Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 215 posts

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#81

Post by michaelt »

zimablue wrote: post #67
Smushman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the primary point of the article is that this flexible planning is not functioning as an equalizer in the workplace (Title: Want Equality? Make New Dads Stay Home...) and that it could, and should. To turn it into more direct phrasing; a woman has to take a significant chunk of time off during a pregnancy by virtue of the condition, and this has a net effect on her career. When a woman takes off for pregnancy…

But women don't have to have children, in fact it would be much better if they didn't. You write your post as if it's all miraculous conception. Women can make a choice to do something that will impact their career negatively. Men don't have that choice. People who don't intend to have children subsidising people who do (who are on average already richer and more privileged) is deeply messed up. This only makes sense…

  People who don't intend to have children subsidising
  people who do (who are on average already richer and
  more privileged) is deeply messed up.
Assuming you were born yourself, aren't you opposing something you yourself benefited from?

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#82

Post by chris_mc »

brighteyes wrote: post #17

It would have been a more interesting article had it also went into the downsides of this approach. One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers, further decreasing the birth rate which is already quite low in many advanced economies. Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact, further d…

Everyone is talking about needing to control population, but according to current figures, the population will level our around 11b people around 2100. Check out www.gapminder.org for more info, but a lot of what people think about the world is wrong.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#83

Post by lovich »

damagednoob wrote: post #33

I'm in favour of a set amount of parental leave that can be shared between spouses in whatever ratio they choose. I don't understand how depriving families of choices is going to be a good thing. Example: You and your husband would like to breastfeed your baby for the first 6 months but you are unable to express? Too bad, your husband has to take paternity leave and you will have to go back to work. From my experienc…

The state already imposes interruptions in what parents see as their childs well being. Requiring vaccinations to attend school, preventing parents from including children in dangerous religious events like snake handling, stopping underage marriages even when the parent thinks it's in the child best economic interest, etc.

Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. At that point the question is a matter of degree

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#84

Post by zimablue »

jacquesm wrote: post #49
zimablue wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to be that guy but you're making a clear logical fallacy. The argument is "should we subsidize children" and you're substituting "does society want to subsidize children" and then for THAT you're substituting "do we currently subsidize children". You can only go from 1 to 2 by assuming something like tyranny of the majority. You can only go from 2 to 3 by assuming that the current system is exactly what society…

It is pretty safe to assume the tyranny of the majority in a democratic system and it is a given that society chose what it did, if it did not it would have changed. 'Given a blank slate' is so far from practice that it might as well be fiction. Utopia is not suddenly going to spring to life, if you want it there is only one way to get there: get into politics, and good luck because the one word you will learn very q…

No, the tyranny of the majority is NOT the safe thing to assume in a democratic system, or that that would be the right thing. Our systems are build to insulate decision making from 51% splits.

But we're not arguing that we're about to do something from a blank slate, the blank slate point is that just because society DOES something, doesn't mean that it WANTs to do something, for the same reasons as above we don't decide everything by referendum. The US numbers on single payer, medicaid for all, drug laws and etc are miles away from the policy, your argument is like looking at marijuana being illegal in most states a few years ago and using it as evidence that they want it to be illegal.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#85

Post by jvvw »

zimablue wrote: post #67
Smushman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the primary point of the article is that this flexible planning is not functioning as an equalizer in the workplace (Title: Want Equality? Make New Dads Stay Home...) and that it could, and should. To turn it into more direct phrasing; a woman has to take a significant chunk of time off during a pregnancy by virtue of the condition, and this has a net effect on her career. When a woman takes off for pregnancy…

But women don't have to have children, in fact it would be much better if they didn't. You write your post as if it's all miraculous conception. Women can make a choice to do something that will impact their career negatively. Men don't have that choice. People who don't intend to have children subsidising people who do (who are on average already richer and more privileged) is deeply messed up. This only makes sense…

But employers know that you might have children and if you are a woman that you will have a certain amount of time off work as a result. So they might choose to employ a man instead even if you don't plan to have children yourself. Obviously illegal in many jurisdictions but extremely hard to prove.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#86

Post by lovich »

zimablue wrote: post #71
gumby wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see a clear link to hacker culture It's good advice for how to run my company.

But it's not about that, it's about a proposed law. Anything to do with how to run companies isn't hacker culture, we don't spam posts about the best offshore tax arrangements and the advantages of different board structures. Company stuff is mostly to do with startups and this practise is both less relevant to and less favoured by startups.

It's a proposed change to how to run a company, it's not someone's rant about how someone didn't call them xer and how that person is a Nazi.

Your opposition to even seeing this post because it includes gender seems like more of a culture war artifact than the post itself

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#87

Post by paulryanrogers »

gaius wrote: post #41

There should be a system that every n years you get a 6-month paid sabbatical that can be used for any purpose - studying, traveling, having a kid, anything. Because consider two women, one who wants kids and one who doesn’t. Why should woman 2 be disadvantaged? Isn’t that the exact opposite of equality?

Doesn't this encourage terminating employees before that N year, unless they are absolutely essential?

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#88

Post by zimablue »

michaelt wrote: post #81
zimablue wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But women don't have to have children, in fact it would be much better if they didn't. You write your post as if it's all miraculous conception. Women can make a choice to do something that will impact their career negatively. Men don't have that choice. People who don't intend to have children subsidising people who do (who are on average already richer and more privileged) is deeply messed up. This only makes sense…

People who don't intend to have children subsidising people who do (who are on average already richer and more privileged) is deeply messed up. Assuming you were born yourself, aren't you opposing something you yourself benefited from?

It sounds good but it doesn't actually hold up...

So if being born means that I have to approve of any measure which causes more births, then logically I should be in favour of for example reducing contraceptive programs in Africa, etc.

Being born doesn't automatically force you to support population increase or be a hypocrite. Even if you had a moral obligation to maximise (total number of people that will ever live), then that number is probably larger (because of humanity surviving into the future) if we drastically cut population in the present.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#89

Post by brighteyes »

gumby wrote: post #42
brighteyes wrote: post #17

It would have been a more interesting article had it also went into the downsides of this approach. One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers, further decreasing the birth rate which is already quite low in many advanced economies. Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact, further d…

> One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers... > Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact... As the article states: how are these factors different for men than for women?

I don't think either of those arguments assumes they are different. In fact the second mentions it may be the same.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#90

Post by lovich »

zimablue wrote: post #75
gumby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this is precisely why this is such a good idea! It doesn't push anyone towards or away from having kids.

It pushes you towards having kids because you're effectively already paying for them. It wouldn't be enough to completely change someone who was very opposed to it but it's by no means neutral. The proposal the guy made in a different post of just enforcing sabbaticals is neutral.

How does it push you towards having kids, it just gives you the option. Giving someone choices is not, in any way, some kind of force.

The proposed change simply makes me and women both have the same cost to the employer up front. As it stands currently men are slightly cheaper due to the requirements of biology, and managers keep that in mind when comparing otherwise equal employees. It does not fix the difference between employees with kids and employees without so it is not a perfect solution

Post reply on HN