We're thinking about the problem all wrong. Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids.<p>Of course I'm not serious, but then I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women.<p>If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an <i>informed</i> choice to de-prioritize work in order to prioritize childcare, then I am totally alright with that.<p>Maybe the impact of the wage gap is too big even if it's caused by women making informed choices. We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids. By doing it that way we could make the system largely agnostic about whether it's a father or a mother deciding to prioritize childcare over work in any particular case.
It would have been a more interesting article had it also went into the downsides of this approach.<p>One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers, further decreasing the birth rate which is already quite low in many advanced economies.<p>Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact, further disadvantaging couples from having children.<p>Overall, it's an interesting idea, and definitely worth discussing.
This seems really heavy handed. In my experience what’s valuable for men is flexibility, not some set number of weeks you have 100% off. I (as a father) went back to work at Fivetran 4 weeks after my son was born, but at 20 hours a week. That allowed me to help my partner during the initial recovery, but also be the primary parent (with daycare) from ~4-9 months when she returned to traveling for work in consulting.<p>Not doing any work 2 months in would have seemed wasteful, and being expected to go 100% at 7 months in would have been inconvenient for both of us.<p>Not everyone has access to this, but I feel really grateful that I did. It seems like the best arrangement possible, at least for us.
I've discussed this in the past. My company started offering 5 month paternity leave at the end of 2016. For a credit card company, this was huge. There had to have been a catch. I took the chance anyway, and got laid off. This isn't uncommon at the company either. I've heard of 3 females so far who also shared the same fate. All of thought it was illegal, but our individual lawyers pretty much summed it up in one sentence: "Sure, it may be... but you have to prove it was solely due to taking leave, and it's not worth it."<p>I think it wasn't worth it because of an arbitration clause or whatever, but I wasn't going to risk my time, money, and energy required when I just had a baby.
I took 12 weeks of paternity leave after my wife went back to work, and definitely recommend it if you can swing it. Partly just that spending time with a kid small enough to nap inside your hoodie is worth doing -- but honestly I'm not cut out to be a stay-at-home parent and that's not why I'm a fan of paternity leave. More that it helped so much with setting us up for parenting together.<p>One reason is that it's hard to understand just how much work it is if you haven't done it on your own for long stretches, and it helps for both partners to know that both partners know how hard it is and have taken a turn at it.<p>Another is the self-reinforcing competence thing -- if one partner always packs for going out, say, then the other partner is likely to take longer and do a worse job when they try packing, so it's easier for everyone if they don't, and you end up thinking only one person is good at parenting. To some extent it's fine to specialize, but having to do everything during the day on my own for a few months made it really clear that both of us can be good at any given thing if need be.<p>One thing I was surprised by (but shouldn't have been) is just how much wealth you're showing off by taking paternity leave. Telling people you're taking 12 weeks of paternity leave in America is basically telling them you have plenty of money and a job you can afford to walk away from, which pretty much crosses the line into boasting about things you shouldn't boast about. I ended up playing it down more than I expected, which kind of sucks, since it's an awesome thing that more folks should be able to do.
Let's stop discriminating against people who have a family or other things to do except work.
Start by enforcing 40 hour work week and make overtime paid 150%.<p>Employers prefer frugal workaholics with no obligations but these individuals impose externality on "normal people". We're rich enough, no need working above 8h/day.<p>I'd go all the way and make it illegal to provide work without compensation (internships, 80h work weeks etc). And I'd to try limit oversupply of labour by further limiting standard workweek below 40h.
I'm in favour of a set amount of parental leave that can be shared between spouses in whatever ratio <i>they</i> choose. I don't understand how depriving families of choices is going to be a good thing.<p>Example: You and your husband would like to breastfeed your baby for the first 6 months but you are unable to express? Too bad, your husband <i>has</i> to take paternity leave and you will have to go back to work.<p>From my experience, there is a connection between mother and child from birth that is nurtured and strengthened through breastfeeding. I would vehemently oppose the state enforcing any interruption in my child's wellbeing as we see fit as parents.
Don’t enforce it. Just start with making it tax funded, not employer funded. Next make part of the parental leave shared between parents be allocated to the father. Now if they don’t use it they will lose a benefit they already paid taxes for. The last and most important step is to keep this system in place for a generation or more, after which any parent not doing a fair chunk of the parental leave will be considered a bad parent by their peers.
In academia, some studies have shown than mandatory paternity leave may not close gaps in productivity:<p><i>The authors compared promotion rates before and after these gender-neutral parental policies were adopted, relative to trends in comparable institutions that did not alter their policies, while also accounting for an array of influences, like where each economist was trained. They found that men who took parental leave used the extra year to publish their research, amassing impressive publication records. But there was no parallel rise in the output of female economists.</i><p>From: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/business/tenure-extension-policies-that-put-women-at-a-disadvantage.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/business/tenure-extension...</a>
I'm surprised this has had such a good reception. Hobbling men in the name of equality is just bizarre. It's mixture of "Hansel and Gretel" and "Harrison Bergeron". Instead of weights just fatten them up with sweets.<p>I didn't push a human being out from between my legs. Because of that I'm capable of working. I would like to be <i>useful</i> to my family. Working is one way I can do that.<p>If I work while my wife is on leave and the gender pay gap is worsened. <i>I don't care.</i> If my wife stays home to recover from her ordeal and the gender wage gap is worsened. <i>She doesn't care.</i><p>The gender wage gap is so abstract and cynical at this point. It is beyond meaning. People aren't allow to live their lives the way they see fit because of some stupid number.<p>Shocking I know but there is no such thing as the "average woman". If her wage is different from the "average man" it has no bearing on the earnings of a <i>specific woman</i> with <i>specific goals and habits</i>.
How exactly would this be enforced? If a man doesn't disclose that his partner is pregnant, is he going to be fired? I don't see how it could be legal to do so. How is a partner's / spouse's medical condition any business of an employer?
I don’t think this is legal. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, so, if women are not also forced to take such leave, how can men be?
<i>>What’s needed now is action. Why not start with mandatory paternity leave?</i><p>This is called politician's syllogism.<p>1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore, we must do this.<p>It's a logical fallacy.
Can we stop linking and upvoting these article on HN, I've seen several in the last few months.<p>I don't see a clear link to hacker culture, if anything it's less relevant to developers as we often have some form of flexible working already.<p>The link I can see is that it's part of the gender culture war that has somehow become focussed on SV.
I like how left response is forcing people at the point of a gun when people’s behaviour doesn’t fit into the ideology. If only I’ve seen it somewhere... ah, in the country I was born - Soviet Union.
We western economies have to figure this out or we'll gradually depopulate, or live under fascist governments, or worse.<p>Much of the gains of two-income parents goes into house prices to be closer to good schools - i.e. zero sum competition, while company incentives are to encourage people not to have children, or defer children until too late to maintain population, and essentially stopping the next generation of employees from being born.<p>And then you mix migration driven by climate change into the mix, and it's very easy for populist politicians to whip up narratives of being overrun, not least because on a historical scale it's true (and of course it's always been true, everywhere has always been in the state of being overrun, with ebbs and flows).<p>The dynamics here aren't good and it's hard to see how they're going to change any time soon, short of a crisis.
In Norway mother and father each have 15 weeks paid leave from work after childbirth, e.i. 30 weeks total. If the father chooses not not use his paid leave it cannot normally be transferred to the mother.
If such discrimination exists (it probably does), this will just change the bias to be against anyone who is part of a young, potentially child-bearing couple.<p>It also seems utterly against my rights as a human, and unconstitutional.
There should be a system that every n years you get a 6-month paid sabbatical that can be used for any purpose - studying, traveling, having a kid, anything. Because consider two women, one who wants kids and one who doesn’t. Why should woman 2 be disadvantaged? Isn’t that the exact opposite of equality?
I wrote this as a response to another comment, but I think it deserves a top level comment.<p>> it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare.<p>I've decided recently, just now actually: I don't buy this.<p>Why would an employer discount a woman's value just because she may, at some point, take time off to care for a child?<p>Men also leave jobs. Shouldn't employers discount men's value because they may, at some point, leave?