My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

[shunyata]

I still say she is wrong.

We live in Canada and have a very generous Mat Leave system with both gov't and employer contributing to it.

But still the employee on Mat Leave will only make about 55% of their regular pay.

We purchased supplemental disability insurance on my wife ahead of time before the pregnancy, it covered the gap in employer paid leave.

The point is that yes that person is now investing time with their family but that in turn reinvests in society and the economy.

 

[MikeMcMann]

There are some women that literally have 3-4 kids in a 5-6 year span. Their reward is the "blessing of having children" and all that, not extra money. 100% support reasonable amounts of leave, but once you get past 4-5 months it should be reduced to a low payment or no payment but guaranteed return to work when they are ready. Couldn't imagine being a small business owner paying some woman on her third child at home watching her 10 month old on my dollar.

The employee who is working hard putting in the sacrifice is the one who deserves the rewards and bonuses. Man, woman, doesn't matter. Only the work and quality matters. If a woman makes a choice to have a child or another child, she should be understanding to know she is not returning to the top of the food chain when the business has been moving without her.

You've nailed it.

But the politics of this issue does not want to put any value on that 'blessing' and instead only says 'why should she be penalized with less money'?

 

[sub_thug]

There's some truth to her position. Men who are fathers outearn men who are not fathers. Women who are mothers don't outearn women who aren't mothers. The child penalty isn't strictly about taking time away from the job.

But, of course, if women choose to spend more time away from work as a result of having kids then they will see less compensation overall as a result.

The related social question is why so much of that burden continues to fall on women, even the ones who want to prioritize their careers. I was at a multipanel forum (a real life one, not an internet one) on households where the fathers were the primary caregivers and even in the cases where the women are the primary earners, a significant amount of the parenting time commitments still fell on their shoulders.

Anecdotally, one guy told a story about how even though he's the emergency contact for his kids, the school always calls the mom first and then she has to either call him or re-direct the school to him. Lots of little things like that probably add up over time.

But why?

 

[MikeMcMann]

No but I think karen should be able to come back to her position and not have to start over again and I think karen shoulda been getting paid while she was off

Bob was there the whole time and i am assuming that he earned it but .... this why we have the gender pay gap myth because women miss way more work due to family reasons and it does act as a penalty against them.

again with that word penalty.



it is not a penalty if you like and choose anything over work hours and thus get paid less from work.

Whether it is to spend time with your new kids, old kids, old parents, traveling or going back to school part time while working part time, all of those are OK and good choices to make and may be more rewarding than grinding 40 hours a week and over time. They can be privileges. To call it a penalty assumes a base position that all should make the same money regardless of hours put in and those then who get less are penalized.

 

[MikeMcMann]

There's some truth to her position. Men who are fathers outearn men who are not fathers. Women who are mothers don't outearn women who aren't mothers. The child penalty isn't strictly about taking time away from the job.

But, of course, if women choose to spend more time away from work as a result of having kids then they will see less compensation overall as a result.

The related social question is why so much of that burden continues to fall on women, even the ones who want to prioritize their careers. I was at a multipanel forum (a real life one, not an internet one) on households where the fathers were the primary caregivers and even in the cases where the women are the primary earners, a significant amount of the parenting time commitments still fell on their shoulders.

Anecdotally, one guy told a story about how even though he's the emergency contact for his kids, the school always calls the mom first and then she has to either call him or re-direct the school to him. Lots of little things like that probably add up over time.

Would love to see some stats underlying that?


I would bet the biggest factor is that the men who become fathers become more focused on being the bread winner and thus more dedicated to their jobs as opposed to guys without those responsibilities. Whereas women who are not mothers tend to be very career and money minded, especially if they never plan to have children. In my experience once a professional woman decides to never have children she is all about her career.

 

[panamaican]

But why?

Something like the halo effect. Men who are married and men with children are perceived as more responsible. This leads to greater economic opportunities within their place of work. Women don't get the same perception boost. It goes the other way. Women with children are perceived as not as committed to their careers.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

So will the government pay the salary and benefits of the parent absent from the workplace? I don't know how you do it in the UK, but what people are mostly proposing here in the US that it's either up to the business or the parents, not a third party.

Im entirely sure on the specifics, but I think the employee needs to first make the employer aware of their intentions before they give birth. The apply to the government. Not sure if they make the payments or the employer does. Or if the employer gets tax relief for any employee that takes it. Id need to look it up. I just know that the employer shouldnt be required to take on most of the costs.

 

[MikeMcMann]

We purchased supplemental disability insurance on my wife ahead of time before the pregnancy, it covered the gap in employer paid leave.

The point is that yes that person is now investing time with their family but that in turn reinvests in society and the economy.

I am not questioning the value too society of people having kids.

the only question is this:

- If John and Mary start the job together on Day 1 and over their first 5 years John works every hour and all the over time he can and Mary takes off almost 3 years while having many kids SHOULD MARY get her pay leveled up to Johns so she is not suffering a Child Penalty?

- and what if Bob also started with them but never worked over time so made less than John but more than Mary. Should Mary still get leveled up to John and make more than Bob?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Something like the halo effect. Men who are married and men with children are perceived as more responsible. This leads to greater economic opportunities within their place of work. Women don't get the same perception boost. It goes the other way. Women with children are perceived as not as committed to their careers.

Is it solely a perception boost or in fact is that often the observed case that the man with the children may be more reliable and harder working and less willing to do anything to jeopardize his job now he is the family bread winner?

 

[sub_thug]

Something like the halo effect. Men who are married and men with children are perceived as more responsible. This leads to greater economic opportunities within their place of work. Women don't get the same perception boost. It goes the other way. Women with children are perceived as not as committed to their careers.

Exactly. This a question of intangibles, so do we really need to address this with policy? By the same token, attractive people get a boost, leading to more money and better career options. Should we develop a policy to give money to everyone who is a <6/10?

I think that this is just one of those things where you accept the rationale, shrug, and say, "Well, life isn't fair." That's probably the only thing you can do other than offer the protections to pregnant women that we already offer, have maternity leave (maybe we should do more, maybe less, maybe just do it differently), and the other stuff already in place.

 

[Gunny]

When you look at it from the companies perspective, where else would they put them? You can't just give someone who left the workforce as say a first level manager then give them a directors job when they reenter the workforce just because they had kids and took off from working for a few years. It doesn't make any sense.

I totally get the company’s perspective as we’re running a business with 150 employees. It’s one of those problems for which the solutions are not obvious. We have a situation where a junior bookkeeper, who came to us after her kids entered middle school, is working under a CFO who is less competent across many parameters. Had they started at the same time and remained in continuous employment I’d say it’s entirely possible their roles would be reversed. And it’s not as if you can just swap their positions in a corrective measure without creating a whole slew of additional problems for yourself.

 

[sub_thug]

Im entirely sure on the specifics, but I think the employee needs to first make the employer aware of their intentions before they give birth. The apply to the government. Not sure if they make the payments or the employer does. Or if the employer gets tax relief for any employee that takes it. Id need to look it up. I just know that the employer shouldnt be required to take on most of the costs.

Hmm, I'm very curious about such a system. It seems like it would have a lot of challenges, but since I don't know anything about it, I'm hesitant to jump in. If an executive who makes $200k/yr takes 6 months off to raise a kid, that's going to look very different than a woman earning $30k/yr. The business shouldering those things as equal is a bad move, especially when you consider the size of the business. I'm always worried of business regulation because when you place a bunch of laws in designed to help the employee, you are also creating laws that favor big businesses with deep enough pockets to actually comply with all the laws and regulations. Little guys just can't keep up. Anyways, if you have more information, I'd love to see it. Thanks.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Hmm, I'm very curious about such a system. It seems like it would have a lot of challenges, but since I don't know anything about it, I'm hesitant to jump in. If an executive who makes $200k/yr takes 6 months off to raise a kid, that's going to look very different than a woman earning $30k/yr. The business shouldering those things as equal is a bad move, especially when you consider the size of the business. I'm always worried of business regulation because when you place a bunch of laws in designed to help the employee, you are also creating laws that favor big businesses with deep enough pockets to actually comply with all the laws and regulations. Little guys just can't keep up. Anyways, if you have more information, I'd love to see it. Thanks.

businesses need to be regulated though, otherwise employers will rip off employees left right and centre. I dont understand why Americans are so anti-regulations. They are there highly necessarry, especially in a capitalistic society

edit: heres the UK maternity leave information
https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave
and this is it from the employers perspective(Ive not read this yet so Im not sure how wrong I was in my previous post )
https://www.gov.uk/employers-maternity-pay-leave

 

[panamaican]

Exactly. This a question of intangibles, so do we really need to address this with policy? By the same token, attractive people get a boost, leading to more money and better career options. Should we develop a policy to give money to everyone who is a <6/10?

I think that this is just one of those things where you accept the rationale, shrug, and say, "Well, life isn't fair." That's probably the only thing you can do other than offer the protections to pregnant women that we already offer, have maternity leave (maybe we should do more, maybe less, maybe just do it differently), and the other stuff already in place.

As I read the OP, it wasn't about whether or not we should apply policy to a problem. But whether or not the child penalty was only reflective of women taking more time away from the job. I included my post to illustrate that while time away from the job is one variable, there's another variable that does treat mothers differently than fathers.

I don't care if we do anything about it or not. Here's what I do care about -

I care about people insisting that these things are just part of life being unfair and then start complaining when the judicial system takes that into account. Don't address the wage differential or child penalty. Fine. But when the judicial system puts the economic burden on the high earner and not the low earner, they shouldn't complain about sexism or the system being stacked in favor of women.

People can't have it both ways. They can't insist that gender based wage differences in earning are acceptable/normal but that judicial outcomes based on those wage differences are unacceptable/abnormal. They should just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, life isn't fair."

 

[Halifax]

A female friend of mine forwarded me this article ...

Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty”

I replied to it with

...without a doubt. Anything that takes you out of the work force for long periods of time and anything that changes your focus from work to other will lower lifetime earnings and that is not a bad thing. That is the balance trade off for those who want kids.

We went back and forth a bit and ultimately she told me she cannot agree. That women should not pay a penalty for choosing to have children.

That was even after I gave her a direct example from my office place as we had two people celebrate 5 years anniversaries with us who work in the same jobs. Both are similar aged (early 30's) but one has had 3 kids in 5 years and only been in the office physically 2 years and the other is a workaholic young guy who takes every minute of over time available and has got several bonuses due to hard work and dedication. In the same 5 years span he has worked 2.5 times more than her but he has made about 3.5 times more with bonuses.

I asked her if she thought the woman who choose to be a mom should just be levelled up in pay to what he is making or if he should make less. I also said she might be happier and have more balance in her life even if he has more money and that should be ok.

In the end she still said she disagreed with my position and does not believe it is right for women to be penalized for having children.

Socialist leaning sherbro's where do you stand on this?

(btw I cannot even read the article beyond the teaser portion as it is stuck behind a pay wall for me since I once subscribed to the Economist and now I cannot see articles free. So my reaction is not to the body of the article)

Seems more like a feminist issue than a Socialist issue

 

[sub_thug]

businesses need to be regulated though, otherwise employers will rip off employees left right and centre. I dont understand why Americans are so anti-regulations. They are there highly necessarry, especially in a capitalistic society

The people of New Zealand would highly disagree with you. There's a weird belief that businesses will work to screw you but governments won't. I don't get that. At least I can punish a business why not using their products anymore. With governments, I can't change anything except in the form of one vote every 2-4 years. Businesses need to be more adaptive than governments do, and they actually produce things in the form of jobs, products, and services. Governments don't really produce much unless it's them paying for things with your tax money. In a choice between the two, I definitely trust the latter less, and I don't really understand the mistrust of commerce by those who favor very strong regulation.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

The people of New Zealand would highly disagree with you. There's a weird belief that businesses will work to screw you but governments won't. I don't get that. At least I can punish a business why not using their products anymore. With governments, I can't change anything except in the form of one vote every 2-4 years. Businesses need to be more adaptive than governments do, and they actually produce things in the form of jobs, products, and services. Governments don't really produce much unless it's them paying for things with your tax money. In a choice between the two, I definitely trust the latter less, and I don't really understand the mistrust of commerce by those who favor very strong regulation.

it depends on the government... most regulations are put in place to protect consumers. They raise the standard of the products being created. Its usually experts in the fields that are consulted before they are implemented also.

The EU's food safety standards are an example of this, as is their car regulations. Which is why European cars are far superior to American cars

 

[sub_thug]

As I read the OP, it wasn't about whether or not we should apply policy to a problem. But whether or not the child penalty was only reflective of women taking more time away from the job. I included my post to illustrate that while time away from the job is one variable, there's another variable that does treat mothers differently than fathers.

I don't care if we do anything about it or not. Here's what I do care about -

I care about people insisting that these things are just part of life being unfair and then start complaining when the judicial system takes that into account. Don't address the wage differential or child penalty. Fine. But when the judicial system puts the economic burden on the high earner and not the low earner, they shouldn't complain about sexism or the system being stacked in favor of women.

People can't have it both ways. They can't insist that gender based wage differences in earning are acceptable/normal but that judicial outcomes based on those wage differences are unacceptable/abnormal. They should just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, life isn't fair."

I'm totally fine with everything you said as long as the judicial system looks at case in front of them instead of the lens of a microcosm of the larger trend. Policy is designed to apply to everyone, while the lower courts should be deciding the case that's in front of them (very different jobs). As long as the judicial system doesn't say things like, "Well, kids need their mother, so she gets full custody. Also, men make more than women do, so cough up, dude," I'm fine. If the case in front of them is a male that makes more than his ex-wife, then I think it's reasonable that he should pay more for the welfare of the kids.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It only makes sense if you take off to care for a child. I think she's reaching. Most women who only take the 8 weeks leave and return to work don't have this issue. If you take 6 months off for every kid then fuck no you aren't going to earn the same as someone who hasn't taken that much time off.

It isn't just the 8 weeks. Moms are usually the one that stays home when the kids are sick; leaves early to get them to games/parties; and can't work the weekend because of xyz.

 

[all caps]

A good woman is at home taking care of the kids and family anyways. A good man is taking care of all the rest.

IMO.