SPONSORED BY:

The Argument Against Paid Family Leave

Mandating paid time off cripples employers, alienates women, and ignores economic realities.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

What is the objective of mandating paid family leave? Proponents offer rationales that range from "It will help families" to "The U.S. is the only rich country that doesn't have it." The second is merely irrelevant; the first is plain wrong. Mandating paid family leave will help neither women nor their families, because legislation cannot change the laws of economics.

If the goal is to retain women in the labor force, then mandated family leave is a poor instrument at best, and thoroughly counterproductive at worst. People will buy less of something when its price increases. That is the law of demand, presented on the first day of Econ 101. Mandated paid family leave makes it more expensive to hire workers, particularly women. That makes employers less willing to hire women, especially those with limited education or skills who typically do the kind of work it's easy to find someone else to do. If the objective is to help poor women remain employed, mandated paid family leave will do exactly the opposite.

The Americans With Disabilities Act, enacted in 1990, provides an object lesson about ignoring unintended consequences of feel-good policies meant to protect the vulnerable. The effect of the ADA was exactly the reverse of the intent—namely, to protect the disabled in the workplace. Within five years of the ADA's passage, employment for disabled men fell to 49 percent, compared with 60 percent before the law was enacted. Employers, faced with the cost of accommodation and the threat of litigation, chose the rational option: they cut back on hiring the disabled. When the cost of hiring a worker rises, demand for that worker falls. Mandated paid family leave will have the same effect on women for precisely the same reasons.

That's the demand side. But there is also a supply side effect.

In Germany, which had a generous paid family leave law, evidence shows it utterly failed to keep women in the labor force. In fact, very long parental leave correlates with women leaving the labor force permanently. In an effort to keep women in the labor market, Germany cut the duration of its paid parental leave by half in 2007. Within a year of that reform, there was a 14 percent surge in women returning to the work. Other studies show that any parental leave beyond 20 weeks actually reduces the incentive for a new mother to come back to work at all.

Work-for-pay programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit are far more effective at helping women participate in the labor force than paid family leave. Getting rid of the "marriage penalty" would also help. Married women are currently taxed more heavily than single women in many countries, including the United States. Moving to a "neutral" tax system, where the level of taxation does not depend on marital status, would provide women with an improved incentive to increase participation in the labor force, according to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Solving the Palin Puzzle
Solving the Palin Puzzle

See how well you can see Sarah from your house, by taking our trivia quiz.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Dial 'A' for Accessory
Dial 'A' for Accessory

This season's top i-Phone add-ons.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Aliza R. @ 08/13/2009 4:21:06 PM

    Here in Canada, you pay into the system (through unemployment insurance); it's not welfare. It's also at reduced salary, so families have to plan for it. That's why many poorer families don't use the full parental leave. Parental leave can be up to a year, and can be split between the parents (very good friends of mine did that-- the mother went back to work after 8 months, and the father, who's very ambitious and senior in his organization, is at home with their son right now). Not all employers can offer it, but the big ones do. Why was it extended to 12 months? Several reasons: to let the mother physically recover from giving birth; to encourage breast feeding for at least six months; to let the parent(s) bond with the child; and because it's very hard (and VERY expensive) to find legal day care for kids under the age of one. So, net result: healthier kids, happier parents, and minimal cost to taxpayers. Win-win-win.

    One thing that would go a long way to helping working families woudl be quality day care, subsidized for the poor. Even at the salary level of highly educated professionals, the costs of day care can be equal to the earnings for the first few years! At lower incomes, the families may literally not be able to afford to have the woman work.

  • Posted By: mac101 @ 08/12/2009 9:35:29 PM

    "People will buy less of something when its price increases."

    Obviously, you don't know many cocaine dealers. Or users.

  • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 08/10/2009 10:51:48 AM

    Is peoples not plan, is forced abortions?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now