New Jersey moves to a system of paid family leave financed by a payroll deduction (but don't call it a tax!) which is probably the right way to handle this. Their complaints notwithstanding, the burden on employers of this kind of system is pretty marginal. In essence, it amounts to a smallish redistribution of income away from people without major family responsibilities to those who have them. That, in turn, seems like an eminently reasonable thing to do given that the kids are the future and all.
« Pow! | Main | Seat Michigan! »
Paid Family Leave
07 Apr 2008 02:42 pm
Comments (21)
I don't live in NJ and so don't have a direct hand in this, but as a father of a couple of children, er, I mean, provider of productivity futures, I will say the following.
I agree with Matt's point about the future. But what about the past? Does the bill cover time to care for an elderly parent? If so, then what is the justification for this redistribution?
I'd like the U.S. to designate a state (or create one) that bars children within its borders. Imagine it, no concern as to whether you're "old enough" for adult activities. Bars, porn shops, casinos, etc all open to everyone. Anything goes in theaters, movies, on the televison. No more reducing all forms or entertainment to something safe and suitable for a 9 year old audience. "What would the children thnk?!" never gets heard again. THEY'RE AIN'T NO DAMN CHILDREN! No schools to support, You get pregnant you have 9 months to move out. Seeya! You're not spoiling this party! No crumb-snatchers whining in a restaurant, laying down in a crying jag in the aisle at the grocery. No such thing as pedophilia. They come on to you they're eligible. And if they're underage THEY broke the law, not you. And nobody calls off work because their kid is sick. They don't have kids. C'mon, just give us a few hundred square miles out of the way in Idaho or Montana. The 51st state. We'll have to set a quota for all the people applying to live there.
Steve, I am SO there with you. I would even be willing to pay a "fee" to be let in.
Having said that, I agree that it probably makes sense for me to pay for "the future" as you so call it... up to a point.
For example, I have never minded paying property taxes to support schools I would never make use of. The kids going to school there now, might be my doctor one day. I don't mind seeing my taxes being used to fund youth activity alternatives, even though I have no kids that might make use of that, because I recognize that I am probably safer if there are good alternatives available to steer kids away from more anti-social activities. There are a whole bunch of things I don't mind paying for, that help kids.
But, you are now asking me to help pay for someone to take care of the kids they choose to have. Somehow, it is my responsibility to help fund this now?
See, I gave up certain things by choosing to not have kids. (Like ensuring care for me when I am old). I understood this and I was prepared to deal with this choice. For me, the benefits outweighed the negatives. But now, with the government stepping in to help, I guess I won't have to worry about it. Since I have to pay for you to take care of your kid, I propose that everyone who had kids should pay in to a fund to take care of me when I am old. Seems fair to me.
New Jersey moves to a system of paid family leave financed by a payroll deduction (but don't call it a tax!) which is probably the right way to handle this.
I agree "the right way to handle this" is to finance paid family leave via taxation, rather than mandating companies to pay for it. Still, just to nitpick, I think payroll taxes are a terrible idea. Far better just to raise income and consumption taxes. Far better yet, finance it at the federal level.
This program will be paid for like unemployment insurance, with both employers and employees pitching in a couple of bucks per month. You can take paid leave for a family health situation including children or parents.
rlgordonma: the bill provides for pay for the existing unpaid leave benefit you're entitled to under federal (and NJ state) law: 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for an ill, newly born or adopted family member. So it's not just about newborns.
Why is it those valuing the perpetuation of the species are so catered to in terms of public policy? Shouldn't "child choice" be a value neutral decision granting neither penalty or reward? Certainly those arguing humans continue populating the planet are at a distinct disavantage when confronting those advocating a phased withdrawal.
Since I have to pay for you to take care of your kid, I propose that everyone who had kids should pay in to a fund to take care of me when I am old.
We already do that: It's called Medicare and Social Security.
And we should redistribute funds away from non-kid-havers to kid-havers: People who have kids are investing their time, labor and financial resources in the future of our world. People who don't have kids are free-riding on that investment, so we should redistribute something from them to help compensate the people who do have kids for their trouble.
In Matt's world, "marginal" means "more expensive than moving the business to Delaware". If businesses will go to the trouble of outsourcing to lower costs (even with all the associated timezone and language issues), what makes you think they won't move a few miles to get out of New Jersey? I sure wouldn't advocate opening an office there.
It's already cheaper to operate in neighboring Delaware, so any business that could move a few miles to get out of New Jersey has already done so. Truth is, most businesses aren't that portable, and no one's going to be driven out of state by having to offer this small benefit.
One problem with taking from those without kids and giving to those with kids is that kid-havers are often richer than non-kid-havers. That's not what people think... you often hear parents talking about how non-parents are selfish DINKs, but most of the people I know who haven't started families are waiting until they can afford to do so. For some people, that time never comes.
Just think how society talks about people who go ahead and have kids they can't afford, and you can understand why people would wait. And why parents who argue that the childless owe them something would come across as unendurably smug.
I am childless by choice. However, I have changed quite a few diapers in the past few weeks. All of them my 85-year-old father's.
Last week, my local PBS station ran a program about caring for elderly parents. A doctor was interviewed who noted that: “The data show that the single most important variable to never spending time in a nursing home is having a daughter.” A few of the daughters profiled were not only the sole caregiver to their parents, but their husband's parents as well.
Reading Steve and Joshua's comments, I am not in the least surprised by this state of affairs -- the idea that, although childless, paid family leave might help them take care of their parents has not even crossed their minds. I wish their wives and/or sisters the best of luck, they're going to need it.
"paid family leave might help them take care of their parents"
Matt's post is a bit deficient. NJ's program will provide paid leave if you are taking care of a relative (any age). This includes parents, grandparents, spouse, newborns, sick toddlers.
It never would have passed if it ONLY covered paid leave for care of children.
"Truth is, most businesses aren't that portable, and no one's going to be driven out of state by having to offer this small benefit."
That would explain why no businesses ever moved out of NYC then.
Sure, many businesses aren't portable. The ones that are have a threshold though, and - once reached, you can see a tipping point. This particular program might not be that tipping point, but you cannot endlessly expect to pass costs downstream and expect no impact.
That would explain why no businesses ever moved out of NYC then.
Oh noes! Paid Family Leave will reduce New Jersey to the economic basket case that is New York City!
provides for pay for the existing unpaid leave benefit you're entitled to under federal (and NJ state) law: 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for an ill, newly born or adopted family member. So it's not just about newborns
And of course federal law refuses to recognize families consisting of same-sex spouses. Yet more legal discrimination and relegating of gays to second-class citizen status.
No, no, no. Given that kids are the future, we must make working as terrible as possible for women, so they will give up their foolish career dreams and stay home with the kids where they belong. Because as we all know, the natural and healthy state for child-rearing is to isolate children and their mothers away from all other human contact.
Perhaps we should make the people who don't have children pay child support. Given children are the future and all.
Re: Because as we all know, the natural and healthy state for child-rearing is to isolate children and their mothers away from all other human contact.
I grew up with an at-home mother. She was anything but "isolated", since she involved herself in church, school and neighborhood groups and spent a fair amount time just visiting other stay-at-home mothers in the neighborhood. As for for myself, I went to school so that took care of my "isolation". Of course there were a lot of at-home wivse in those days, and lots more children. Nowadays I can see the lone st-home mother might be a bit lonelier.
Ethel-to-Tilly, NJ recognizes Civil Unions between same-sex partners, so I'll bet there is coverage under this program
Comments closed April 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Taking the long view, it's a smallish redistribution of income away from people who have fewer kids than the statewide average towards those who have more than the statewide average. even in an age with more and more DINKs, there just aren't that many of them.
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 7, 2008 3:03 PM