It’s true that families choose to have children for ‘selfish’ reasons, but they are also doing an essential job (raising the next generation of citizens/workers) without which society cannot continue. I see no reason why we can’t compensate them a little for that, especially if it can be shown that it increases the welfare of the kids.

However, companies are penalized twice when they hire women of childbearing age—first they have to provide the maternity package, then they have to cross their fingers that the woman wouldn’t just “take the money and run” rather than come back to work. In addition, young women are penalized because of the perception, based in reality, that they are likely to cost the company a lot of money if they decide to have babies.

What is the solution? First, if we decide maternity leave is a social good, we should put our money where our mouth is and pay for it as a society, thus lifting the burden from our businesses. Secondly, we should make this generous maternity leave package returnable, that is contingent on the woman actually coming back to work. If she decides to stay at home full time and bake wholesome snacks for her sprogling, she should give the money back.

Where the companies can pitch in is in helping the woman get her career back on track. There is no reason why this cannot be done that are not cultural. Alas, the mere fact that they are cultural does not make them any less real. If, at the snap of a finger, men and women started sharing childrearing duties equally, I have a feeling coming back from maternity/paternity leave would become less of an issue instantly. Right now it is problematic for men and women alike because it is primarily thought of as a woman’s problem, and so we don’t really have to deal with it.

And as for general protections from casual firing, German industry representatives routinely make the case that they are hiring very cautiously specifically because of those protections, and are asking for the protections to be removed.

I’m not arguing the protections shouldn’t be there (why should their removal be asked if not to prepare for mass firings or firing threats), but you cannot force people into certain behavior patterns by controlling just one degree of freedom. With unemployment at 12% and outsourcing being all the rage, employers perceive themselves in the position to pick & choose, and make demands.

“For calendar years 2004 and 2005, the Paid Family Leave insurance contribution rate will be .08 percent (.0008) of the taxable wage limit.

The taxable wage limit in 2004 will be $68,829. This means that wages above this amount are not taxed for SDI. Therefore the maximum contribution for Paid Family Leave insurance would be $55.06 in 2004, in addition to the existing SDI contribution.

The taxable wage limit in 2005 will be $79,418. This means that wages above this amount are not taxed for SDI. Therefore, the maximum contribution for Paid Family Leave insurance would be $63.53 in 2005, in addition to the existing SDI contribution.”

Really now, Thorley, have you ever heard of a little website called Google? It took me about 180 seconds to find this:

http://www.edd.ca.gov/fleclaimpfl.htm

Specifically, I think these measures are completely unjust. It’s basically a subsidy which redistributes wealth from people who do not have children and people who have children but are not in work, to people who work and have children. Currently in the UK redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor isn’t on the agenda, but redistributing wealth from those without children to those with them is (and isn’t facing much opposition).

What’s the ideological justification for these policies? There doesn’t really seem to be one, it seems to be a targeted bribe made to people who are by and large already well off. There are currently wealthy people being given quite large sums of public money. When the amounts they receive is compared against the level of the state pension, or unemployment benefit, it’s obvious that the whole system is an absolute joke – and an abandonment of the Beveridge roots of the welfare state.

Last year, California instituted the first paid parental leave system in the country – an entirely employee-funded system that costs the average worker $27 a year.

Really now, do you have anything other than an AFL-CIO press release that backs up that rather dubious claim?

One can indeed make the argument that yes, social democracy causes higher unemployment, but high unemployment doesn’t matter in a country where unemployment benefits are generous enough that being out of work is basically a vacation.* But one should be upfront in noting that social democracy is not free.

*I am pretty sure that I am oversimplifying the nature of European unemployment benefits, but I have an image in my head of Europe as “The Paradise Across the Ocean Where You Don’t Have to Work if You Don’t Want to,” and would rather not have any unpleasant facts get in the way of this characterization. :P

When making such a contentious assertion it’s traditional (at least among people who aren’t dodgy partisan hacks) to back it up with evidence – particularly as the OECD study that Kimberly cites in the original post implies the opposite.

Since the major point of these leaves is to continue the French race (keep up that birthrate!) rather than eliminating discrimination, I don’t see this changing, at least in France, any time soon.

A similar effect is how protections against effortless dismissal promptly lead to very conservative hiring and increased workload & overtime pressure. (And in turn make it much tougher to change employers as you may not be readily hired.)

Of course, we’re talking about benefits for professional & skilled workers here & they’re not really the ones who most need the extra head-start with their kids—which is why finding a way for the rest of society to pick up the tab is the answer (as it is with health care/education).