As great an idea this is I don't see it passing in Congress. People need to focus on the state level. It would be so great if American workers had 6-8 weeks of PAID vacation and paid parental leave of up to a year.
6
The US (and NYS) should be ashamed of its family leave policies. For all the 'family values" talk, we have the most anti-family policies in the industrialized world. It is a shame that women cannot have paid time off for a few weeks to recover from childbirth and manage a newborn. If I pull out my back I can collect disability for months on end. If I give birth and have to get up every 2 hours to feed a newborn, I should somehow immediately return to work and be as productive as ever, or I can just simply have no income until I'm up to it (rent and food are just luxuries after all). How does that make any sense? We want families to do well but we fail to provide resources to make that even remotely possible.
33
The fact that the question that concerns politicians and governments is whether paid parental leave is "economical" demonstrates the extent to which our society has been made subservient to the profit/accumulation value system that underlies modern plutocracy.
22
New York Times, why are you still reporting on Obama's announcement that "Last month, he gave federal employees the right to take six weeks of paid leave when they become parents"? If you read the executive order, it becomes apparent that all he did was give federal workers to use advanced sick leave if they do not have enough accrued already. It is not specifically parental leave, and to say otherwise is misleading and makes it sound better than it is. Federal employees still get no paid parental leave.
10
Here we go again! Not much has changed in the 30 years that I have had my daughter. I found that there isn't any respect for pregnant women or mothers in general. Let's face it...for the world to go around, people need to have chikdren. We no longer live in the same neighborhoods as our parents, who can possibly help with childcare. And if we do, grandparents are working today. We need to accommodate young families. Now that I don't have a young child and am not in those shoes, I am thankful that we made it. It does take a village. I also realize what picking up the slack is for those that are out of the office. I have been dumped on plenty of times by those on leave. But still it is up to corporate America to change. That hasn't happen and I do not see it happening in the future. Sad!
6
As a woman myself this is something that concerns me, but not nearly as much as what I will do after paid leave is over. I know my female coworkers have to pay almost 50% of their wages towards day care, and we're paid quite well where we're at. Financially its barely worth it and staying home and raising the child seems like the better option to me. But at the same time Its difficult to run a family on a single income, and it leaves you open to much less stability if anything happens to that job.
My mother raised me and my brother by herself doing part time work and we survived but were always poor. She had me when she was 16- and I have no idea how no matter what, she made things work. I make about 3-4 times as much as she made, and my partner makes about 40% more than me... even so, the finances of raising a child still seem like an impossible hurdle. As an adult I want to make sure I'm financially ready to avoid the hardships my mother went through, but it seems like unless you have a triple digit salary there is no way to ever be financially prepared and know you will be able to raise your child well on all levels.
My mother raised me and my brother by herself doing part time work and we survived but were always poor. She had me when she was 16- and I have no idea how no matter what, she made things work. I make about 3-4 times as much as she made, and my partner makes about 40% more than me... even so, the finances of raising a child still seem like an impossible hurdle. As an adult I want to make sure I'm financially ready to avoid the hardships my mother went through, but it seems like unless you have a triple digit salary there is no way to ever be financially prepared and know you will be able to raise your child well on all levels.
8
What struck me about the California paid leave described in the article is that the state and many employers seemed to not have informed employees about Family Leave. When I was pregnant in the UK, the HR department made sure to clearly inform me about all that I was entitled to and explained my options for returning to work. In addition to receiving one year paid leave from my employer, then the UK government (as described by other commenters), they paid me extra for my unused holiday time!
Other European countries provide even more generous family leave options and my sister-in-law in Germany was even promoted WHILE she was on maternity leave. I'm not aware of German companies suffering because of this.
Other European countries provide even more generous family leave options and my sister-in-law in Germany was even promoted WHILE she was on maternity leave. I'm not aware of German companies suffering because of this.
11
With all the lip service our politicians pay to families, children, and family values, why do we not hold them accountable by insisting that we get concrete help for families? Why do we so consistently undervalue and undermine our most important and precious assets: our children? The U.S. ranks well below most developed nations in child mortality, paid family leave, and child poverty. Vote Republican some more, folks; let's see how much lower we can go in these categories! And then let's see how many laws they pass for the protection and care of rich white people.
19
I now live and work in the UK, where new mothers can take up to one year off and get paid for up to about 9 months (not full salary). I can't imagine what people in the US (which I'm sure will be me in the near future), do after 4 weeks (or less!) when the newborn still needs round-the-clock care.
The answer is probably extensive leave (more like 6 months than 6 weeks) so that the standard maternity-cover position at businesses are worth-while positions for paid professionals. They help cover unemployment and are great recruiting tools for businesses.
The answer is probably extensive leave (more like 6 months than 6 weeks) so that the standard maternity-cover position at businesses are worth-while positions for paid professionals. They help cover unemployment and are great recruiting tools for businesses.
5
Its a shame that employers cant recognize the value of paid leave, but thats because employers dont value their staff as longterm assets. If they did, they could easily internally self fund their own organic programs.
15
Paid leave is a great idea, however I have a concern. In the field of eduction, particularly in grades kindergarten through grade 8, teachers who go on maternity leave do so for at least 12 weeks. minimum. Anyone who knows anything about working in most urban schools, knows that getting a permanent substitute is very difficult. Getting a good, permanent substitute teacher is next to impossible. Money to hire good, qualified people is often limited. These students miss a great deal of essential, building block skills at the most vulnerable stages in their educational lives. I am not advocating against family leave, but in some professions, definitely in education, there is a real consequence.
5
In all other industrialized nations, this is handled by using long term leaves - the substitute teacher gets a contract for up to a year. One collateral benefit is that many young teachers enter the system on long term leaves and are able to often transition to full time careers - and the original teacher gets an adequate level to deal with his/ her new born (yes in many other countries, it's the father who can take part of the leave). Spend some time examining how other nations handle this.
15
Make teachers federal employees, like in France, and pay them a decent wage. You get what you pay for.
19
Good substitutes are out there: many retirees love going back into the classroom. The problem is when administrators want the cheapest sub possible, which is someone who has subbed fewer than 100 days (and who might have little to no classroom experience), or doesn't have a long-term contract. In Denver, good subs are very hard to come by at the end of the school year just because the best ones have used up their days by April and schools only want to hire the cheap ones. Don't throw out the idea of paternity leave altogether just because there are some systems that work it poorly.
6
Paid leave is a great idea, but how and who should pay. Also, why are not fathers able to get such, seems we have a gender distinction. To be fair these programs should be fully paid by the government, not a business. Yes, dear taxpayers, both person and business, you must pay, after all its for the good of society, as the article tells us. California seems to do that. Given all the progressive entitlements in California, few businesses want to do business there. To be fair, nothing short of a national program should be put in place. So, start with seven weeks, and I am sure within a Hillary presidency it will be expanded to a full year. Cost, CBO tells us a year will cost about $750 billion per year in current dollars, more later. At this point in our economy it would go directly to increasing the national debt. Hey, the kids who benefit should be able to pay that, since they will be paying for the $20 trillion their parents have run up. Like Hillary, I have many more 'free' entitlements for parents, including a free four year college education. Don't get me started. Happily I will be dead when all this happens, free money for everybody, forever.
8
Russia has 3 years of paid maternity leave for EVERY child, and it has been established more than 25 years ago. If Russia could start providing 3 years since 1980's, why can't US provide 3 months of paid leave in 2015?
11
"Awareness has declined among nonwhite, noncollege-educated and female voters..."
"Mothers in California who took leave were 6 percent more likely to be working a year later than those who did not..."
So the most likely women to take the leave are college-educated white women.... who - just maybe - are the most likely to return to work and not live off of government largess...
Go figure.
So let's mandate another social welfare program after it took us two decades to clean up the last welfare debacle... mind you - that was despite the claims of doom among the chattering class.
"Mothers in California who took leave were 6 percent more likely to be working a year later than those who did not..."
So the most likely women to take the leave are college-educated white women.... who - just maybe - are the most likely to return to work and not live off of government largess...
Go figure.
So let's mandate another social welfare program after it took us two decades to clean up the last welfare debacle... mind you - that was despite the claims of doom among the chattering class.
6
For those non-breeders who constantly whine that this benefits only selfish breeders this is a no duh policy. It benefits everyone, whether you just had a baby or need to take time off due to your illness or a to help take care of a family member.
6
As the article states, businesses are expected to pay for the leave but the business does not benefit. America has it all wrong. If Obama wants to make America socialist you don't do it on the backs of small business.
Paid family leave should be paid for by the workers who benefit by all paying into a fund with every paycheck.
Paid family leave should be paid for by the workers who benefit by all paying into a fund with every paycheck.
6
Uhh, which article were you reading? As the article actually states: "At California companies, many of which lobbied against the law, fears about its effects have not played out. From 89 percent to 99 percent of employers say it has had no effect or a positive one on productivity, profitability, turnover and morale...." Please, this Obama-is-a-socialist argument is so very tiresome.
9
Hats off to President Obama for doing the right thing for parents without whom there would be no human race on planet Earth.
11
Paid parental leave is good for families and for society. In the long run, when we support families we have stronger families, lower rates of stress related emotional problems, better parent child attachment and a better quality of life. Corporations are not people and will not favor this policy unless they also realize that this even makes good economic sense. You will have happier, healthier workers with longer job tenure...but, more importantly, this is good for babies who need their parents time and who can sense parental stress or well being...and let's not forget that without paid parental leave, we place the sole burden of bring our next generation of citizens into the world on women...dad's pay a price for this too
7
I question the equity in this. What about those workers that are childfree? Parents already use the excuse of their children to leave right at 5pm when those without kids would be frowned upon if they were to also leaves leave work at 5pm. Don't get me started on how many times I've heard parents say, don't schedule a meeting at this time because of my childcare responsibilities. That's their lifestyle choice so it's up to them to make it work. There is enough discrimination against the single and the childfree in the workplace, we don't need to increase the disparity.
Now, if the paid leave were to be available for EVERYBODY then that's another story. Why shouldn't everyone benefit from the opportunity to have leave to enrich themselves like taking classes, going to the gym or traveling?
Now, if the paid leave were to be available for EVERYBODY then that's another story. Why shouldn't everyone benefit from the opportunity to have leave to enrich themselves like taking classes, going to the gym or traveling?
16
I don't have children and have filled in for employees out on maternity leave and worked around schedules of employees with kids. I also pay taxes that support local schools. It's better for the community, better for my company that good employees will continue working there and will want to work there, it's better for us as a society for the next generation to get the care and education they need. As to unequal treatment - I've heard stories of men being considered unserious about their jobs for leaving at 5 when women are considered good parents for doing the same thing. That sort of disparate treatment (rescheduling meetings to accommodate kid things but not to accommodate my doc appointment) isn't a necessary companion to paid leave. I think it's bad management. We have paid leave and we try to schedule around people's lives in general - my being out to care for my dying mother, someone else who was donating bone marrow.
23
Lifestyle choice? You mean having children (read: perpetuating the human race) is akin to buying a boat or becoming a vegetarian?
5
While there surely is benefits to both individuals and if extensively done having a parent involved with their children there is little to no economic benefit. Someone pays for them staying home, it could be the employer, the government, the individual or a combination of them. The individual is the best and if you can't afford to raise a child you can't afford to have one either. We have a surplus of humans so no additional are really needed.
11
I am very pleased that in all three states with Family Leave Insurance programs, paid leave is extended to both mothers and fathers. In California's case, the percentage of leaves taken by fathers has increased greatly since this policy.
I am not so pleased that this article only discusses the implications for maternity leave, as opposed to the many demonstrated benefits of paternity leave.
This is not only a woman's issue and should not be framed as such.
I am not so pleased that this article only discusses the implications for maternity leave, as opposed to the many demonstrated benefits of paternity leave.
This is not only a woman's issue and should not be framed as such.
11
"Paid leave could help increase the percentage of women in the work force", Mr. Obama said. But why should society, or the government, want more woman with young children to work? Some believe (including all at the top of the economic pyramid) families would be better off with a strong breadwinner and young children cared for by a loving parent. The increase of women into the workforce has kept wages so low that millions of men, including many laid off in the recession, have stopped looking. Children are less well off in government day care. It seems Mr. Obama thinks the cure to low wages is more low wages.
9
Women have been in the work force for 50 years. We are not to blame for the recent recession and men's lack of ability to find work. To propose such is false economics and historically inaccurate. Lastly, no one is proposing government sponsored day care or low wages. All the article talks about is that women should have a few weeks off paid to recover from child birth and get some rest since they are up feeding infants every 2 hours. You try getting up for 45 minutes every two hours and see how productive of an employee you are.
32
Women are in the workforce now and have always been. But, women do not need to be marginalized or have their work considered less valuable simply by bearing children and having young ones at home. If a woman is excluded from tge workforce how will she support her family? I don't know about you, but I would rather let people earn a living.
4
I'd take these thoughts one step further and suggest that the entire national mood and overall productivity might improve if all working stiffs in the USA had more generous leave policies, akin to what Europeans enjoy. Corporate America does not allow for proper rest and respite for every worker. Why do only parents deserve quality time with family, and only parents with newborns? And singletons never catch a break, despite the fact that we're low maintenance and aren't contributing to the excess world population.
23
"suggest that the entire national mood and overall productivity might improve if all working stiffs in the USA had more generous leave policies, akin to what Europeans enjoy."
Your claim productivity would improve is just a conjecture, European productivity has been stagnant for decades. "Why do only parents deserve quality time with family, and only parents with newborns?" Apparently the extra burden of taking care of newborn children is lost on you. Not sure where this comment comes from. So called "singletons" don't need a break for this.
Your claim productivity would improve is just a conjecture, European productivity has been stagnant for decades. "Why do only parents deserve quality time with family, and only parents with newborns?" Apparently the extra burden of taking care of newborn children is lost on you. Not sure where this comment comes from. So called "singletons" don't need a break for this.
5
I find the statement that only 36 % of workers in California know about this leave to be questionable. This sort of leave is well advertised in mandated posters, handbooks, HR on boarding, and in simply being around to talk to co-workers and observing others take this leave. What is not surprising is the finding that the vast majority of businesses find that compliance is not the financial disaster that many claimed it would be. Yet another nail in the GOP's California coffin. In California, this leave is very, very popular with the voting public -- it is here to stay.
6
"In California, this leave is very, very popular with the voting public -- it is here to stay."
So is California's $428 billion state debt. No wonder so many more are leaving California rather than moving there. If it weren't for undocumented workers moving there and Silicon Valley the state would be kaput.
So is California's $428 billion state debt. No wonder so many more are leaving California rather than moving there. If it weren't for undocumented workers moving there and Silicon Valley the state would be kaput.
6
You have a precious little boy - but please help your Corgi to shed some pounds, it shortens the dog's life!
7
Parental leave should appeal to the family values crowd but it doesn't. As to real data, using sick leave would help but the average sick leave accrual per year is roughly 8 days each year of service. As to the cost benefit analysis, besides the three states, there are any number of companies outside those states that grant parental leave and they are just as competitive as those who do not. If you work for an employer that does not grant parental leave, you should start looking.
2
19 October, 12th year [1430 A.D.]
The King said to his Secretaries:
"In the past, when a government servant gave birth, she was expected to return to service seven days later. This provision was made out of concern for the fact that harm might come to the baby if she returned leaving the child behind her, and so this period of leave was later increased to a hundred days. However, there have been instances of women whose time was near, and who gave birth before reaching home. I therefore suggest that one month of full leave be granted prior to giving birth. Please amend the relevant laws."
26 April, 16 year [1434 A.D.]
Dispatched to the Ministry of Justice:
"It has been enacted that a female servant, who is due to give birth in a month's time or has given birth within the past hundred days, shall not be required for government service. Since no leave has been granted to the husbands of such women, however, they have not been able to provide assistance to their wives in childbirth, and because of this some women have even lost their lives, which is most pitiful. From this day forward, a husband is not required to return to service for thirty days after his wife has given birth."
King Sejong, 4th Ruler of Choson Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great
http://asiasociety.org/countries/traditions/king-sejong-great
The King said to his Secretaries:
"In the past, when a government servant gave birth, she was expected to return to service seven days later. This provision was made out of concern for the fact that harm might come to the baby if she returned leaving the child behind her, and so this period of leave was later increased to a hundred days. However, there have been instances of women whose time was near, and who gave birth before reaching home. I therefore suggest that one month of full leave be granted prior to giving birth. Please amend the relevant laws."
26 April, 16 year [1434 A.D.]
Dispatched to the Ministry of Justice:
"It has been enacted that a female servant, who is due to give birth in a month's time or has given birth within the past hundred days, shall not be required for government service. Since no leave has been granted to the husbands of such women, however, they have not been able to provide assistance to their wives in childbirth, and because of this some women have even lost their lives, which is most pitiful. From this day forward, a husband is not required to return to service for thirty days after his wife has given birth."
King Sejong, 4th Ruler of Choson Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great
http://asiasociety.org/countries/traditions/king-sejong-great
13
What about earning paid family leave as one earns "Sick leave"? Or does it even need to be separate --just use Sick leave for family paid leave? This would create a larger incentive for the parent to return to work after building goodwill with the company.
Daycare costs are the main thing that prevents many parents from returning to work. The cost/benefit of day care vs home care just doesn't balance, particularly for those early in their careers. Then you have another child, and the cost of care doubles.
I agree with the U.K.'s proportion of income standpoint (90% for first X months, 133 pounds after that for up to Y amount of time). This does relieve some of the burden during stressful times, but then again, the culture is important. My husband works at an organization that frowns when he takes an earned vacation day.
Daycare costs are the main thing that prevents many parents from returning to work. The cost/benefit of day care vs home care just doesn't balance, particularly for those early in their careers. Then you have another child, and the cost of care doubles.
I agree with the U.K.'s proportion of income standpoint (90% for first X months, 133 pounds after that for up to Y amount of time). This does relieve some of the burden during stressful times, but then again, the culture is important. My husband works at an organization that frowns when he takes an earned vacation day.
3
"Just use sick leave for family paid leave"?? That's exactly what happens for many people now, and it's terrible. I didn't take a *single day* of annual leave between starting my job and the day I went on maternity leave with my first baby. I got six weeks paid leave (paid only because I used all my annual leave and then some), and then returned to work with IN DEBT more annual leave days than I actually could earn back in one year. Now I'm expecting my second, at a different job, and yet again hoarding my paid time off in hopes I'll actually be able to afford taking a full six weeks off (getting paid with my sick/vacation days) when the time comes. I will almost certainly yet again go back to work without a single sick or vacation day left.
3
With our market based everything society where shrinking the government is akin to seeking entrance into heaven, there may be a way to pull this off. Could we create either a publicly or privately funded insurance system where parents get time off if they have a baby? If everyone paid into it, the costs to any single employer would be minimal. The new parent would have to have their job held for them during their time off, which could be a problem for employers, but not insurmountable. This type of insurance would help the self-employed and small businesses greatly. People could even buy more with their own money if they wanted to.
We currently spend more than $3 trillion each year on healthcare and at least half of that is wasted. Parental leave would not be wasted money.
We currently spend more than $3 trillion each year on healthcare and at least half of that is wasted. Parental leave would not be wasted money.
5
'...If everyone paid into it, the costs to any single employer would be minimal...'
Why would the childless have to pay even more than they do to help those who decide to have children? Why should not every person get the same amount of time off to do whatever it is that brings happiness to their own lives, even if it has nothing to do with having children?
It is not as if the US needs more children. We are much better off importing skills adult immigrants than spending billions on educating children born here, many of whom will never contribute to society.
Have children if you want them, but don't pretend you are doing anyone else or the country a favor.
FYI: I am the mother of two children and while I support tax breaks for families, a single payer health care system, and state subsidized childcare, I see no reason that only parents should be allowed to avail themselves of three months leave for caring for children, while my childless coworkers are not permitted to use that same time to pursue their personal dreams.
Why would the childless have to pay even more than they do to help those who decide to have children? Why should not every person get the same amount of time off to do whatever it is that brings happiness to their own lives, even if it has nothing to do with having children?
It is not as if the US needs more children. We are much better off importing skills adult immigrants than spending billions on educating children born here, many of whom will never contribute to society.
Have children if you want them, but don't pretend you are doing anyone else or the country a favor.
FYI: I am the mother of two children and while I support tax breaks for families, a single payer health care system, and state subsidized childcare, I see no reason that only parents should be allowed to avail themselves of three months leave for caring for children, while my childless coworkers are not permitted to use that same time to pursue their personal dreams.
8
"shrinking the government is akin to seeking entrance into heaven, "
No its not akin to entering heaven, but with $18 trillion in debt and growing, its a realistic need.
No its not akin to entering heaven, but with $18 trillion in debt and growing, its a realistic need.
2
Paid family leave is a no brainer. Strong family values have always dictated good parental care, good elderly care, care for the sick and care for the weary. If a country cares less for its
people than it does for its corporations how can you then expect a healthy productive society?
people than it does for its corporations how can you then expect a healthy productive society?
30
Some kind of medical leave should be available to all workers, not just mothers. If people choose to have more family members to take care of, they will obviously have additional needs they have to meet.
The terms of this leave should be negotiated between businesses and government, however. The US business environment is not the same as Denmark's or England's for that matter.
You cannot just introduce a policy where people disappear from work for a year. That may work in government (although the thought is not comforting to this taxpayer) but it is not realistic for the private sector.
Change like this should be phased in and has to work in a US business environment, which is highly competitive and operates on a different set of principles.
The terms of this leave should be negotiated between businesses and government, however. The US business environment is not the same as Denmark's or England's for that matter.
You cannot just introduce a policy where people disappear from work for a year. That may work in government (although the thought is not comforting to this taxpayer) but it is not realistic for the private sector.
Change like this should be phased in and has to work in a US business environment, which is highly competitive and operates on a different set of principles.
4
I hear "if people choose to have more family members to take care of" as "your on your own parents." I disagree...we don't live in a vacuum...society needs the next generation and we are all interdependent. We really have this corporate sponsored view in this country that we're all on our own...but this is not true and creates a cold, non-supportive culture. Child bearing is not an illness, but it's own category of need for time off...although I agree that we need paid time off for illness as well...and maybe for the sake of world population, we can phase out parental supports after 2 kids per family...we need the next generation, but we do not need over-population!
4
But in Denmark - you know, the world's happiest place ..- you get a full year's paid leave as parents. And you may split the leave between the mother and father as you like. And you get your old job back, that's the law. And - ta da Socialdemocratic Paradise announcement: the law mandates that you have to have a cheap, state run, nursery place offered for your baby close to home.
I know - taxes are high. But this is one of the reasons.
I know - taxes are high. But this is one of the reasons.
54
"State-run" in Denmark and "state-run" in the US are two very different things. The size of the federal bureaucracy required to run a similar system in the US would lead to not just high taxes but astronomical taxes. Never mind the quality that a federal behemoth delivers.
In fact, this is why single-payer is always stopped dead in its tracks in the US. It's extremely costly to implement nationwide.
In fact, this is why single-payer is always stopped dead in its tracks in the US. It's extremely costly to implement nationwide.
4
Actually, it wouldn't be extremely costly to implement single-payer, if you are looking at overall health care costs. The United States spends far and away MORE on healthcare than any other advanced industrial country, with results that are either no better or worse than in other places. The problem is corporate power in the form of insurance companies, which obviously would lose out were we to move to a single-payer system.
15
AACNY, Fox News probably doesn't devote much of its fair and balanced programming to informing viewers about the highly successful and very popular single payer program called Medicare. Because it's run by the government, it doesn't need to spend most of its income on advertising, underwriting, executive compensation, and providing shareholders with ever-increasing growth. It thus provides health care to the sickest Americans with significantly greater efficiency than any for-profit corporation. Expanding this successful program to cover all Americans would have been the most efficient and effective health care reform. But that stopped dead before it even reached the tracks because the corporations that profit so handsomely from the current dysfunctional system spoke loudly with their money to ensure the continuation of their gravy train.
I therefore suspect that a government scheme of parental leave and day care, as exists in Europe, would be far more efficient than any private corporation that has a primary obligation to increase the wealth of its executives and shareholders. But you won't hear that on Fox News.
I therefore suspect that a government scheme of parental leave and day care, as exists in Europe, would be far more efficient than any private corporation that has a primary obligation to increase the wealth of its executives and shareholders. But you won't hear that on Fox News.
11
It is incorrect to say the UK gives 52 weeks paid leave. You can get your job back if you take a year off, but paid leave is not as long as that.
8
As with most social policy the benefits are well removed in both space and time from those asked to pay.
In the case of public K-12 schools property owners can and do complain that they are paying to educate the children of the poor. Especially when their own kids are long since up and out. But they miss the point. For thirty years from now in parts of the country they have never visited the children schooled long ago will be paying FICA to fund their retirement.
It all comes around. Making America a more pleasant place for new mothers and their babies will always pay America expansive dividends.
In the case of public K-12 schools property owners can and do complain that they are paying to educate the children of the poor. Especially when their own kids are long since up and out. But they miss the point. For thirty years from now in parts of the country they have never visited the children schooled long ago will be paying FICA to fund their retirement.
It all comes around. Making America a more pleasant place for new mothers and their babies will always pay America expansive dividends.
49
I have no doubt that state-provided parental leaves have visible benefits to the recipients, like any other subsidies. On a personal level, I also think that taking time off to spend with raising your child is awesome (for the parent and the child).
We can agree that benefits are great in a vacuum.
But like any subsidy they involve a dispersed cost on all other people. Payroll taxes are especially sneaky because they are indirect and make the companies the bad guys when people are increasingly disappointed with their paychecks. Most of those that will be net-payers into this system either don't realize it or won't find it worthwhile to start political action and lobby for their side.
Also, they invite further rent-seeking. My favorite group would love the concentrated benefits of some "free money" and I'm sure we can spin some great rationale why everyone should pay for us. That's how we have sugar subsidies and tariffs...
We can agree that benefits are great in a vacuum.
But like any subsidy they involve a dispersed cost on all other people. Payroll taxes are especially sneaky because they are indirect and make the companies the bad guys when people are increasingly disappointed with their paychecks. Most of those that will be net-payers into this system either don't realize it or won't find it worthwhile to start political action and lobby for their side.
Also, they invite further rent-seeking. My favorite group would love the concentrated benefits of some "free money" and I'm sure we can spin some great rationale why everyone should pay for us. That's how we have sugar subsidies and tariffs...
11
Dear President Obama,
Love the push for paid parental leave.
Though I really could do without you equating "women's issues" to "side issues."
Women have been on the front lines of the fight for paid parental leave for many decades now, and we've been fighting that good fight because we understand, in a lived experience kind of way, that dependency work is vital to the economic health of a nation. Instead of equating "women's issues" to "side issues," let's take this opportunity to acknowledge the decades-long work of feminist organizers, educators, and lawmakers to get paid family leave in the U.S. on par with the rest of the world.
On this and many other issues, "women's issues" and "national priorities" turn out to be one and the same.
Love the push for paid parental leave.
Though I really could do without you equating "women's issues" to "side issues."
Women have been on the front lines of the fight for paid parental leave for many decades now, and we've been fighting that good fight because we understand, in a lived experience kind of way, that dependency work is vital to the economic health of a nation. Instead of equating "women's issues" to "side issues," let's take this opportunity to acknowledge the decades-long work of feminist organizers, educators, and lawmakers to get paid family leave in the U.S. on par with the rest of the world.
On this and many other issues, "women's issues" and "national priorities" turn out to be one and the same.
6
Please take a closer look at the math of this.
These are regressive taxes in California; they are not paid by the owners of the businesses (such as the Waltons), they are paid others with earned income, such as college-educated professionals. They therefore function as a "middle class" cram-down in the same way Social Security and Medicare do.
They also have been reinforcing female-centric parenting; in California men are not using the leave.
These are regressive taxes in California; they are not paid by the owners of the businesses (such as the Waltons), they are paid others with earned income, such as college-educated professionals. They therefore function as a "middle class" cram-down in the same way Social Security and Medicare do.
They also have been reinforcing female-centric parenting; in California men are not using the leave.
9
Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 3%, far less than your local florist.
3
That's an interesting non-sequitur. Wal-Mart's own employee policies (low wages, bad working conditions) are what loses it a ton of money. If you turn over roughly 50-70% of your workforce every year (versus ~6% for Costco) and you factor in the replacement cost of employees at around 2% of their annual salary....you're throwing a ton a money away because you can't "afford" a living wage.
1
Not sure this is in children's interests? It's not a good idea to pay people to have children.
Another way to deal with this issue is to follow through on "rights of the child" constitutional rights to say that every child is the equal responsibility of both parents as a baseline. Currently our tax system and all our programs are built around sole breadwinners, stay-at-home parents and subsidize this.
With this baseline right of every child, you get out of the issue of people having to pay for other people's children, people having children for the wrong reasons, and you can reform these federal tax and benefit systems (which are key drivers in the $19 trillion debt). If parents want to contract another allocation of responsibility between them, such as sole breadwinnerism, they can, but they won't be subsidized in this, and they are accountable to the child if there are any problems, and cannot shift the costs of these problems outside themselves.
Some people already think our Constitution requires equal responsibility for children as a baseline now that paternity is inexpensively provable.
Another way to deal with this issue is to follow through on "rights of the child" constitutional rights to say that every child is the equal responsibility of both parents as a baseline. Currently our tax system and all our programs are built around sole breadwinners, stay-at-home parents and subsidize this.
With this baseline right of every child, you get out of the issue of people having to pay for other people's children, people having children for the wrong reasons, and you can reform these federal tax and benefit systems (which are key drivers in the $19 trillion debt). If parents want to contract another allocation of responsibility between them, such as sole breadwinnerism, they can, but they won't be subsidized in this, and they are accountable to the child if there are any problems, and cannot shift the costs of these problems outside themselves.
Some people already think our Constitution requires equal responsibility for children as a baseline now that paternity is inexpensively provable.
8
Frankly, I expect to grow old and I want there to be younger smart, healthy, well-educated people to populate my world. I think that is the intent of public education, for example, which has no direct benefit to me while costing me over $3k in taxes each year. Paid maternity leave and subsidized childcare is a logical extension of this. People will just not stop having babies, get over it and be grateful there are other people in the world besides yourself.
25
It is good to see that Denverite raised the issue of how the leave benefit affects other people. Having elected not to have children (many people make the same choice and some are denied the choice due to a medical condition), I already find my cost of health care is disproportionate relative to those obtaining family coverage. The next fact is that maternal/paternal leave benefits also affect people such as me because we are the ones who have to take on more work so that the leave can be given (please do not pretend that the company fills the resource gap). One can argue that my choice not to have children puts me in that place, but it is a faulty argument. The more compelling argument is that society as a whole has an obligation to all children, but that does not resolve the disproportionate burden place on the childless.
4
No one has a child to get a few weeks off from work or make a buck. Everyone, even low-income parents, understands that kids are a net negative when it comes to the budget. Suggesting otherwise is deeply prejudiced.
The purpose of this article is to show that it is better for the economy, resulting in MORE stable jobs and less costs in HR turnover, to provide paid leave. It is NOT a handout to those who choose to procreate (whose children will provide care and financial support via social security for those who choose not to have kids, by the way).
The purpose of this article is to show that it is better for the economy, resulting in MORE stable jobs and less costs in HR turnover, to provide paid leave. It is NOT a handout to those who choose to procreate (whose children will provide care and financial support via social security for those who choose not to have kids, by the way).
11
I live in the UK and, as the article says, we are permitted up to one year's paid leave. The money is capped and for many would be much lower than their ordinary wages, but is enough to live on. We get 90% of ordinary salary for 6 weeks and then £133 per week for the rest of the 12 months - that's about $200. The leave can be taken by just one parent or split between them. Many employers pay much more - mine pays full salary for 6 months, albeit part is paid as a bonus after the parent has been back at work for 6 months. This is a widely accepted policy and there are no complaints amongst business leaders that it damages their interests. Indeed, our economy seems strong and the initiative is almost universally viewed positively. I am not a parent, but I know how valued it is by acquaintances of mine as a means of allowing crucial bonding time with their young child. I know that we are very lucky to have this policy and I hope it is something which other countries will emulate.
83
Your business leaders in the UK seem to have the notion that they function as part of a broader society in which their own interests are sometimes best served by supporting the interests of others, at least somewhat. That might sound perfectly reasonable to you (and to many of us here), but in the upper echelons of US business, that would probably be viewed as a sign of weakness, unfortunately.
48
As if paid parental leave should ever have been considered anything but a necessity in this country anyway! Please. Just another instance in which the right sure can talk the talk but fails utterly to do any of the actual walk. Why must the caterwauling (routinely proven baseless) of business be given even the briefest hearing any longer? When will America wake up and realize that continuous abuse of its citizenry leads only to bad ends in a civil society? "Family values" means a lot more than telling women they can't have an abortion, but count on right-leaning America to lag the world in this as in so many arenas.
57
Not all Americans believe that "family values" now include the government's involvement in, and responsibility for, raising children.
7
The evil caterwauling businesses might be given the briefest hearing as they are the ones impacted by a multitude of government regulations/taxes and penalties and actually paying the freight. Maybe you're right, we should all work for the state.
2
Do childfree people in those states qualify for paid leave for their lifestyle choices? Or to care for non-offspring?
Social welfare policies are great if they don't discriminate among citizens and elevate some choices above others. I'd never support a program like this in my state and would vehemently lobby against it, unless it applies to everyone equally regardless of whether or not they elect to employ their uterus.
Social welfare policies are great if they don't discriminate among citizens and elevate some choices above others. I'd never support a program like this in my state and would vehemently lobby against it, unless it applies to everyone equally regardless of whether or not they elect to employ their uterus.
26
So, you just want some time off? Frankly, a policy that promotes people to reproduce in a responsible manner is a good policy and will benefit everyone whether they have children or not by keeping people off the welfare system (which is a bigger drain on the tax system). You don't want to have kids, great, that's your choice. But, if we don't make it easier for people to have children and provide for them independently, than we're just going to keep pushing people out of the workforce and into welfare.
46
Speaking for California here, you need not have a child to take advantage of the program. It's paid family leave. Meaning, you (regardless of your sex) can utilize it take care your family members, be they children, ailing partners or elderly parents. You can take it in one lump, or spread it out over time, depending on your needs.
71
You were born once, weren't you? All in society benefit from parental leave policies.
76