Stossel: The Paid Leave Fairy Tale
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2019
- Why mandated paid family leave is bad for business and bad for most women.
---------
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
Most 2020 presidential candidates support government-mandated paid family leave. On the surface, that sounds like a good policy. Supporters are quick to point out that only the U.S. and Papua New Guinea don't require businesses to provide time off with compensation for new parents.
Patrice Lee Onwuka, a senior policy analyst at Independent Women's Forum, says this argument is "disingenuous."
As she told John Stossel, most full-time American workers already receive paid leave.
"About 17 percent of workers have paid parental leave…but you jump to 60, 70, 80 percent when you consider people have sick time off, overtime, or all-encompassing personal time."
These benefits are voluntarily provided even to lower-level employees.
"Chipotle workers, CVS workers, [and] Walmart workers," says Onwuka.
"Why would CVS and Walmart provide this voluntarily?" Stossel asks.
"For an employer to attract…good talent or retain their talent, they need to offer benefits that really resonate with workers,"Onwuka explains. "Paid maternity and paternity leave is one of those benefits."
"Politicians are so arrogant, Stossel said, "that they now tell people that mandating leave for all employees will be 'good for business.' Somehow they don't know that business knows better what's good for business."
In truth, mandated leave turns out to be not only bad for business but bad for most women.
"If we look at how the rest of the world has provided very generous, mandated paid leave plans," Onwuka says, "we see that it actually has a negative impact on women."
Why would that be? Because mandatory leave makes companies fearful of hiring young women. "If an employer has a young woman in front of him of childbearing age," says Onwuka, "he's thinking, 'OK, I have to provide paid time off. I have a potential other employee who's a male."
Comparing Europe to America, Onwuka explains, "American women are twice as likely to be in senior level positions, managerial positions, then women in Europe….It's very much tied to these mandates around paid leave and paid time off."
------
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
Someone pay for my birth control.
Someone pay for my abortion.
Someone pay for me to stay home with my baby.
Im strong independent woman. My body my choice.
lol
I don't know why you have to be so hateful with all of that _honesty_ 🙄
liberal hypocrisy is always noted...
PaiN ExoTiC derp derp I cant think for myself derp derp
Mic drop
"We don't need another Government Program". That sums up all of Stossel's videos, and the truth.
Having children is also a economical decision:
My wife and I decided that she will stay at home for at least first 2 years of each child, no "government" money involved.
Was hard for her to go back to work force but she does not regret the time she spent 100% our children at OUR COST.
Why other people have to pay for other's people decision on having children?
im childfree (never having kids) and find it hard that people cannot grasp this concept of planning BEFORE having kids. Most people I talk to think the government or their employer should step in.. Lol there's no longer a such thing as personal responsibility.. Yet if a childfree person like I were to select something like tending to our pets or taking a vacation and demanding the gov or our employer to pay for it, everyone would go insane.
@Krishan Madan
> We all have an obligation to ensure each family can afford to raise at least two kids
WTF?
That's TOTALITARIANISM!
I don't have the "obligation" - If you cannot afford children JUST DON'T HAVE IT!
@@sergioesamayoa good point maybe everyone poor can stop having children to the point of economic colapse when old people pops out strip new gen pops there will always be huge economic strife because the young arent able to provide enough services for both themselves the the much bigger older pops, look into japan and china to see effects of a shrinking new gen with a growing old gen
@Krishan Madan
mammon? WTF is that!?
And OF COURSE families matter, that's the reason YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM BY YOUR SELF.
You want the benefits of being free but don't want to accept the cost, you want someone else to pay and that's INMORAL.
@@CharlesNauck what overpopulation problems, like the one where the US has more empty homes then homeless? That over population of homes problem? Or the food infasturture csn support up the 2 billion more people then we have that over population of food problem? (that also doesnt seem to get to people who need it and is instead is burned or thrown away or feilds paid to stay empty)
I must have misunderstood John Oliver. I thought he said that the only countries in the world that did not offer paid maternity leave were the U.S. and Papua New Guinea.
I did a quick search and apparently China does not, India does not, most of the middle eastern countries do not, most of the central American countries do not, a lot of south American countries do not and most of the countries in Africa do not.
This is why it's called Fake News
Not to mention… most Americans *do* get paid maternity leave.
And that’s why Ollie is THE joke on his own “show”. As full of caca as it gets.
To be fair, all the countries you compare the US to are 3rd world countries. Comparing a 1st world super power to 3rd world countries is pretty much like comparing a smart phone to a flip phone. The potential of the smart phone is a whole lot more than that of a flip phone.
@@jakelopez1447 True, but that wasn't the point.
But for paid leave you first must find a job
LoL bEcAuSE LiBeRaLs DoN't wOrK hAHahahahahaHaHaGa
More time off: means that companies will have to hire more workers to fill those work-days. Better regulations regarding over-time: means more workers will be necissary. Full-circle, my friend. Lower unemployment-rates are inherent; assuming we also introduce comprable corporate taxes on businesses wishing to do busines within the USA (like many EU nations): to mitigate that obnoxious threat corporate America threatens every-time there's talk of compensating employees and asking them to pay into the society they benefit from (like every other post-industrial nation).
@@ayde92829 by having to hire more people, in addition to paying someone that is producing no value during the time they take off, increasing the cost of doing business, resulting in a net loss for one position, and no guarantee that the money circles back into the same sector, let alone the business putting out the money for both the employee on leave, and the part time worker covering their position.
@@ayde92829 You have no idea what it costs businesses to employ people. Not just wages and benefits.
@Hans Yeah, independent thinking can be annoying to hierarchies.
bro, my country, argentina, has a new program every year.
Our urrency is worth 1/45 of a dollar
@Hans You entirely missed his point, boludo.
I was down there for 2 months last year, and watched it go from 1/20th, to 1/28th, to 1/32nd. I saw prices changing before my eyes.
@Hans His point was that social programs destroy an economy, thus making Argentina a recurring failure.
@Brutus Tan leftist, sjw, troll, and conservative, all the etiquettes in a single comment.
Ironically I probably agree with you in this subject. Try being less defensive
Our private sector is quite fine IMO. But so many easy useless jobs in the state make young people aspire to become the government's puta
Rebuttal:
"Equal pay for equal work."
Getting paid NOT to work does not fit that description..
Exactly. I just can't get past this idea that it's evil discrimination if an employer doesn't want to pay for you to depart from your job for several months. This necessitates that they either spread your workload to your co-workers, or hire another person and dismiss them as soon as you come back. By the way, I've seen a lot of women go on paid maternity leave and then decide not to return to work, so it creates a lot of uncertainty, and the employer has basically been tricked into giving you a severance package.
Paternal paid leave
Great video. However, the clip of Stossel yelling at the capitol building "stay out of my life" needs to be at the end
That clip needs to be at the end of *every* video.
@@watchdealer11 that clip needs to be every video.
There is no social security "account." The moment you pay, that money either goes out as a payment to someone or it "purchases government debt." Look it up. The Social Security Administration is the largest single holder of US Government Debt. That's like "borrowing" from your 401 (K) and then continuing to count that money as in your retirement account.
@Osman Oglu All pyramid schemes must collect from those at the bottom to stay solvent.
Jim Hoadley And the people at the bottom must die before those at the top.
Crazy stuff ain't it, a fund full of IOU's backed up only by the government's coercive direct taxing powers. The only thing then that an individual has who has involuntary paid into the Ponzi scheme is an IOU that someday in the future will surely be defaulted on when the whole house of cards comes crashing down. What generation will be the lucky ones to face that?
Of course to stall inevitable disaster, the overlords will raise the official retirement age for benefits or raise taxes.
@@starventure are you trying to defend social security? Claiming it wont fail because the old people at the top will die before the young people? LOL death has nothing to do it with it, it's all about the ratio of old people to young people (collectors vs payers). Baby boomers are getting old. It's already failing. There are only two sustainable options
1) push back the retirement age so more people will die before they can collect benefits
2) Reduce benefits to practically nothing
For young people like me it's a complete scam. I pay into the system my entire life, but basic math proves that I wont get any of the money back.
VanBikeSkiandFish Boilermaker Holy shit man, it was just cynical satire! I wasn’t defending it, I was mocking it. I know damn well that SS is a joke, but I wanted you to know that it is a sick joke as well.
Here is an idea. Rely on the father's wages while the mother is at home with the baby. I know it sounds crazy, how could it ever work, but just try it and see.
You forgot a woman's other skill: toasting her man's pop-tarts.
Des Troya There is just small fly in the ointment of your scheme. The breadwinner of the said family must be employed and have a job that pays enough to satisfy the said situation. That’s great if the jobs are available. But guess what...they’re not! The jobs are all in China and Mexico, and according to Wall Street they will never come back because, Americans are too expensive.
@@starventure Then either don't have kids until you are ready or go to China and Mexico. Your family planning is you and your family's responsibility. Beyond that you can ask for charity, or start a foundation yourself. This is called being an adult.
Des Troya No American is going to be hired in China or Mexico. Even if they somehow were, the wages will not cover anything. I believe you miss the point of what I said. There is no way to cover ANY government expenditures in the future unless drastic changes are made. If you think you can get away with living in a country where everyone is on poverty wages and no security, have at it. I promise you that your situation will grow bleak very fast. We are trapped in a race to the bottom now, and there is no telling where it’s going to take us.
Give the father wages sufficient to do this and more woman than you think would do it.
A friend of mine got a job for the government of my country. After less then a year, she had a baby and got 10 months maternity. After going back to work for 4 months, she had another baby and got another 10 months of maternity leave.
In 3 years of her employment she has spent more time on maternity leave then working.
I remind you, she works for the government.
Meanwhile, for 3 months before her first leave, they had to train a temp worker for her. And during her time between her two leaves she had to train ANOTHER temp worker, for her second leave.
So, effectively, the government organisation had to pay 2 employees for the work of 1 over almost 3 years.
Most of the people in her office are women and I'm told that most of these clerical office government jobs are performed by women.
No wonder nothing ever gets done lol
Edgar BM that's a great example of how every government benefit gets manipulated in the end. Game theory at its best.
I believe you I've seen it my self, could become a mess sense majority of office public workers are female.
What country are you from?
In Europe it's the government who pay the leave. Only in US people are slave/obligated to be on companies to have health care.
@@AzoreanProud Canada
@@edgarbm6407 Ok, I have family there.
Don't know what's the best approach to this issue.
Not having will just end by being a incentive for not having births, do you wanna destroy the born death ratio, even more than it is, I think it's way below 1.12 in Europe the minimum to be sustainable.
I’m a woman against time off BECAUSE it decentivizes people from hiring young women. ALL those Europeans countries have lower workforce participation for women.
Same happens here.
Correlation does not equate causation.
More women In higher Paid position is not a data that prove that Paid family leave is the cause of it.
Man In those country can take same leave with equal amount of time as women for the same reason.
Its More an issue caused by different education and market opportunities and underlyng patriarchy especially In southern europe.
@@Absolutelynope87
> underlyng patriarchy...
And here came the "patriarchy"!
Jesus!
A lot of women get ill (nausea, vomit, etc.) in the first trimester because hormonal changes, then they have difficulties to move and carrying the baby tires them - all of course is lost on productivity.
Imagine one key team member of a critical project is a woman and she have to leave because her pregnancy?
@@sergioesamayoa unless you eliminate the human factor from labour you get this issue with men with disabilities and older people as well.
If you have a business you value the positive investment in adding that specifical human being to your project regardless of his physical problems.
But pregnancy is a phase of life and women and men with kids demonstrate an even stronger attachment and loyalty to their job.
The economy need to build better society for humans not the other way around.
If that means put the weight of our community to the shoulder of those that can lift it while our women give birth by coercing business in taking responsibility I'm all up for it... We been doing this since the first man walk out a jungle and thru an ice age. We can keep doing it now.
@benjovi55 that's why you extend family leave to both parents, mothers and fathers.
If both can enjoy time with their children without discrimination in equal time then a company can decide whether to hire women that might get pregnant men that might impregnate women or a third option that doesn't exist .
That's how you level the field
Unintended consequences is such a difficult concept for many people to grasp. But pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away. Political, coercive solutions almost always have undesirable, unintended consequences.
Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.
@@MilwaukeeF40C I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt and assume that they mean what they say they mean. If so, then unintended consequences.
This generation wants short term solutions without stopping to consider how they're going to bite us in the ass later.
@@macsnafu They get the consequences explained to them all the time though. Everything has been tried multiple times.
Example of unintended consequence: building speed bumps in residential neighborhoods slows cars down and saves children's lives but speed bumps also impede ambulances; for every life of a child saved about 30 lives are lost in this trade. Worth it?!
"Raising a child is a full time job" - you hear that ALL the time. So if I decide I want to take on another full time job, I should expect my employer to give me paid time off while I get acclimated with that other job? Oh, and I had a 9 month notice that I knew I was taking on this job and it was completely 100% my choice to do so. Sounds fair right?
Do you think abortions are wrong?
@@swatchedlimpune6668 My comment has nothing to do with abortion. But to keep it in context, you shouldn't get paid time off for that either.
@@powertothesheeple5422 you said “I had a 9 month notice that I knew I was taking on this job”. Which implies that you are willing to get an abortion in order to get out of parenting/ giving birth to your child. So do you think abortions should be legal?
@@swatchedlimpune6668 Really? You concluded that? Come on man, please stop trying to turn this into a debate about abortion when this video and my post have nothing to do with that. You have heard the reference “being a mother is a full-time job” right? If so, then you should understand the comparison I was making to mother hood as an actual full time job and posing the question if you think my current employer should give me time off to go get trained for the new job I am getting. There would be no quitting either job in this scenario I am posing - you now have 2 full time jobs. So, in the real-life scenario, you are a mother with a full-time job where your employer gives you paid time off for your second job (pregnancy/child birth) - just like the video is implying. I hope that clears it up, I really didn’t think it could be misconstrued into an opinion on abortion.
@@powertothesheeple5422 I mean, what else could you have meant when you said you had a “9 month notice”? What would you do during that notice? And I truly am just curious, not trying to start a debate
Or moms can have dad work and stay home but that ‘enlightenment’ idea isn’t gonna fly
0k
mi
0 Iou 7p6
Whoa hey Sensus nice to see you here
What about single moms
@@lol-ih4wy the last thing our society needs is more incentives to be a single mother which is the common denominator in most impoverished inner cities with high crime rates.
Yea it’s very simple. Don’t get pregnant until you have a man capable of providing for you to stay at home with an infant. There’s birth control and condoms!! But a lot of couples who have a new baby are going to be broke even with a man who works hard and pays for stuff. You may have to live with parents or a roommate. It’s just the way it is. The system of men providing for women while they stay home with a baby has worked for thousands of years. Government will just steal taxpayers money and give very little in return, like they do with everything else!
Instead of allowing them to get some of their money back "early," how about just not taking their money in the first place.
Pipe dream
Customized time off? That’s usually called “unemployment”
I used to work for a major university, and "Ivy." They had a generous policy of family paid leave. So I had a number of contracts that were being staffed by young women of child bearing age. About a year into the contracts, one of my female staff came to me and told me that she was going to have a baby and wanted to take six months off, three months of PTO. A month later, another staff member came to me with the same request. Two months later, another staff member came to me with the same story. So now I had three staff members with 9m months of PTO among them. I still had to DELIVER ON THE CONTRACTS! It is not easy to hire temps to do professional part time jobs especially in hard core rural areas! Ultimately, we were unable to fulfill the contract deliverables and ultimately lost one of the contracts! It cost us over $100,000. I also nearly lost my job because I was expected to fulfill these contracts no matter what! We muddled through and all three women came back on board after paid family leave and PTO. (IVY's don't allow staff to be fired for paid family leave even when contracts are at stake!). Then, about three months later one of the women came to me and told me that she was pregnant again! I would never EVER hire a woman of child-bearing age when it comes delivering on major contracts! Perhaps it works with store clerks and secretaries but it does NOT work in professional services!
Having kids is a personal choice, your employer should not be forced to dole out money for you to have kids.
Darkman Sigma True. And I should not have to pay for your kids, or your health care, or your roads(that I don’t use) or anything that classifies as a personal choice.
@@starventure Landowners used to take care of the roads and drainage along their property.
Bushrod Rust Johnson They still do in many areas!
@@starventure with subsidized road maintenance, not to the extent that they should. Property taxes in my area don't even go to roads and most local streets don't get fuel tax funding so they had referendums for sales tax increases. Fuck that shit. I'd rather have dirt roads.
Yes, because screw families. Right?
I'll only entertain discussions of rescinding maternal leave onlynif it is brought up with repealing the 19th amendment and ending female labour.
If it becomes government mandated their are two avenues of approach to fulfill the law:
1.) force companies to offset the cost
2.) use taxpayer money to offset the cost
This is how they will do it
1.) cut salaries for all employees to offset the cost (because it would be illegal to only cut the salaries of employees who would use it, Women)
1a.) hire less women
2.) increase taxes on the middle class.
There is a reason why the US is an economic powerhouse. There is a reason why how the Bernstard's favorite countries are struggling to pay for entitlements (See Denmark).
Is is greedy to see to the survival of your organization and to seek profits? Or is it greedy to rally together and force others to give you the money they earned?
That's what NYS did: we have a tax on our paychecks for PFL (paid family leave).
Of course, there's no such thing as forcing an entity and only that entity to bear the burden of something. Markets redistribute. So approach #1 would be better described as "force market participants (both buyers and sellers, employers and employees) to offset the cost".
Amzon cut benefits to increase pay...your only more right. Money don't appear before feelings do
"There is a reason why the US is an economic powerhouse"
Immigration and the overvalue of the dollar as it is the world's reserve currency (and the ability to run a huge deficit without going broke because of it) are much bigger reasons, than the low amount of worker rights.
Take Germany for example. The average worker works around 1300 hours a year, compared to 1700 hours in the US.
Per work hour, Germany is a much bigger economic power house. If you treat workers properly they can work more effectively.
What brought the immigration? the free market. what provided the US the means to be selected as the world's reserve currency? the free market. Germany would be completely in the tank if they actually had to provide for their own defense. the only thing keeping German economic growth is tax funded public sector jobs. which is completely unsustainable as Denmark is finding out
I want PAID fishing leave. Since I have no children , where is my paid time off ?
I want PAID procrastination leave.
Why can't people just save up for themselves? When my first child was born I took 5 weeks off and my wife took 8 weeks. I had no paid leave and neither did my wife. We saved up before our son was born and it was great. Why does the government seem to want to cradle us and think we are incompetent and can't save for our own time off or our own retirement. People need to take responsibility for their own actions!
Awesome, open up the job market for my old ass. Only thing I am going put on my resume. * Barren womb will never need paid time off*
@@chollyappleseed1969 Many American companies have maternity leave, especially the larger ones - The government just doesn't mandate maternity leave policy or subsidize it.
Considering the diversity of companies across the U.S., implementing a nationwide policy like Ireland's would hurt a lot of people in the U.S., including women, families, and small business owners - the kind of people we're trying to support.
You're right, it's not rocket science; it's basic economics. We have to consider the incentives created by policies - they will outweigh the intentions behind the policies.
@@chollyappleseed1969 don't get cheeky with me. I was a stay at home mom for 20 years. I sacrificed everything to stay home and raise my kids. No cable, no salon, no cell phone, no extra, no vacations. Just love and reliability. Best sacrifices for the right reasons.
@@chollyappleseed1969 Ah yes, Ireland, the bastion of fiscal responsibility...
@@chollyappleseed1969 Fuck that shit.
Forcing employers to pay for leave makes even less sense than forcing the tax payer to do so. And I think the only people who might deserve paid leave are people with IQs above 100.
So you pay a woman for months of zero productivity then they decide to not come back to work? Sounds like hiring women under 40 is a bad idea.
Why would they decide not to come back to work?
@@GodsAutobiography doesn't matter, the company still assumes the risk
Gods Autobiography. Some women would leave work to take care of their child during the early 0-5 years. This is because it might be cheaper to take care of your child than pay someone else to care of the daughter or son. I agree with parental leave, but not up to 4 months, Europe doesn’t even have it that long. Women are allowed to breastfeed and care for their child anywhere at anytime, it’s actual law (AB-157) and Assembly Concurrent Resolution 155.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD answer the questions share being asked..
@Nick Smith I'd still like to see some data on the rate of women who take advantage of that system. I'm sure it's low, and I'm sure contracts can be made to prevent it from being abused.
Stossel for president!
@@thotslayer9914okay
I'm a solo attorney. If I tried to bill my clients for time I spent with my new baby instead of working on their cases, I would be out of business in about five seconds.
I'm in the gig / part time economy. There's no paid time off. I can take time off I just have to save massively for when my wife has a kid and I need to help care for them. So when companies are forced to give time off, this doesn't apply to some low income workers and people in food and beverage etc.
Mike Williams or to the self-employed
Exactly, Americans need to learn to save for what they want.
I spent my 20's searching desperately for full-time work, but I've been stuck in the part-time/ gig situation too.
I never dreamed that my biggest struggle as an adult would be just finding a full-time job.
Now that we have kids, these part-time jobs have been a blessing so I can split between spending time with them and helping with the income. We struggle through my unpaid maternity leave and then I get back to work. 🤷♀️
@@crissd8283 id save so much more if I didn't have to pay 40+ % of my income each year in tax. Sales tax, embedded tax, income tax, property tax, school tax, tax increase because of covid and the socialism checks. I'm taking the "paid" time off. It's all one crazy circus and I know I can't change it so I'm just gonna play by the rules at hand.
"Make their own deals" The problem with that, and I think freemarkeeters haven't figure that, is that there is a huuuge power imbalance between employer and employee, maybe in full employment would work but that is rare
There’s always somebody else hiring.
Yesterday I did some math.
I could be working 60 hours a week and I wouldn't even be able to afford an apartment _simply because of income tax_ .
Bullshit. I have an apartment and student loan payments. I survive from 40 hours a week doing hourly RETAIL SALES.
you wouldnt afford it even with no income tax, even with 100 hours a week, your pay will always be so low, companies make sure of that, just see amazon.
I've never liked the paid leave scheme. I have never seen sick leave or personal time as being good for the employer. I once had a boss, after two years, quietly pull me aside and ask if I wanted to take a vacation. I took a week off to move into a new house later that year. You would have thought I'd been lost at sea. I liked working. I liked it so much I quit and became my own boss. I'll be honest, as a woman, I'm less inclined to hire another woman. Why? Shit just like this.
Angela Richter and now we know who is in violation of labor laws. Good work
@@marshallkobe I don't employ anyone, so yeah, hate on me because you're stupid with money.
@@marshallkobe Fuck freedom of association violating labor laws.
go back to jew land.
I'd love to randomly charge the Uber and Grubhub accounts of people who support this, when they call to complain explain they have to pay the driver to stay at home.
That's a wonderful thought
Because that's how this works. If your brain is fucking broken.
I’m always amazed at how brazenly people demand that others be forced to fund their expensive life choices. Don’t have a child if you can’t or don’t want to incur the corresponding costs. Simple.
Some who don't want children still support this... It's called thinking about others and not just yourself..
@ChrisClarkPlays paid leave punishes others, lmao
@ChrisClarkPlays take unpaid leave, companies must not be forced to pay for your life choices. Save money and take time off on your own.
ChrisClarkPlays Punish them? You’re “punishing” me right now by not giving me money against your will. How cruel. No, the childless are punished for being childless - they are forcibly (FORCIBLY!) paying into something that has no direct benefit for them.
@@GodsAutobiography "thinking about others" if you're thinking about others why not take the costs of paid leave out of your pocket?
Suddenly you won't be thinking of others no more...
Stossel out hear preaching for our freedom
Why not don't have the kid if you can't support him/her? This reminds me of how the unions demanded so much that companies went out of business....And this woman wants to "customize" her leave? At what point does she take responsibility for her own life and decisions?
When is it going to be my turn? Over the course of my working career, I have had to take on additional work and responsibility for someone on parental leave more times than I can count. I chose not to have any children, but don't I, and the millions of us with no children, also deserve extended paid time off to do something that is fulfilling and life-affirming? I have also lost count of the stories that have gotten back to me of new mothers who drop their children off with grandma so they can spend a considerable amount of maternity leave time hanging out with their friends when they should be bonding with their newborns.
Stossel. We want you to run for President.
I wouldn't wish that on him.
John Oliver. Yeah. There's a sane and reliable source of news. ROFLMAO!
You prefer Fox News then?
@@dosmastrify Take a wild guess.
Anyone who types "ROFLMAO!" should never be taken seriously.
Robbie Paris Like I give a rat’s azz what a pinhead loser like “Robbie Paris” thinks.
@@dosmastrify At least Fox is intended to be news, whereas Oliver is a comedy show where information is only selected to deliver a joke.
It is funny how the video started out gender neutral but by the middle it was "women this" or "women that". This so called "risk" would be be split between the genders if there was 1. real equality in the divorce courts as well as 2. Women who embrace their savior feminism and work 60 hours a week while the dad stays at home with the kids. But as Bill Burr pointed out, being a parent is one of the easiest jobs in the world. Especially if you take notes from the letgrow movement talked about on this channel.
My employer just added paternity leave in addition to maternity leave. It's something I'm glad they offered, but I would not expect the government to mandate it.
Loving these reason videos! Keep up the great work.
Easy fix for employers who would preferentialy hire men due to paid family leave: give it to the dad too.
Then you might as well give leave to people who don't have kids so that they don't seem more employable than people with families. How far do you want to take this fool's errand?
As a manager, I’ve been burned dozens of times now by young women who interview for a position, then within a month after being hired will bring me a doctor’s note saying they’re pregnant and that they can’t work any of the shifts I hired them to work. I then have to re-arrange everyone else’s schedule to fit them in, otherwise we risk being sued for discrimination. And on top of that, the young women almost always complain to me that the company doesn’t give them enough paid leave (they already get 4 weeks). Keep in mind, I’ve been with my company for over 10 years, I’m a GM, and even I only get 3 weeks PTO a year. I have other employees that have been loyal and hard working for longer than me and they only get about 2 weeks of PTO a year. But someone can get knocked up before I even hire them, dupe me into hiring them under false pretenses, then be entitled to more PTO than my best and most loyal employees. And more times than not, after they take all their paid leave for the child, they return to work and refuse to integrate back into the schedule they were originally hired for. They demand the best shifts, because they have children, and be extremely unreliable as they call in with little to no notice. This puts strain on everyone else who is forced to stay over or work on their days off just to keep the store running somewhat correctly. And when the young women don’t get what they want, they quit. This goes on time after time, and I’m sure they all quit thinking that they’ve been wronged by the company.
I still hire young women, simply because sometimes you find a great one. But I won’t lie that I’ve been tempted to say “never again” a couple times after working a double for them.
I also have a total of 25 vacation and sick days. These people are liars. They always pick some non issue to demonize corporations.
Tapping your social security bad idea. Like you said more government to run a program like that.
Paul Kline So, you as the government take my money every week and allegedly bank it in a account that has zero interest growth for me, and then say that you will give it back to me when I retire but you hope I will die sooner than that so you don’t have to pay me back at zero interest. And I have no right to tap that account in case of starting a family but I can tap it if I become disabled? SoSec really is a pyramid scheme then. Who is at the top of the pyramid?
@@CharlesNauck social security is already going bankrupt. There are only 4 options for its future, of which 2 are realistic.
Unrealistic options
1) We get rid of social security (wont happen, like a cancer government programs only grow)
2) social security is privatized (best option)
Realistic options
1) raise the retirement age so a significant part of the population dies before they can collect benefits
2) Greatly reducing benefits to basically nothing
Arguing against this is arguing against basic math
It actually sounds like kind of a good idea to me. Not practically sustainable right now, but in principle compared at least to current social security. With 0 interest money now is better than money in the future. It could just be considered giving people back the money that the government took, though unfortunately with certain requirements (have a kid) first.
However with it working like a pyramid scheme instead of a savings account, yeah it would likely bankrupt a system that is already dying.
@@samuelfriedbaum4450 The problem is it would only give _some_ people back some of the money they took. Reducing the burden on a large part of the population isn't good for getting voters to wake up and deal with the reality.
I'm not for the government allowing you to tap your social security but if they passed this I actually would tap into mine. Why? Because Social Security has a horrible return on investment. If I could get some of that money out and put it in my IRA I would be much better off. Plus by the time I retire, Social Security will be bankrupt; at least I can get some of my money out before that happens.
At least the Cradle Act won't cost taxpayers more than they are already paying. And at least somebody will get some use out of a Social Security system that probably will have imploded by the time I retire.
This is why I do not support a minimum wage. Instead I support a wage that is based off production as much as possible. If an employee doesn't want to work for $5 an hour he can find a job that pays more by increasing skills, starting a business, or going down the street to the place paying more, or find another career.
Why should I have to pay for your choice to have a child? It’s entirely your choice to make, but choices have consequences. If you want a successful career, don’t take time off to have a baby.
My wife took 3 weeks of vacation when we had our first child while she was in residency. Then went right back to working 80 hours making 50k a year. What’s the point in busting your ass if your rewards (money) are given to someone else.
... So you would prefer to not have more time?
dosmastrify I would prefer to give no maternity leave. It puts a financial strain on the institution and creates more work for the other employees.
Women can negotiate a special vacation package with employers if they expect to have a child, but no business should be forced to cover the costs of an individuals choices in their private life.
If you wanna take time off to raise kids, be responsible, work and save money, then take time off and have the kid when you're prepared and ready... I dont have or want kids... Why should I pay my employee to stay home and raise a kid on my dime?
What a bunch of entitled, irresponsible, dirt bags! If you want kids, then pay for it yourself!
The answer is the same as for "I don't have kids why should I pay for other kids education".
Cause you and society benefit from it.
Raising kids, taking care of them and educating them leads to less crime and a better chance for society to find propper educated workers/doctors/etc. at a lower cost.
You might not have a child of your own, but in the future you will be in a situation where you are happy, that the person you rely on was properly raised and educated.
@@TBFSJjunior your entitlement knows no bounds! 😂🙌
@@toadamine
I didn't say anything about entitlements, but I just explaint to you a simple concept. If you don't understand it, then ask instead of repeating a talking point which is totally out of context.
@@toadamine
Good that you have looked up the meaning of the words you used after I pointed out your error.
Being willing to learn is the first step to improving yourself. Good luck with that.
@@TBFSJjunior if you wanna find out what it means, just click the link... It seems you're still guessing at the meaning of Entitlement... LMAO 😂🙌
Your reading comprehension needs work also, I never said, you said the word, "entitlement"... I described your general attitude as "entitlement"
Entitlement: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Free Market: Fosters innovation, drives healthy economy, doesn't require theft to make it work.
I’m a woman and I’m probably going to get pregnant someday... This is stupid if you want to spend time with your baby, have a baby when you the have time and stability, be responsible. Manage your time etc. I can’t believe we are so narcissistic that we believe we should get paid to be with our children. Smh this is why less and less young people work hard... None of my friends even believe in having a set job.
More entitlement spending for people who make bad decisions. Great.
Jason Cooper If we can not do UBI estimated to cost 40 trillion over the next decade alone I will settle with this far cheaper program
they've never lied before. so it should work.
Paid leave is great, but the companies should decide. I for one would never work for a company that doesn't offer paid leave for dads.
Hot take one year ago: ramp up the "free" stuff the employee is entitled to and the only employers left on the market will be the companies that are already big enough to afford it.
Id rather tap into Social Security now before its bankrupted when I'm old.
@@IlluminaZero Starve the beast.
I would also like to bankrupt socialist security faster.
Gee, it's almost as though mothers are designed to stay close to their children. In contrast, men seem designed to lead, protect and provide for their families. All of these issues and debates are tiresome. How about getting back to basics? As it turns out, things are actually pretty clear and simple for all when we embrace reality.
Surprised Pikachu Face 😮
People should be able to take time with their kids man, this is stupid... If government wants to force it, they should pay for it.
Oh, the good Ole days when our debt was ONLY 22 trillion... 😭
Again I love John Stossel and his brave videos! But I am afraid to share this on FB because I know there will be backlash and I am not sure what resources this young lady was referring to that us retirees have access to ? So far I haven’t found any except getting a part time job! Thank you John for hitting the hard topics.
Never fear truth.
He's like Paul Joseph Watson for Gen X.
You still useFacebook? :/
@@edgarbm6407 I didn't know Facebook was still a thing? I thought it died, like MySpace.
Edgar BM yes, I am old and stupid
Here’s my idea:
Rather than mandating parental leave, we give tax incentives to companies who provide family leave to men and women. That way companies won’t be reluctant to hire women of childbearing age and men and women will have time with their children.
When companies pay employees for anything they already deduct that expense from their taxable revenue.
Get rid of corporate welfare and wars for oil and we won't be 22 trillion in debt.
In Latvia mother takes 2 month leave before baby birth and 18 month after baby has born. During this time government pay this leave about 70% from your salary. Its about month not weeks.
In Soviet Latvia, baby have you.
@@MilwaukeeF40C Nowdays - read it. eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/family-leave-in-latvia-among-the-worlds-best.a283417/
@@komentsmans3689 what about paternity leave? do men get put into mandatory 2month+18months, too? surely you dont just have patriarchal policy where you encourage women to stay at home forever.... right? having three babies, would mean 20+20+20=60 months off the workforce. that's five years, that's forever in information technology. your skills are totally outdated after being out of workforce for like 5 years..... long paid leaves can definitely also be a double edged sword for women. what if government would hire a nanny for her.. employment for the nanny, she can go back to work, so employment for mom, too.. but hold on, what about when nanny needs a nanny? well, sounds like a booming government nanny industry for me. maybe those big kindergardens paid from taxes they employ in northern Europe..
Stossel, the voice of reason. I enjoy these videos.
What is this Europe? Thank you Stossel for sticking up for the 1%
By that logic, why should companies pay for sick time? Or Vacation time? Or Overtime? All of those are a drain on funding as well.
They should get rid of all those mandatory things as well.
usas barely get vacation time, tho. in eu its 3 months vacation time, whole long summer.
Being self-employed and hiding much of your income seems the way to go. I would offer the "if you pay cash, I will not charge you taxes" option to all customers.
I tip my bartenders in cash. They also have real jobs.
“Hmmm yes. Go to work & produce money so you can consume more stuff. Don’t have kids just work.”
God, libertarians are such a joke lmao
A better explanation is needed on how it will work without government involvement in the real world Or will we have to return to Unions to get the benefit people deserve as quality of life.
I find it hard to listen to someone with such poor judgment as to become a single mother. Bad choice in men, bad choice for her son, bad for society.
This was posted a year ago
Stossel reported $22 trillion in US debt. One year later we are over $27 trillion.
This country is done.
As a paleolibertarian I support paid family leave for the mother and father. We spend a lot of money on a lot of things and I can't think of one thing more worthy to spend money on than family. There's a reason both parties agree on this. Arguing against this because it's bad for business is like saying it's bad to implement safety procedures. When your first priority is profit and not people, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, you're a scumbag!
Except it's paid out of other people's income...through pay cuts, price increases and higher taxes.... You want kids and paid leave? Work 60 hrs/week so your wife can stay home with the kids, in other words, sacrifice your own time and money instead of someone else's, which is what our fathers and grandfathers have been doing since the beginning of time.
@@theodorbutters141
I actually have a job that allows my wife to stay at home and we're having our first child in October. But just because I'm able to do it doesn't mean I don't have compassion for those who arent able to. And as I said before, we spend enough money on other things that are nowhere near as important. Our government has went out of its way to fund abortions in other countries for goodness sake. We waste money on all sorts of things and putting money towards paid family leave isn't a waste, as I said, can you name me one thing that's more important than family?
My first priority is economic liberty and freedom of association, shithead.
@@MilwaukeeF40C
Paid family leave has nothing to do with freedom of association, if you think otherwise dare to explain. Also why don't you explain in any sort of detail what economic liberty means to you because I would be willing to bet you pay taxes, and I assume you don't support everything the taxes go to, so do you care to explain your dumb ass self?
@@TheLuckyShepherd Which benefits I would negotiate with employees has everything to do with freedom of association. Economic liberty is voluntary economic interaction. Taxation is theft.
If women stopped working, men's wages would double
Arkinthedark Uh, what on earth are you smoking?
@@starventure Fascism
IlluminaZero Man...the only way that is possible in this modern world is if you got every nation on earth to ban illegal labor and automation. China alone is evidence that it won’t happen. Believe me, the good old days were great while they lasted but there is not a chance in hell of it coming back. Globalism and Wall Street have seen to it.
Arkinthedark If you can show me a way to make fascism work in our modern world, I’ll believe you. Otherwise this is fantasy.
@@starventure Fascism can work based off of corporatist and populist economics, tariffs are the only way to compete with China and the globalized economies. We need to isolate ourselves from the rest of the degenerate, materialist-capitalist nations across the globe. We must fight off the cosmopolitan international clique that undermines our country and its values.
It's not easy, but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
As a small business owner, I can't afford to pay someone to not come to work. I didn't force her to have a baby, that was her decision. Her decision to forfeit pay to stay home and "bond" with the baby. Who is doing her job while she's at home?
My boss not only gave me a week of paid time off, he then let me switch to working from home in order to take care of my son, and then eventually let me go to part time now that I have two kids and want it that way. I doubt he’d be so flexible if he would have been mandated to do something else
My company gave me 2 weeks off paid. My wife (a teacher) took 6 weeks off with our first, 1 semester off with our second and 1 year off with our third. Government didn't force any of this to happen.
We have that all over Europe, and I gotta admit, it works just fine.
How about we require employees to work without pay while the employer is at home with a baby?
We don't need government for this
To a corporate business - fertile women are charitable.
My wife and I were married in 1981. My wife quit working 2 months prior to birth of our oldest child and didn’t go back to work until our youngest was 10 years old (we have 4 children). I was earning about $30K a year working at a local hospital and we lived in a 700 square ft. home that I gradually remodeled. My kids are grown now and each has earned or is earning their way through college. Because of two income families housing is more expensive now and it is much more difficult to rely on a single income but still it is better to have a parent raising the children if at all possible.
These "paid leave" and extended leave schemes also don't consider the predicament they put businesses in: Having employees - often managers in key, important roles - not at work doing the job they were hired to do for weeks and months on end. Often these employees will return to work and their previous position has been filled, out of necessity, by someone else in their absence.
Glad you aren't afraid of staying away from the controversial topics! Keep up the good fight of small govt in all areas!
So if its already happening why should the government not just codify it??????
Funny how the "Working Moms" are also "Single moms". I am sick of paying for these deadbeats. I was back in the Military in the early 80's and there was child care provided for all the "Single Moms", which could also NOT do their job. In the good ol' days (When I was in the Marines) they kicked out WM's that got knocked up.
Really ironic timing for this video, my husband just called his work today to arrange for paternity leave at his work when our little one comes. He'll only be taking 3 or so weeks, but we love working for the company he does because they're so good to us like that. We have loyalty to and he works hard for them in exchange. We wouldn't feel that way about them if the government were forcing it I them.
(Thankfully I don't need leave because I'm a stay home mom, something we need more of in society.)
Remember, there's not a damn thing to protect employees when they COME BACK from parental leave. It happens all the time- the company gets someone to fill your job until you're back, realize they can pay that person less, hire them and fire you. Now you have a kid and no job.
Only reason I’d support tapping SS for this is because most women old enough to have children won’t see a dime of their SS otherwise. I’m sure I never will.
I’m never getting my social security so being able to tap into it early actually sounds pretty nice, I’m paying for it anyway
We need a government program designed to eliminate government programs. ;)
Im from South Africa, and we have a pretty good system for this. Its called UIF Unemployment Insurance Fund. All workers by law pay 1% of their salary every month to this fund the company matches another 1%. If you are retrenched, company goes bankrupt etc the fund pays a percentage of your salary for up to six months. You can also claim maternity leave for up to 4 months on this fund. Your employer gives you unpaid leave for the time of maternity leave.
Awesome...keep the pressure up Stossel!
When a company "gives" someone paid leave it comes out of the pocket of those who never get that paid leave. Why should I subsidize someone to get a long paid vacation? It's not fair and it's wrong.
In Quebec (Canada), mothers get up to 18 weeks paid maternity leave, fathers up to 5 weeks paid paternity leave and then there’s up to 32 weeks in paid parental leave which parents can split amongst each other. This is funded through deductions at source. For the rest of Canada, this is funded through unemployment insurance, which is also funded through deductions at source. i.e. all employees fund paid parental leave from their pay...
Sounds like complicated socialist shit.
I was a Kindergarten teacher in Tennessee. With my first child I took one lousy week and got cut for every single day of it. My baby was 9lbs 8 Oz. My uterus prolapsed from going back too soon. Nobody cared.
Did you consider quitting? Why was the job so important?
Another problem with the Republican and IWF backed plan is that it doesn't take into account the discount rate, ie the time-value of money. They say people can take 3 months paid leave in exchange for pushing back their retirement by 3 months, but 3 months of money today is worth a heck of a lot more than 3 months of money ~40 years from now. It should be err on the conservative side and use at least a 3 to 1 ratio, ie take 3 months off, push back retirement 9 months. This would serve a dual purpose of making people think harder about whether they actually want to do it, so only those who really need it would use it, and is an indirect way of raising the retirement age since it's stuck at 67* when it really should be 81 (life expectancy was about 62 in 1935 when SS started with a retirement age of 65 www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html)
* for those born 1960 or later
Time Value of Money theory used for Time Value of Time. Nice.
@@MRCKify Never heard of any formal "Time Value of Time"? I'm assuming that's just your way of saying time now (younger and healthier etc ) is worth more than time later?
Also, as long as I'm responding, looking at some graphs charting TVM for different discount rates, 3-1 isn't conservative enough imo. 4 or 5 to 1 would be better.
@@RobertWinkler25 I guess I was pointing out that your brief point is that two spans of time, translated into resource value, have different worth by occurring at different ages.
My gramma will turn 89 this year. She complains how being old is terrible, but I guess she's been doing that for 65 years when she's run out of other material.
FMLA, sick time, and vacation time only apply after a probationary period. FMLA requires continuous employment as a non-contract, salaried employee for 12 months prior to the leave. The leave is unpaid, and it first exhausts sick leave, vacation leave, and thereafter is unpaid.
The other option is short term disability, which has an elimination period of 30 days. Thereafter, it is at most 60% of your pay, and it is usually capped at $3000 per month.
finally, using sick leave as maternity leave means that there is no reserve sick leave for when the baby may fall ill, as all babies do at some point of time within their first year or so.
A lot of the issues in this are countered by anti discrimination laws
No, they aren't. If you are forced to take the risk of employing future mothers costing you money, you simply deduct the costs from all workers, male and female.
All the money the women get from paid leave came from their paycheck and their male coworkervs paychecks. No discrimination.
Sick leave and family leave are not the same thing. Sick leave if you're sick. Family leave is time of for maternity/paternity related issues or if a loved one is sick and needs a caretaker like if your spose gets cancer or something.
It is the same to a business.