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

161–170 of 215 posts

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#161

Post by Broken_Hippo »

zimablue wrote: post #116
defen wrote: post #111

How exactly would this be enforced? If a man doesn't disclose that his partner is pregnant, is he going to be fired? I don't see how it could be legal to do so. How is a partner's / spouse's medical condition any business of an employer?

It gets better, what if you're not with the mother. What if it was a one night stand, or you donated sperm to her as a single parent. What if you're not with her, she told you she was on the pill and it wasn't true. What if you're in a non binary relationship (2 fathers?). What if you adopt a young child.

Anyone that would not have paternal rights when the child is born obviously wouldn't get paternal leave. That covers things like sperm donors, some one night stands, and so on.

One night stand? This depends if she knows it was you. If she does, the responsible thing would be to notify you that she was pregnant as a result of that. It gives you time to prepare to help.

If you aren't with the mother, it really would depend on the relationship. Can you not help the mother out by going to the store? Delay your paternity leave until she starts working and keep your child while the mother is at work? Take the child to the doctor and other such things? People deal with this sort of thing with divorce, so I fail to see how this is different. Again, if you wouldnt get parental rights, however, you'd not have paternity benefits.

I suspect they'd handle non binary relationships as they are handled now. If the woman doesn't choose one as a father and the man steps forward and claims the child, they might request a dna test. They already handle such things in courts at the time. The other option is for neither man to be on the birth certificate, nulling their paternity rights... and thus their paternity leave.

Most places have leave for adoption, even if it isn't a young child. I fail to see how this would change at all. It would simply make sure the leave would be for both parents.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#162

Post by TangoTrotFox »

dmoy wrote: post #121
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One important tangent. There's a very significant nuance to birthrates you're not considering when it comes to reducing birthrates. Most of everybody knows birth rates in the developed world are decreasing, compared to the developing world. But what many do not know is that this sort of pattern holds true even within developed nations themselves. For instance in the US people who earn Think about what this means. The…

It's not really surprising at all (at least anymore). See for example Hans Rosling's research. The richer you are, the higher chance of success of your offspring, so you don't need to roll the dice as much.

This hypothesis made a lot of sense in the past. It was logical and mapped to the data reasonably well. But I'm not sure it does anymore. Part of the reason that I mentioned the developed world is that people earning < $10k are not pumping out children in some sort of attempt to create a family that can provide sustenance and a strong lineage. Far from it - in today's urban societies, children are often more of an indefinite burden than a future tool for wealth creation. Maybe even more clear is considering the sharp decline in the middle class fertility over the past decades. Again it's not like those born in e.g. the 70s were that much less likely to survive to coming of age driving their parents to have that many more children. And again, the urbanization problem was also present then as well in any case.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#163

Post by dgudkov »

larrydag wrote: post #159
curtis wrote: post #143

We're thinking about the problem all wrong. Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids. Of course I'm not serious, but then I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women. If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an informed choice to de-prioritize work in…

While not huge the US tax system has a child tax credit https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/five-things-to-know-about-the-c...

>We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids.

Unfortunately, too many people thinking "why should I pay for raising someone else's kids?".

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#164

Post by zimablue »

rayiner wrote: post #154
zimablue wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a choice we made in how we structure our governments though that doesn't make much sense on it's own. We could easily have a system where each generation pays for its OWN social security, you just let the government screw you by spending the current account on wars. Population is a much bigger question than a specific, stupid government fiscal policy.

Unless you "save for retirement" by putting canned food in a basement, all you're doing is arranging for some sort of entitlement to a share of the production of a future generation of workers. That's true whether you're talking about social security paid with tax dollars, dividends paid on stock holdings, etc. Those are all abstractions over an arrangement in which a working generation gives up some of the surplus o…

That's a good point and fairly true I think but there are some caveats that limit it's application to this argument as in (do we want more american kids). 1. It's not only the production, we also work for tangibleassets, mostly housing like you said storable food, machinery etc. That's relevant because if population decreased all of these would become cheaper. To take to the extreme - 1000,000 humans in the near future could probably sustain an incredible standard of living assisted by robots. Pragmatically, if I owned a house my outgoings would be tiny. 2. You're paying for the work of ANY future generation, it absolutely doesn't have to be American. Most of the most expensive things (electronics, cars) are already produced abroad. Food, haircuts and social care are a fraction and only decreasing.

So social security doesn't have to be that shape and an equally large young American population isn't necessary to sustain the current older population. Deeper than this thread but I guess relevant, a lot of hours go into producing products for the 1%, or jobs which don't make sense which our system protects because it's built around having 100% employment so we force you into a min. wage job in order to pay the rest of your income in benefits from taxes on the top percent. If our system didn't optimize to 100% employment and had more extensive welfare you'd see much higher unemployment and the trains would still run.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#165

Post by sheepmullet »

cimmanom wrote: post #10
fjsolwmv wrote: post #6

Why do we want equality if it means pushing women away from the motherhood they choose?

How would this push any woman away from the choice to be a mother? And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist? And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do?

> And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist?

Because of clear biological differences you can’t simply substitute a man for a woman.

As such this article is suggesting that we can make men worse off career wise to even things up.

But that only makes sense from a narrow gender-equality perspective.

It makes much more sense to look at it from a family unit perspective where it’s a good thing for the man to take on the career burden to help his family.

> And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do?

Because it is critical to the basic maintenance of our society. The same reason I pay a penalty for a large number of government services I don’t use.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#166

Post by sheepmullet »

rukittenme wrote: post #92

I'm surprised this has had such a good reception. Hobbling men in the name of equality is just bizarre. It's mixture of "Hansel and Gretel" and "Harrison Bergeron". Instead of weights just fatten them up with sweets. I didn't push a human being out from between my legs. Because of that I'm capable of working. I would like to be useful to my family. Working is one way I can do that. If I work while my wife is on leave…

> it has no bearing on the earnings of a specific woman with specific goals and habits.

But who cares about individual women and what they want? We want the top level statistics to be equal!

/s

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#167

Post by amb23 »

curtis wrote: post #143

We're thinking about the problem all wrong. Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids. Of course I'm not serious, but then I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women. If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an informed choice to de-prioritize work in…

In a perfectly rational market, neither mother or father would disproportionately decide to make one choice or another to prioritize or de-prioritize work at the expense or benefit of raising children. Equal numbers of men would be making that same choice as women do. But that's not the case today.

Despite all the hemming and hawing over the wage gap issue, it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare. Even if women, in general, are making an informed decision to de-prioritize work, it's not a rational decision at the societal level if men don't also make that decision in equal numbers. No one faults a woman for making that decision for themselves and their family. But on a societal level, we're not going to see wage equality until men are given an equal chance to make these same decisions in a way that's not dictated by age-old stereotypes of masculinity and breadwinners.

I think mandatory paternity leave would help here. I also think on-site childcare, or subsidized childcare given to employees as a benefit like healthcare, could benefit both mothers and fathers and help influence more women to stay in the workforce. The costs of subsidizing childcare for a 30-something manager are probably lower than the costs of finding and training someone new to replace them if they're forced to leave the workforce to care for a newborn. There are a number of interventions the private sector can take that can be integrated around pregnancy, birth, and raising newborns that can make work a bit more rational for both mothers and fathers and help retain employees.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#168

Post by GW150914 »

dgudkov wrote: post #163
larrydag wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not huge the US tax system has a child tax credit https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/five-things-to-know-about-the-c...

>We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids. Unfortunately, too many people thinking "why should I pay for raising someone else's kids?".

We already do pay to help raise other poeple’s kids through a variety of taxes, including public schools via property tax. This would be more of a subsidy for reproducing, rather than helping to raise them. I think it’s only rational for a community to invest in good outcomes for children, because the alternatives are not only undesireable and immoral, but more expensive. Actually subsidizing having children though, rather than investing in existing children isn’t something quite so simple. If you want to have children and are willing to make the associated sacrifices, good for you, it entire ask me to mitigate those sacrifices when I’ve chosen to not have children. I’m still happy to pay my taxes and invest thereby in their education and health, but propping up your career? No.

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#169

Post by dang »

zimablue wrote: post #99
lovich wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

OK so I tax everybody enough to make indian food free for everybody. Now I'm not forcing you to eat Indian food, technically. But if you hate curries you might feel a certain sense of injustice. We're not cheaper due to the requirements of biology. (screaming) You don't have to have children. Even if you DO have children, and you're female, you DONT have to take extensive time off. I've known multiple successful wome…

> (screaming)

No screaming here, please. That includes not using uppercase for emphasis, which amplifies it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

#170

Post by zimablue »

GW150914 wrote: post #168
dgudkov wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids. Unfortunately, too many people thinking "why should I pay for raising someone else's kids?".

We already do pay to help raise other poeple’s kids through a variety of taxes, including public schools via property tax. This would be more of a subsidy for reproducing, rather than helping to raise them. I think it’s only rational for a community to invest in good outcomes for children, because the alternatives are not only undesireable and immoral, but more expensive. Actually subsidizing having children though,…

Exactly. Paying for them to be cared for, fed, educated? Great. Paying for you to have time off, not the same thing.
Post reply on HN