Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Well, looking back I guess I could have spelled it out a little more slowly.

The first one is not proven to be able to achieve anything that the existing Equal Pay Act 1963 doesn't already address

Maternal leave is what we call a disincentive.  A disincentive is where a firm faces a financial cost of doing something.  In this case the firm has to pay to replace a pregnant woman.  That means there is a cost to hiring a woman.  Because of the concept of the tragedy of the commons some firms will discriminate and profit at the expense of other firms.  That is what this law aims to address.  Government sponsored paid leave would remove the disincentive.  The 1963 law does not address that disincentive because the police dont have mind reading beams with which they can monitor such problems.  This is one of the many, many types of behavior that are easy to address but hard to measure.

The second one actually increases the amount of time off that women will take from work. And taking time off from work is by far the largest chunk of why the gap exists.

It would lessen the economic impact of time off.  This would allow for better marketplace skills match and address a major form of deadweight loss.

Maternal leave is not the only distortion in our economy.  That doesn't mean it isn't something we can address.  You keep from doing useful things because they wont solve all your problems.  If you dont believe me then please stop brushing your teeth.

[Reelya]

Women are taking unpaid leave now, and the company incurs a cost to replace them. Paying the women from taxes to take leave doesn't reduce the costs on the company on hiring a replacement at all.

Incentivizing more women to take leave will only make this more common. Sure, an employer can act in a non-discriminatory fashion, but they're just spreading the costs out amongst the entire company then. And in a female-dominated industry this becomes a cost borne by all the women, not just those with kids.

[mainiac]

Sure, an employer can act in a non-discriminatory fashion, but they're just spreading the costs out amongst the entire company then.

DAMN IT.  If only someone had thought about this, wrote a law to address it and then had it as the a major campaign platform item.  They could save us from stupid feminists like Clinton and Sanders who would never think to do that.  And if only someone on this forum had tried to explain this to you twice.

[Reelya]

What I am saying is that there are incidental costs that the company bears, when someone takes leave. If the company treats all employees equally, these costs are spread out amongst the entire workforce.

I've looked around but see no mention of a plan to directly compensate businesses for these costs. So either cough up a citation or explain?

[mainiac]

I looked at the proposals on numerous different sites, and didn't see anything that addresses that point at all.

No new business or employee mandate.[...]Fund paid leave by making the wealthy pay their fair share, not by increasing taxes on working families.

This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now.


These proposals have the common element that the burden of paying for the leave is covered by the government.  In one case the government pays for it with a payroll tax.  In the other case the government pays for it with an income tax.  This means that firms dont have to foot the bill when their employees go on paid leave.

There are also proposals to pay the cost of replacing the workers but I'm less optimistic about the odds of those getting through congress.

[PTTG??]

What I am saying is that there are incidental costs that the company bears, when someone takes leave. If the company treats all employees equally, these costs are spread out amongst the entire workforce.

I've looked around but see no mention of a plan to directly compensate businesses for these costs. So either cough up a citation or explain?

Hold on hold on, FIRST we need to get companies to pay parents for their positive externality of producing future employees. What, do you think people should have children for FREE?

[mainiac]

No, I think the government should pay for it.  Isn't that just obvious?  Society benefits from it.

In other news so funny it makes you wanna cry: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/tammy-duckworth-republican-senatorial-committee-tweet-220441

[Helgoland]

There are also proposals to pay the cost of replacing the workers but I'm less optimistic about the odds of those getting through congress.

I think this is what Reelya was talking about the whole time.

[mainiac]

Well he just said:

What I am saying is that there are incidental costs that the company bears, when someone takes leave. If the company treats all employees equally, these costs are spread out amongst the entire workforce.

From which I assumed he was talking about the employer cost of non-dickish maternity leave policies.

[Reelya]

I'm really talking about a different issue. There's the issue of who pays for the leave money itself. That's not under disagreement.

But there are other costs born by the employer, which I am talking about. I did explain exactly what those other costs are. Clinton isn't offering to compensate businesses for those, just saying they won't pay out of their hip-pocked for the direct leave payments.

And sure, those costs can be mitigated a little, you can try and retain the old person after they are done with their leave, but it's always going to hit efficiency to some degree. And if the vast majority of leave-takers are women, well that hits women-dominated industries disproportionately, which further widens the gender gap (the costs are spread out to all women, because we're not discriminating against any specific women whether she takes leave or not).

So, as quite a few feminists have pointed out the only way to break through this glass barrier is to actually poke men with sticks until leave is truly taken in equal amounts. Just "offering" equal opportunities doesn't guarantee equal outcomes. We all know that.

[Frumple]

for what it's worth, ree did specifically mention the cost of hiring a replacement for the leave period, if my short term memory hasn't completely left me. From, uh. From what I've seen that generally only happens (and then, only sometimes) in schools, and K-12 at that. Everywhere else someone(s) else just covers for 'em, at least from what I've personally noticed. There's maybe some loss in productivity (Redking, I believe, mentioned how arguable that is considering what new parents go through), but it's not so much the company spending money to make up the difference as it is them telling everyone else to work harder in the meantime or get fired.

Also that tweet isn't so much cry as be rather inclined towards punching whatever staffer felt constructing that sentence was a good idea in the face. Seriously, how the hell do you think that's a good idea?

[i2amroy]

From which I assumed he was talking about the employer cost of non-dickish maternity leave policies.

To expound further on Reelya's point, it's more that for every employee that is currently on leave that's one less employee working to generate profits (regardless of if the employee actually is being reimbursed by the the company or the government). Less employees generating profits = Lost revenue = less money in the companies coffers = less raises = lower wages for everyone working at the company. A field dominated by women will have more people taking leave, and regardless of who pays them while they are on that leave there is still going to be lost profits, which is going to result in lost revenue, and thus lower wages in general in that industry.

[Frumple]

Well, you ninja'd my edit, but as was brought up the last time this topic came up that's... kinda' questionable. Not giving leave in no way means you're not going to be losing revenue just because the new parent is on the job. It's significantly more likely that they're just not going to be worth shit for a few weeks, and you're going to be losing that regardless (with the added bonus of greater risks of various losses brought about by more stressed workers ). Frankly, even the leave disproportionately falling on a particular parent isn't going to help all that much insofar as that angle goes, unless the one staying on site is also living somewhere else for the period (and even that is questionable, because unless the parents are separated, and even if they are, that kind of arrangement is probably going to bugger all sorts of... everything, really. Unhappy workers with likely substantial temper/stress issues do not productive workers make.).

[Reelya]

Well maybe for a few weeks that's an issue, but it's not usual that the leave only goes for those few weeks. Additional to what i2amroy said, female-dominated industries have often negotiated lengthy maternity leave arrangements, and it's considered more normal in them to take lengthy breaks for that sort of thing. (It's often reported that men in female-dominated industries are earning more than the women. I can pretty much guess that the reason is that many women are taking ample maternity leave, but the men usually aren't, in fact they might be barred from taking it due to gender).

Even if the cost of the actual leave is paid externally, there are still cost periods when someone leaves, and again when someone returns (retraining, getting back up to speed). And all these costs are spread out amongst the whole group. Basically female-dominated industries are subsidizing male-dominated industries for child care, which inflates a gap between them. Any policy which doesn't directly tackle this might be adding to the problem. So, it's all well and good to say that companies that hire women should do more to take care of them when they have a baby, but it's this very assumption that it's the employer of the women's job to subsidize baby-care which actually adds to the issue of the gender gap.

[smjjames]

Democratic debate in about 6 min ish.

The podiums are REALLY far apart this time, also big.