Without parental leave I might be dead • Hacker News Board

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#91

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #79

bko wrote: post #7

I believe parental leave should be provided, but I don't see how anyone expects employers to shoulder the burden of providing paid parental (in reality maternity) leave without an implicit bias towards hiring men (or at least paying women less). You can provide the same benefit to men and women, but let's be honest, even when available most men take only a fraction of the allowed time. I guess you can force people to…

> I believe parental leave should be provided, but I don't see how anyone expects employers to shoulder the burden of providing paid parental (in reality maternity) It is always citizens that shoulder the burden one way or another. Self: Pay with your own savings Firm: Pay with higher prices and lower wages State: Pay with higher taxes paid to the state If you ask me, option 3) seems to distribute the pain to the mos…

Unless the singles are OK with no one coming to clean their bed pan, then it is not just pain for them.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#92

Post by elzbardico » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

One thing most libertarians never understood about Keynes, is that Keynes was probably as much, if not more, anti-communist than they. But keynes also knew that people that are hungry today, don't have too much patience to wait for the markets to reach an equilibrium, and because of that they tend to make revolutions. This American Market fundamentalism is probably the biggest threat that the liberal capitalism ever met, because this is what is going to radicalize the american worker, and soo, the disappearing middle class.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#93

Post by paulryanrogers » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #25

wastedhours wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most men take only a fraction of the allowed time I truly don't understand this, and each time I see the stats on it sit in even greater disbelief. Why would anyone turn down the opportunity to spend, for an awful lot of companies, fully paid time off work to spend time with their new family? Guessing I'm much less "career-minded" than of lot of these guys, but it makes zero sense to me that you wouldn't stretch th…

I took less than the allotted time. I was bored sitting at home. Much of the first 3 months is feeding the baby, something I am physically unequipped to do. I enjoy work and the comradery of my co-workers. I was working from home anyway, so there was no long commute. And it gave me something to do. I'm a programmer. I like my work. It gives me an outlet for my creativity and allows me to bond with co-workers. And I c…

I felt similar after the first child. But the reality for my SO is that it was harder on them because of all the other non-baby chores I couldn't do when working.

So for the second child I had to get VP approval to take a whopping 3 weeks (unlimited* PTO, technically no paternity leave). That was essential because now there was childcare, chores, and baby care involved. It should've been more like 8w.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#94

Post by Mvandenbergh » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #18

The problem with parental leave is the same problem with universal health care or any entitlement that isn’t utilized by the entire population at the same rate constantly. Things like roads (and even then there are many locales with crappy roads) are easy to justify. Things like parental leave and universal health care are hard because the percentage of those utilizing will be low and the disproportionate benefit wil…

The majority of the population over time will use parental leave if it is available. Most people do have at least one child in their lifetime so this is a terrible example of an entitlement which is unequally distributed. Health care is even worse, especially if you are guaranteeing access prospectively. Even people who are not currently using healthcare resources (hopefully most people) know that there is a very good change that they will have to and realistically as you age the chance that you need substantial medical care approaches 100% pretty rapidly.

It is not a Ponzi scheme for a number of reasons.

First, Ponzi schemes use money from new members to pay for older members. This might be a model for retirement spending (it isn't, see my next point) but it has the timeline reversed for parental leave. Parental leave is effectively funded by the fraction of the population not currently using it for the benefit of the fraction that currently is. It effectively serves a few different distributional roles:

a) It moves resources from your own pre-child and post-parental leave career to the period when the child is born. Many people who can easily fund a year of not working from their total career earnings cannot do so in their peak child-bearing years and there aren't any efficient ways of using saving or borrowing to shift that money either. For these people, parental leave uses the risk pooling and payment guarantee capabilities of the state to effectively borrow cheaply against their lifetime earnings.

b) It distributes resources from higher to lower earners, depending on how the obligation is structured there is usually a progressive taxation element which ensures a certain minimum is available.

Second point, retirement schemes are also not Ponzi schemes.

A Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing number of new entrants to maintain payouts. Pay-as-you-go retirement schemes require maintaining a balance between payers and payees which can be disrupted by changes to demographics but that does not mean that they are inherently fraudulent, just that in the presence of demographic trends which lead to a change in that ratio, they either need to reduce payouts, or increase payments in, or borrow to bridge temporary gaps. The difference is that in a Ponzi scheme, the changes required to maintain this are exponential and rapidly become impossible. There is no stable state to a Ponzi scheme.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#95

Post by elzbardico » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #59

KaiserPro wrote: post #28

I really cant understand the logic of forcing women back into work after 2-4 weeks. Its just not beneficial for anyone. The mum is utterly frazzled. The employer gets half an employee back Society is conditioned to think that the only practical way to raise a baby is to give up on work/get live in care. now, to look at it from a "my mum managed, I don't want to undermine the american nuclear family" point of view: Ye…

> Given that _every_ other "civilised" country has some sort of rudimentary care for new parents, which doesn't acutally cost that much, I can't see any reasonable objection to not having it. Giving a special benefit that will for the most part only be exercised by women discourages hiring women. You can still think its worth it, but don't pretend like you're baffled by anyone who would object or question how this im…

Yeah, sure. Only the american libertarian knows how things really work. All those other countries are stupid, and because of their stupidity, look at them, all the women are out of the labor market.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#96

Post by comeonseriously » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #72

mschuster91 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality. Way too many people only can make ends meet by both partners being full-time employed - and in some cases (such as shown by a recent Last Week Tonight episode) even that is not enough to prevent being homeless. Rents are too high, and wages are too low.

People don’t have to have children. And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels.

> People don’t have to have children.

Ah, here we go. This is a veiled "only people who have enough money should have children" argument.

> And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels.

I am sure that disproportionately favors certain income levels.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#97

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #33

helge9210 wrote: post #2

I really can't understand how can a newborn be separated from his mother at the age of 12 weeks.

Generations of kids have grown up this way without issue. Sleeping 7/8 hours at a daycare is barely different than sleeping 7/8 hours at home. And the other hour bing broken up while being held with a bottle and a diaper change.

I can only assume you have no experience of what breast pumping entails, and the biological and chemical effects of a mother breastfeeding her baby. It is not true that it is "without issue". Not being able to directly breastfeed your baby leads to many downsides, even just mechanical ones.

Such as decreased or erratic milk production, clogged nipple ducts, engorged breasts, all which are greatly reduced when an infant feeds from the breast.

Not to mention the effects of oxytocin on the mother's healing body from having skin to skin contact with the baby.

The effects are extremely complex, I do not even see how you can measure them to claim dropping an infant off at daycare is "without issue".

If you also cared for an infant, you would also know they don't sleep 7 hours, and feed 1 hour. They feed every 2 hours, and they can take anywhere from 10 min to 45 min to feed every time. And every time, the infant will need to be burped, or maybe they will need to poop and the mom has to wait that process out, and then go back to feeding.

And to keep up this production while the infant is at daycare, the mom has to pump every 2 hours. Which means going to the pumping room, taking out the pump equipment, cleaning the pump equipment, storing (refrigerated or frozen) and transporting the breast milk, heating it up.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#98

Post by comeonseriously » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #87

Maybe you should not live somewhere so expensive and stop spending money on unnecessary things. You can switch to eating cheap food and minimize your expenses. If you are just making ends meet you are not financially responsible.

> Maybe you should not live somewhere so expensive and stop spending money on unnecessary things.

Because The Poors waste their money?

> You can switch to eating cheap food and minimize your expenses.

So, The Poors shouldn't care about nutrition?

> If you are just making ends meet you are not financially responsible.

This is so naive.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#99

Post by endisneigh » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

comeonseriously wrote: post #96

endisneigh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t have to have children. And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels.

> People don’t have to have children. Ah, here we go. This is a veiled "only people who have enough money should have children" argument. > And people can and do stay at home with their children at all income levels. I am sure that disproportionately favors certain income levels.

Poor people have more children than rich both per capita and in aggregate

Also, I never said only rich people should be able to have children. However at the end of the day raising children requires money. Hence the newly introduced children tax credit.

Re: Without parental leave I might be dead

#100

Post by bko » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

bko wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that _every_ other "civilised" country has some sort of rudimentary care for new parents, which doesn't acutally cost that much, I can't see any reasonable objection to not having it. Giving a special benefit that will for the most part only be exercised by women discourages hiring women. You can still think its worth it, but don't pretend like you're baffled by anyone who would object or question how this im…

This graph shows the gender pay gap trending down in the UK since they implemented parental leave: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor... This graph shows women's employment rate trending up in the UK: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

Policy changes don't exist in a vacuum. I'm not interested in studies that show something. I'm interested in a mental model that results in employers being indifferent to hiring men or women when statistically women are much more likely to take a considerable amount of paid time off with restrictions set on replacing them.

The model could be that employers are altruistic. Or that employers are dumb and don't realize this. Or they're sufficiently compelled by the law and the penalties and enforcement are strict enough.

And your model also has to account for the system not being a closed system. For instance, its not enough that all employers are altruistic, but any prospective employers that could enter the market would similarly be altruistic.

Again, it could be worth it, but don't pretend that there's no disincentive by this policy.