
China’s two-child policy is having unintended consequences - dsr12
https://www.economist.com/china/2018/07/26/chinas-two-child-policy-is-having-unintended-consequences
======
dalbasal
There are lots of versions of the "works in practice, but does it work in
theory?" anecdote. Most times I've heard it, the "does it work in theory" guy
is either french or american and the topic of conversation is some element of
the post-WWII Marshal Plan.

Anyway... This is a policy area that (in _my_ estimation) just doesn't lend
well to philosophical theorizing. This (more contentiously, but also IMO)
which means we need to watch out for the French and the Americans. They will
want to solve the theory part of the problem in a theoretically ound way,
without inelegant hacks or "this seems to work" solutions.

Just to state the obvious, the problem is: "How do we improve maternity
benefits and (maybe) increase fertility, without undermining women in the
workplace."

Theoretically) the problem is almost impossible to solve. In practice, there
are all sorts of things that help or hurt, some of them surprising.

For example, it seems to be the case that "shift work" (anywhere from fast
food to paediatrics) is _way_ better for mothers. In a shift job, if you
aren't in your seat, someone else is. Work doesn't pile into your backlog,
waiting for you to come back. This means jobs are better defined, and can
therefore be more easily parceled out.

Ironically, shift work turns out to be _more_ flexible in ways that matter to
working mothers. It doesn't lend to flextime and work from home, but it does
lend to job sharing, flexible loading and such.

The trend is in the opposite direction though. A lot more modern jobs
(especially good ones at technology companies) tend to be built around
individuals. You might have 3 "sr developers" on a single team, but they
generally can't step into eachothers' shoes flexibly. Each one plays a unique
role.

It's almost impossible to reconcile such tidbits of specific, practical
knowleedge with a wider abstract theory of labour, contracts, freedom and
such. But, it is possible to make more maternity (and paternity) friendly
policies by understanding them.

------
fredley
The solution to these problems IMO is to make maternity leave protected
strongly by law, and make paternity leave _exactly equivalent_. Make no
distinction by gender when it comes to maternity and paternity leave.

Obviously there's the associated job of changing perceptions around taking the
leave, which will vary from country to country, but by making the risks
associated by hiring a man no different from those associated by hiring a
woman you move towards eliminating this gender imbalance.

As an additional benefit, both parents are more likely to have time to bond
with their newborn or newly adopted child and share the burden of early
parenting.

~~~
denzil_correa
> The solution to these problems IMO is to make maternity leave protected
> strongly by law, and make paternity leave exactly equivalent. Make no
> distinction by gender when it comes to maternity and paternity leave.

In Germany, there's the "parental leave" (not maternal or paternal leave) [0].
The time period is 12 months with parental allowance : 2/3rds of your income -
300 to 1800 €. If the mother and father share the parental leave, the leave
extends until 14 months. Of course, there are other benefits like child care
etc. [1] after the child has grown up.

[0]
[http://www.bamf.de/EN/Willkommen/KinderFamilie/Elterngeld/el...](http://www.bamf.de/EN/Willkommen/KinderFamilie/Elterngeld/elterngeld-
node.html)

[1]
[http://www.bamf.de/EN/Willkommen/KinderFamilie/Kinderbetreuu...](http://www.bamf.de/EN/Willkommen/KinderFamilie/Kinderbetreuung/kinderbetreuung-
node.html)

~~~
majewsky
> If the mother and father share the parental leave, the leave extends until
> 14 months.

However, "sharing" in this case does not necessarily mean equal parts. The
rule is "max. 14 months in total, but max. 12 months per parent". So a lot of
couples end up doing 12 months maternal leave and 2 months paternal leave (not
all though).

~~~
baxtr
This is also my experience. However, recently I have picked up more and more
cases, where both take 7 months (more or less). Maybe just a coincidence.

~~~
dnnrly
I have a male friend that took 4 months of from memory. I'm not sure it's
uncommon.

------
moomin
Obviously I’m a women’s rights maximalist, but I’d like to point out something
else fundamentally wrong with the thrust of these policies: they’re aimed at
producing more unwanted children. It doesn’t take a genius to see what happens
if they’re successful at scale.

~~~
CalRobert
One way of handling this is making paternity and maternity leave nearly equal,
and mandatory. Making maternity a bit longer could make sense given that
there's a lot of physical recuperation involved, but mainly employers
shouldn't see one or the other as a liability.

~~~
zimablue
Mandatory paternity leave! Can we do a straw poll of how many people think
that if you have a child the government gets to tell you how long to quit your
job for!?

~~~
jknightco
There are cultural differences here, specifically those that involve what the
concept of "liberty" means in practice. Americans tend to focus on freedom
"to", which is exactly what you're talking about here: employees should be
free _to_ choose whether or not they take maternity/paternity. Europeans tend
to focus on freedom "from", i.e. employees should be from _from_ worrying
about whether the decision to take maternity/paternity will hold them back or
not.

You can frame it the way you have if you want to, but to some cultures, having
the government tell people what they can and can't do is the only way to
ensure true liberty for all.

~~~
zimablue
I'm British and pretty left wing, don't assume that it's all tribal. Granted
my post sounded quite American. The government forcing you to take time off is
absolutely mental to me. Think of the edge cases => what if I'm not planning
to bring up the kid? What if I want lots and lots of children? What if it's an
absolutely vital time for me at work, partnerships are coming up or something.
What if I'm self-employed? Then think about how possible choices for these
edge cases lead to messed up situations. I can imagine people pretending not
to be bringing up their children so that the government doesn't mess with
their lives.

I see how you can frame it as "freedom not to have reproduction affect your
career". But for one thing that still won't work. Time off is time off and
income correlates with total hours worked in your life. For another, I don't
think all of society agrees that we should pay for your freedom to have
children without incurring any costs. We don't need more children, the world
population is still increasing. There's this strange train of logic now that
because aging populations become poor (because we massively overpromised on
pensions) we need native children. 1. We can use immigration. 2. If your
system cannot support the decreasing population necessary for the world to get
through the next centuries, you need to fix the system not encourage breeding.

Also what about incels, gay people, people who just don't want children? Why
on earth are they paying for straight middle class peoples ability not to have
their kids interfere with their law career.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
That doesn't sound especially left on this issue. Welfare and safety nets are
normally accepted as a good thing in the centre and on the left, in varying
degree.

In practice if you're young, junior or working for a jerk (or a high hours
constant death march startup) the choice becomes work through and let partner
do it alone, or get fired. For the rest it is a case of how confident you are
in your tenure, seniority and perhaps number of years in the workplace how you
will react to your employer hinting strongly to just take a couple of days.

What's needed is strong enough legislation such that anyone who _wants_ to
support their partner can, and the few who have to work can do also. I'd much
prefer for it become an accepted norm, and for those who don't to be the
unusual case. It has benefits for both the parents and the child.

Your last point immediately begs the question what about all the rest? Why on
earth are they paying for straight middle class kid's education, healthcare,
child allowance etc. Why on earth are they paying for pensions of those no
longer working? That way lies the abolition of all social safety nets and
ultimately pay yourself or sink. I don't want to live there thank you. :)

~~~
zimablue
Your last point is incoherent. Every single person benefits from education.
The person benefiting from time off for maternity/paternity is the parent much
more than the child.

If you're poor/young bad boss/start up and have kids it's tough yes. It's also
tough if you don't have kids, and they're a choice.

It's kind of pointless to argue left/right, dismiss me with a label if you
want. This only exists in a few very left wing countries so I don't think
opposing it puts me on a fringe somewhere.

The point is that maternity/paternity leave is the rest of society subsidising
parents, who are not doing anything useful by adding to existing
overpopulation. Not whether I'm left wing or right wing. If you want to make
life easier then I'd go for basic income over selective welfare that
disproportionately benefits the already privileged.

~~~
majewsky
> The person benefiting from time off for maternity/paternity is the parent
> much more than the child.

That's a very surprising claim. All the psychological consensus that I've seen
says that the continuous presence of people of reference (preferably the
parents) is a positive influence on the early development of children.

------
alkonaut
Even where parental leave is publicly funded (rather than paid by employers),
women of a certain age are rejected because it’s expensive to hire someone who
may be gone 2 years of the next 5. You need to find and train replacements
etc.

~~~
zimablue
Where does that happen?

I've always thought that was much more logical, the current system in the UK
just doesn't make sense at it's core => if you're an employer you can get
saddled with an employee who you have to pay whilst they don't work for a
period, who can then quit, but you're not allowed/expected to try to avoid
this by not hiring women. Or taking it into account in promotions/salary.

If you really believe both of: 1: women should be paid to have children at
their current salary. 2: women should not be discriminated against in any way.
Then the only way to reconcile it is to have the government pay. And no, equal
male leave wouldn't solve the problem because they don't take it. And no,
mandatory male leave isn't a good solution. For a start it's unbelievably
authoritarian to force someone to leave their work because they had a child.
For a second you still have exactly the same discrimination problem it's just
directed at potential parents instead of women. That would remove it as a
feminist issue so it wouldn't get press but it would still be a problem.

~~~
Uberphallus
To be honest, if you're willing to have a kid while unwilling to leave work
aside for your kid, that's just plain old bad parenting and IDGAF if it's
"authoritarian".

I care about your kid being raised properly, because I don't want to deal with
a criminal 20 years from now. That's why I happily pay taxes for education,
less problems for me later even if I don't have kids.

~~~
zimablue
So any father who doesn't take several complete months off work is neglectful?
Which months are these, and if you take the wrong ones off are you neglectful?
Is it the very early months where kids can't speak or ever remember what
happened? Is it when they're learning to speak? This is an insane standard.
Your kid isn't going to be a criminal because you worked when they were young.
There are such things as evenings and weekends.

~~~
Uberphallus
Mostly yes.

There is [0] plenty of research [1] on the subject [2]. Early infancy is when
the sense of empathy and belonging develops the most, and this development
improves with the participation of the father in child care [3]. Daycare is in
general subpar in this regard until the children can go to preschool, 0-4
isn't optimal for socialization.

[0]
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232438327_Empathic_...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232438327_Empathic_Distress_in_the_Newborn)

[1]
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282751496_Developme...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282751496_Development_of_Self_and_Empathy_in_Early_Infancy_Implications_for_Atypical_Development)

[2]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016363831...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638311000506)

[3]
[https://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=eho...](https://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=00916544&AN=24686157&h=bBc2JvQKtLb5xuuMn9KB8I%2bp3Jh%2b3%2fWEMbvwJQ%2b4FDgLt9YSAQxp2gC8VmMhT5dHFxVQs0qDHAdz3QpA7suUJg%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d00916544%26AN%3d24686157)

------
safgasCVS
Don't all policies have unintended consequences? Not to make this political
but this is partly why I think many people lean right intellectually without
knowing it because at some basic level we know what's good for us. Good
intentions often set policies but constantly backfire because we collectively
lack the humility to say we don't really know how the world works. People's
intentions are so tricky that it's the 2nd and nth order effects that catch
you out

~~~
donw
It is a shame that we can't seem to take a more iterative approach to public
policy.

E.g., try a program somewhere, and if it achieves the desired results, scale
it up. If not, iterate until the end of a pre-agreed timebox, and if things
still fail to deliver, that's how learning happens.

Sadly, I doubt that the public at large would be okay with this approach. :/

~~~
safgasCVS
I like the interative approach - especially if its the local community that
has decided to adopt it. But this arrangement undercuts the power of a central
authority (especially if its effective)

~~~
AstralStorm
And central authority needs this power because they're actually rebranded
aristocracy, right?

Generally central action ought to be taken to harmonize local development and
fit to super national level norms, not just because - and only when necessary.

Anything else is dangerously authoritarian.

------
ganfortran
Unintended? Hardly. The current administration has pushed hard for some time
now, to encourage women to "go back to family".

[http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-02/24/c_1118142363.ht...](http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-02/24/c_1118142363.htm)

~~~
doombolt
I was thinking that examples of Italy and Germany (versus e.g. France or
Sweden) were showing that this mindset simply doesn't work. Women end up
spending even more effort on infiltrating the workspace and have fewer
children later.

When you demand mother to be perfect (e.g. by being stay at home), you get
less children, and nobody becomes happier. As opposed to laid back approach
with society safety net.

------
avar
Why have countries that have generous paternity and maternity leave
implemented it by obliging companies to pay the salary for the duration, as
opposed to the government paying for it?

Are there any counterexamples of countries where the state picks up the bill?

That seems to me to be a much better policy, you avoid obvious perverse
incentives like a small company not wanting to hire a woman in her late 20s
because she might get pregnant, and that's going to be a huge expense.

I think it makes sense as a social policy to have generous leave after people
have children, but it seems ridiculous to implement it like this.

If the state paid for it you'd get other perverse incentives, since they'd be
obligated to pay a salary determined by some private company, but fraud there
should be easy to control for, e.g. you get paid the mean salary you earned
for the last N years, not what you happened to be earning the day you had a
child.

~~~
denzil_correa
> Are there any counterexamples of countries where the state picks up the
> bill?

The state foots the bill in : France, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Denmark

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elterngeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elterngeld)

~~~
avar
Thanks. That's interesting, but according to the article some of these
countries are just paying out extra money from the state on top of employer-
mandated leave, or they have a hybrid system where the employer covers some
significant percentage, which still leaves these incentives in place.

~~~
denzil_correa
> according to the article some of these countries are just paying out extra
> money from the state on top of employer-mandated leave

What do you mean by "extra money"? Also, are you against employer-mandated
leave too?

> they have a hybrid system where the employer covers some significant
> percentage

In Germany, the employer doesn't cover any significant percentage - the money
comes from the state.

~~~
avar

        > What do you mean by "extra money"?
    

In my original comment I'm suggesting that employers needing to pay out the
salary of parents as they go on leave because they've had a child produces
perverse incentives, and suggesting that things would be better off if the
state was obligated to pay for that salary instead.

This "Elterngeld" policy you've linked to describes something entirely
different, at least in some countries. That Wikipedia article seems to
conflate many different types of policies.

In e.g. France this just seems to be an allowance system unrelated to however
the French handle paid paternity and maternity leave (I'm not familiar with
if/how they do that). According to the news article on the BBC which Wikipedia
links to the German system is something similar.

    
    
        > Also, are you against employer-mandated leave too?
    

I'm not sure I understand that. Am I against employers getting to decide if
and when you go on leave?

Yeah I can't see how that's a good idea, especially in the context of
paternity or maternity leave. It should be up to the state to set that policy,
and then you should have a right to make use of it. Your employer shouldn't be
mandating anything.

But that topic is entirely unrelated to my original comment, which is how you
fund the leave once it happens.

    
    
        > In Germany, the employer doesn't cover
        > any significant percentage.
    

So in Germany the Elterngeld is all you're getting? Given the money caps
mentioned in the Wikipedia article that seems rather low, around 25K/yr.

But in in case, I was referring to Sweden and Norway which according to that
article have some system based on a percentage of salary, although I see now
that that could mean that 80% is all you're getting, instead of the employer
paying the remaining 20%. I don't know which it is.

In any case, I feel all of this is getting lost in the weeds, and not at all
discussing what I think is the interesting point I brought up, namely that if
there's countries that run their policies as I was suggesting, have there been
studies of how that impacted workplace discrimination when it comes to
companies e.g. being more reluctant to hire women they think might get
pregnant soon?

------
freddie_mercury
Here in Vietnam the maternity leave law is also quite generous. I forget the
exact details? Six months of pay?

Anyway, the result is that most companies require women to sign a contract
saying they won't get pregnant in the first year or two after signing a labor
contract. If they do get pregnant then they are fired without benefits.

~~~
ezoe
If such a contract is valid, I have no trust on Vietnam's law.

~~~
vinceguidry
On the sliding scale of law regimes that try to regulate human labor, going
from a universal declaration of labor rights all the way down to chattel
slavery, this is rather progressive for that part of the world.

Naturally no one in European or Anglophone countries would countenance such a
thing, but in Asia this can provide women with a means of self-determination
that they didn't have before.

I remember reading a book about Britain's service class from the Edwardian era
until the end of that culture after WW2. Service class culture replaced
something far far worse. And the ugly labor regimes that replaced those were
better than the service class. If you had an issue with the way one particular
factory treated you, well, there was another one right down the road. If you
had an issue with the way your masters treated you, your options for finding
better employment were far more restricted. This dynamic caused women to leave
the service industry in _droves_ to go work in factories.

The classist society in Britain had been fighting a rearguard action to
maintain the service legal regime for decades, until WW2 thoroughly
annihilated any chance of it ever coming back.

Nowadays any time I hear about some crazy contract law, I immediately think
about what human agency is being liberated here.

Amazon link for the interested: [https://www.amazon.com/Servants-Downstairs-
History-Britain-N...](https://www.amazon.com/Servants-Downstairs-History-
Britain-Nineteenth/dp/0393241092)

------
raverbashing
Well, the one child policy had unintended consequences as well (rejection of
daughters to the point of infanticide) so, it seems the issues are deeper

~~~
ido
We have seen a neighbouring country (India) suffering from the results of
rapid population growth, so doing nothing isn't free of consequences either.

China has basically just taken a shortcut to the "natural" reduction in family
size that happens to every country as it develops and become richer.

------
Leary
Every public policy has its negative consequences. Ending the one child policy
is a non-brainer.

