Paid Family Leave Discussion (derail from fertility decrease)

[Metaphor]

Unlike you, I know that the degree to which a cost is passed on depends on the market conditions. Unlike you, I know that there are two relevant markets in this instance - the labor market and the product market. Unlike you, I realize that vacation is part of labor compensation which is typically viewed as an expense or cost by the employer. And, unlike you, I understand that vacation time that is cashed out is an expense to the employer. And to the economically literate, costs can be passed on (in whatever degree) in the product price.

And yet you don't appear to understand that vacation time is an expense that is predictable and accrues to all employees evenly, and is up to four weeks a year, and in almost every other way is different to AOC's office model of family leave.

That management includes the cost of hiring replacement workers, or increasing the the workload of remaining workers without extra compensation or the cost of the undone work - all objections you made to AOC's policy but do not bother you in this case. Hmmm.

The cost is predictable and each employee benefits from vacation leave equally. That does not apply to sick leave, as I said, nor to family leave. But sick leave also differs from family leave in substantive ways, as I've already said.

If AOC's model of family leave were legislated, with employers of different financial capability and size each facing uncertainty in their workforce, would there be anything to convince you it was unfair policy?

If microsimulation modelling showed that
* 20% of small businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year
* 1% of medium businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year
* 0% of large businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year

Would you call it fair?

Do you think an uncapped family leave policy would affect hiring decisions made by small business?

Do you think that planned fertility events are comparable to compassionate leave?

 

[Metaphor]

I would think Metaphor would be thrilled: it is egalitarianism at its finest! Family leave same for both women and men.

If family leave were legislated as a requirement for employees, it ought to be sex neutral. But being sex neutral is not sufficient to make a policy a good policy.

I wonder, metaphor is always "No! ThInK Of ThE ChIlDrEn" when it comes to trans children seeking hormones but here he couldn't care less about ThE ChIlDrEn, who actually ARE suffering.

What. On. Earth.

Hey metaphor, why don't you try ACTUALLY thinking of the children, eh?

What. On. Earth.

 

[laughing dog]

Unlike you, I know that the degree to which a cost is passed on depends on the market conditions. Unlike you, I know that there are two relevant markets in this instance - the labor market and the product market. Unlike you, I realize that vacation is part of labor compensation which is typically viewed as an expense or cost by the employer. And, unlike you, I understand that vacation time that is cashed out is an expense to the employer. And to the economically literate, costs can be passed on (in whatever degree) in the product price.

And yet you don't appear to understand that vacation time is an expense that is predictable and accrues to all employees evenly, and is up to four weeks a year, and in almost every other way is different to AOC's office model of family leave.

Predictability is irrelevant. Parental leave is available to anyone who has a child via birth or adoption.

The cost is predictable and each employee benefits from vacation leave equally. That does not apply to sick leave, as I said, nor to family leave. But sick leave also differs from family leave in substantive ways, as I've already said.

Not in a substantive manner.

If AOC's model of family leave were legislated, with employers of different financial capability and size each facing uncertainty in their workforce, would there be anything to convince you it was unfair policy?

It would be no more unfair to the employers than vacation or sick leave.

If microsimulation modelling showed that
* 20% of small businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year
* 1% of medium businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year
* 0% of large businesses would go under if faced with two family leave situations over a year

No more than if the simulations showed the same outcomes for sick leave or vacation leave.

Do you think an uncapped family leave policy would affect hiring decisions made by small business?

Probably. Is there a point?

Do you think that planned fertility events are comparable to compassionate leave?

In some ways, and other ways no. Apparently you think "fertility events" (a revealing choice of words) are always planned. All of our "fertility events" were unplanned, but not unwanted.

 

[Metaphor]

She's seen the other side of what you call "fairness". She's putting her money where her mouth is. For all you know, she's subsidizing her family friendly staff policies out of her very comfortable congressional salary.

I find that exceptionally, stupendously hard to believe.

Probably in the indirect form of diverting cash flow she could manage to keep, if that were her top priority, to family friendly staff policies. The huge sums swirling around top government officials aren't always easy to identify or trace.

If it is possible for money that is supposed to be pay for staffers to instead simply become additional take-home pay for Congress people and Congresspeople are doing this, Congress is even more corrupt than I had previously imagined. And I didn't think it was, you know, squeaky clean.

And here's the thing. The best employees are often going to be the ones who take domestic responsibility seriously as well. Giving them the ability to take care of those as well, without adding financial stress, will tend to motivate and retain the best people.

I did not object to family leave policies in any possible form. I object to the form that AOC claims to practise, for the reasons I've already given.

And furthermore, family friendly policies aren't just a zero sum game. They are an investment in the future of society as a whole, because they're an investment in the early development of the children. No amount of cash is going to reproduce the bonding experience of a child's first months.

I did not object to family leave policies in any possible form. I object to the form that AOC claims to practise, for the reasons I've already given.

Similarly, I feel the same way about the public school system. I have never been enrolled in it, nor have I ever enrolled a child in it. But the bulk of my property taxes go to funding it. That's not fair, strictly speaking. But I don't have a problem with it. Because I want to live in a world of educated people, and requiring children to go to school and making sure it's funded is the best method of achieving the goal. It's in my own selfish interests to invest in the improvement of youth.
Tom

I have never claimed that taxpayer money should only be used to equally benefit every person.

Indeed: that's one thing I've been saying all along on this topic. If society thinks people should have family leave, taxpayers should fund it. Family leave is of a sufficiently different nature that I believe it would be too unfair to leave to businesses to fund.

 

[Toni]

But you just described paid vacation as part of employee compensation (post 35). Presumably you recognize that other benefits: medical (common in the US) and life insurance (offered by many employers), educational/training benefits, pension/other retirement plans, etc. are part of employee compensation? Presumably in Australia, costs of employee compensation are part of any corporations costs of doing business and as such figure into how and how much businesses are taxed?

Right...so, what?

EDIT: If you mean "this is a cost like any other cost", I have already explained more than once why it isn't. I have already explained how different it is, for example, to annual leave, and how the benefits of the leave accrue to select people but are paid for by everyone else.

That is true for every type of leave policy, so your explanation lacks relevance.

Exactly.

It's the same as medical leave (and indeed, for women who give birth, 3 months leave after childbirth is not unreasonable and may be absolutely necessary, not to mention medical leave when women have difficult pregnancies and are on bedrest.

Family leave/compassionate leave by whatever name is used whenever there are life events that require a worker to take time to tend to the needs of family members. This could include someone who has cancer, or whose family member has cancer. Or was in an automobile accident. Or a skiing accident. Or fell down the stairs. Or had a heart attack or stroke. Or broke their ankle or whatever.

One advantage of family leaves due to childbirth or adoption is that they are almost always events that are known months in advance--usually a minimum of 6 months but often 7 or 8 months in advance. That's a long lead time to plan for an absence.

I've taken maternity leave and I've covered for people who were on maternity leave. Also parental leave for a child recovering from surgery, leave for spouses recovering from surgery, coworkers recovering from surgery due to injury suffered in a pickup basketball game, a dance injury, mental health crisis, and a variety of other issues.

I've worked places where missing a day due to illness was a nearly fireable offense--not because the employee was so irreplaceable or because it was impossible for the rest of the workers to pick up the slack but because the managers were giant dicks.

When I was nearing my due date, the co-worker who was taking over some of my work and I simply touched bases on a frequent basis so they always knew where I was on a project. A huge portion of my work simply that was not time sensitive simply waited for my return. Certainly, similar arrangements are made with other coworkers when they were going to give birth, have a planned surgery, go on vacation, go to out of town conferences, and so on. Those were relatively easy. It was harder when someone had an emergency due to an accident--those one could not plan ahead for except in general, to know how the work unit will cover unexpected absences. Which is what good workplaces do.

 

[Metaphor]

Predictability is irrelevant. Parental leave is available to anyone who has a child via birth or adoption.

What? Predictability is relevant to the employer and the other employees. The entire office, or even a significant fraction, cannot all be on leave at the same time, unless the place literally closes down.

Not in a substantive manner.

I've already explained why they are different and won't do it again.

It would be no more unfair to the employers than vacation or sick leave.

I've explained why it is certainly almost completely different to vacation leave, and different in substantial ways to sick leave.

No more than if the simulations showed the same outcomes for sick leave or vacation leave.

Sick leave and vacation leave have an upper limit.

In fact, the total amount of sick leave (10 working days) and vacation leave (20 working days) that could possibly accumulate in a single year in Australian workplaces is less than half of AOC's family leave structure.

Probably. Is there a point?

Yes. The point is that it will have unintended consequences that will probably serve to widen inequality.

In some ways, and other ways no. Apparently you think "fertility events" (a revealing choice of words) are always planned. All of our "fertility events" were unplanned, but not unwanted.

"Fertility events" is an inside joke. I read it in a report about impacts of various life events on households. It made me laugh out loud when I read it and I've never forgotten it.

But let's not have any levity.

 

[laughing dog]

What? Predictability is relevant to the employer and the other employees. The entire office, or even a significant fraction, cannot all be on leave at the same time, unless the place literally closes down.

If employers deal and manage with the unpredictability of sick leave, they can deal with the unpredictability of parental leave.

I've already explained why they are different and won't do it again.

There is no need to repeat your explanation because it does not address the point that there is no substantive difference.

I've explained why it is certainly almost completely different to vacation leave, and different in substantial ways to sick leave.

You have offered an unconvincing explanation. But it does not even address the point of "no more unfair than".

Sick leave and vacation leave have an upper limit.

Parental leave has a functional upper limit. And the potential for accumulation mean that sick leave and vacation leave have no readily identifiable upper limit. And finally, since the really sick can take unpaid leave, there is no upper limit in terms of the cost of managing leaves (paid and unpaid) due to illness. So, I find that limit objection to have little empirical relevance,

In fact, the total amount of sick leave (10 working days) and vacation leave (20 working days) that could possibly accumulate in a single year in Australian workplaces is less than half of AOC's family leave structure.

So? AOC's policy is for her office in the USA, not a policy proposal for the USA or North America or the world. Australia is not under the jurisdiction of the USA. It is not even on the same continent. So, the Australian experience is not relevant here, except to highlight your double standards in analysis.

Yes. The point is that it will have unintended consequences that will probably serve to widen inequality.

That sounds to me more like reactionary hysteria than reasoned analysis.

"Fertility events" is an inside joke. I read it in a report about impacts of various life events on households. It made me laugh out loud when I read it and I've never forgotten it.

But let's not have any levity.

Amazing, that you think a general reader would get your unfunny inside joke. A miscarriage (another example of a fertility event) is a true howler of a joke.

 

[Metaphor]

If employers deal and manage with the unpredictability of sick leave, they can deal with the unpredictability of parental leave.

That's rather like saying if you can deal with cooking dinner for yourself, at a moment's notice you can deal with cooking dinner for 12 at a moment's notice.

You have offered an unconvincing explanation. But it does not even address the point of "no more unfair than".

I've explained why it's unfair more than once and I won't do it again.

Parental leave has a functional upper limit. And the potential for accumulation mean that sick leave and vacation leave have no readily identifiable upper limit.

Companies can force you to take or cash out vacation leave in Australia. As for sick leave, if you accumulated 10 days a year and used none of them, you'd have about three months of leave after about 6 years.

Maybe family leave can be granted to employees who have worked for six years at the same place.

And finally, since the really sick can take unpaid leave, there is no upper limit in terms of the cost of managing leaves (paid and unpaid) due to illness. So, I find that limit objection to have little empirical relevance,

Unpaid leave is not forever either. To be frank either you are getting better or you are going to die.

So? AOC's policy is for her office in the USA, not a policy proposal for the USA or North America or the world. Australia is not under the jurisdiction of the USA. It is not even on the same continent. So, the Australian experience is not relevant here, except to highlight your double standards in analysis.

I've already pointed out why AOC's office policy is not suitable as a wider model.

Amazing, that you think a general reader would get your unfunny inside joke. A miscarriage (another example of a fertility event) is a true howler of a joke.

I didn't need any person to 'get' it, and the report defined a fertility event as a household's parent(s) having a biological child in the interview year, not a miscarriage. I'm so sorry fertility events offend you.

 

[laughing dog]

That's rather like saying if you can deal with cooking dinner for yourself, at a moment's notice you can deal with cooking dinner for 12 at a moment's notice.

No, it is not like that at all.

I've explained why it's unfair more than once and I won't do it again.

No, you have explained why you feel it is unfair. You are not the universal arbiter of fairness.

Companies can force you to take or cash out vacation leave in Australia. As for sick leave, if you accumulated 10 days a year and used none of them, you'd have about three months of leave after about 6 years.

AOC is not making proposals for Australia nor is she in Australia. So Australian anecdotes are irrelevant.

Unpaid leave is not forever either. To be frank either you are getting better or you are going to die.

Parental leave is not forever either, so do you have an actual relevant point to make?

I've already pointed out why AOC's office policy is not suitable as a wider model.

Not in a remotely convincing manner.

I didn't need any person to 'get' it, and the report defined a fertility event as a household's parent(s) having a biological child in the interview year, not a miscarriage. I'm so sorry fertility events offend you.

If you didn't need anyone to understand it was a joke, then why even bring it up. I am sorry you are unaware that words have actual meanings and if you prefer to use arcane definitions or "inside meanings", you should not be surprised when others do not capture your intended meaning.

BTW, "I am sorry if _____ offends you" is not an apology, it is a passive-aggressive non-apology.

 

[Metaphor]

If you didn't need anyone to understand it was a joke, then why even bring it up. I am sorry you are unaware that words have actual meanings and if you prefer to arcane definitions, you should not be surprised when others do not capture your intended meaning.

Because you attached some kind of sinister meaning to it and so I explained it. I guess it doesn't matter either way. You're going to immediately assume the worst, least generous interpretation of anything I write.

 

[laughing dog]

If you didn't need anyone to understand it was a joke, then why even bring it up. I am sorry you are unaware that words have actual meanings and if you prefer to arcane definitions, you should not be surprised when others do not capture your intended meaning.

Because you attached some kind of sinister meaning to it and so I explained it.

No, I did not. The phase "a revealing choice of words" should not be interpreted as necessarily meaning anything sinister (or good for that matter).

[
I guess it doesn't matter either way. You're going to immediately assume the worst, least generous interpretation of anything I write.

LOL - You mean like you did with the above? That is your MO, not mine.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I did not. The phase "a revealing choice of words" should not be interpreted as necessarily meaning anything sinister (or good for that matter).

[
I guess it doesn't matter either way. You're going to immediately assume the worst, least generous interpretation of anything I write.

LOL - You mean like you did with the above? That is your MO, not mine.

"A revealing choice of words" is a way to say "your word choice reveals something weird and undesirable about you" not "your word choice reveals something positive about you".

No doubt you'll tell me you've heard and used it loads of times to mean the latter.

 

[Elixir]

"A revealing choice of words" is a way to say "your word choice reveals something weird and undesirable about you"

Don't take it too personally. Why resort to "word choices" when straight up meaning is sufficient?

 

[laughing dog]

No, I did not. The phase "a revealing choice of words" should not be interpreted as necessarily meaning anything sinister (or good for that matter).

[
I guess it doesn't matter either way. You're going to immediately assume the worst, least generous interpretation of anything I write.

LOL - You mean like you did with the above? That is your MO, not mine.

"A revealing choice of words" is a way to say "your word choice reveals something weird and undesirable about you" not "your word choice reveals something positive about you".

It is a way to say many things, either negative, neutral or positive. I would have had no problem saying the functional equivalent of "that is fucked up" or "undesirable" if that is what I had intended at the time.

No doubt you'll tell me you've heard and used it loads of times to mean the latter.

Wrong again.

 

[Metaphor]

"A revealing choice of words" is a way to say "your word choice reveals something weird and undesirable about you"

Don't take it too personally. Why resort to "word choices" when straight up meaning is sufficient?

Evidently, laughing dog thinks the "pain meaning" of my choice to use "fertility event" is "revealing".

I wonder what he thinks it reveals?

 

[Metaphor]

"A revealing choice of words" is a way to say "your word choice reveals something weird and undesirable about you" not "your word choice reveals something positive about you".

It is a way to say many things, either negative, neutral or positive. I would have had no problem saying the functional equivalent of "that is fucked up" or "undesirable" if that is what I had intended at the time.

No doubt you'll tell me you've heard and used it loads of times to mean the latter.

Wrong again.

What did my choice of using the words "fertility event" reveal? You told me they were revealing and then you said I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that you meant they revealed something negative.

So, go on. What did my word choice reveal?

 

[laughing dog]

It is a way to say many things, either negative, neutral or positive. I would have had no problem saying the functional equivalent of "that is fucked up" or "undesirable" if that is what I had intended at the time.

Wrong again.

What did my choice of using the words "fertility event" reveal? You told me they were revealing and then you said I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that you meant they revealed something negative.

So, go on. What did my word choice reveal?

To me using the term "fertility event" to describe shifts the focus away from the child and addition to the family and towards some depersonalized biological function. Which to me suggests a more removed view from the humanity involved to a more sterilized analysis.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a way to say many things, either negative, neutral or positive. I would have had no problem saying the functional equivalent of "that is fucked up" or "undesirable" if that is what I had intended at the time.

Wrong again.

What did my choice of using the words "fertility event" reveal? You told me they were revealing and then you said I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that you meant they revealed something negative.

So, go on. What did my word choice reveal?

To me using the term "fertility event" to describe shifts the focus away from the child and addition to the family and towards some depersonalized biological function. Which to me suggests a more removed view from the humanity involved to a more sterilized analysis.

And you find a 'sterilized' analysis neutral or even positive?

 

[Toni]

It is a way to say many things, either negative, neutral or positive. I would have had no problem saying the functional equivalent of "that is fucked up" or "undesirable" if that is what I had intended at the time.

Wrong again.

What did my choice of using the words "fertility event" reveal? You told me they were revealing and then you said I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that you meant they revealed something negative.

So, go on. What did my word choice reveal?

To me using the term "fertility event" to describe shifts the focus away from the child and addition to the family and towards some depersonalized biological function. Which to me suggests a more removed view from the humanity involved to a more sterilized analysis.

It's not an 'event.' It's a process and part of life responsible for each and every single one of us.

I don't think a lot of people really spend any time at all thinking about how things were for their mothers when they were pregnant and gave birth and afterwards. How did it affect their lives? Their ambitions? Their career? Their career choices? Their marriage, if they were married? Their relationships, romantic and otherwise? Their physical health? Reproductive health? Mental/emotional health? Historically, have we done a good job of supporting mothers? Have we done a good job arranging society to create the best conditions for children and for childrearing? Is there anything that we, as a society, could improve to help children grow up to be the healthiest, happiest, most productive individuals and members of society as they can possibly be?

 

[laughing dog]

To me using the term "fertility event" to describe shifts the focus away from the child and addition to the family and towards some depersonalized biological function. Which to me suggests a more removed view from the humanity involved to a more sterilized analysis.

And you find a 'sterilized' analysis neutral or even positive?

In this instance, I would not find it positive at all. At best, neutral.