Posted on 01/28/2020 7:05:45 AM PST by karpov
One of the biggest arguments for paid leave for new parents has been an economic one: Research has repeatedly shown that women with paid time off after childbirth are more likely to keep working.
But a new study, the largest to be done in the United States, found the opposite. In California, which in 2004 became the first state to offer paid family leave, new mothers who took it that year ended up working less and earning less a decade later. They averaged $24,000 in cumulative lost wages, it found.
“I could feel the air going out of the room when we presented this,” said Martha J. Bailey, an economist at the University of Michigan and one of four authors of the working paper. “This is not the way we teach this in economics textbooks.”
Paid leave is gaining in popularity. It has bipartisan support in Congress for the first time, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed expanding California’s leave to six months. So what to make of these new results?
To start, it’s a reminder that even when lots of data point in the same direction, it doesn’t mean the outcome is guaranteed. For policies like paid leave, the way they’re designed and the context in which they’re rolled out matter a lot.
In this case, if the goal is to keep women working, other things seem necessary beyond several weeks of paid leave, researchers said. One would be subsidized child care, for after parents return to work. It could also help if fathers take leave and change their work and family routines alongside women. Countries that give men incentives to take paternity leave have seen more gender equality at work and at home as a result.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Times is not a reliable source for the news.
Keynesian economics textbooks???? Well, more evidence that Commie Rats and leftists just make $h!+ up as they go along to support their policy and garner votes.
What I would like to see is research on how many working mothers would rather stay at home. I’m betting the results would give liberals heart attacks.
The cost of a nanny for the working parents has to be put into the mix.
There should be no paid maternity leave. It isn’t fair to the coworkers who must pick up the slack, it also isn’t fair to the company’s bottom line.
If the couple wants kids, that should be on their own dime and time. Not everyone else’s.
Well, I think that you're correct.
That is, if said mother has a "traditional" marriage--ONE man, ONE woman, married and living together with babies that look like them.
What a thought!
Years ago I worked at a large airline. It was very common for baby aged women to start, have a kid, then quit. Maybe a years worth of work.
Paid maternity leave, like student loan forgiveness is another bad idea that is inevitable IMHO.
The moment Millenials comprise 50.001% of the voting block they WILL vote it into law.
As a prior business owner (retired) if it was mandated that I give 6 months of paid leave to any parent I would find a way to screen out those with child bearing intentions and simply hire someone else. How would any business afford to pay someone perhaps 40 grand to stay home? If funded by taxes what is that burden?
Cuz nobody knew that taxpayer funded coddling alway fails.......
“We’re going to keep women working by rewarding them for not working.”
Sounds like a great idea. How could it fail?
Some would argue that raising kids is a full-time job.
Not debating that here, only pointing out that the collapse in birthrates is a real problem.
I read a study years ago that calculated the net income a working parent earned with a child in day care. Between commuting costs, taxes, child care expenses, and ancillary expenses like dry cleaning, the average second spouse ended up earning less than half the minimum wage.
another by-product of the putrid 19th amendment ...
In this case, if the goal is to keep women working...
I would think that the goal would be to ensure mothers nurture our nation’s progeny. Of course, that’s just me.
My wife works hard, but she does not have a job that brings taxable income. And she loves that. Frankly, her life is far more fulfilling than that of a woman that spends all of her time at a “job” doing some other person or company’s bidding - for dollars.
The moment Millenials comprise 50.001% of the voting block they WILL vote it into law.
There was a statistic cited here in an article within the last 48 hours that I found shocking. Even in this time of record-low unemployment and millions (literally) of unfilled positions across the U.S., more than 40% of the 2018 college graduates still haven't received an offer for a job in a long-term career track.
This "paid maternity leave" might actually be a complete bust among Millenials. For one thing, even the dumbest among them is smart enough to realize that have paid leave from a non-existent job is pointless. Secondly, every indication I've seen is that very few of these Millenials have any interest in breeding anyway.
Q for these people: Good gad, what the heck do you think motherhood is? A vacation?!
In the vein of a stopped clock being right twice a day -—
Go to youtube and look up Elizabeth Warren’s 2011 speech on the myth of the two income family. This is the sort of stuff she pointed out. I liked the woman before she got into politics.
Here it is: The two income trap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GHg3GAeQ1Y
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.