America's maternity leave problem

[JJ Husker]

33 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

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.

 

 

So a year of government (taxpayer) funded maternity leave is going to help kids get a proper amount of attention and love, a decent, quality education? What provides these things in years 2...3...5...10...?

 

I guess my original questions should’ve been posed to knapplc who stated it was a societal investment. 

 

I understand the benefits of people who have children being able to afford to properly raise them and provide for them. I mean in many cases the taxpayer will be footing the bill one way or the other and I guess making it easier for the parent(s) to do it rather than corrective services makes some sense. But I have to go back to my original musing, what kind of benefit is provided society by people having children? If there is none, wouldn’t it be better to use this money in a better, more targeted fashion rather than encouraging people by making it falsely seem easier to start the process. And why do I want my money confiscated and given to rich people that choose to have children? Nowhere prior has anyone said this is just to help poor people afford children. My understanding is the proposal is across the board paid maternity leave for everyone. So I’m curious why we’d want to do that. Seems we should want some societal good to come from that type of policy. If not where do we stop? I want a 70” 4K TV, it would make me (and my kids) happy. Is that another thing everyone should be able to expect to afford without hardship?

[JJ Husker]

Here's maybe a simpler way of looking at it. Option 1- we could tax everyone and redistribute it to everyone or Option 2- we could tax everyone and redistribute it to only those that have children. Both would make our lives collectively better (ignoring the waste of effort #1 would be). So what is it about children that makes #2 better?

 

BTW, I don't have real strong feelings one way or the other. I'm just trying my best to play devil's advocate. I'm actually expecting someone to show up with the great societal benefit having kids is supposed to be but I genuinely am not coming up with it on my own (and we've raised 2 kids).

[deedsker]

21 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

But I have to go back to my original musing, what kind of benefit is provided society by people having children?

Ugh....the continuation of society.

[JJ Husker]

21 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Ugh....the continuation of society.

The way we're going I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

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.

 

If the goal is for all of us to collectively live better lives through monetary means, wouldn't it make more sense to raise the exemption amount on our income and tax everyone less? Why so often is the go to solution to tax more, with the resultant inefficiencies, rather than simply let us keep more of our money?

[deedsker]

23 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

The way we're going I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

That is what every generation says about the next one. 

[JJ Husker]

Just now, deedsker said:

That is what every generation says about the next one. 

Yeah, I know. I'm officially a grumpy old guy now 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

The way we're going I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

 

 

Why are we going the way we are? What can it trace back to over the last 20-30 years?

[JJ Husker]

27 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Why are we going the way we are? What can it trace back to over the last 20-30 years?

 

No need to be coy. Tell us what your answer is. I’m pretty sure it isn’t due to a lack of paid maternity leave.

 

I should probably clarify. I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of paid maternity leave but I do think there are a lot more pressing issues  to be dealt with. If the goal is to provide relief to families, to the poor, to children, wouldn’t affordable health care and correcting the wealth imbalance be a lot more effective places to start?

Edited February 7, 2018 by Comfortably Numb

[Landlord]

I'm not being coy I'm genuinely asking what you would personally trace our trajectory as a culture towards.

 

Affordable health care and correcting wealth imbalance would be amazing things to focus on right now. But nobody on huskerboard is a politician who needs to make a priority of conversation, nor are any of us experts who know what would or wouldn't be the best hierarchy of order in which to go about those three things and others

[JJ Husker]

6 hours ago, Landlord said:

I'm not being coy I'm genuinely asking what you would personally trace our trajectory as a culture towards.

 

Affordable health care and correcting wealth imbalance would be amazing things to focus on right now. But nobody on huskerboard is a politician who needs to make a priority of conversation, nor are any of us experts who know what would or wouldn't be the best hierarchy of order in which to go about those three things and others

 

Yeah, this is about where I get told that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I just have trouble pretending this issue is any kind of immediate problem when there are two huge, truly  disastrous problems out there that we have not begun to address. But that's probably just me and my desire to tackle things in a prioritized logical order. Makes it very hard for me to seriously consider raising new taxes for paid maternity leave when there are other more dire fires to put out.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Comfortably Numb

[knapplc]

I'm confused what the issue is.  Is it that we don't have the bandwidth to pursue this, because we should be working on other things?  That's the "walk & chew gum" argument, and I think we understand that a government as large and multifunctional as ours can accomplish writing a bill pretty easily.

 

Is it that it doesn't benefit society?  Study after study after study after study shows that it does. And those are just the first few I chose to link. There are dozens more. If nothing else, allowing women the

 

Is it the cost? Maybe we don't need to raise taxes, may we just need to cut the pork from the federal budget instead, although my taxes are too high is an awfully cynical way of determining what's best for the American family, and through them, society as a whole.

 

If higher retention rates and a better, more engaged workforce are the goal, and bringing America more in line with the rest of the world's wealthiest countries are desirable goals, something charitable like this that we can do for the women in our workforce is really a no-brainer. 

[QMany]

If it benefits society, particularly companies' "bottom line — to avoid costly turnover, and to retain the valued expertise, skills, and perspective of our employees who are mothers," does it need to be federally mandated/incentivized? 

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, QMany said:

If it benefits society, particularly companies' "bottom line — to avoid costly turnover, and to retain the valued expertise, skills, and perspective of our employees who are mothers," does it need to be federally mandated/incentivized? 

 

Probably no more so than, say, Title VII needs to be federally mandated.  We shouldn't have to tell employers not to discriminate against non-Whites, but (sadly) we had that problem and needed a law to fix it. 

[RedDenver]

16 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

If the goal is for all of us to collectively live better lives through monetary means, wouldn't it make more sense to raise the exemption amount on our income and tax everyone less? Why so often is the go to solution to tax more, with the resultant inefficiencies, rather than simply let us keep more of our money?

First, you're assuming that tax deduction=more money, but that only applies if you make enough money for the deduction to benefit you. Second, we're talking about $30 per year over your lifetime, but that's not the same as taking 6 weeks off in one year as some people might not have the annual income to do that even if their lifetime income would allow it. Third, you're assuming inefficiencies but that might be incorrect. (For example, Medicare is more efficient than the health insurance companies.)

 

Also, you're assuming that money=time off for maternity leave (or more money=better lives), but that isn't always the case as some parents may value the time more than the money. As noted in this post from above, parents are choosing less money in order to have time for maternity:

On 2/6/2018 at 10:17 AM, QMany said:

 

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.