
The case for national paid maternity leave - chmaynard
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/05/18/the-case-for-national-paid-maternity-leave/
======
pm90
The study seems to confirm the economic benefits associated with paid parental
leave.

> On the flip side, some studies have shown less positive effects, such as
> encouragement of employer bias against women of childbearing age in lower-
> paying or part-time jobs.

It makes 0 sense to not have paid parental leave by law. Government assistance
in the form of medicare assistance etc. should be provided to lower income
parents or those that don't have access to employer sponsored healthcare.
Apart from the economic and ethical argument, if we want the next generation
of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, it seems imperative to provide
as much assistance as possible to enable that environment.

~~~
thefz
I live in a country with paid maternal leave and paid paternal leave up to an
extent.

I've always been in favor of it but since I have joined the workforce I'm
kinda on the fence if not against it.

The amount of people exploiting it is enormous (at least where I live). I have
seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but
still getting paid 100%. Others getting pregnancy leave while planning to
resign the day they have to come back to work, sucking up all that their
employer has to give and then leaving him.

Employer bias exists for a reason, and it is precisely the existence of this
behavior.

The ways in which a system like this can be exploited, in my opinion, are
countless and far outweigh the benefits. And since maternal leave is paid for
with tax money, I as a taxpayer, am against use of public money to fund
private activities.

If _anyone_ , be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor
financial planning, it is not my problem to solve.

~~~
inetknght
> _If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor
> financial planning, it is not my problem to solve._

I have a lot of trouble believing that people would _time_ their pregnancies
specifically to screw over their employer. That's so outrageous to me that it
casts a lot of doubt, in my mind, to your entire reply.

Of course: if any business has poor relationships with their employees, it is
not my problem to solve.

~~~
barry-cotter
People want free money. If the system allows them to get money and
inconvenience their employer or do neither they will overwhelmingly do it. I
can’t be the only person to note that teachers are much more likely to have
children during the school year than over the summer.

~~~
Gibbon1
I think it's less defensible that people want free money than it is than
corporations want free money. Because fundamentally lots of people don't want
to live off handouts.

It's kinda telling that economics treats trained workers as something that
springs into existence unbidden. While raising children is mere 'leisure' and
government funded education is dead weight loss.

~~~
barry-cotter
> It's kinda telling that economics treats trained workers as something that
> springs into existence unbidden. While raising children is mere 'leisure'
> and government funded education is dead weight loss.

Every word above is false. Gary Becker’s economics of the family has many,
many flaws but assuming children happen by accident is not among them. Leisure
is not “mere” in economics. It’s everything that’s not work. It’s what work is
for. The point is not the production; it's the consumption. If we could do the
latter without the former sustainably that would be paradise. There are none,
zero, no economists who think government education _is_ dead weight loss. Even
Bryan Caplan of _The Case Against Education_ thinks it’s at least 30% human
capital building and it’s glaringly obvious after the past few weeks that the
child minding function of school is enormously valuable.

~~~
Gibbon1
I work off the following. What drives policy is the core. Everything else is
mere words.

In practice economists assign a value of zero to child rearing. Because simply
economists hate reasoning about externalities.

------
ngngngng
It's a strong case, but it still feels like a band-aid on the wound that is
normalized double income households. My wife is a novelist. She chose to do
that so she could have flexibility to stay home with children. It helps that
she's a fantastic writer. I chose my current job because of 6 weeks paternity
leave, as we plan on having several more children. I recognize my immense
privilege being able to make choices like these, but it was not without
sacrifices. For the first few years of our marriage we could have easily
doubled our income if we were both working.

All this to say, is a return to single income households wanted, reasonable or
possible? I can't help but feel that "working" and "raising children" is
having your cake and eating it too.

~~~
throwaway894345
I think about this a lot too because my family could live off of my income
alone. We might move to this at some point, but for now my wife prefers to
work. That said, I'm genuinely curious if "single income households" were ever
a norm, or if it was only a norm for the upper class (or perhaps for the
middle class for a very short time, such as for a few decades in the 20th
century).

~~~
rubidium
For married couples, the US has seen an increase in women working for pay from
30% participation to 60% participation from 1955 to present.

[https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Labor-Force-
Parti...](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Labor-Force-
Participation-of-women-in-the-US-1955-2005-750x415.png)

So there was a while when most married women with kids stayed home.

~~~
throwaway894345
No doubt, but I suspect that the mid 20th century is a historical anomaly. I'm
also surprised that only 60% of women work for pay at present.

------
cryoshon
the case for national paid parental leave -- that's right, parental leave, not
just maternity leave -- is that it's a standard feature of developed
countries.

the US will start to see more and more brain drain to other developed
countries until some basic aspects of the social contract here are corrected.
we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce.

there's no reason for highly educated people to stay here or immigrate to here
when their quality of life will be significantly worse than elsewhere because
our basic suite of mandatory and ubiquitous social amenities are entirely
absent.

~~~
enitihas
The brain drain is heavy in the other direction (towards the US from
elsewhere), and doesn't seem to be slowing down. As long as the US can pay far
higher salaries than other countries, the social benefits are irrelevant for
the high performers.

> we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce

The high skilled people would earn far more in the US than elsewhere, and get
a lot of benefits as part of their high paying job. It's difficult to see the
brain drain to the US stopping, let alone the reverse brain drain you forsee.

~~~
maerF0x0
I will add to your point that high salaries + not losing it all to taxes is
the kind of equation that matters. Some developed countries with strong social
policy have reasonably high salaries, but much lower after taxes.

------
ljf
I work for a company that offers 6 months maternity and paternity at full pay
to all employees from day 1 of employment. This covers adoption too. Parents
can take additional unpaid or statutory paid leave as desired.

As you might imagine it is a company that people want to work for, that
retains staff and that has a good work life balance. In most roles asking to
work compressed or reduced hours is a possibility.

Even though I missed out on this perk personally, it makes me happy to work at
a place that treats employees so well, and doesn't hold people back just
because they want to have a family.

Compared to other companies I've seen, far more women here return to the
workplace after having children.

------
whiddershins
I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional
and possibly practical level.

I do wonder, though, if it’s really fair to households that choose to have one
stay at home parent ... so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another
parent who is also staying at home, but used to work?

It seems confusing.

Edit: I guess I’m wondering, should we by this logic extend a salary, even if
temporary, to all new parents?

~~~
oh_sigh
Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby"
present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's
health and getting back to work ASAP.

So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity
leave.

~~~
foota
I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides
someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut
back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by
wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on
paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their
higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a
different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for
themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is
the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation.

The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual
income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive
the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A
did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it
would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the
equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid
leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe
taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat
believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.

~~~
oh_sigh
I(and pretty much anyone that pays taxes) pay into all sorts of programs the
indivudual will never use, so I don't really see how fairness of payment comes
into play.

~~~
maerF0x0
one aspect would be that some households would collect 2 Parental leaves,
others only 1.

Canada has a program to address this where it defines 18 months parental leave
across both parents and allows them to choose how to allocate (ie one can
transfer their leave to the other).

Keep in mind that developed world parental leaves are usually < 100% salary
and upto a fixed maximum. Eg: Canada parents get 33 per cent for up to 61
weeks

[https://archive.is/ymOa8](https://archive.is/ymOa8)

------
wegs
Somehow, all the comments assumed that the article meant parental leave. The
article said "maternity leave," and showed a stereotypical photo of mother
with child. The PR piece was written by Patty, and the study by Amy. Amy's
hobbies listed on her Stanford page include -- and I kid you not -- "learning
how to cook." She's a member of several girl's-only clubs.

This would have been wonderfully progressive in 1960.

(As with most posters, I'm 100% in support of universal parental leave.
However, something about this whole thing feels like a bizarre parody piece.)

------
flycaliguy
I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we
would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a
critical stage in their life.

~~~
Fezzik
The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with
that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other
peoples’ decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have
children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a
significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6
months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp
why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit
at home with a baby. It does not compute.

~~~
noelsusman
The long term societal benefits of supporting people who are raising children
are obvious. If you don't care about the future of your city/country/species
then you'll need to accept that you hold a relatively fringe viewpoint that is
not going to be represented in government policy.

~~~
zanny
How about this position - being against paid family leave like this but being
for tax-funded professional parents.

IE, train and treat parenting as much of a profession as it honestly rightly
deserves, let people specialize and pursue a career in parenting, and then
have them be parents as a full time job, paid the same way public schools are.

Because lets be honest - humans evolved to be carried around by their parents
in communal groups while nomading around Africa. Its why babies cry when
separated and are designed to be constantly attached to someone for most of
their first year of life. They aren't even meant to sleep apart from their
parents. There is enough sociological evidence that pretty much _any_ form of
the stereotypical family unit in any socioeconomic sphere causes trauma to
infants because of how they are deprived of their biologically imperative
socialization and physical interaction. It goes so far as there being evidence
that babies become so anxious because they are stationary - they have a
biological impetus to move, that a moving family is safe and to stop moving is
dangerous. Its why most calm down if you walk them around in circles holding
them.

I think there is also an argument that subsidizing reproduction when there is
appreciable demand to immigrate to your country is at least racially biased if
not wholly unethical, but thats another ramble.

------
maerF0x0
One problem with this article (and many others) is it confounds the benefits
of taking leave with _paid leave_. I don't think there is a strong challenge
against women taking a break after giving birth, but there is a moral/values
argument about who pays for it.

Potential sources of funding include:

    
    
        1. Government (on various levels) 
        2. Employer
        3. Savings
        4. Debt (maternity loans?)
        5. Partner/Father, other family
    

We'd have to control for and examine interventions in the sources of funding
to determine if governmental paid leave for all is a good policy.

Sadly the article also focuses, myopically, on just maternity leave instead of
Parental leave. afaik it's proven that children do better with 2 parents
present. (lets ignore gender arguments for a moment and see the obvious--
access to twice the parental figures will be more robust and have more
resources)

------
duxup
Company I worked for a number of years ago publicly announced they had paid
parental leave for all employees.

Then I applied for it and they said "no it is just for the people in
California". So I had to take unpaid leave.

Whatever happens it needs to be on a national level.

------
eganist
If we're to successfully drive wage equality, we can't make mistakes like
allowing employers to use maternity leave as an excuse to depress wages by
gender. The only two ways to fix this are to eliminate (this option is
untenable) parental leave _or_ to make maternity leave apply to everybody.

Besides, give both parents the ability to support a family during those
formative months and the next generation will be healthier for it.

------
skapadia
First world nations have mind-boggling tax revenue, so they should fund
programs like paid family leave and higher education (within reasonable
limits).

(I feel like humanity is inexorably tending towards the attitude "everything
should just be provided to us, no questions asked", so I really hope full-
scale automation happens in my lifetime. I think it's the best way we can
maximize happiness across the planet.)

------
dfxm12
I wonder what the difference would be between a national program vs state
specific programs. Or maybe even a national system supplemented on a state by
state basis.

I mean, right now, I live in a state that has no family leave, but I work in a
state that does, for a company that does. I've got no idea what I'm really
entitled to, and it's hard to get a hold of HR to get me a straight answer...

------
programminggeek
One could make a case that the nation was better off when not everyone was
forced into being a two income household and more parents stayed home to raise
their children. Closer knit families, better long term relationships, more
skills and wisdom passed down from generation to generation.

Paid maternity leave doesn't fix time apart from your children over the first
two decades of their life.

------
randyrand
Having those that cannot or will not have children directly pay for other
people's salary is unnecessary and arguably unjust. 2-6 months salary is not
an insignificant amount of money.

It would make more sense to be paid entirely by additional income taxes on
those who file taxes with dependents, or those who benefited from this program
in the past.

------
RabbitmqGuy
For whatever reason, I had always thought that paid maternity leave was
available universally in all countries. I hadn't even fathomed that the
opposite could be true.

America continues to surprise me.

------
OctopusSandwich
Instead of paying more in taxes to fund other people's wives to go on a
maternity leave, I'd rather use that money for my wife.

------
godelski
I think the case for parental leave is pretty obvious: we want healthy
children. Not only are babies difficult to take care of, but frequently want
to be constantly held. If you want a healthy society and to ensure that your
next generation: is healthy, has more opportunities to climb the ladder, lower
crime rates (more healthy home environments), etc, then you want parental
leave.

I don't think anyone on the left disagrees. But I don't understand why the
right shouldn't. These things also make a lot of economic sense. It is like a
mutual fund where we're investing in our next generation. Returns are even
proportional to your investment. If you're wealthy you're likely to either own
a business or stocks (or both!). You get a return by efficient workers who
make businesses grow. This has a clear effect on GDP (I'd actually give
similar arguments for education and health care, but I don't want to deviate
too much from the topic (p.s. I don't identify as a socialist either)).

As to why I'm saying parental leave and not just maternity leave, I'm worried
about consequences of just maternity leave. Having just maternity leave does
generate bias towards women because... well women are the only ones that give
birth. On the other hand, a parental leave should generate less bias because
males will have to be given the same leave (I don't think it'll completely
wash out the bias towards women, but I suspect it would decrease it). This
should also have obvious consequences of reducing stress in relationships
(again, leading to lower crime because better households) and especially less
stress for women, who are (given social norms) the primary care givers of
children.

TLDR: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

------
paulcole
Happy to be in favor of this as long as there's an equivalent benefit for
those who are childless.

For anyone downvoting: People should be incentivized to avoid having kids.
It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to
combat climate change.

~~~
lghh
> It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to
> combat climate change

Climate change doesn't matter if there are no people left.

~~~
thomaslord
We are in zero danger of dying out as a species due to a low birth rate. The
Earth is massively overpopulated and the _only_ ethical way to combat that is
to incentivize everyone, equally, to not have children.

~~~
lghh
> The Earth is massively overpopulated

Source?

~~~
zanny
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

The combination of our global population and our resource consumptions per
capita have devastated ecologies the world over and led to the deaths of
innumerable species and biospheres.

You basically have the choice, then - massively reduce the resources consumed
per-capita such that having billions of people doesn't negatively impact the
planet or displace the last remnants of nature unsullied by human
encroachment, or reduce the population so that the people you do have can
consume resources without causing a mass extinction event.

When population reduction is as simple as "stop having kids" that is by far
the least harmful mechanism to currently living humans to mitigate the ongoing
disaster we are causing the planet. Trying to tell the current first world or
developing countries to stop building roads, driving cars, building houses,
using convenience products like plastics, stop building technologies that
require scarce rare earth minerals that require extraction, stop using
electric power in its myriad forms, etc is way more disruptive and harmful to
those living today.

------
msla
Now that we have same-sex marriage, making it only maternity leave is
unjustifiably discriminatory against same-sex unions, not to mention against
nonbinary parents. Making this leave completely gender-neutral is simply the
simplest, most reasonable option.

------
einpoklum
Only in the US does such a case need to be made.

------
baggy_trough
Fine if the government pays for it.

~~~
ceejayoz
We all pay for it, one way or another. The article argues that paying for it
on a systemic level has what would probably amount to significant cost
savings.

There's precedent with unemployment for having employers pay an insurance
premium to the state. That model seems like it might work here.

~~~
headcanon
Unemployment insurance only applies for full-time hires though doesn't it?
Lots of companies will try to keep part-time employees from becoming full-time
so that they don't have to pay for benefits like these. Same with gig-economy
and contract-based workers.

~~~
lukifer
Im 1000% in favor of mandatory parental leave, but that's the risk: it
incentivizes companies to try shift their labor force into gigs and contract
roles as much as they can get away with.

In 2012, I was canvassed by a McCain supporter who voted for Obama in 2008,
but was disillusioned after his employer reduced his hours just below the
threshold of the ACA requirement; he was forced to work two part-time jobs to
make ends meet, neither of which provided healthcare. I suspect a non-trivial
portion of the Tea Party / Trump backlash was in reaction to this sort of
collateral damage: ACA helped many, but also left some worse off, even if
employers and/or insurance companies should bear the primary blame.

------
technick
I don't think it should be on my shoulders to pay for someone else deciding to
breed, and I wouldn't expect them to pay for me. Over population is going to
kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits.

~~~
lghh
> Over population is going to kill this planet

Source on this very big claim?

~~~
travisoneill1
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth)

~~~
MattGaiser
Except the population is not exponentially growing...

