Hillary Clinton

Family Leave Policies Are Supposed to Help Women. Instead, They Trap Them.

Yes, there are unintended consequences to requiring employers to offer family leave benefits.

|

jurvetson chairs hunter-cc-by

On Mother's Day this year, Hillary Clinton released a short video calling for the United States to adopt paid family leave policies. The U.S., she said, in support of her call, is "the only developed country" that doesn't require employers to offer paid leave.

Paid family leave requirements and other related benefits for working parents are indeed common around the rest of the world, and they are intended to make life friendlier for women who work and have families. But as The New York Times notes this morning, these policies come with trade-offs: Even as they make it easier for many women to both work and parent, they also seem to make it harder for women to earn more and rise higher in the workplace.

That's true in places like Chile, which since 2009 has required most companies with a sizable number of women employees to provide. Yet as the Times notes, a new study finds that when women are hired on, they are now likely to be paid substantially lower salaries than before the requirement went into effect. Initial monthly wages are about 9 to 20 percent lower for women, the study found by comparing wages from before and after the policy.

There's a similar story in Spain following the implementation of a policy allowing parents of young children—mothers or fathers—to request a reduction in work hours without being fired. Yet as the Times notes, following the implementation of the policy, fewer women climbed workplace ranks to senior positions:

Those who took advantage of it were nearly all women.

Over the next decade, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women of childbearing age compared with men, 37 percent less likely to promote them and 45 percent more likely to dismiss them, according to a study led by Daniel Fernández-Kranz, an economist at IE Business School in Madrid. The probability of women of childbearing age not being employed climbed 20 percent. Another result: Women were more likely to be in less stable, short-term contract jobs, which are not required to provide such benefits.

In fact, results like this are extremely common wherever employers are required to offer mandatory family leave benefits. The same researchers looked at 22 different countries and found that, in general, they brought more women into the workforce than in the United States, but those women in those countries were less likely to reach higher-paying positions with greater authority. As the Times article puts it, the policies meant that women "were more likely to be in dead-end jobs and less likely to be managers."

The Times' Facebook feed gives the story a whodathunkit?! subhed that starts with "it turns out…" but results like these are the opposite of surprising: When employers have to pay for a benefit, the cost of providing that benefit tends to come out of wages, and employers become more reticent to promote individuals who may be less available to work.

That's true even in the United States, which does not have a federal paid family leave policy but does require larger employers to offer 12 weeks of unpaid family leave. And yet even that comparatively minimal leave requirement appears to have had unintended consequences for women in the workforce: "Women are 5 percent more likely to remain employed but 8 percent less likely to get promotions than they were before it became law," according to an unpublished study, the Times reports. It is a policy that is helping more women work, yes, but holding others back.

The surface appeal of family leave requirements is obvious, but the results of these policies are, at minimum, more complicated and less beneficial to working women than most backers seem to hope. If anything, for those who hope to empower working women, family leave requirements may end up having the opposite of their intended effect, by making employers view them warily, as potential liabilities rather than as full-fledged, productive members of workforce. This may be the most insidious effect: By elegating more women to those "dead-end jobs," these policies and their effects may contribute to the perception that women are not up to the highest demands of the workplace, and that they are most suitable for jobs that don't pay very well or confer a lot of responsibility. Which is to say that instead of helping women, these policies may be trapping them.

NEXT: Free-Range Maryland Family Cleared of Child Neglect Charge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When employers have to pay for a benefit, the cost of providing that benefit tends to come out of wages, and employers become more reticent to promote individuals who may be less available to work.

    The word you’re looking for is “reluctant,” not “reticent.”

    1. Seanus,

      Are you elegating Peter to the solecists?

      1. You have my apology, Sir, for mistyping your name.

          1. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds – pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking – I highly suggest you try it, greasonable who was once sthgrau.

  2. Can a consequence be unintended if it can be reasonably foreseen?

    1. That is an Iron Law: Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      1. And it is foreseeable because of another Iron Law:

        You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

        Mandatory expenditures/costs for hiring/employing a certain kind of person are a punishment on the company who is hiring/employing those people.

        Ergo, you get less of it.

        This isn’t rocket surgery.

        1. I just realized the absurd Into Darkness scene involving Bones dissecting a torpedo was, in fact, rocket surgery.

          1. Technically it was torpedo surgery. And even more technically it was missile surgery, as torpedoes are specifically underwater missiles and I don’t see any water in space, but we must keep with the ridiculous notion that starships are an outgrowth of the Navy rather than the Air Force.

            It certainly wasn’t rocket surgery as photon torpedos are obviously guided, that being the distinguishing characteristic between rockets and missiles.

            /pedant nerd

            1. “we must keep with the ridiculous notion that starships are an outgrowth of the Navy rather than the Air Force.”

              So do the Marines man the guns on one side or the other, or top/bottom split?

              1. Ugh. As much as I want to make another AF joke – FDA is sadly correct. Space militaries are going to grow from the AF model (small 1-2 person, short duration craft) and grow into larger ships.

                On future starships, Captains will be junior officers and navies will be the equivalent of militias.

                1. You mean there won’t be boarding parties with guys trying to ram shivs into enemies’ space suits?

                  1. Nope.

                    There’ll be boarding parties with remote controlled drones fighting the enemies remote controlled drones.

                    And only when there’s a damn good reason to take the enemy space station. Which there’s not going to be many because there’s no good reason to build them.

                    No ship boardings at all – too easy to avoid simply by turning on the engine.

                    1. There’s great reason to build space stations.

                      Makes building spaceships a fuckload cheaper.

                    2. Unmanned construction scaffold using tele-operation and semi-autonomous drones drones.

                      No need to lift the meat into orbit except for a tiny number of critical tasks.

            2. They’ll probably use Navy ranks anyway because Star Trek and Star Wars both did. You just can’t defy precedent like that.

              Are rockets really unguided by definition? I would have thought that most guided missiles were examples of rockets. And that missiles includes many things that are not guided and just follow ballistic trajectories. Perhaps you are using specifically military terminology that I am not well versed in.

              1. Military-wise, rockets are unguided rockets, missiles are guided rockets, and torpedoes are underwater missiles/rockets (all are guided now, but originally they were point and shoot).

                Funnily enough though – if its got an air breathing engine and a guidance system its a drone, even if its otherwise used as a missile.

                1. Funnily enough though – if its got an air breathing engine and a guidance system its a drone, even if its otherwise used as a missile.

                  Like this?

                  1. yeah, I was just thinking of that.

              2. Except the *functional* precedent will be derived from the people actually working.

                The guy flying the spaceplane isn’t going to change his rank from captain to Lieutenant just because that’s what they did in Star Trek (Star Wars is all over the place and is widely inconsistent in the use of ground vs naval ranks). And his successors are not going to suddenly wake up one day and go ‘hey we work on a starship, we should change what we call each other to be in accordance with a tv show none of us have ever seen’.

                1. For millenials spaceship canon is Halo. Navy for ship to ship. Marines for boarding parties security and planet assaults.

              3. Are rockets really unguided by definition?

                That’s the way I learned it. May be just a military thing.

        2. But they don’t think of it as punishment. They wouldn’t favor it if they did, because not enough of them are that mean to employers. They just think, employers are too busy to consider this oversight; they’d give everyone family leave if they just had time to think about it, so we’ve done the thinking for them. Employers will be grateful we’re doing work like this for them.

      2. No no, I think you are wrong WTF.

        Forseeable consequences can be ignored simply BECAUSE they are not intended. For most in power, inention is primary. Who cares what actually happens as long as we WANT only good things. After all, things COULD be different here, and, as long as top (wo)men are put in position and given enough power, it MIGHT be different.

        Anyway, your so-called “forseeable consequences” are only because of, well, patriarchy, and, uh, mean people, and, let’s see, your bogus statistics don’t line up with my bogus statistics, and. well, you get the idea.

    2. It can if the people promoting the policy that has that consequence are not inclined to apply reason to their decisions.

      So, Progressives, answer the question; do the untoward consequences of you favored policies mean you are malign or simply imbecilic?

  3. Funny how almost everyone agrees that using government force to make something more expensive means people will buy less of it or find substitutes when that is the intention, such as with “dirty” energy or sin taxes, but they refuse to apply the same reasoning when it comes to employee compensation.

    1. just like when you oppress a group it’s totally different then when THEY oppress a group…

      (hypothetical you and they)

    2. Wan’t there a law about that?

      A bronze law? or a brass law? something metallic.

      “You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish!”

      1. [nods, taps top hat with cane]

      2. The Sintered Steel Law.

        1. +1 Rearden Metal

    3. That’s because they are not reasoning people. They are emoting people. Emotion is a fine thing, and should be consulted as to ENDS. But decisions about MEANS require the application of reason. And the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives despise reason because it tells them that so many of the measures they FEEL so good about are bad.

  4. “The surface appeal of family leave requirements is obvious…”

    Social engineering?

    1. ^^^^ THIS^^^^

      And also vote buying..

  5. If one were a conspiracy theorist, and one mustn’t be to entertain such ideas, one could posit that these regulations rewarding women for not having children, or having fewer children, were devised as a means of population control.

    1. Except they also pay other women to have children they can’t afford. Of course that would give them a more controllable population I guess. Except for the future mobs of retards rioting in the streets. Point is, the Illuminatii is like the shark in Jaws. They’re either very very smart, or very very dumb.

    2. Oh rly? Because it’s not like employers can verify that you don’t plan to breed and reward you based on that. This punishes all women for the choices of some women.

      1. no it doesn’t. It rewards women over 40 who haven’t had children, or who’s children are already grown.

        1. So…it rewards women over childbearing age rather than young women, regardless of whether any of them have or plan to have kids?

          1. Women can’t plan to have children, Nicole. It comes out of nowhere, like a bus.

            1. I’m just trying to establish that in fact the secret motivation behind these laws was to make women get old, not forgo children.

            2. It comes out of nowhere, like a bus.

              Nice throwback.

        2. So if Nikki is the worst, and she completely destroys your argument, what does that make you?

          http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/24/…..adruplets/

          1. Seriously, that has to count as a mental illness, right?

  6. This whole article is why every single comment on the NY times is calling for men to be forced to take paternity leave. God forbid men be allowed to work if women want time off.

    1. Utopia is always one more law away.

    2. Nothing is better for a family than to have a compulsory 3 months without income after a kid is born.

      1. Nothing is better for a family than to have a compulsory 3 months without income after a kid is born.

        I am not sure how much compulsion there is in a decision to have a family and work for a company that is not going to pay you to do nothing but in the end one is paid to be productive and that is it. Vacation time, sick time, PTO, holidays and even gasp! family leave. If you reduce the number of hours an individual is going to be productive for you in a given year by definition you reduce their output. What a shock if the salary falls with it.

        1. I was addressing making taking the leave compulsory for fathers so as to even out the incentives for employers. Presumably that would result on both parents having to take the unpaid leave which would have the family without income.

    3. That will just favor couples who choose not to have children.

    4. Now that men are covered with maternity coverage insurance why shouldn’t they be forced to take maternity leave ?

      1. As a single childless dude I’d be more than happy taking some maternity leave (even unpaid!) from roughly January 15 until April 15 with a guaranteed job to come back to. Funny how I never disclosed to my empoyer how the baby momma lives slopeside of some ski resort yet to be determined. And it will also be pretty awesome how manage to regularly knock her up every year again on April 16.

  7. Unfortunately, the prog answer to unintended consequences of government action is just more government action. And usually in an even more blatantly oppressive manner. I can guarantee the mouthbreathers are already thinking “well, government should just mandate that half of every new hire be female and half of all managers and officers be female.”

    1. Which half of the new hire has to be female?

      Personally, I’d opt for getting the tits half. At least you have something to stare at during boring meetings then.

      1. The appeal of taking the bottom half should be obvious….

        Sort of like Phillip Fry regretting marrying a mermaid, and wishing for a do-over in which he married one with the head of a fish and the lower half of a human….

        1. I’d still take the top half. Then at least there’s no question that it’s all about me.

  8. adopt labor unions, they also promote paid sick/maternity leave as well as a bunch of other benefits including fair pay.

    1. Any job entered voluntarily includes “fair pay”, by definition.

      1. No. Not minimum wage jobs. They are not fair to the employer who may wish to pay the new hire less. The pay grade is set, against the employer, under coersion.

        1. Still their choice whether to hire someone for that wage or not.

        2. And certainly isn’t fair for those legally excluded from working because they’re too great a risk for low-margin businesses to employ productively at the minimum wage.

    2. they also promote paid sick/maternity leave as well as a bunch of other benefits including fair pay.

      Paid for, naturally, by someone else.

    3. we had a competitive advantage… and…. it’s gone.

      1. We should go back to being hunter-gatherers then?

    4. By “adopt,” you mean “force people to join at gunpoint,” I assume?

      1. Unions are an odd thing. For some reason everyone seems to want to involve the government in them (whether to force joining them or to forcibly break them apart). There’s no reason a union can’t operate entirely without government involvement as a legitimate market force.

  9. This just implies that we need to be even stronger in our enforcement of antidiscrimination policies. “Title 9 Attorneys’ Full Employment Act of 2016.”

  10. No amount of squirming around or howling about “social justice” is going to get around the plain fact that life involves making tradeoffs. Any person, male or female, who aspires to be the company’s CEO is going to have to make personal sacrifices to get there. You just have to decide what is most important in your life and prioritize accordingly.

    1. Prioritizing my life is hard. I want to fish more, but can’t afford to fish more unless I work more. It’s like some sort of catch!

    2. Except that the whole point of politics is to pretend that there are no tradeoffs, and that anything can be fixed with the proper use of violence.

      Remember that we’re talking about basic human rights here. There are no tradeoffs when it comes to basic human rights like food, shelter, clothing, health care, family leave, internet, cell phone, transportation, a living wage….

      When government is the enforcer of basic rights, there is no limit as to what will be declared to be a basic right.

      1. sarcasmic once again proves he hates women.

        /Tony

    3. A large part of progressive philosophy is in the denial that there is any such thing as opportunity costs.

      1. You can’t see it and you don’t intend it, so how can it possibly exist?

    4. Actually, there are some people with the talent and intellect to become executives without excluding other parts of their lives. Otherwise, you are correct.

    5. “Any person, male or female, who aspires to be the company’s CEO is going to have to make personal sacrifices to get there.”

      Some potentially shocking news for you: even the company janitor, male of female, has to make personal sacrifices to get where he or she got. We wouldn’t be where we are today without workers making sacrifices.

  11. Society will never achieve perfection until private ownership and rational self-interest have been stamped out.

    1. what about irrational self interest? Can I keep that?

      1. You read here, don’t you? You have already shown the government — because the ARE tracking you — that you are irrational.

        Irrational self interest will either be considered “harmless” or get reeducated out of you.

    2. “Society will never achieve perfection,” you should stop your sentence there. Any thoughts to the contrary make you a dangerous idiot.

  12. 1. Nothing is “free.”
    2. It’s easy for politicians to tell other people how to conduct business and spend their own money

    If government knows best how to do business, they should take over the job themselves. That way, all workers get all the benefits the lawmakers think they should have. And the world will be a New Eden.

    1. Don’t give these fucking idiots any ideas…

      1. That’s not a new idea, it’s what Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren have built their careers on.

    2. They think they are doing part of the businesspeople’s jobs by making decisions like this, taking some of the load off them.

  13. It’s almost as if incentives affect how people/businesses/etc. operate.

  14. Hell of a job proofreading, Suderman.

  15. Every child should be randomly assigned a career path upon graduation from high school. For teh FAIRZ.

    1. +1 The Giver

  16. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

    -Thomas Sowell

    1. Every time I read that quote, I re-affirm my belief that he should have used “Law” in place of “lesson.”

  17. You know, personally I would be scared shitless to take 12 weeks off work.

    If I were an employer and found I could do without you for three months – likely conclusion I would reach is that I don’t need you at all and you’d be made redundant shortly after returning.

    1. Totally.

      I’ve always worked in small businesses or was self-employed. The idea of taking that kind of time off is laughable when your income depends on actual production. I don’t understand how people can square this in their minds. You get paid time off because you chose to have a kid, so I have to work twice as hard to cover your job as well as mine? Fuck that.

      1. Ooo! Self Employed. This is a brilliant problem.

        So, if I am self employed, who pays for my family leave? Is it like disability, because that would be “fair” to pay that family leave with tax-payer dollars, right? Because if this is the case, it is brilliant and I can retire.

        1. Hey, if you can schedule your knocking-up right, you can retire on paternity leave.

          1. I think it takes more than 12 weeks to make a baby.

            1. Meh, only takes me 5-10mins if I’m in a rush.

              1. I think the woman involved might look at it a bit differently.

                1. That’s just an unintended consequence.

            2. That’s why I said paternity and not maternity.

        2. You’re describing setting up a new tax program to pay for leave. Everyone pays in, and anyone can take out, so inevitable everyone takes out. It still doesn’t work on net since you’ll need to pay thousands of bureaucrats to administer the program.

        3. What you would do is deny yourself family leave. Then you sue yourself for breaking the law and creating a hostile work environment. Then you simply use the settlement to live on.

          See how easy that is?

          1. That actually is kinda brilliant. Just make sure your small business gets all those federal grant applications in first.

          2. Krugabe approves of this message.

      2. If you’re a business owner then you’re a labor exploiter, and you get no sympathy. Because labor theory of value.

    2. That’s why they had to make sure the law said that you couldn’t fire someone for taking their maternity leave for like 3 to 6 months after it was up. Duh.

      1. Sure, and 3-6 months after you returned you’d find that your position was being eliminated.

        1. I believe the law requires that the person be moved into a job of general equal value/importance/etc in the event that the position is necessarily filled by another or the position is eliminated.

          1. Not if you wait a bit so that its not obvious that you’re eliminating the position ‘in retaliation’.

    3. If I were an employer and found I could do without you for three months – likely conclusion I would reach is that I don’t need you at all and you’d be made redundant shortly after returning.

      Yeah. Wife’s boss took 3 months off; her boss’ wife had a baby.

      And nothing else happened.

      Sure, I could take 3 months off work anytime I wanted. But I’d call it “Quitting,” and wouldn’t be paid for it.

    4. I once worked at a small startup. We had a guy who didn’t feel like he was appreciated enough by the rest of us, so he decided to stay home to “show us”.

      The entire week was bliss. When he finally came back he was pissed that we hadn’t even realized that he was protesting.

      Didn’t even occur to him when he was ranting about how we didn’t even notice he was gone, that he was signing his own termination papers. When he finished the rant the owner of the company told him that he could take his services to some other company where he’d be more appreciated.

      The look on his face was priceless.

      1. What did the guy do at the company?

        I’m just curious because it’s eluding me how people become so delusional.

        1. We were creating online catalogs for apparel wholesalers at the time. We thought he was a graphics whiz. He was supposed to be taking the print quality graphics and resizing them so they were acceptable for the web.

          After he left we discovered a few graphical tools that let us batch up everything and what took him a month to do was done in an afternoon.

          He was a legacy hire, so we never really expected him to do much. His main beef was that we were always in a hurry to get sites up and were pretty aggressive with our timelines. He was a guy who just doodled along and got tired of us always pushing him to deliver faster.

          1. So… Was he just opening the files in ms paint and saving them as jpegs?

            Wow. Real tough job there, buddy.

            I can definitely see this being a “legacy hire.” I know that type too well for my own good.

            1. Pretty much. He wasn’t a computer guy and once he found a way that worked (opening files in ms paint and saving as jpegs) he never looked for other more efficient ways of doing things.

              When he left, we were all lazy bastards and spent a week investigating/searching for tools to automate the process. Then we tweaked them to make it work for our exact process and whaddya know? What used to take a month now was an afternoon.

              1. When he left, we were all lazy bastards and spent a week investigating/searching for tools to automate the process.

                Now that’s more like me. I’m a lazy fuck myself. I can guarantee you if there’s a faster/easier way to do something, just put me on the task.

                1. Anon, I hear you. I spend more time developing admin tools for web applications than I do building the front end of the web site itself.

                  My goal is to build enough tools so that clients never ever have to contact me again.

                  Laziness is a great trait to have in a developer. They will figure out how to reuse code at a far greater rate than any person on a project.

                2. Hard work is for schlubs.

                  Smart work . . . that’s the ticket.

                  Laziness, not hard work, is the greatest driver of productivity.

          2. Does “legacy” in this case mean “hired by the previous administr’n”? Or does it mean something like legacy admissions, i.e. nepotism?

            Or both?

            1. He was the younger brother of one of our startup’s first clients.

              The older brother had also gone to college with a few of the founders. So way more like nepotism than a previous hire.

              Basically the older brother asked us to give his brother a job so he wouldn’t have him sitting around his business fucking things up.

              We paid him almost nothing, so it didn’t seem like a big deal at first. As we grew though he just couldn’t keep up.

        2. Sounds like a youngster. We had a young analyst at a small financial company I worked for give his boss an ultimatum. Pay me more, give me more options, or I’m outta here.

          Boss was a crusty old bastard. Guess what happened next.

          1. Don’t keep me dangling Tundra! How much more did he make? Or was it a lot of extra options? The suspense is killing me…

            1. 20% raise and 5,000 more options, of course.

              Or maybe he just got thrown out on his ass.!

        3. Waste time and annoy his co-workers, it sounds like. Very common job, that. Seldom hired for explicitly, but you seem to turn up one in just about every office.

          1. Waste time and annoy his co-workers, it sounds like. Very common job, that.

            So common, it even has a name.

            “Management”.

    5. If I were an employer and found I could do without you for three months – likely conclusion I would reach is that I don’t need you at all and you’d be made redundant shortly after returning.

      And the government labor board would come down on you like a ton of bricks for ‘retaliation’ against the person taking the leave.

    6. “personally I would be scared shitless to take 12 weeks off work”

      Why not choose a line of work where you are less dispensable? Being scared shitless of your boss can hardly be the most satisfactory way of whiling your most productive years.

      1. Well, we all don’t desire a life of blogging about what we saw at the grocery store this morning.

        1. “Well, we all don’t desire a life…”

          Not quite all of us. Some of us do desire a life. Others are content to sell their most precious and irreplaceable possession to those they live in fear of.

          1. Others are content to sell their most precious and irreplaceable possession to those they live in fear of.

            Sounds like a good communist and his individuality.

            1. “Sounds like a good communist…”

              I would have thought Agammamon might take exception to your characterization of him as a good communist, or even a bad one. Either way, you meant it as an insult, I suspect.

              1. By all means, assume whatever you think is most convenient and self-serving. You’ve certainly had the practice.

              2. By all means, assume whatever you think is most convenient and self-serving. You’ve certainly had the practice.

                1. This seems to be your way of saying you disagree with me on some point, or worse yet, disapprove of me. Exactly what, I can only guess.

  18. “[…]a new study finds that when women are hired on, they are now likely to be paid substantially lower salaries than before the requirement went into effect.[…]”

    Easily solved! Just mandate (sic) that wymenz be paid substantially higher than men! That way, we can get more wymenz on un-employment!

    1. Easily solved! Just mandate (sic) that wymenz be paid substantially higher than men!

      This is what Hillary actually believes.

      1. Except for the womyn that are actually on her payroll.

      2. I am not actually persuaded that Hillary believes ANYTHING, other than that she should hold some kind of power, and be given large quantities of money.

        1. other than that she should hold some kind of power, and be given large quantities of money.

          Duh, that’s why she believes womyn needs moar monies.

  19. Teh FEELZ strike again.

    I highly doubt there’d be many women that supported paid family leave if you phrased it as “Punish Women In The Workforce For Being Women” act.

  20. So lunch isn’t free?

    1. “There is no free lunch” isn’t taught in schools anymore, I bet.

      1. Of course not – all the kids get free lunch courtesy of the government nowadays.

        1. Wow. I already know how this goes down.

          “There is no free lunch. What does this mean?”

          “Nothing, I get free lunch every day at the cafeteria!”

  21. … Which is another reason to start granting fathers paid paternity leave. You know… Like they do in Stalinist Norway or in the People’s Republic of California, which we all know are shitholes.

    1. You want to ‘grant’ father’s paid paternity leave?

      1. Who the fuck are you? How do you get to ‘grant’ anything here? How does the government get to ‘grant’ this?

      2. You want this to happen – you pay for it. Nothing stopping you from starting a charity to collect funds to compensate people for the expenses involved.

    2. … Which is another reason to start granting fathers paid paternity leave. You know… Like they do in Stalinist Norway or in the People’s Republic of California, which we all know are shitholes.

      They already are in the US, for larger employers.

    3. That’s not a “grant”, that’s using violence to force people to pay other people not to work. This is the problem with socialists. They think that everything is equivalent and you just have to make collective choices, completely ignoring that the choices they favor all involve coercion backed up by state violence.

    4. Is that why Toyota moved out of California to Texas and took all their money and all their jobs with them ?

      1. Don’t be silly. They moved because they hate America and poor people and don’t want to pay a living wage to their nonunion run shops.

        /this is what american shithead actually believes.

      2. One of the wife’s friends is taking that deal? they’re getting moved to Texas and getting a house twice as big with twice the yard plus getting time off to move and financial help to move.

        The family that’s moved from CA to TX report that they’re much happier, the biggest cultural shock was how so friendly people are (when they come back, they have to suppress waving at people).

        Oh, to be so unfortunate!

    5. A co-worker of mine just took paid paternity leave. The company doesn’t have a special leave called “paid paternity leave” but he took it anyway, by using that weird bourgeois thingy called “common sense”: he noticed that his wife was pregnant and made sure to save up his vacation time so that it was available when the baby came.

      This may shock today’s young “progressive” but the problems of caring for one’s children were noticed–and solved–long before the 21st century. Not that it’s easy, or ever will be (no matter how much socialism is applied), but having children is a choice–one that sensible adults can handle.

  22. … Which is another reason to start granting fathers paid paternity leave. You know… Like they do in Stalinist Norway or in the People’s Republic of California, which we all know are shitholes.

    1. Well let’s see, “Stalinist” Norway’s economy is propped up by the Texas Tea, and Kalifornia is a legitimate shithole, as we who live in Washington can see Ellen we see the droves of Californians coming up I-5 fleeing there.

      1. California is propped up by Texas Tea, too.

        There are oil rigs all over CA, including in the City of LA.

        There’s even an oil rig on the Beverly Hills High School grounds.

    2. Yeah, that way EVERYONE will make less. Then we will all be equal comrade.

    3. So much nothing to say it had to be said twice?

  23. They don’t want the problem solved. The minute the problem is solved, they are not needed. There is an old line in the Vedas, Hindu scriptures, ‘The doctor desires disease’.

    They would never put forward an idea that actually worked. In the same way an employee might come up with lots of ideas, but he never comes up with one that puts him out of work.

    1. I disagree.

      See, the “problem” is fabricated precisely so they can offer a solution for it. Like Fibromyalgia, or Restless Leg Syndrome. Then they sell you their “solution.”

      Same fucking snake oil salesmen that have existed since the dawn of time. Except they run the whole show now.

      1. What do you mean “now”? This describes an awful lot of the process of gvernment throughout recorded history.

  24. economic equality

    Now there’s an oxymoron.

    1. woops, wrong thread.

  25. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  26. So lunch isn’t free?

    Tomorrow is Free Lunch Day.
    Come back tomorrow.

    1. “Tomorrow is Free Lunch Day.
      Come back tomorrow.”

      Person returns the next day and is told “Free Lunches are intended for the Public, not Private Citizens.”

      1. This will quell your appetite till then. Actually it might do so longer
        http://pagesix.com/2015/05/26/…..1432655935

  27. To err is human. To really screw things up requires government.

  28. To err is human. To really screw things up requires government.

  29. If a new mother wants to change jobs during the paid leave period, where does that pay go? If she’s not going back to her job, does the employer quit paying?

  30. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  31. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  32. Considering that I’m a man working in America. I’m totally for this. More money for me! 😀

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.