I wasn't aware, but the US is now the lone contry (of the advanced world) that doesn't provide paid leave from work to care for a newborn. Austrailia was the other holdout. The sad thing is that even many developing countries offer paid leave.
This opinion article is a very well-written take on this issue and the arguments for why the US should join the rest of the world in ponying up for paid leave (or requiring employers to). In many advanced countries (like those in Europe), they offer sweet "family benefits". This is typically because they are experiencing negative population growth so they have big incentives for families who have more than 1 child. This tends to color this issue in debates.
The thing I like about this article is that it presents compelling arguments for why it is in our economic and social best interest to support families in this way- even without negative population growth. As more women work these days, there is more of a link between family responsibility and productivity. The article points out that women are increasingly predominate in high-growth fields and are contributing more and more to household buying power. The argument goes that parental leave is "an essential support system for national productivity".
The most interesting thing about this article, to me, is the argument that our government needs to take actions to support families and recognize it's importance to our economy. The article points out the historical disconnect that "good business" thinking and family policy has had. The business-culture in this country seems to be that having children and taking care of the family is a "choice"- like a "self-inflicted wound". The theory is that businesses think that energy caring for and supporting a family means the less they get. It follows then that they are justified in ridding themselves of these "burdens" or promoting those who are less "burdened" (i.e. can work late because they don't have to pick the kids up at daycare).
Because having children and a family is viewed as a "burden" and a "personal choice" there are very real costs. I think that in addition to having a negative population growth, I think that many european countries don't have quite this same view on families and children (historically Catholic, different cultural attitudes towards work ethic and children), which is probably why they adopted parental leave sooner.
I really liked this part of the article so I'll quote it here:
There is a very interesting part of the article for my rabid Republican friends (you know, you who mainline Conservitive Talk radio and Fox TV- you know who you are). It points out that traditional conservitives claim to support "family values". I think, after reading this article (which is biased) that our Republican party really only counts anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage as family values. In other respects, as the article points out, things like supporting big businesses that extract more labor for less money and cut costs which result in worse benefits that cost more is very anti-family....there are public penalties for not providing care. What parents do, in other
words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for
children is not only morally urgent but essential for the future of society. The
state recognizes this in the large body of family laws that govern children's
welfare, yet parents receive little help in meeting the life-changing
obligations society imposes. To classify parenting as a personal"choice" for
which there is no collective responsibility, like the Chamber of Commerce does,
is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to
steal those benefits because they accrue to the whole of society as today's
children become tomorrow's productive citizenry. In fact, by some estimates, the
value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money
(including lost wages), is equal to 20 to 30 percent of gross domestic product.
If these investments generate huge social benefits—as they clearly do—the
benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much
clearer.
Perhaps it is time to focus on real family values- valuing the place that raising and supporting children have in creating the workforce of tomorrow. We can do this by helping parents to adjust to the real life changes that having a family brings (subsidized day care for middle class anyone? paid maternity/parental leave?). We also need to put more of a cultural focus on helping people balance their family/work life which will lead to greater productivity and, I think, better children who are more likely to be successful in school and later in life.
And for heaven's sake, we should stop viewing having children or a family as a "choice" or a burden that some people take on- it is the future of our society that we're talking about here!
No comments:
Post a Comment