I gave an example of a sample size of one. Someone else had another example, fine, but these are still just anecdotal evidences. You are really going to use that to make such a statement?
If the wage gap is “justified”, then it has to be justified so that it reflects the circumstances, not prejudices. So if Mr. A makes 50% more than Ms. A, despite their identitcal formation and professional experience, the ‘gap’ would be justified if it reflected the five years that Mrs. A took off to raise their children.
But if Mr. A and Ms. B both entered the same company at the same time and had identical formation, etc., and Mr. A was promoted to a position where he makes 50% more than Ms. B (just imagine), because of a perceived “danger” that Ms. B would drop out of the work force in a few years–that’s not justified! I honestly can’t believe someone in this age would seriously make a statement like that.
And you might say, well, it does present a real risk to an employer therefore the employer is justified in trying to mitigate that risk, etc. etc., but that’s the whole reason why non-white-males (or just non-males) are protected. Oh, and by the way, although it is possible I doubt most of the women dropping off for maternity leave are having babies on their own–pretty sure there’s a man involved too. That’s why parental leaves make so much more sense than materinity leave.
And also–someone made a comment about women having contempt for women. I made a comment about A womAn, who happened to be very unproductive and annoying because she was facetiming a baby who can’t speak! Should I complain about a former male coworker that was playing some phone game all day as well? I don’t choose who I like or dislike based on their reproductive organs, thanks.
Sweep and Kanuck obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.
The State pays the year-long paternity leave. Not the company, not the citizens. And it is better for the state to pay for smart people to do nothing than for those smart people to contribute to the economy.
The Company gets to further stimulate the economy by paying two people to do one job. This does not materially disadvantage the company.
The other alternative is to work every other person harder, which usually does not lead to disgruntled employees, since they will feel like they are contributing to an even greater good. Most people come to work to support others on a year-long vacations maternity leave. You know, “to each according to his needs” and all.
Maternity benefits are 17% of Canada’s employment insurance expenditure, so assuming no temps are employed as a result (very unrealistic), at most mat leave costs employers 0.3% of their wage bill (and only wages up to $50k). That’s a really cheap benefit. The benefit here is 1 year paid up to the Max (about $50k).
Left-wing socialists types are in favor of increasing labor costs. This has always been true (since socialism was founded as a labor movement). In most cases this involved reducing the labor pool to increase costs. For example, child labor was outlawed not because of sympathy for children, but to reduce the number of lower-wage workers.
Contradictorily, though, this same group seems intent on reducing labor costs by encouraging women to work (although striving to again increase labor costs through regulation like extensive maternity leave).
I guess feminists just wear the pants in the socialist family nowadays. Pussy power.
I concede. I’m now a Keynesian. One thing though, obviously one temp can’t immediately replace a valued employee. Maybe we should hire two or three temps? That way we’re providing training to more people, and 2-3 times as many unemployed/underemployed people will get an income they will, in turn, put right back into the economy.
I never said anything about equal pay. And paid maternity leave isn’t really hardcore socialist. Every developed country in the world has it, other than America.
Sure, I was referring to proper paid leave. To be honest, I really have no objections to schemes like Canada’s EI to be paid for entirely by employees, who are the beneficiaries. I don’t think companies should have to pay these costs. But there is substantial social good, so the programs themselves are worthy. Anyone that claims 12 weeks is enough doesn’t have kids or is married to a professional stay at home mother, IMO. I doubt those married to women that contribute to the economy would agree with the idea that 12 weeks unpaid is sufficient.
Our benefits are quite tame compared to the northern Euros. But yes, come on up, we appreciate professional women and don’t have a west Texas barefoot and in the kitchen attitude towards them.
12 weeks isn’t enough for what? Do you mean the mother needs more time to bond with the child? Or is it okay if the mom goes back after a couple weeks and the dad takes the 12 weeks? But, if the dad can do it, let’s be honest, a professional caregiver could do it just as easily (and probably better).
So what exactly is the objective of this time off, how long does one need to reach this objective, and does it really matter who the primary caregiver is?
Put yourself in an employer’s shoes. You need an employee. You hope that this employee will start at staff, then work up to Senior, then Manager, then hopefully succeed you as a partner.
You are faced with two identical 23-year old college grads. One is male and the other is female.
Which one is more likely to eventually become partner? Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that there’s not a higher chance of the woman dropping out of the workforce, whether it’s for a week or a decade?
(I just bumped the “Women in Finance” thread, much to Sweep’s chagrin. Take a look through there to see more in-depth arguments on both sides.)
Just FYI - in the aforementioned “Women in Finance”, Higgs said that if he exercised his right to paternity leave, his employer would probably exercise their right to terminate him.
And I said that my son was born on Wednesday, and I was at work on Thursday and Friday. (And I got docked eight hours of vacation for being gone on Wednesday.)
Well sure, there is certainly a health aspect I think we all can agree on for the first few weeks. Then its a question of other issues. I think time for bonding is important, but not a primary driver. Adjusting to having a baby, being up all night with feedings, and other demands are not insignificant and cannot be overcome with professional caregivers. I’m not worried as much about folks like us that could afford that care though. I worry about the young single mother that is working a job that doesn’t pay what we earn, and after a couple weeks heads back to work leaving her baby in poor quality care (because she cannot afford real care). That kid then gets off on the wrong foot and now is stuck in the poverty cycle. Its important in creating a level playing field that better justifies outcomes later in life. At the end of the day though, its important social policy in that it encourages smart people with the resources to properly raise kids to have kids. This is especially true in modern countries with low birth rates. I will say America is somewhat unique in that its birth rate is high, though mostly amongst poor women and single mothers that could use the benefits of mat leave the most in giving their kids a half decent start in life. And yes, the mom or the dad should be able to take the non-health related leave. No reason for it to be exclusively for the moms.
^Good idea. Incentivize the poor and single women to have more kids. That will predictably lead to…poor and single women having more kids. Paid for by the state. (But not by me or you.)
Bingo. As long as it’s maternity leave, not parental leave, you’ll have employers who look at female hires as ticking biological clock bombs. You know, despite Title VII.
Parental leave is the norm in most northern Euro countries and Canada. 90% of it is taken by moms. Canadian employers still look at women as ticking biological clock bombs.