# So how do you feel about paid parental leave? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2015, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882 "2015-01-25T19:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/241 "2015-02-02T03:43:15Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > i’d feel better about paid parental leave if it covered all reasons that FMLA covers, not just parental leave. Not all of us will become parents, but just about all of us will experience some medical disability or need extensive medical care or need to take care of a family member at some point. and not all of us have the ability to build up leave, even if we stayed at the same jobs long enough to do so in a meaningful way. For example, I am not allowed to roll over a single day of sick or vacation time even to the next year. And I get a whopping 4 days a year of sick leave anyway. Even if I could roll over the sick leave, it would take me 10 years to build up enough for an 8- week leave, assuming I never once needed to use sick time for anything else during that time. That’s unrealistic. > > Sure, I could take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but if my husband or I were sick and one needed to take off work for an extended period to care for the other, that means neither salary is coming in until LTD kicks in, plus presumably whatever medical bills went with that. That’s a financial hardship for all but the most wealthy. Under the Canadian EI model, if your workplace doesn’t have much in the way of sick leave, there is up to 15 weeks’ disability benefits through EI. Again, EI is not limited to parental leave, but offers a variety of benefits for those who have to take time off work. (And of course there are no medical bills, but that’s for a different thread. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/242 "2015-02-02T06:09:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > This article? > [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/upshot/the-economic-benefits-of-paid-parental-leave.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/upshot/the-economic-benefits-of-paid-parental-leave.html) Yup. I get the dead tree edition, so I almost never go to their website. Doing the crossword puzzle on it in pencil really screwed up my screen. Thanks for posting the link. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/243 "2015-02-02T14:25:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yup. I get the dead tree edition, so I almost never go to their website. I figured. Glad you pointed us to it. I recommend readers of this thread check it out. Several states going their own way, which allows comparison. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/244 "2015-02-02T19:41:34Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > I agree that accommodation should be made. However the accommodation should be for ALL employees family needs, not just parents. HR got an earful because my ex-supervisor (note the use of the term ex-) thought carrying for my uncle who had a stroke wasn’t a valid reason for me to use so much vacation time while various parents in the department used vacation and even sick time for all sorts of nonessential things for their children. Serious what should be prioritized, a disabled adult who needs help in recovery or a child’s soccer game? The university I work for doesn’t have paid maternity leave, but they do have a voluntary program that I would love to see extended to a lot more work places. We’re allowed to convert some of our earned time at a rate of one-to-three to be used when we’re sick ourselves for 6 or more days _or_ to take care of family (no 5 day wait of using regular earned time first like for ourselves, ftr), and we’re allowed to carry this over up to 150 days total, though we can only use 2 weeks leave on someone else a year. The part I really like - other than 27 hours turning in 2 weeks! - is the definition of “family” means your spouse, your child, your parents, and _any other members of your household_. So if ZPG’s employer had this policy too and her uncle lived with her, she could use this leave to care for him. And my grandboss was able to take this leave when her roommate had surgery last week. Allowing us paid time off to care for our parents regardless of where they live and anyone who lives under our roof is fair to those of us who don’t have children but do have other caretaker obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/245 "2015-02-02T20:33:40Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > We can’t afford it. Enough “free” shit, please. Just one more thing in a seemingly endless litany of feel-good items where the cost-benefit analysis only considers the benefit. Its not free, its part of the insurance system. This is not a feel good item. It seems like people think that maternity leave is just time to frolic and bond with newborn babies. It takes weeks to physically recover from childbirth, babies do not have large enough stomachs to sleep through the night (meaning 4 hours of straight sleep) until they are at least 10 weeks old (and many babies take much longer than that) so at least one parent does not get a good nights rest every night. So at least the first 10 weeks of maternity leave and the first two weeks of paternity leave are not really luxuries so much as they are moderating significant hardship. I am mildly pro-family/pro-life and I can’t imagine anyone that is genuinely pro-family/pro-life objecting to something that is so pro-family and pro-life. If family values conservatives really want to show that they are pro-family rather than anti-women, then they should get out in front championing things that are good for families rather than just bad for women. I know this sounds a little sexist but my wife and I tried pretty hard to share the parenting responsibilities equally but the fact that my wife lactated better than me and had a profound bond that came with 9 months of gestation and childbirth kind of threw that whole notion out the window after the second week when she didn’t physically need me around anymore. Maybe other couples are able to pull this off more equally than we did. > [@AnaMen](#): > > Yeeahh, not exactly. > If the system was 100% taxpayer-funded, I’d go along with it, but if it cost employers extra I’d be strongly opposed. Women are disadvantaged enough in the workforce. The idea that hiring one of childbearing age might cost you months of pay with no work being performed in return will do them no favors. It costs employers their portion of the insurance cost but that insurance cost is usually paid for all employees regardless of age or gender. > [@AnaMen](#): > > I’m opposed. I prefer a system where people work for money and only take on expenses they can afford. > I’m all for welfare when there is a need though. Babies are a natural side effect of intercourse. Should intercourse be limited to the relatively wealthy or the extremely poor? Should we really have a society where you have to be 35 years old before you can responsibly have children? If I could do one things differently in my life, it would be to have children earlier but financial and career concerns prevented me and my wife from having kids would graduate from college before we retired. > [@monstro](#): > > Under the Family Leave Act, a person is allowed leave from work to care for a new baby/sick family member. Paid parental leave, which would be funded through taxes (payroll, presumably), would turn this into paid leave. > > Paid parental leave would encourage even more people to take family leave, which Mr. Boss Man isn’t going to like at all. But the burden on workplaces would be in staffing shortages, not undeserved paychecks. > > (As a childless worker, I’m not a fan of having to work double-time to cover the duties of workers out on parental leave. But if the law applies to all family caretakers–like adult children caring for elderly parents–then I’m all for it.) Nope, just for having babies. Can you point to a country that give paid leave to care for elderly parents? Everyone has elderly parents even those of us who have children. > [@Sateryn76](#): > > This is my question. It seems like a double whammy for the employer - pay someone not to work (or some percentage thereof) and then pay for the replacement employee of the OT for the people covering for them, plus lost productivity spent in training, etc. That’s a hell of an expense, and not every company is WalMart. You only pay for the replacement, the parent on leave draws from something like unemployment insurance. > [@XT](#): > > Leaving aside the cost, how is it fair to people who don’t have and don’t intent to ever have kids, or those who already have kids? They have to pay (and step up to fill in for those absent) even though it doesn’t benefit them at all really, and actually is just more work. Even if you stick this all to the rich (:dubious:), who does the persons work while they are out? Or does the company/rich also have to pay for a temp to do the job of the person out as well? The employer only pays for the temp. And we socialize all sorts of costs that kids create from schools and playgrounds to the extra costs associated with childproof bottlecaps. > [@](#): > > I guess I don’t see why we’d do this. We have FMLA, after all, so this seems to be a bit over the top. If Canada/Europe/whoever makes it work, that’s good for them, but I guess I’m not seeing why we should necessarily do the same. My wife and I both worked during the time we had kids, and when she got pregnant we’d set aside leave (sick and vacation), as well as money for when the babies would come, so that one of us could take off (and usually so my wife could take off a few months after the babies were born). If you asked your wife, I bet her perspective might be different even if she never intends to have another child again. > [@monstro](#): > > You’ve basically summed up why I am not thrilled with this idea. And I feel guilty about betraying my liberal/progressive leanings like this. But I can’t pretend I’m a fan of giving all parents, regardless of need, yet another benefit. I suppose there are some tax benefits (that don’t even come close to covering the bare minimum costs of having a child) but aside from that what are these other non-need based parental benefits that parents are getting? > [@](#): > > If the bill came up for a referendum vote, I’d vote for it. But I’d only do so it covered all family caretaking, not just parenting. I imagine in the coming years, as Boomers’ health starts to decline, there will be a societal demand for something like this. We all have parents, even those of us with children. The issues are separable and the only reason they are linked in your mind is because the FMLA has linked them. No other country in the world links the two the way you are proposing. > [@XT](#): > > So those with no kids or who already have kids need to just suck it up for those who want both want to keep their job (which is what FMLA does) AND get paid to take off to be with their kids too? And you see this as a fair thing? I mean, I get the stick it to the companies and the rich thingy…it’s a recurring theme here…but this is going to also stick it to the co-workers of these folks, presumably both the male and female, since both parents would be off for some amount of time fully paid, right? If we are talking a week, then I guess that’s not too bad…if we are talking a month it’s going to get a bit more difficult. If we are talking month(s) or longer, though, it’s going to be pretty bad, unless said co-worker(s) jobs are so unimportant they won’t be missed. Its paid but the benefit is usually more in line with unemployment or disability benefits than full salary. 10-12 weeks for women, 2-4 weeks for men seems reasonable. > [@adaher](#): > > Sorry, but we need to decide if having kids is a choice or not. If it’s purely a matter of choice, then society is under zero obligation to fund that choice. It depends on how permissive you think we ought to be about abortion and whether you think a higher birth rate is desirable. > [@monstro](#): > > I recognize the resentment I sometimes feel towards parental privilege comes from a selfish, eye-rolly place. But your argument isn’t that compelling to me, for the following reason: > > I can think of a number of ways to improve the welfare of children, and thus society in general. What are all these socially provided benefits you are talking about? > [@XT](#): > > I’ve seen people resentful over FMLA type situations, and that IS something everyone can take advantage of if they need it. Yeah, those people are jerks. Picking up slack for maternity leave is a management problem and in larger organizations, its actuarially consistent enough that any decent HR team can account for it. Smaller businesses can usually make do with temps. This is not supposed to be a windfall for employers who get a reduced payroll while everyone else just works harder. > [@Voyager](#): > > The Business Section of the Times today has some data on this, from California mostly. > The California law has doubled the time women take off to six-seven weeks - still pitiful compared to Europe, but better. Almost of this increase has been for high school graduate workers and black mothers. The increase for college educated white mothers was minimal. The effect was reduced the disparity among these groups. > Mothers who took the leave were 6% more likely to be working a year later than those who did not. In NJ, women who took the leave were 40% less likely to get aid or food stamps in the year after the birth. > In California again mothers who took the leave worked 15 - 20% more hours than those who didn’t, and their hourly wages increased by 5%. > Okay, but it is still tough on employers, right? Nope. 89-99% of employers said that it had no negative effect on profitability, productivity, turnover and morale. 87% said it did not increase costs. 9% said they saved money, because of decreased turnover and benefit payments. I just don’t get who objects to this stuff. Conservatives should like it because it is pro-family and liberals should like it improves social welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/246 "2015-02-02T21:36:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am mildly pro-family/pro-life and I can’t imagine anyone that is genuinely pro-family/pro-life objecting to something that is so pro-family and pro-life. If family values conservatives really want to show that they are pro-family rather than anti-women, then they should get out in front championing things that are good for families rather than just bad for women. Describing this as pro-family or not pro-family is not accurate. Give me $10,000/month to raise my family. No? Why aren’t you pro-family? It doesn’t work that way. Family values don’t mean that you pay for everyone else’s family. I don’t really know if there is a monolithic interpretation but this is not it. > [@](#): > > It costs employers their portion of the insurance cost but that insurance cost is usually paid for all employees regardless of age or gender. Even if it’s rolled into the existing framework of disability or unemployment type insurance, it’s a marginal increase in cost. It’s misleading to say that the employer wont pay for this. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/247 "2015-02-02T21:42:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I just don’t get who objects to this stuff. Conservatives should like it because it is pro-family and liberals should like it improves social welfare. It appears to make good business sense. I think that those who oppose this don’t understand the issue of turnover and the benefit of happy employees. This is the “let’s cut everyone’s wage to the bare minimum and curse them as lazy bums if they don’t hustle for $5 an hour” philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/248 "2015-02-02T22:39:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I just don’t get who objects to this stuff. Conservatives should like it because it is pro-family and liberals should like it improves social welfare. There is a large middle ground between no leave or protections (which is less than what we have now) and 940 weeks at full pay. I think we’re closer to the former at the moment. What is ideal? Should the federal government do it, or the states? Is the federal government allowed to do it? How do the costs and benefits weigh? Quantitatively, not just the good feels vs the bad feels. And who pays for those costs? Fortunately, we have some states trying it out on their own. I like that. We don’t have a ton of data, but we’re getting more. From the linked article, it looks like the program in CA helps keep lower-income women working. The costs in the three current programs are covered under existing state disability insurance programs, which tax income up to a certain level. Max annual payment is \<$1000. The program with the largest weekly payment is RI’s, which tops out around $750/week. I don’t know how it’s taxed; my guess is as unearned income. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/249 "2015-02-02T22:51:59Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > So show us how it works. With numbers. Cost. Benefit. > Or we can just go with my plan. Congratulations, Ruken! You’ve just discovered the [Reductio ad absurdum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) fallacy! If a bit of rain is good for the crops, just imagine how well they’ll grow at the bottom of the ocean, amirite? Moving on… Two couples I know have recently had kids. The first couple works at Microsoft- where the mother got ten weeks of maternity leave, and the father got five, as I recall. Contrast that with my other friends, who got a grand total of _three weeks_. Those are all salaried, well-paying positions… now imagine what it’s like for someone who’s working hourly. I remember when my son was born, I had to be back at work _the next day_- I can remember how much that sucked. Also, keep in mind that those parents will all be taking far more absences than I will, just because they’ve got kids- doctor’s visits, illness, snow days… I don’t begrudge them that parental leave at all. I get to go on vacations and put away more money than they do. Raising a family is _hard_, and happy employees are productive employees. I’m actually getting more than a little sick of American Exceptionalism (“It can work everywhere else- Except America”). What the hell’s wrong with us? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/250 "2015-02-02T23:01:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Describing this as pro-family or not pro-family is not accurate. Give me $10,000/month to raise my family. No? Why aren’t you pro-family? It doesn’t work that way. > > Family values don’t mean that you pay for everyone else’s family. I don’t really know if there is a monolithic interpretation but this is not it. I guess I mistakenly assumed that people who were for family values would be pro-family. And I think pro-family means you support policies that are pro-family. Or does pro-family simply mean anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage? Because if that’s all “pro-family” means, then they’re just making up words to make their intolerance sound more palatable. There is a large gap between saying “give me $10,000/month because I have a family” and lets have paid maternity leave. I would support extending our public education system to include free childcare and free college for those who can get into their state school but those are much bigger ticket items. I just wanted to point out that forcing women to have children and then failing to support policies that makes a very difficult time in child rearing a little more tolerable while parading around as being pro-family seems inconsistent and maybe a little misleading. > [@](#): > > Even if it’s rolled into the existing framework of disability or unemployment type insurance, it’s a marginal increase in cost. It’s misleading to say that the employer wont pay for this. Well, it depends. If you agree that corporate income taxes are actually borne (at least in part) by the corporation and its owners and not the corporation’s customers and if you agree that that the social security payroll tax is actually borne (at last in part) by the employer rather than the employees then sure, the employer bears some of the cost of this proposal. A lot of conservatives do not agree with this and claim that corporate taxes are borne by consumers and that employer side payroll taxes are actually borne by employees. I never said this would not cost employers anything, heck the benefits of having paid maternity might not even produce a net positive for employers as a whole but we have all sorts of policies that put people ahead of employers and I don’t see why this can’t be one of them. Does every new policy idea have to be good for corporations and employers or can we have a few policies that are good for people? I think the context you are picking up might be stuff from earlier posts where people thought that employers would end up paying two salaries when they hired a replacement for the person on maternity leave. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/251 "2015-02-02T23:26:13Z")
I don’t think we’ve had links yet to actual federal bills that have been introduced. [S. 1810](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1810) and [H.R. 3712](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3712) were attemped in 2013. I’m taking a look. > [@Lightnin](#): > > Congratulations, Ruken! You’ve just discovered the [Reductio ad absurdum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) fallacy! If a bit of rain is good for the crops, just imagine how well they’ll grow at the bottom of the ocean, amirite? At what point does it become absurd, and why? We can learn from ludicrous extremes (I’ve also presented the opposite extreme in this thread) when trying to craft an ideal policy. And speaking of ideal policies, do you have any data to contribute that will allow us to find the optimal balance? Reactions to the data presented thus far? Analyses? Specifics for a plan? Other, useful, contributions? Or just anecdotes. But then again, raising a family is _hard_, and happy employees are productive employees, and that’s all we need to know. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I just wanted to point out that forcing women to have children and then failing to support policies that makes a very difficult time in child rearing a little more tolerable while parading around as being pro-family seems inconsistent and maybe a little misleading. I agree with you 100%. I’m all for people not having children when they can’t afford to. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/252 "2015-02-02T23:34:00Z")
I also recall seeing the specifics of Obama’s proposal. I can’t get the link in the OP to work tonight: “The president said the government would provide $2.2 billion to reimburse states for paid family leave programs, and called for Congress to pass a bill that would enable workers to earn seven paid sick days. His plan also included creating more child care and giving families a child-care tax cut of up to $3,000 per child per year.” > **[Obama Says Family Leave Is an Economic Necessity, Not Just a Women’s Issue...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/upshot/obama-says-family-leave-is-an-economic-necessity-not-just-a-womens-issue.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0)** > > The president said the government would provide $2.2 billion to reimburse states for paid family leave programs. So the states would administer their own plans. I haven’t seen analysis weighing that vs a federal program. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/253 "2015-02-03T00:42:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I guess I mistakenly assumed that people who were for family values would be pro-family. And I think pro-family means you support policies that are pro-family. Or does pro-family simply mean anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage? Because if that’s all “pro-family” means, then they’re just making up words to make their intolerance sound more palatable. You introduced the idea of pro-family indicating it should include various ideas. I think the idea is poorly conceived and the label is not informative. Accusations of hypocrisy relating to being pro-family are also not informative. Whatever idea you think pro-family means, it doesn’t necessarily mean forcing folks to pay for other people’s families. > [@](#): > > I just wanted to point out that forcing women to have children and then failing to support policies that makes a very difficult time in child rearing a little more tolerable while parading around as being pro-family seems inconsistent and maybe a little misleading. No one is forcing women to have children, nor has that been part of the discussion thus far in any meaningful way. Same story as before, if you can’t afford children without forcing other people to pay for it, then dont have children. Don’t buy sports cars that you can’t afford and then try and force other people to pay for them. Don’t rack up consumer credit card debt that you can’t pay and try and force other people to pay for it. Don’t do anything and then try to force other people to pay for it. > [@](#): > > Well, it depends. If you agree that corporate income taxes are actually borne (at least in part) by the corporation and its owners and not the corporation’s customers and if you agree that that the social security payroll tax is actually borne (at last in part) by the employer rather than the employees then sure, the employer bears some of the cost of this proposal. A lot of conservatives do not agree with this and claim that corporate taxes are borne by consumers and that employer side payroll taxes are actually borne by employees. Again, you’re introducing ideas that aren’t very relevant. No matter whether you believe costs are absorbed by the employer or are able to be passed on to consumers, increased operating costs influence decisions. This has a negative influence in hiring. Just as protected classes have a negative influence in hiring members of that class. Whether that is outweighed by the positives of offering said protections is debateable. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/254 "2015-02-03T01:50:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No one is forcing women to have children, nor has that been part of the discussion thus far in any meaningful way. Same story as before, if you can’t afford children without forcing other people to pay for it, then dont have children. Don’t buy sports cars that you can’t afford and then try and force other people to pay for them. Don’t rack up consumer credit card debt that you can’t pay and try and force other people to pay for it. Don’t do anything and then try to force other people to pay for it. While I understand the sentiment, and you can throw retirement and schooling onto the list, the reality is that people have babies, don’t save for retirement, etc. I’d rather parents pay for schooling. But since I’m stuck here in reality (most of the time), I’d rather we have schooling covered by taxes than not have those kids educated. Parental leave may be similar. We may derive economic benefits from it as well, hence my attempts to tease out the numbers in this thread. > [@Bone](#): > > No matter whether you believe costs are absorbed by the employer or are able to be passed on to consumers, increased operating costs influence decisions. This has a negative influence in hiring. Just as protected classes have a negative influence in hiring members of that class. Whether that is outweighed by the positives of offering said protections is debateable. The article we’ve been discussing mentions a favorable reaction to CA’s leave program by businesses. I have not checked how they determined that. In CA the businesses aren’t paying directly for the program. And they like avoiding the costs of replacing workers. I’d like to see more information about this program and the other two. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882/255 "2015-02-03T19:57:40Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I agree with you 100%. I’m all for people not having children when they can’t afford to. It used to be common for a couple in their mid 20’s to be financially secure enough to afford children. I don’t know if that is true anymore. I see more and more couples deferring childbirth to their 30’s because of money. > [@Bone](#): > > You introduced the idea of pro-family indicating it should include various ideas. I think the idea is poorly conceived and the label is not informative. Accusations of hypocrisy relating to being pro-family are also not informative. Whatever idea you think pro-family means, it doesn’t necessarily mean forcing folks to pay for other people’s families. I think its very informative to point out that some people who claim to be pro-family are really just anti-abortion and anti-gay and don’t really support policies that help families. Even if that means higher taxes. We have all sorts of government policies that mean forcing people to pay for shit they don’t like (see medicare, medicaid, social security, the military). We all pay for shit we don’t want, policy discussions do not revolve around the fact that some people who don’t want something are still going to have to pay for some of it. > [@](#): > > No one is forcing women to have children, nor has that been part of the discussion thus far in any meaningful way. Are you aware of the pro-life movement? I for one am perfectly comfortable forcing some women to have children (i.e. I am against elective late term abortions). But I also think that we should make having a family less of a burden and I am perfectly comfortable making you pay for some of that if I think its the right policy. > [@](#): > > Same story as before, if you can’t afford children without forcing other people to pay for it, then dont have children. Don’t buy sports cars that you can’t afford and then try and force other people to pay for them. Don’t rack up consumer credit card debt that you can’t pay and try and force other people to pay for it. Don’t do anything and then try to force other people to pay for it. Kids are not sportscars and flatscreen TVs. I am not likely to have another child but I can still support maternity leave because I see how much of a barrier it is for younger women with careers to start a family. I don’t think our nation is well served by having everyone start their families in their 30s. If we waited around for policies that everyone was happy to pay for we wouldn’t have a functioning government and might as well replace our judiciary with a thunderdome. > [@](#): > > Again, you’re introducing ideas that aren’t very relevant. No matter whether you believe costs are absorbed by the employer or are able to be passed on to consumers, increased operating costs influence decisions. This has a negative influence in hiring. Not if the employer passes on all the costs to the employees by reducing wages to make up for the increased employment taxes. And frankly a lot of things have a negative influence on hiring, so what? If the cost of the insurance is gender neutral then it is just another payroll cost and has the same effect that any other increase in payroll expenses has. Noone said this would be cost and consequence free, if it were, this wouldn’t be a debate at all. > [@](#): > > Just as protected classes have a negative influence in hiring members of that class. Whether that is outweighed by the positives of offering said protections is debateable. ergo the name “great debates” You seem well aware of the cost but seem to have a distorted view of the benefits. If you limit the benefits to the benefits to the employer I can see why you feel the way you do but lets try looking at this from the perspective of society as a whole (including the employer). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-do-you-feel-about-paid-parental-leave/710882.md?page=12)