America's maternity leave problem

[knapplc]

Well, false thread title. It's not really a problem so much as it is nonexistent.

Quote

The world’s richest countries guarantee mothers more than a year of paid maternity leave. The U.S. guarantees them nothing.

 

Twenty-five years ago President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which included a provision giving eligible workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a new child. Emphasis on “unpaid.”

 

The United States remains the only country in the developed world that does not mandate employers offer paid leave for new mothers, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

 

New mothers in Finland, for instance, are entitled to up to three years worth of paid leave. Norwegian moms get up to 91 weeks. The U.K. grants new mothers up to 39 weeks, while our neighbors in the frigid Canadian north get one year.

 

Once again for emphasis: American moms are entitled to zero weeks of paid leave under federal law.

 

 

America is bizarre.  We promote families and want there to be a two-parent household, but we essentially punish people for having children. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by knapplc

[Moiraine]

Maybe there should be a required sabbatical every 5 years. If you get pregnant you use your sabbatical for that if you want.

 

A general problem I see (which I think relates to this) is people really devalue things that benefit society as a whole, and it might be that way moreso here than in other countries.

 

For example, a large chunk of society needs only to hear the word "tax cuts" to be a gungho supporter of a political candidate, regardless of their income. But if you're making, say, $30,000/year, I'm pretty sure you're benefitting more from taxes than what you're paying. Honestly I'm guessing that's the case for incomes much higher than that.

 

The problem is it's way easier for someone to see the benefit in having $500 extra cash and not see the benefit they're getting from things funded by taxes.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Moiraine

[QMany]

After he posted in a status update, I implored knapplc to start a thread on this topic. Frankly, I still don't know how I feel about paid leave. Full disclosure, my wife and I don't have children. We planning on having our first in about two years. At this time, we are saving up PTO to be used after she gives birth. 

 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

America is bizarre.  We promote families and want there to be a two-parent household, but we essentially punish people for having children. 

 

I don't know if punish is the right word; they are not getting paid because they are not working. If we did have paid leave, the worker being punished might be the one who chooses not to have a kid and continues working full-time and picks up the slack of the lady in the office next door doing the same job who had a kid and makes the same but comparatively works only 75% of the time that year. 

[QMany]

The world’s richest countries guarantee mothers more than a year of paid maternity leave. The U.S. guarantees them nothing.

New mothers in Finland, for instance, are entitled to up to three years worth of paid leave. Norwegian moms get up to 91 weeks. The U.K. grants new mothers up to 39 weeks, while our neighbors in the frigid Canadian north get one year.

 

Once again for emphasis: American moms are entitled to zero weeks of paid leave under federal law.

 

Note: they are not getting full-pay during those periods. For example, in the UK, they are only averaging 30% of their pay during that time period, or equivalent to 12 weeks. And the extended "leave" in regards to Finland and Canada include parental and home care at reduced pay rates, 19% and 55% respectively. 

[knapplc]

25 minutes ago, QMany said:

I don't know if punish is the right word; they are not getting paid because they are not working. If we did have paid leave, the worker being punished might be the one who chooses not to have a kid and continues working full-time and picks up the slack of the lady in the office next door doing the same job who had a kid and makes the same but comparatively works only 75% of the time that year. 

 

I contributed tax money to schools before I had children, so that would be the same as me saying I was being punished when I didn't have children.  Except that an educated population is in my best interest, so that's not punishment but a societal investment. 

[deedsker]

I guess the benefits would be the similar as going on disability, which would only pay up to 60% of your pay.

 

The idea is to cover your expenses, not milk the system.

Edited February 6, 2018 by deedsker

[QMany]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I contributed tax money to schools before I had children, so that would be the same as me saying I was being punished when I didn't have children.  Except that an educated population is in my best interest, so that's not punishment but a societal investment. 

 

Good point. Our tax system is another similarity. So how much more should be incentivize having children and "punish" those who choose not to?

[RedDenver]

Also remember that's it's not just about your current status but rather your entire lifetime. For example, just because you don't have kids that doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes for education or paid maternity leave. After all, somebody paid taxes for your education and (in countries that have it) your mother's paid maternity leave.

[Kiyoat Husker]

25 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Good point. Our tax system is another similarity. So how much more should be incentivize having children and "punish" those who choose not to?

 

Having children isn't cheap.  No amount of tax breaks or maternity leave will even come close to covering your costs and time commitments.  Those costs in time and money are plenty of incentive for some people to choose not to have children.  Sorry, but I don't see childless people being "victimized" or "punished".  I see them having lots of spare time and money they can choose to spend how they please.

[JJ Husker]

So is the idea here that we should increase taxes to provide federal paid maternity leave or is it that employers should be footing the bill?

 

I haven't invested a bunch of thought into exactly how having children benefits society but I will say my initial gut feeling is nobody provided paid maternity leave to us when we had children and we made it through okay. There are all kinds of things some people can't really afford to do and having children may be one of those things in some cases. If you have a decent job you can likely save up some paid time off and hopefully a little extra money to get you through the post birth period. And current FMLA law protects your job for a period of time without providing pay. My thought is that maybe the current system is a desirable deterrent to those who probably can't really afford to have children and therefore maybe it's not all that bad as is.

 

Question- What are the benefits to society of people, that can't afford it without paid maternity leave, having children? I'm coming up blank.

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

So is the idea here that we should increase taxes to provide federal paid maternity leave or is it that employers should be footing the bill?

 

I haven't invested a bunch of thought into exactly how having children benefits society but I will say my initial gut feeling is nobody provided paid maternity leave to us when we had children and we made it through okay. There are all kinds of things some people can't really afford to do and having children may be one of those things in some cases. If you have a decent job you can likely save up some paid time off and hopefully a little extra money to get you through the post birth period. And current FMLA law protects your job for a period of time without providing pay. My thought is that maybe the current system is a desirable deterrent to those who probably can't really afford to have children and therefore maybe it's not all that bad as is.

 

Question- What are the benefits to society of people, that can't afford it without paid maternity leave, having children? I'm coming up blank.

For other countries it's mostly taxes with some by the employers is my understanding.

 

Quality of life? Not just for the mother but also for the child. Do we as a society want to level the playing field so that both rich and poor can have happy, healthy children, or do we want to limit the opportunities for the poor including having children? It feels pretty heartless to say, "Well, we'd love for you to have kids and enjoy your time with them, but you just don't make enough money."

 

It's be one thing if we were talking about something that happens all the time, but people only have a few kids their whole lives. Plus we know that it's affordable based on dozens of other countries already having done it. It's a matter of if we want to prioritize parents and children and how much and in what ways.

[JJ Husker]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

For other countries it's mostly taxes with some by the employers is my understanding.

 

Quality of life? Not just for the mother but also for the child. Do we as a society want to level the playing field so that both rich and poor can have happy, healthy children, or do we want to limit the opportunities for the poor including having children? It feels pretty heartless to say, "Well, we'd love for you to have kids and enjoy your time with them, but you just don't make enough money."

 

It's be one thing if we were talking about something that happens all the time, but people only have a few kids their whole lives. Plus we know that it's affordable based on dozens of other countries already having done it. It's a matter of if we want to prioritize parents and children and how much and in what ways.

 

I wouldn't say I disagree with that but I really am having trouble putting my finger on the societal benefit of people having children.  What I'm hearing here is maybe this new tax increase being proposed by some is not to encourage having children for societies benefit but rather a benefit for poor people that rich and well off people would also get to collect on. At that point isn't it just another wealth transfer device that isn't particularly well targeted? Am I missing something?

[commando]

poor young men are the backbone of our military.  without them the rich kids would have to fight our wars.

[Landlord]

48 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I wouldn't say I disagree with that but I really am having trouble putting my finger on the societal benefit of people having children. 

 

 

People are going to have children regardless. So maybe instead of asking what the benefit of having children is, since better/worse scenarios won't really work as much of a deterrent or encouragement either way, you could instead ask what the societal benefit is of people who have kids being able to afford it and give their kids a proper amount of attention and love, a decent, quality education, etc.

 

[RedDenver]

53 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

I wouldn't say I disagree with that but I really am having trouble putting my finger on the societal benefit of people having children.  What I'm hearing here is maybe this new tax increase being proposed by some is not to encourage having children for societies benefit but rather a benefit for poor people that rich and well off people would also get to collect on. At that point isn't it just another wealth transfer device that isn't particularly well targeted? Am I missing something?

Well, it's a benefit to everyone (since everyone was once a kid). And doubly a benefit to those that have kids. you can look at it as a wealth transfer, I suppose, but it's more of a desire for us collectively to be able to live better lives.

 

Especially when you consider that the cost of providing 6 weeks of maternity leave is less than $1/week/employee. ($29/year in New Jersey and $30/year in California.)

Edited February 7, 2018 by RedDenver