Obama claims maternity and paternity leave would boost the economy

[Grummgug]

Obama looks at the brutally low labor participation rate and claims that if only business offered more maternity and paternity leave, people would re-enter the workforce.

I've heard it said countless times over decades that democrats don't understand how the economy works. They seriously think that business exist as jobs and benefits programs FIRST. In their world, they think

1. Private businesses are OBLIGATED to provide benefits.
2. And THEN private businesses are OBLIGATED to hire workers.

That's not how the private sector works. The way it works is business operate to make money. If you want to create jobs and increase the participation rate, you try to make it easier to make money. One way is to cut regulations. THAT would kick-start the cycle. And right now we need major cuts in regulation.

Its just awful how clueless Obama is, and there isn't much of a rebuttal in the reuters article beyond "Republicans say the proposal would hurt jobs" (which is exactly what it would do.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-p...y-white-house/

The United States could boost its sagging labor force participation rate and get more people back to work - if more businesses had family friendly policies such as paid maternity and paternity leave, the White House said in a report on Friday.

"Trying to balance breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities without the support of work-family policies designed to help families navigate these complexities is leaving too many families stressed, exhausted, and burdened by work-family conflict," the White House said.

The report was timed ahead of Monday's "summit on working families" in Washington, where Obama will promote policies such as raising the minimum wage and expanding access to childcare.

[Infracted]

[Crissi]

The problem then lies in quite a few businesses turning "making money" into "making profit for myself" and not reinvesting the money in their businesses in the form of expansion, additional employment, or increase in wage to attract better employees. There is something inherently wrong with a business model that relies on the government's welfare to make its business model work.

Too much self interest does more harm than good.

[THE Bigzoman]

In the context of what he is saying, he is correct.

The current structure of business in the U.S is very hostile to parents. If policies made it easier for parents to balance their job duties with their children, they would be incentivized to rejoin the work force. But I don't see firms extending their hands to U.S parents in a globalized economy unless it's in the skilled labor industries that the U.S have a comparative advantage in.

He lost me at the expansion of childcare polices though. They cannot cover all parental duties and I could see an expansion equaling the state caring for children if parents allow the responsibilities pendulum to swing more towards their careers.

[TheBeardedOne]

Looks how it works in the rest if the world then get back to us

[THE Bigzoman]

The problem then lies in quite a few businesses turning "making money" into "making profit for myself" and not reinvesting the money in their businesses in the form of expansion, additional employment, or increase in wage to attract better employees. There is something inherently wrong with a business model that relies on the government's welfare to make its business model work.

Too much self interest does more harm than good.

Most caregivers don't fall into the "better employee" category. Depending on the extent of the responsibility, most primary caregivers make career sacrifices to care for their children. They take Part time work, jobs with less responsibilities, and fields that are more flexible but less rewarding. They're not at the top of the human capital pool just waiting for the hand of firms to take them. Not in the slightest.

It's part of the real problem with the parroted bullshit narrative that is the "wage gap".

[Grummgug]

The problem then lies in quite a few businesses turning "making money" into "making profit for myself" and not reinvesting the money in their businesses in the form of expansion, additional employment, or increase in wage to attract better employees. There is something inherently wrong with a business model that relies on the government's welfare to make its business model work.

Too much self interest does more harm than good.

There is nothing wrong with the business model. If you want to jump-start an economic recovery, you make it easier to do business. What you DON'T do is paint the business sector as the enemy and try to pressure them to cut into their profits. Obama's tactics helps him get re-elected, but also encourages companies to sit on piles of cash instead of hiring people.

We've got to get beyond this idiotic class warfare to fix the economy.

[Crissi]

Most caregivers don't fall into the "better employee" category. Depending on the extent of the responsibility, most primary caregivers make career sacrifices to care for their children. They take Part time work, jobs with less responsibilities, and fields that are less flexible/rewarding. They're not at the top of the human capital pool just waiting for the hand of firms to take them. Not in the slightest.

It's part of the real problem with the parroted bullshit narrative that is the "wage gap".

Which is where I can kind of see Obama's argument. Many of these caregivers could end up being top talent if they didnt need to sacrifice so much. I think he might be going a wee bit overboard, but again this is also something Im going to have to think of. Especially as Im going into a field that requires a lot of work, but I plan on having kids someday.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing wrong with the business model. If you want to jump-start an economic recovery, you make it easier to do business. What you DON'T do is paint the business sector as the enemy and try to pressure them to cut into their profits. Obama's tactics helps him get re-elected, but also encourages companies to sit on piles of cash instead of hiring people.

We've got to get beyond this idiotic class warfare to fix the economy.

That only works if the top brass are not greedy as fuck. I mean, we all saw the bonuses that were given from the bailout. Get tht shit in line first before you relax anything.

[THE Bigzoman]

Which is where I can kind of see Obama's argument. Many of these caregivers could end up being top talent if they didnt need to sacrifice so much. I think he might be going a wee bit overboard, but again this is also something Im going to have to think of. Especially as Im going into a field that requires a lot of work, but I plan on having kids someday.

Expanding child care services isn't the simple solution to the problem though.

If they were to cover the responsibilities so the person can devote all time to the career, then he/she literally entrusting/burdening child care to the state; An absurd extreme that is unlikely.

If they do only to certain extents, (A bit more realistic) then the caregiver still has to prioritize children with careers. Those with children would still have a hill to climb against applicants with no children all else equal and have a difficult time becoming their "best".

Throw in the struggle of parent/worker trade-offs in a long run perspective and I doubt labor force participation/social mobility would improve much.

[Crissi]

Expanding child care services isn't the simple solution to the problem though.

If they were to cover the responsibilities so the person can devote all time to the career, then he/she literally entrusting/burdening child care to the state; An absurd extreme that is unlikely.

If they do only to certain extents, (A bit more realistic) then the caregiver still has to prioritize children with careers. Those without children would still have a hill to climb against applicants with no children all else equal and have a difficult time becoming their "best".

Throw in the struggle of parent/worker trade-offs in a long run perspective and I doubt labor force participation/social mobility would improve much.

True enough. You cant make everyone equal in ability. That's an exercise in futility.

[THE Bigzoman]

True enough. You cant make everyone equal in ability. That's an exercise in futility.

Throw in a globalized market with skilled workers coming from places that make U.S issues look like mambypamby land and willing to meet countless demands and primary caregivers are fucked.

Literally the only thing keeping the west from having Japan's fertility problems is the lack of bullshit collectivist ideals and influxes of unskilled immigrant populations keeping our birth rate/population numbers afloat. A bit of credit to the Teen Moms out there to...(Love ya Jenelle. Continue to entertain me!)

It's a complex issue that the first world is going to have to confront sooner or later. And frankly, i'm completely fucking lost and torn on what the pragmatic approach is economically.

[Tyrgannus]

Obama wants a system that works in other developed nations but won't work in America because of how terrible most employers treat everyone?

SHOCKER

[THE Bigzoman]

Obama wants a system that works in other developed nations but won't work in America because of how terrible most employers treat everyone?

SHOCKER

Define "work".

Several of the beneficaries of child care lack social mobility and are unemployed for longer periods then their U.S counterparts.

[Deleted]

America has probably some of the worst social mobility in the world (although I am surprised at how bad the UK is!), far behind those social democracies that offer long paternity and maternity leave and a useful social safety net.

So yeah, I define 'work' as being 'being better at it's function than the system currently employed in America'.

[breadisfunny]

Too much self interest does more harm than good.

i dont know about this fancy maternity leave.....sounds too much like socialism..... next they will be asking for things like sick leave and vacation pay.

[Nobleshield]

Part of the underlying problems with corporatism in general is that a business' only obligation is to make money. Things like benefits, providing jobs to citizens, even decent wages is often secondary or tertiary, if a concern at all. I'm almost entirely against government regulation beyond the absolute bare minimum, but there really does need to be something to curtail employers from walking all over their employees, which happens frequently. While it isn't related to maternity/paternity, I recall a scandal a few years back where Nielsen (maybe you've heard of them?) got the city of Oldsmar to let them build a huge facility, promising that it would bring more jobs to the area. After it was built, they turned around and staffed it almost entirely with foreign workers. That's the kind of stuff that needs to have a stop put to it.

Right now it's too much power imbalance in favor of corporations, for virtually everything, and a lot of it has to do with this "live to work" mentality that we seem to have. So yes, I am in favor of maternity and paternity leave. I'm in favor of making corporations offer more leave to everyone. Hell I'd be in favor of abolishing this nonsense of a 40 hour week to something more reasonable like 30 or 35 hours (isn't it like that in most of the rest of the world?).

[TrumpIsPresident]

I laughed when I read the phrase "work-family conflict" as if that's something government is meant to have their hand in.

Hate to break it to you Obama, but there isn't any family out there without "stress" or "exhaustion" because that's what naturally comes when you take on the responsibility of creating a family. And its the individuals job, or the parents as a team, to minimize that stress not the fkin government.

Oh and I see a bunch of you heading down the "business's are hostile to pregnancy" road and that a typical/laughable sentiment. But as you're playing that card keep in mind a little thing called the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that has been around since the 60's. It essentially declares pregnancy to be a temporary disability thus shielding that employee from all the things the American's With Disabilities Act covers. Meaning they cant fire you, cut your pay, cut your benefits, demote you, etc.

This is nothing more than yet another substance less emotion invoking issue pandering to the special snowflake crowd.

Paying people not to work will create jobs ...what a joke. The only jobs that would be created by this nonsense would be more government bureaucrat regulators.

[Durandro]

Maternity leave is part of what makes modern society good.

Without it you have two choices: be a good parent, or provide for your family. Doing both without maternity leave is impossible without already having the money to pay for childcare.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Paying people not to work will create jobs ...what a joke. The only jobs that would be created by this nonsense would be more government bureaucrat regulators.

Boosting the economy != job creation.

This is giving parents the time and money to raise kids properly, so that they don't turn out to be antisocial gits that are in juvenile detention by the time they are 14 (which costs the country a lot of money).

[Deleted]

The current structure of business in the U.S is very hostile to parents.

I very much dislike when people make these types of sweeping, blanket statements without any qualifications.

I know of MANY business in the US that are extremely considerate and accommodating to parents. In fact, I work for one of them.

So again, qualify your statement because to say that US business IN TOTALITY is hostile to parents (which is what you are stating) is complete and total rubbish.

[jazen]

lol, quoting fox business for truth.

Obama looks at the brutally low labor participation rate and claims that if only business offered more maternity and paternity leave, people would re-enter the workforce.

I've heard it said countless times over decades that democrats don't understand how the economy works. They seriously think that business exist as jobs and benefits programs FIRST. In their world, they think

1. Private businesses are OBLIGATED to provide benefits.
2. And THEN private businesses are OBLIGATED to hire workers.

That's not how the private sector works. The way it works is business operate to make money. If you want to create jobs and increase the participation rate, you try to make it easier to make money. One way is to cut regulations. THAT would kick-start the cycle. And right now we need major cuts in regulation.

Its just awful how clueless Obama is, and there isn't much of a rebuttal in the reuters article beyond "Republicans say the proposal would hurt jobs" (which is exactly what it would do.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-p...y-white-house/

- - - Updated - - -

As social policy, it is great. Families need more time with new borns. As economic policy, it will have little if any effect. Reducing regulations may help stimulate the economy, lower taxes on the bottom 50% would help as well. Reducing the tax burden on upper income people will do nothing, as they already don't 'spend' much of their income. In a consumer economy, which the US (and rapidly the world) is, demand is created by spending. More money in the pockets of those that spend is what is needed....not more money invested in stocks and other tax avoidance schemes.