my career, I worked 80 to 100 hours a day and on some on weekends and even on vacations since I became an administrator without additional compensation which was really almost 5 percent above what I would have been paid as a top of the range teacher. So the public school system did get the additional investment back eventually and then some.
35
I meant to say 80 to 100 hours a week, not a day, lol. May have felt like that...
45
I have always been puzzled why a country steeped in capitalism always looks at children as an expense. We spend our adult lives raising the next generation of workers, consumers, educators, doctors, foreign service officers, scientists and patriots. As a mother I know the importance of this task but hope that my educated daughters do not need to give up their intellectual fulfillment for the same. Without committed moms their is no growth in GDP. Consumerism is the basis of our economy, No consumers.. No jobs. Stagflation will be our future.
Technology should allow a better work life balance for the majority of moms. Children and the accompanied loss of income should not be our burden and the burden of our families. It is time for change. Even educated families can not survive on one income. It is time that Corporate America and the investor class recognize that the need for change is now before this Millennial and Z generations make change happen in your absence. When that occurs it will not be pretty.
41
Once again, my husband and I are justified in not having children at all. Society expects too many sacrifices simply to make more people that our species doesn't need. Economists are wrong that we need more people to keep the economy going. The countries with the highest birth rates are the poorest in the world; the countries with the lowest birth rates are the wealthiest. Quality of each person rather than quantity makes for a healthy, wealthy society. What we all need most is family leave for everyone so that we can care for our elderly and disabled relatives. If someone wants to use that leave to make a baby, fine. But most caregiving now is for the elderly and disabled, not for babies. What about the rest of us who need paid family leave to take care of our parents?
96
Great that this research is done, parental leave is so important. It would be good if comparisons to European statistical results are also offered. They have had this in place for years.
16
Three things:
1) The study was conducted by consulting government statistics, not by interviewing subjects or even notifying them they were part of a study. Good for numbers of subjects, bad for interpreting the data.
2) A lot of commenters seem to be taking for granted the fact that the women who are not making as much money as women who did not take leave simply aren’t working as hard. This is a mental leap made easier by the ideology that surrounds us. Wage=worth.
3) There seem to be a handful of people (men, I’m guessing) who feel they had to pick up the work left undone when a woman they worked with went on maternity leave. The fact that they find the woman who went on leave responsible for that rather than their employer who had months to prepare for an absence says a lot about the blame pattern that we’re programmed with in this country.
48
Did the cost of childcare factor into the study? Women/parents with lower paying jobs and less of a career track most certainly have to weight the cost of childcare when they decide to go back to work.
39
Our society needs children to replace us as we grow older, to step up and contribute taxes and social security and medicare. Child rearing and education are therefore vital to producing intelligent, ethical, empathic, good citizens. Children require attention, love, compassion to thrive. If both parents must work to provide then where does that come from? Especially going directly back to work.
I can agree with one commenter that it is not fair to put the burden on employers. Paid leave should come at least in half from the government and employers should receive incentives. Child care also is needed so that parents can work. Again this costs money but maybe we should follow Senator Warren's ideas for less military spending, higher taxes on the wealthy, health insurance for all, so that we invest in our people instead of bombs, and providing welfare for the rich and corporations.
21
My children now have children, so my experience is 35 years old. I did receive 3 months maternity leave with pay, and I continued to work in advertising, first in New York and then San Francisco. I spent almost as much on day care as I received in salary because I could not advance in the way someone without children could. Nor did I want to. I didn’t want to work 80 hour weeks, it was hard enough rushing them out the door in the morning and not picking them up until 6. Something has to give and my husband also worked in a demanding industry earning significantly more than I did, so I finally left the industry. I have never regretted my decision. My children, especially my daughter, became much happier and relaxed when I was home. I worked part-time, keeping my hours to school hours, and volunteered extensively in school and community organizations, always keeping my commitment to not conflict with their needs. Today both children are successful and well adjusted adults. My son has three preschool children and his wife stays home with the children, devoting herself to their well being and volunteering in their nursery school.
Whether it’s the man who sacrifices career for family or the woman, I believe that we cannot be all things to all people. I think this study reflects that. These woman are recognizing, perhaps after being home on leave, that their attention is divided and their family comes first!
80
Other than a lack of pay, what exactly is wrong with the role of a full time parent?
My wife and I made the decision and sacrifices required to allow her to remain home as a full time mom. Why didn’t I stay home instead? Many reasons, among them I was the higher wage earner and she viewed no job a higher calling than that of a mom.
We both sacrificed. My goal every day was to come home to be with my family. Work was a fulfilling career that gave us opportunities so we could be a family, live within our means and recognize family was #1, not career. Sorry, but selling my soul to a corporation to climb the ladder and chip away family time was not a priority. The limits to my career were self imposed.
Let’s be clear, this was no “little woman” role who served her husband and child. It’s hard work. We were both fully engaged. My wife would receive backhanded “compliments” from women who viewed her role as (pick your own adjective). In quiet moments some would say how they envied her and “wished they could do the same”. It always came down to the same thing, what are you willing to sacrifice to stay home and fully participate in the joy of raising a family?
In the end we recognize we’ve made numerous sacrifices over the years but know it was all worth it and would do it again. Plus we strongly encouraged young families to do the same. Some did, some not. It’s a choice.
140
@ArtM ,
Yes, it is a choice, but perhaps a dangerous one. Either parent has to be prepared to step in and support the family in case of divorce, death, disability, or unemployment of a spouse. It might be possible to work part time, do consulting work from home, etc., to keep up your job skills, but to leave paid work entirely is risking poverty should one of these events occur.
98
@Patricia
I wouldn't call it dangerous. Life has a way of getting interfering with the best dreams/plans. But that does not mean succumbing to every what if. My wife and I had more than our fair share of complications. Many times it wasn't easy but the priority never changed. Our course of action did.
I am not saying it is an easy choice nor does it mean every family is able to do so. There are families who just can't because of many circumstances or have to change course. However, my wife and I strongly believe there are more couples who could if they sit down together and decide what is more important in their lives when having a family.
22
@Patricia: Savings and insurance. If you're going to be a one-income family, you can't do without either.
32
Parental leave is an excellent idea but not for the purported goals of strengthening the economy. If that's your goal then keep the wage slaves childless and focused on production for the rich. If, instead, your goal is to increase happiness, produce a stronger citizenry and and generally help human progress then encourage stronger families by letting parents bond more with their children without the threat of losing healthcare and income and pass more of these laws. During my reproductive years your government gave me and my generation of parents the shaft. It also robbed us of income which it gave to the rich. I really hope to see things reversed in my lifetime because it's the right thing to do even if it comes too late for many of us.
30
Obvious: Because those who take leave are less committed to their jobs.
14
@Jonathan Katz
And those who take leave find the value and fulfillment of family and realize they'd rather not sacrifice that for an employer.
29
The goal of paid leave for women after childbirth is to keep them working? That is disgusting. The goal should be to improve child care and family happiness. For women who want to be home with their children it is a godsend to know they can be with their child and still have some money coming in.
41
@Wendy It has been purported, with some evidence, that the women's lib movement was after all, in the eyes of the goverment, a means of increasing the tax base.
8
I’m currently on my SF bonding leave with my second kid. It is utterly magical. I am excited to go back to work in a few months, but it is giving me a taste of a life that is simpler and without the nightmare commute.
16
Once they become mothers, their priorities change. Sure, a company might find a new worker, but you're not going to find a new mother for a child. What I do disagree with is that employers alone shouldering the burden of a woman that gets hired and has a kid immediately after. That only builds resentment. All systems get gamed, and we need safeguards. Leave should be a government-backed thing, not a private thing. They should need at least a year at their employer first before giving birth. If it isn't fair for a rule to decide when a woman should give birth, it is also not fair for an employee to hold an employer hostage.
14
@Chad
I agree that it would be best for for parental leave (and health care) not to be shackled to employers. But it should also be incumbent on employers to have responsibility to pay a living wage, not to throw employees under the bus in mergers and such, and to move away from paying executives so many extreme multiples of what front-line workers make. As it is, the deck is stacked against the employees, and has been since the unions were suffocated.
24
I know many men and women who are relieved to come into the office after a chaotic weekend or vacation with children.
A dirty little secret - in the hearts of many who drank our societal kool-aid about marriage and family is the daily awakening to reality of the expense and labor involved in child-rearing. They swallow, reflect on their pre-child life and think...
"What have I done?"
38
These results aren't so surprising--maybe many of these women had a bit of an epiphany that other things add value to life rather than just earning money to pay for all the Amazon Prime junk.
Remember family values--spending time together? Hobbies? Other skills? Personal spiritual development? Maybe many of these women just gained new perspective.
We wanted equality and the right to do the same work for the same pay, but that has morphed in U.S. culture to all families must be dual-income families to support the nonstop influx of STUFF.
We should have paid parental leave, and both men and women should use it, but the objective should be work-life balance, not "keeping women in the work force."
33
I hate the framing of these studies/articles.
It always seem to suggest a judgement that women who prioritise spending quality time at home with their kids are making the "wrong" choice, or are victims in some sense. That their goal should be a workaholic existence where one rarely sees their kids, just so they can earn the same as the childless.
Why is that the goal?
Can't we just trust that women use their own freewill and make the best choices for themselves?
45
I honestly don't understand why I even read the comments following articles like this because the result is always the same: I end up feeling terrible for having been born with a uterus. Women cannot win. Ever.
If we go back to work after taking maternity leave, we're expected to grovel forever to those who worked in our stead, and even if we work like demons to accomplish in six hours what others do in eight or ten so we can take our toddler to the doctor or catch our fourth grader's soccer practice, we're still considered slackers.
On the other hand, God forbid we decide to chuck it all and live on a spouse's income. We'll never hear the end of that either. Nothing like standing at a company dinner next to your spouse and having another woman walk away after she discovers that you're a SAHM but not without first saying, "You know, research shows that your kids won't be any better off than if you'd continue working."
So thanks, NYTimes, for raising the specter of the mommy wars yet again.
81
@Allison
I am still waiting to hear the first actual instance of an employed woman making such an insulting statement to a stay-at-home mom. In my experience, there is actually a lot of sympathy going both ways between mothers, because neither situation is ideal. The truth is, as mothers, we punish ourselves by saying these things internally.
43
I've been the mom at work with a full-time job and two kids and the mom at home with two kids and the judgement especially internally is real as others have stated. Staying at home can be isolating without other mommy friends and going to work can be hard too unless you have a lot of help. It's also true that when you work the expectations are so high. You tell yourself you will cook homemade meals,clean the house daily, workout often , maintain healthy friendships , have a great career and energy to pursue your other interests like starting that blog that everyone says they will start one day. But in reality there are only so many hours in a day and being really present with each child and giving your children your best is never easy. And forget the other women who judge you for working too much or for staying home. In 2019 we are so hard on each other and no one is winning when we are at war with each other over our ideal societal roles and reality.
26
@Madeline Conant: Happened to me twenty years ago at my spouse's employer's Christmas dinner. It was shortly after the birth of my second child, and she was a department director maybe a couple of years older than me. In hindsight, I recognize that she was just trying to make herself feel better about her own choices, but at the time I felt like I'd been punched in the gut. If things have changed in recent years and professional women are generally kinder to one another, I'm truly glad to hear it. Even so, a quick perusal of this comments section provides evidence that the mommy wars haven't quite been resolved.
21
How about the simple, and most obvious explanation: women who take paid leave have less commitment to their careers/employer than those that don't?
11
Millions of years of human evolutionary biology and economics researchers are shocked that mothers prefer to be with their children than at a desk job.
40
@Qui
That’s not what the research says at all. And I know plenty of working moms who say they would find being a stay-at-home-mom mind-numbingly boring.
21
Maybe people are realizing the importance of caring for their own children if, as a family, they can afford to? “If the goal is to keep women working....” Whose goal, exactly, is this?
27
@AK Whose goal? The IRS.
It's all about keeping women in the work force to support the tax base. Same reason women lib was allowed to make progress.
5
That rat race is such that if you take time off, you sure fall behind in your career
Although my colleagues had 4 weeks of vacation, none, ever took it more than a few days and none took the entire 4.
As one explained : If you take vacations for two weeks, and work goes on without too much disruption, the company will conclude that you are not needed.
No surprise, what-so-ever. Economist should work in the real world
13
OMG!! These findings don’t fit the PC narrative!! Something must be wrong!! It’s clear that these new mothers are insufficiently WOKE!!! The proper course for a committed democratic socialist is to send them off to a reorientation facility where their attitudes can be adjusted. It’s what Chairman Mao would have done!!
23
The single mother in America, gets her re-education, daily, from all sources.
5
Thank you for this important article. Please note that Martha Bailey, economist and lead author of the report on paid leave, has a PhD and should be referred to as Dr. Bailey, not Ms. Bailey.
48
Of course, it is impossible to look at a data set as massive as this and determine the precise causes of the results. However, as always, all the academics scratching their heads generally have avoided the obvious, like they always seem to do.
If you take leave and do no productive work for your employer for three months, under the best of circumstances you will be at least three months behind your cohort for purposes of advancement and pay. And that is under the best of circumstances, assuming that employers are treating you fairly and not intentionally penalizing you for taking leave. Multiply that by two or three children and two or three leaves taken and the delay in career advancement is significant.
That leaves you lagging behind the rest in promotions and salary, and when an economic contraction occurs, as it did in 2008, you are more likely to be legitimately let go by your employer than those who advanced in their careers and became more valuable assets to the business while you were on leave.
It is a trade-off. It is admirable that women (and a few men) have prioritized their families over their careers. But those parents should understand the short end of that stick, and understand that it is unfair to expect employers to artificially promote them in their careers to the same level as fellow employees who did not have the same priorities. That would be unfair to those employees.
9
The results of this study are not at all surprising. Past research has found the exact same thing among women in the U.S. and other OECD countries. When paid leaves are offered, women are more likely to take them than men, even in Nordic countries where very attractive family leaves are available to men as well as women. As a result, paid leaves reduce women’s pay and advancement in the long term because breaks in employment reduce their human capital compared with men who aren’t taking such leaves. To address this discrepancy in leave taking, a number of countries (e.g., Sweden, Iceland, Norway) introduced “daddy quotas,” where a proportion of the available family leave is reserved for fathers only. The leave would be lost if not taken by the father. This has increased father’s use of family leave, but the gap between mothers and fathers remains, even in these countries. As long as women take these breaks and not men, women will be disadvantaged in pay and promotion, relative to men.
13
@LLC I had a relative in a bank who was forced to take a two week vacation at least once a year, just so that someone else could fill in for them (and detect any maleasance).
Parental leave would also be better received if everyone had a 6 month leave once every few years, whether they had kids or not. A kind of "universal sabbatical". Those who have a kid could use the leave for that, and those who don't could use it for their what matters to them. As long as the leave is only for having kids, it will always have the kinds of problems you described.
22
@LLC
Women in all cultures and all times seem to be more attracted, all else equal, to men who can provide, however that particular culture defines the act.
Men are indifferent to a woman's ability to provide. Very few husbands expect their wives to take care of them financially. And those that do are often mocked by both sexes.
So we should not be surprised that men are always going to be working outside the home longer and with fewer interruptions than women.
3
I had planned on going back to work, but when my baby turned 6 weeks old, and I was going to have to put him in a "caretaker's" arms and walk away, I realized there was no way I could do that. -- And moreover, I didn't want to. My life is not about making money-- I will not lie on my deathbed ruing that lost $24k (and my "career"), I will thankful that I had the chance and the choice to share those incredible years with my little ones.
140
Quality comment.
17
@kkm Many mothers have a real career, not a quote-unquote career.
19
I am a married woman of childbearing age who plans to stay home with my child once my husband and I start a family. The reasons are simple -- I want to be my child's primary caregiver instead of outsourcing care to a daycare or nanny; my husband is able to support a family on his income alone; and I don't like my job or field enough that it's a priority for me to continue working. The presence or absence of parental leave isn't a factor in my decision-making at all.
57
But- the high-earning husband, is in your “equation”. Nice math if you can get it.
17
@NCJ
I just hope you have a back-up plan in case things don’t work out with your husband. Happens all the time.
29
We definitely need paid parental leave of six months to a year, but what we really need in this country are options for greater work/life balance throughout a career. Options that allow parents work flexibility without damaging their future earning potential. Children are only young once, and it shouldn't derail someone's career if they choose a less ambitious path while their children are young. It's wonderful that proposals like this are finally being considered seriously, and I hope there will be more. Work and wages are good, but they are not everything there is to life. Children are wonderful, but eventually they do grow up. How to balance the two is a challenge every working parent struggles with.
33
"Instead, the researchers concluded, something about taking paid leave seems to have encouraged mothers to scale back at work and spend more time with their children."
HOW can they conclude this when in the next statement it's clear that those who used the program were more likely - older, white, upper income. Chances are good they have a partner who is older, white, and upper income and therefor the option of stay-at-home mom becomes affordable. And then there is the variable of late life parenting and the fact we often embrace family more as we recognize that work doesn't enrich our life in certain ways we need. And then there's the risk of discrimination and job loss which is greater for lower income mothers. And then there's child care...
Sorry, but the authors can not conclude that "paid leave makes mothers more likely to leave the work force." That is a different study with different variable controls. Based on this presentation all you can say from the study is that well off women are more informed about their leave choices and more empowered to access it.
31
This sounds like a skewed study. People do not (in our culture) have children for the financial gain it adds to family. So why would the outcome measure be whether the parent returned to the same level of work they left behind?
A meaningful study would also look at life satisfaction. It might also consider life stages. Each time point in life and career has different factors to consider. My guess is that some of the participants might have welcomed new opportunity at later "data points.'
16
@ellen luborsky the underlying societal flaw is in life objectives. If happiness is perceived in material terms [things and experiences - the latest fashion car toys and the vacations etc] then higher income will be the metric used. But if eudaimonia [life well lived] were the goal we would be able to measure happiness.
The GDP measures spending, be it schooling or ambulances or war, while leaving out parenting and good deeds.
4
Where is the impact of history on this study? Within 3-4 years of giving birth, we slid into The Great Recession. What impact did that have on these mothers’ ability to not only find a job equal to the one they left but also high quality childcare? This study would be much richer with a qualitative narrative analysis of interviews from a selection of these mothers to better understand the decisions, whether by choice or by external economic factors, to stay out of the workforce for a prolonged period of time.
50
I do not fine these results surprising.
I would predict those that really value the work part of their life would likely take less time off and likely excel at their career. Those that valued the home part of their life more would take as much time off as they could and likely not excel as much in their career.
As an employer one would likely reward the employee that helps the company the most. Probably the one that is actually at work and can be counted on by the company.
Though unfortunate, we often cannot have it all. Compromises must be made. It is the family’s decision (if there are two parents) to decide which parent does what that is best for them. Not the state of California(Government), NYT or its readers.
33
@DKP also some jobs do not permit time off as the world does not wait. If you are in a relationship sales type role as many high paid jobs are, if you stop working it can take years to regain your status as your clients may need you while you are gone.
Even the most progressive employer can’t change the fact that clients won’t wait around on your time.
6
@DKP
Though "unfortunate," every civilized country on the planet not only extends paid family leave to new mothers, but also requires corporations, big and small, to protect those mothers' jobs, and can prosecute them if they penalize mothers for taking family leave.
Everywhere else in the civilized world, its the law. And if you were to, ahem, "reward the employee that helps the most," while penalizing the mother taking paid leave, you would have been hauled into court.
12
I agree, it is not perfect. From the work perspective you would expect to be rewarded with being at work. From a family perspective you would be rewarded for being at home.
When not at work, likely the other people at work are getting an advantage on those not at work.
Paid leave is fine, but there is no way that NOT being at work could possibly be an advantage for your work life success if your job matters. The reason you are hired is that what you do matters to the company. So, not being there also matters to the company except in a negative way.
I see no way that missing work is a good thing to the employee’s future as an employee or the company’s future as a company. A government job would be different.
Take the leave! It is a good thing. Dad AND Mom. Just don’t expect it will boost your standing at your workplace.
1
Read "Just a Girl, Growing up Female and Ambitious" by Lucinda Jackson and you will understand why women stop working. It has nothing to do with leave, it has to do with a bullying, harassing work place. Why get trashed at work when you can stay home with your kids?
24
If men could get pregnant, paid leave would be a right.
118
@Craig
If men could get pregnant, men would not get pregnant. Abortion would become a right before parental leave.
29
@Craig Willison
By definition men do not and can not get pregnant so this is a pointless statement. Women are the ones who get pregnant. There is no way to square the circle and have extensive paid leave, gender equality, and women leaders at 50% of the highest paid most important jobs.
Not possible. Take it up with Mother Nature.
7
Women are supposed to nurture the family, not be slaves to economic policy; these results are not surprising!
14
@Emily when economic policy was designed around keeping women out of the workforce, they were slaves to their households and economically beholden to their husbands.
12
Both Emily and Someone, are right.
1
My understanding is that the Calif. law only applies to companies with more than 20 employees. This seems to make it that much harder for small companies to consider hiring women during the time they are able to have children.
4
"something about taking paid leave seems to have encouraged mothers to scale back at work and spend more time with their children" -- Gee, I wonder what that could be. It's such a mystery why many mothers tend to find more satisfaction in raising their children than in working for a paycheck.
116
When my wife had our daughter, I was just a year into my new job and we were basically on our own.
It was a difficult pregnancy and I only wish I had at least two or three months to help out and help my wife recover.
15
@Honeybee this is exactly the kind of division people in power are happy to see amongst working-class people because it lets them off the hook.
How about this: we all agree that both parents should be able to take time to share the responsibility of raising a newborn, because hard pregnancy or not, it's a demanding job. AND at the same time, all working people should have the flexibility to take time to care for a parent, mental health issue, etc. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
19
@Honeybee, wow, that’s harsh. Maybe something’s wrong and everyone could use better services? I bounced right back within a few hours of giving birth but not everyone is so lucky, and post-partum depression is not rare, even when everything else has gone well. I’m glad my daughter lives in a country that thinks a few months off after childbirth is good for everyone. I just wish they’d require bonding time of the fathers too.
16
@Honeybee Just because you were "just fine" does not mean that others are. Some "difficult pregnancies" turn into difficult babies which most certainly does not "end once the baby is delivered." Have some compassion, will you? It's free to give and a little goes a long way.
8
This article ends that women’s lives change while men’s don’t. This is a shocking statement that has no bearings on my reality or the other dads I know. As a dad yes I continued to work, but my entire life changed when we had kids. The idea that just because someone’s job doesn’t change means they have it ‘easy’ or that their life doesn’t go through an immense upheaval doesnt understand anything about fatherhood. Shout out to all my fellow dads out there (with working spouses/partners or without!) who have shifted our entire life to help provide a loving environment at home. We work all day and change diapers all night ;)
60
@Jim O , the one big difference is, did you ever consider whether or not you would - or even could, given the physical trauma that childbirth imparts, like tears and continued bleeding - return to work? Was it ever even a question for you? This is not to discredit your contributions as a father, but to highlight the significant difference between men and women when considering returning to work after the birth of a child.
11
When you have a taste of the joy being unconstrained parenthood, maybe financial incentive is not such a draw anymore.
18
I had to chuckle. All this hand-wringing to understand what just might be basic biology. Women give birth, and it's an amazing bond, from the moment a woman discovers she is pregnant. It's a physical bond that persists for the full term of the pregnancy and beyond. But I suppose basic biology is anathema to the policy makers who sound autistic in trying to understand the reality. Women bond with their babies when they they are born, and having leave obviously strengthens their interest in retaining that bond. There are plenty of women who quit their jobs after maternity leave even when they had no expectation of ever doing so. They could not resist the call of being at home with their babies.
63
@Barbara If we went with just "basic biology" we'd all be living in tribes and men and women would be farming. And children would be laborers, too.
Luckily we live in the 21st century.
The reality is that many women do not want to spend their entire day with children, day in and day out, for years. Just like MEN. Do you not advocate for public school, either?
13
Paid Family Leave is only necessary because both parents have become forced to work because of the decimation of the middle class. It’s a band-aid on a large wound that does not solve the problem. We need economic equality in this country, not paid leave.
28
Actually, we need both to support families & the younger generation.
7
Exactly right.
Expect no articles, whatsoever, on this subject.
I can speak only of the women I know, and many of them took the paid leave and then quit the job to stay home with the child. That puts a dent in your resume. But I have also seen women who returned to work not have their full attention on the job, and that must affect reviews, advancement and raises. And rightly so, if that’s the case. I don’t think parenthood should give anyone a free pass for underperformance. My husband had a professional colleague who gave birth to several children in quick succession. He covered her work when she was there but not completely on the job, covered her multiple maternity leaves, covered for her every time she had to go deal with a child issue. Then when she was through reproducing and had fully taken advantage of everyone around her, she quit and took an in-house job with less demanding hours, and less pay.
23
Well maybe your husband should start having children then. Get with the times
5
I’ve never had a job that offered paid maternity leave, who gets that? My assumption is they’re high skilled professional jobs. Were the mothers all married with similar earning spouses? Too many details left out of this .
12
@Ginger
You know we never used to have Medicare or social security either.
3
If people choose to work or not work, that is their choice. Celebrate it. It is good regardless: a trained employee continues to do his or her job, if one stays, and if one leaves, a new position opens up and someone else is put to work.
EmployERs may see that differently, but who cares. They are the ones raking in the lion's share of profit anyway.
7
Since this was done with women in California, I’m going to make an assumption here that perhaps these women chosen for this study had some financial leeway to make a decision on how much they “needed” to work after they returned after maternity leave, a luxury many working class women don’t have. In other words, a family that is relying heavily on mom’s income would not have the luxury, in my opinion, to go back with less hours, a lower paying job with more flexibility or self employment as the article suggests many of these women did. I notice too on the other hand, that the authors of the study did not quantify the families qualities of life during this time.
9
"the effects were limited to women who took leave immediately after it became available. Only about a fifth of women who gave birth then did so,"
So we're extrapolating the results to all women who take paid leave, despite the fact that only 20% did so? This story leaves a lot to be desired in terms of explaining the study methods and conclusions. The actual numbers would also be helpful, given that the conclusions contradict a lot of other previous studies. (PS I don't buy it, there are so many potential confounders here, a longitudinal observational study doesn't cut it.)
9
From afar where child rearing was always seen as a privileged, joyful, responsibility to now thankfully - a free choice; this study seems to be relevant only to employers; if we were a species for man hour output. Individual results with regard to leave for bringing up children will have to consider some control or different environments and some factor of economic circumstance. The beneficial resultant effect on children should be the real focus on research taking into account at least few variables. Anecdotal studies done here come up with specific & different results on leave taken for first or second child. Here for the majority and few, this leave grant is new & was not available for the first child. Leave taken for second child has had a great benefit for both including the first elder child which is a critical issue. Family unit bonding when seen for even the medium term leads to less sibling strife. We also see tangible difference & benefit to child if there is presence & easy access to grandparents. Humans are beings ( not a species) and the results vary widely depending on the environmental factors & economic circumstance.
7
Wouldn't it be nice and thoughtful if the parent (man or woman) who takes paternity leave would come back to work with a small gift for the co-workers who had to do that parent's job along with their own and without extra pay. Even a nice sincere thank you would be nice.
And of course no one mentions how some of those people who are taking on the extra tasks are also parents. Sometimes they may be forced to work overtime and be away from their children or scramble to find additional childcare when asked to work late or on weekends.
And of course the sucker punch to all of this is that when the person on parental leave returns, he or she expects the same chance for advancement as the person or persons who stepped in and did that parent's work (as well as their own) for several weeks or months.
Then we wonder why there is such drama and animosity in the workplace.
54
@John Christoff I think paid leave makes more sense in jobs where employees are very replaceable - for example Starbucks baristas. As you indicated, leave doesn't fit as well for employees at white-collar jobs where individual experiences and connections are more important.
6
@John Christoff This sounds like a situation that merits a systemic company solution, not one from individuals merely exercising their rights under existing company policy.
4
Isn’t this a problem for the company to solve, not the personal responsibility of a new parent? It seems like your company did a great job deflecting responsibility of overworking you so you place it on a new mother/father. Think a little deeper about your problem and go to the true source of it.
19
"and those who were employed earned 5 percent to 8 percent less." Than what? Than what they were earning before they became parents? Than a control group?
16
The article is lacking in a few details. Like how much money the man makes. What are the families' viewpoints on a woman's place in society?
If a family is fairy traditional and, in addition, the man makes a whole lot more money, it is less of a surprise if the woman remains at home working forever with unpaid ground service for which she also receives no retirement money.
8
Getting married and having children mean that a woman functions in a new context: that of the family. If researchers really mean it when they say context matters, they should include as much information as possible about the family context in their models. Just focusing on the working environment and policy context is not enough, and even misleading. Worse, family context could be too messy for neat models.
7
Here is what this study found: if you work very hard at something, you are, on average, probably better at it than people who don't work quite as hard at the same thing. And that is really all it says.
If you don't take leave when you have a kid, even when there is no immediate cost to you to take the leave, that means you are a seriously driven person very committed to your job. A person like that, on average, is going to go further in their career.
On the other hand, somebody who takes a more balanced approach to the inevitable trade-offs between raising children and having a career, or who decides parenthood is more important than their career is not going to go as far as the ultra-type A person who didn't take any leave, a person so driven that they would basically leave money on the table because they love their work so much.
In other words, the study is utterly flawed because it cannot control for how driven each woman is and the differences in drive likely mostly or fully explain the effects observed here.
What this study didn't show, because there is no easy way to study it, is whether the kids of the mothers who took leave ultimately benefited from the extra attention indicated by that choice. Most likely, the mothers obsessed with the corporate ladder are, on average, worse parents, and their kids suffer from that to some degree.
Anyway, nothing in this study says anything remotely useful from a public policy standpoint.
61
@W , the problem is driven does not mean smarter. Driven does not mean focused. Frenzied work for 60 hours a week or well-rested, intelligent and focused work for 40 hours a week? Drive of a person is a subjective term itself and performance is not a straight graph--we all grow and perform in spurts and the smartest and successful among us often are not in one place 60 hours a week. Also I can debunk your logic in three words. President of US. Lol. Success these days is about who you are connected with--so networking is important.
7
@W How many hours you put in at the office doesn't determine whether or not you are driven. You can be driven whether you are a blue collar or white collar employee. You can be a driven, but uncompensated volunteer. You can be a driven parent. I learned very quickly as an attorney at a top 10 firm in NYC that the drive that had propelled me through a rigorous undergraduate in engineering and a top JD program wasn't going to help me change the world in any significant way if I stayed at the firm. But that drive is making a meaningful difference as I parent two boys and teach at a local university. I've taken a huge financial hit, and my resume is nowhere near as shiny as it was in the first few years of my career, but what I do every day, as a mother, and also as a teacher, matters. And it takes a lot of drive.
11
@W Even the most driven, "ultra type A" woman on the planet wouldn't go back to work immediately after a C-section, or with stitches that need to heal, or a fractured tailbone (all relatively common side effects of childbirth, by the way). Childbirth is a serious stressor on the human body and there's no easy way to predict how any given woman, irrespective of her intelligence/drive/commitment to her career, will be physically affected. A highly-motivated worker could be devastated by needing to stay home; a less-motivated worker might recover quickly and find herself able to work after a short break. Assuming the level of "drive" that a woman has on the job based on how soon she can return to work not only contributes to perceptions underlying discrimination but can result in conclusions that are straight-up incorrect.
8
I may have missed it, but the larger economic and labor market system in which a woman of childbearing age lives and works is crucial. That is: How is the entire overall economy?
Women in their 20s and 30s may be highly sought after as workers due to assumptions that they are energetic, have "new" knowledge and will work for low salaries.
But if and when a woman in this coveted demo is ready to go back to work, are there jobs? Jobs she can and will and will want to take?
6
Next thing: they will find is that most women who book off on paid leave - briefly re-enter the workforce until the second child and then quit but not until after their second leave ends - leaving their company scrambling.
But - of course - every boss knows this is not true.
10
California does not have paid family leave. Women collect disability at a fraction of their normal pay after childbirth. Any other paid leave is simply the use of sick leave and vacation hours. Families that adopt only get the latter as an option.
8
@Debbie Not true. California does indeed have paid family leave. California PFL pays claimants approximately 60 to 70 percent of their salary, with a maximum of $1,252 per week. Employers may allow workers to use vacation, sick, paid time off, or other leave to supplement their PFL benefits to receive up to 100 percent pay.
2
I would suggest that one possible answer is that the some of the women found they liked spending time at home with their children, and therefore found ways to continue doing so.
224
The article states:
“Just 15 percent of bonding leave claims in California in 2014 were by men, and the average man took just two or three days off. Men’s employment and earnings did not decline after they had a child.”
How could anyone possibly expect that taking 2 or 3 days off for bonding leave would or could reduce men’s (or women’s) future employment and earnings?
9
The women studied had babies only half a year apart (Q1 and Q3 in 2004), and as it says, many were not even aware of the program, and certainly they all became pregnant before the program went into effect. It would be interesting to see if the data holds up when compared to women who had kids a few years after the program went into effect and became more widely known.
Overall, 6 months seems to be an optimal amount of leave to support breast-feeding and bonding while not keeping the parent away from the work-force for too long.
2
I have three grandchildren born and raised in Ontario Canada. There, mother and father are entitled to split about 16 months paid parental leave for each child. The payments do not fall solely on the employer. It is funded by paroll taxes and structured much like unemployment insurance in the U.S., with caring for your child being a legitimate reason to be unemployed. My daughter-in-law took the first 8 months, then my son took the second 8 months, giving each baby (and coincidentally their older siblings) 16 months with a stay-at-home parent. Admittedly a small sample and likely infected with a grandmother's bias, the immense benefit to these brilliant, talented children and their parents is self evident. A difference in earnings over a decade is a small price to pay.
93
@Janice Schattman Same in Germany. Parents can take 12 months of shared parental leave, but as a bonus, if the father takes some of it, this increases to 14 months. In this way Germany actively encourages fathers to take leave.
The parent who takes leaves gets about 60% of the normal salary which is the same as unemployment benefits and and this comes from the normal unemployment taxes, and is not funded by the employer. Employers have to give mothers a few weeks of paid leave, but nothing like 14 months.
Parent are also allow to keep on working part time, but there is a maximum, and the salary difference is then paid up to 60%.
In my case I took 8 months for both kids and in both cases kept on working about 20% from home so as to not lose contact with work and keep on maintaining some systems up that I were responsible for. I really loved the times I spent with my kids growing up and keeping working 20% worked out well.
20
@Janice Schattman This would never work in the US because for inexplicable reasons we have collectively decided that the only important thing in life is making and spending money, and the more money and things you have the more you have won the game of life. Why we as a society buy into this paradigm is beyond me, but it colors every aspect of our society and has perverted our institutions. People will commute by car hours every day so that they can buy a 4000 sq ft house to store all of their stuff in. (if you commute an hour every day you are giving up a workout or helping your kids with their homework or community service). The entire nation is sleep deprived. Look at who our president is, and look at who he ran against; almost all of our national leaders are at least multi-millionaires with a stake in the status quo. One reason we can't control guns is because of the profits involved. Our medical system is for profit leaving out about 10% of the population entirely and providing minimal care for another 20%. We have abandoned corporate R&D to maximize quarterly earnings. We have hollowed out the middle class and much of our country by offshoring manufacturing so we can import cheaper goods. Our unicorn startups are little more than legal ponzi schemes (think Uber and Lyft and their IPOs). Paying people decent wages is not profitable. Having a rewarding, and healthy family life and community life is not cost-efficient and can't be bartered in the marketplace.
162
It occurs to me that the issue would be an adverse effect on work opportunities as a result of taking leave. That should be disturbing as an indication of misogyny. (On the other hand, if women who used the leave to choose less time working to do a better job raising their children, and family economics were compatible with that choice, that was likely a good thing.)
1
Studies on the same topic with the same results came out earlier from the Harvard Business School. Those studies delved into the reasons and found that opportunities for good assignments and for promotions evaporated after they returned from maternity leave -- not because of limitations they put on their own availability but because organizational biases said that once women had children, they weren't "serious" about work.
25
I wish there were more inclusive studies. Other countries offer deals like 6 months off with pay for both the mother and the father. But those countries also have comprehensive child care. The USA thinks they can piecemeal these policies and expect decent results. I find this kind of thinking short sighted, incomplete and pretty half baked.
20
They averaged $24,000 in cumulative lost wages. So what? Is that how we take the measure of one's life now? Solely in terms of life earnings?
Undoubtedly, enormous benefits accrued to these children and to society in the long run because loving parents were there to interact with their children rather than a daycare worker or nanny who are doing it solely for the money.
Just because a parent isn't paid for childrearing and running a household doesn't mean that work is worthless. The reason men won't put in their fair share of time doing these vital activities is because it is drilled into them that their earning power is all that matters, and that the work women traditionally have done to nurture their families has no economic or social value. THAT is the belief that needs to be attacked, not leaning on women to lean in.
365
@Denise That's only 1 year of infant daycare in my state as is.
9
@Denise yes except the article makea clear that it's not 'parents,' it's mothers specifically. We need to step away from this attitude that mothers sacrifices are ok just because there is a child, when often these sacrifices didnt need to be made in the first place. A new mother should be able to take leave and not have it affect her future pay, and when it does, we shouldn't be excusing that by saying- it's ok, it was for the children.
29
@Denise The article states: “Just 15 percent of bonding leave claims in California in 2014 were by men, and the average man took just two or three days off. Men’s employment and earnings did not decline after they had a child.”
How could anyone possibly expect that taking 2 or 3 days off for bonding leave would or could reduce men’s (or women’s) future employment and earnings?
16
This research shows the hollowness of one of the most antiquated feminist myths: that taking time from work to care for your own children is a burden that men place on women. It's just the opposite: a burden that women place on men. I'm a man and the time I spent with my young children was the best time of my life. Women are not oppressed for getting time with their own children; men are oppressed for being denied it and being forced to work themselves to death to support it financially.
Harvard economist Claudia Goldin was quoted recently in the NYT repeating the feminist myth that married men make more because they get child-care services from women. But there is little evidence for this claim. For instance, Sarah Ashwin and Olga Isupova in the Journal of Marriage and Family find no empirical support for this idea. Rather they find that married men make more than unmarried men because their wives pressure them to make more!
The children I referred to above are now grown, but I had a later-in-life child with a woman who is denying me access to her. If child care is such a burden, why do so many women deny access after a breakup? Because they know the hurt and depression this will inflict on their ex, as my ex has inflicted on me. It's when something like this happens that you realize who are really powerful in our society -- women. To be denied access to your young child is the worst thing that can happen--and this seldom happens to the most powerful in our society, women.
14
God forbid these researchers would ever bother to simply ASK these women in the study how they felt about all of this.
113
"...if the goal is to keep women working"?
Whose goal is this?
68
@AACNY It's an employer goal because women of this demographic - 20s and 30s - are considered to be energetic, enthusiastic learners, holding "new" knowledge and willing to work for relatively modest wages. Who wouldn't want to hire and keep such a demo working??
13
@AACNY The goal of every woman who does want to end up in poverty, who wants to be able to parent her child from an adult position in the political economy rather than a childlike position, and who wants her child to have a father taking equal personal responsibility for the child.
7
The article, in the first paragraph states, "But a new study, the largest to be done in the United States, found the opposite."
And at this point that should be cited....what study and by whom.
Don't even go any further unless you're going to vet the study.
9
Spending more time with the children and investing more energy in them is not a bad thing. How often do you see a tired parent engrossed in an electronic device while paying scant attention to their child, or children behaving badly while their tired and distracted parents find it easier to cater to them than to provide limits. Parents need more time and energy to spend with their children. Paid child care isn't the answer. Child care workers don't have quite the same stake in raising kids who are reaching their full potential and capable of governing their own behavior. I don't know what the answer is, but the question of meeting children's needs is a big one.
17
@Lou Hoover
I agree. For many parents, child care is not an attractive option when compared to the parents' child rearing.
7
@Lou Hoover Reasonable work hours are a huge part of the answer. I don't have to work when I'm actually off the clock and I end the day at 4pm on the dot (okay, yes, I can push this to 5 if something dire is going on, but my daughter is more important). I can then spend all of my energy on my child, playing, cooking dinner, reading to her. I don't get engrossed with my phone because I'm with her and I'm not already burned out.
Spending all day with children is EXHAUSTING. That's why there are so many stay-at-home-mom groups, because if they don't connect with other adults they'll go crazy. It's easier to pool together caregivers so they can all watch a group of children. That's part of the reason why my child goes to the daycare she does. Multiple caregivers in the room so it's easier for them to split the load.
7
Researchers may have taken this into account, but could not the finding that first time mothers who took paid leave were 5 to 7 percent less likely to be employed at 10 years due simply to that their second or third children were still young and the woman was at home tending them? The pattern I see, especially with scant and expensive child care resources, is that many young women are at home till their children are 5 or 6 and in full-time kindergarten or elementary school.
25
"Paid leave" is a distractor to the real problem - the lack of affordable daycare. "Paid leave" might even cause more harm than good. For many that rely on highly trained personnel, it would be impossible to get a part-time person to fill in for a mother or father for 6 months. I know I couldn't do it. This would give an implicit, if not explicit, bias against hiring women likely to have kids in the tenure of their job. But affordable daycare would help eliminate some of the implicit bias that might otherwise impede the hiring and promotion of, especially, mothers. The reason why we are talking about "paid leave" is because it is a cheaper than affordable daycare, while at the same time, seems to address the concerns of parents. It really doesn't.
28
Money is not everything. Timing if everything. Having a year, 18 months, even more, as they do in many countries, at the beginning of a child's life is worth much more than the same amount of time later on. Mothers (and fathers) have been thinking all their lives about how they're going to have children and support them. Finding that you don't have to endanger your mental, emotional, and physical health of yourself and your children is a great relief. Finding that you can have the satisfactions of parenting without killing yourself is desirable. Also, many women work later in life, after 50. I'm a writer and my first book was published when I was 74. Economists, please broaden your perspectives. Money is not everything.
13
@annabellina
Disagree, money IS everything. That is why one must work and put a baby in childcare instead of raising it oneself like nature intended.
8
Has the data been studied by behaviorists? Were they included in the selection and interview sample of the study population? Is it possible that findings are determined (at least in part) by self selection? That is implied in part of the authors' speculation, but might have been confirmed or denied with interviews and/or follow-up surveys.
2
Was there self selection? I thought the study was all new mothers in California.
3
@Lindsey
The way mothers (and fathers too) might respond could be a product of self selection -- ( e.g. perhaps those who are more family oriented or inclined to "nurturing" would naturally choose the family leave option, or the extended leave option if they are eligible; thus might be predicted later to select work options -- part time, at home, close to home -- that are amenable for them to continue to be with or near the children.
Those who are more driven (through necessity or otherwise) by economic considerations might naturally choose the more conventional, and often better paying, career tracks. No disrespect intended for either group; it is simply a personal choice, and constitutes "self selection" in that sense. Yes, it occurs after subjects' selection for the study.
But if the hypothesis were correct, the findings could be due less to external influences and more to subjects' personal choices. In that case it is still possible, of course, to assign an efficacy value -- positive or negative -- for a family leave policy and program. At least everyone has had some degree of choice where little or none had existed before.
3
Makes sense. I wasn't initially thinking of that using "self selection" terminology but agree with you.
1
Those are very surprising results, and this definitely merits more study into the contributing factors. From the abstract: "Overall, PFLA tended to reduce the number of children born and, by decreasing mothers’ time at work, increase time spent with children."
Less kids AND less time at work? I think it's hard to assume that something else isn't at play (perhaps including more employer retribution against those who take time off, or stronger maternal bonds formed with the child in that time off?)
4
@Charlie We might expect women with better job opportunities after the first child to be less likely to have a second, and the same for later children. If someone finds they have few opportunities after the first child, having more may seem like the default option.
1
It would be interesting to see family after-tax income data. If you are earning 5 to 7% less, but also pay lower taxes due to a dependent, are you actually indifferent to your lower pay (especially if it gives you flexibility) if your family after-tax earning is unchanged?
10
@James
Trump's tax code changes were beneficial to families.
The doubled Child Tax Credit now allows for a $2K "credit" for every eligible child. A greater portion of credits are "refundable," which means if enough tax isn't owed to utilize the full credit, some of it is refunded to the taxpayer.
The AMT has also been eliminated for many two-wage families.
Between lowered tax rates, higher credits and elimination of the AMT, a family with several child could actually benefit, despite a loss in SALT deductions.
3
I'd like to see the stats on the *kids* whose Moms and Dads invest time into them. There are economic benefits to children having better skills when they start school and more emotional security. The benefits (in my mind) may radically outstrip the lost wages, for a net gain to the family. In economist James Heckman's work, the right nurturing interventions with kids 0-3 can earn a 13% return later in more functionality and less need for other services.
79
@Megan Lets face it, kids of higher earners (think 2 professionals) have better outcomes than kids of lower earners. No differences have been shown between daycare and non-daycare kids for the same income groups.
16
The problem is not necessarily the lost wages, but that they are always lost on the woman's side.
8
I've been at my job for over 30 years but I know if I asked for a 6 week sabbatical for extended travel that my request would be denied. Yet every year coworkers with just a year or two on the job get that much time off after the birth of a child and we shower them with gifts and send them off with a smile; and two years later they do it again. And while they're home bonding, who is doing their work? If not me, it's a poor temp with no benefits earning a fraction of the salary of the person on leave. The truth is that bonding leave is still a benefit for the privileged and it's paid for by those without privilege. But still, I support it because it's not about the parents it's about the children and what we really need in this country is more paid time off for everyone. Work isn't everything.
271
@Steve725, to be 'sour grapes' because an employed woman is helping their child enter the world is beyond petty and disheartening.
I'm not sure if you have children but the weeks after a child is born are extremely trying, and I find it cruel that people are only afforded 6 weeks of leave.
In Canada we are allowed up to 18 months of time to raise our babies (18 months is relatively new), where 12 months are paid (there is a cap, and the payment is in-line with unemployment benefits).
Some take advantage, others don't - and yes, it's often those who can afford it that take the longer period off - but for a woman to know that their job is guaranteed for a year is a blessing and helps mothers out when they need it most.
233
@Steve725 Perhaps you need to bring this up with management? At my workplace requests for leaves of all types are considered on their merits.
20
@Steve725 It would be more evenhanded to give each employee a certain number of these leaves over their lifetime, without requiring any particular reason to take one. But one unspoken goal of the parental leaves is to encourage reproduction in general.
32
Economists need to take a look at developmental science and its mountain of evidence about the importance of nurturing and relationships (requiring an investment of time).
About women and employment: Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics points to the diversity in women's attitudes and behaviors. Hakim’s Preference Theory states that 20% of women (“work-centred”) are committed to uninterrupted full-time careers, with many of them choosing to remain childless; 20% of women (“home-centred”) forgo employment and focus on childrearing; and 60% of women (“adaptive”) prefer “to combine employment and family work within their lives without giving a fixed priority to either.” She points to this heterogeneity as the source of conflict among feminists and policy advocates.
Regarding the California study, it's possible that with longer leaves, mothers see more benefit to spending generous amounts of time with their baby and that drives their decision-making. Or, they lean in to their own intuition and desire, choosing home over workplace. Or they come to decide their unpaid work caring for baby and home is valuable -- even while society and economists ignore its value.
Mothers move in and out of the workforce over time. Data from Pew Research Center shows that a significant portion of mothers of young children prefer to work part-time or to be at home.
The grassroots nonprofit organization Family and Home Network calls for inclusive family policies.
46
@Catherine Myers After 5 months of maternity leave, I saw the benefit of going back to work and becoming a person outside of the baby again.
3
While paid leave is certainly a progressive thing to do don't start identity/social engineering obsessing like the NY Times is noted for.
If women (or men) decide to stay home or work less after leave and there is no clear cut case of discrimination don't start social engineering.
Assuming no outright discrimination there are many reasons why people go back to work or tend to stay home.
If you identify/social engineering obsess you help get an ego. maniac demagogue like Trump in the WH.
The majority of Americans are sick and tired of identity/social engineering politics whether it comes from the right or left.
26
@Paul Paid leave is by no means progressive, especially just 6-12 weeks of it. It's the bare minimum. The US is behind so many other first (and even second-world) countries on many things, and paid leave is definitely one of them.
13
@Leslie Young Thank you for your reply. The definition of paid leave is progressive. So are other things like tax credits, deductions etc.
What is not progressive is mandatory return to work that Neo feminists and social engineers demand by the male or female, just like being tied to the bed or kitchen was yrs. ago was not progressive.
6
@Paul The subjugation of women, that they are required to stay at home with children, is one of the oldest forms of "identity politics" and social engineering around. It's built into the fabric of our economy and is only slowly being dismantled.
1
Sometimes doing .. shows you can. It's like retirement .... many postpone out of fear -- once retired .... they wish it had occurred earlier.
Humans are afraid of change .. the unknown.
Why is it not rational for a couple to change directions -- trading income for time. Trading material growth for time. I have know many couples who took a different road after children came along ...work/ career has less pull that children.
AND -- whatever people want to believe ...women have a stronger drive to be with children vs men.
No surprises here.
4
I cannot overestimate the sacrifices people make to have children, and understand the desire to have the rest of us pay endlessly for what are essentially personal choices (time off, early care, day care, free schools, free college).
What if people who chose to not have kids got paid for not having kids, so they can spend quality time on themselves. Any takers?
If I am paying for your choices, and you get to keep the moral high ground, then why can't I open a discussion on why you should pay for my choices (if they lead me to not having kids). Could you please also subsidize, as I do for you, the personal choices I make? These choices I make, I can argue, are also good for the future of the country.
130
@Kalidan Time off, early care, day care, free schools, and free college are not necessary to support individuals' personal choices - they are part of the public good that we as a society should try to cultivate.
I also think that caregivers of all types should be compensated.
But as a childless woman, I don't think I (or anyone else) should be paid for not having children. Without children we have no future.
148
@Kalidan I'd suggest that people who choose not to have children already get "paid" more than those that do--to the tune of probably a quarter of a million dollars, if not more. You also get at least 18 years of extra "quality time" to travel or read books or do whatever you want. I could take a six-week vacation in Europe for what I'm about to pay for my 16-year-old daughter's car insurance. Maybe I should offer the same amount to you so you can take the trip in my place, and send me the pictures.
81
@Kalidan, do you live in a society or the frontier? Why have any social safety nets? Social Security? Medicaid?
39
What sounds most plausible is that there should be both 1) paid leave and 2) subsidized, geographically accessible child care (like in France). First time mothers are trying to juggle loving and caring for their babies and children with employment. As usual, economists studying female labor force participation are only fixated on occupation, earnings and FT vs PT work as the outcome variables in their econometric analysis. So they got it wrong.
12
Shows why the apparent truism: "Data speaks for itself" is incorrect. You really need time and space for the interpretation phase. In this case, the report, and its own interpretation in this article, enrich the understanding of paid parental leave, at least on the maternal side.
Not always the way we do or communicate these things.
The article was not as well developed on the paternal leave side, or maybe we just don't know as much. The caption implies more discussion than I saw about "benefits" to women from having two parents at home. The ending: "how much women’s lives changed after taking time off with a new baby — and how little men’s lives did" is inaccurate, both for the fathers who did take it (which I did) and even for those who did not. The latter requires looking at things in other ways, which the article is strong on until then.
Just what is inhibiting paternal leave and how to overcome it?
In my case, I had to be OK with the more-explicit-then-we-would-probably-see-today warning that it would hurt my career (I didn't care as I was in the early stages of pondering a career shift anyway.) In retrospect, I should have better prepped the departmental secretary to cover for me in case my wife's family called asking for me. They were not prepared to hear it, and I didn't need to hear the panicky follow-up.
In the future, it would be nice to know the impacts on the grown-up babies and society. I do sometimes wonder as I watch that now man cuddle his children.
10
Another pretty likely explanation:
If taking the maternity leave was a free choice, maybe mothers who decided to take it were simply more likely to be a person who would prioritize family over career. That's then reflected in the hundreds of everyday decisions made over the months and years to follow, in the constant balancing act of income vs. family time.
Correlation does not equal causation.
138