Economics

How Mandatory Paid Leave Hurts Low-Income Workers

Proponents always forget to figure in the costs.

|

Despite recent stock market jitters related to the coronavirus, the U.S. economy is doing well. Wages are growing, especially for lower-income workers, and unemployment is low. Yet calls are intensifying for the federal government to implement paid leave, which may unwittingly hurt those whom the program claims to help. Supporters often resort to the same misleading notions to make their case—misperceptions that must be continuously debunked, lest they lead to unnecessary harm to working families.

Among the most common claims used to make the case for government provision of paid leave is that not every working woman gets paid leave, which supposedly demonstrates a market failure. Still, data show that 63 percent of women today have access to such leave, a 280 percent increase since the 1960s. The women who don't receive this benefit are mostly lower-skilled workers with part-time and hourly jobs employed at small businesses.

Undoubtedly, these women would like to get paid to stay home after the birth of their children, yet that's no more evidence of a market failure than is my not driving a Tesla, even though I'd like to drive one if it were free. This isn't a reason for government to mandate paid leave (or Teslas) for all workers.

More to the point, such mandates will likely harm low-income workers.

Here's why: Because paid leave is costly, when firms provide this benefit, they change the composition of their employees' total compensation by reducing the value of workers' take-home pay to offset the cost of providing paid leave. While some workers prefer this mix in their pay packages, others don't. In particular, mandated leave would be a hard trade-off for many lower-paid women who would prefer as much of their income as possible in the form of take-home pay.

In fact, polls show that when women learn of the trade-offs inherent in any government-mandated paid-leave policy, their support for such a policy collapses.

Another weak argument that pro-paid leave advocates make is that the United States is the only industrialized country without a national paid leave program. While true, this doesn't mean what paid leave proponents would like you to believe. As we've already seen, absence of federal government action doesn't mean that U.S. women aren't getting any paid leave. Nor does it mean that women in countries that have such government-mandated programs are doing better than women in the United States.

In fact, while proponents of government-supported paid leave policies like to list the many benefits that women, their children, and the companies they work for get from paid leave, these proponents are silent on the costs—of which, unfortunately, there are many.

A National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER, paper shows that while women in non-U.S. countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development often have higher labor force participation, the lack of a U.S. paid leave policy leads to women in America being more likely "to have full time jobs and to work as managers or professionals."

Moreover, government-supported paid leave policies don't improve women's labor market outcomes compared with men's. A well-cited NBER paper looks at Denmark's very generous paid leave policy and finds that before having children, women's hours, employment, and wages are equal to those of men, but that these metrics all worsen relative to men after having children. Another recent NBER paper expands on this research and shows that while this divergence also exists in the United States, it's significantly smaller here.

The last misleading claim in this debate is that the levels of benefits being proposed in America aren't anywhere near as high as those mandated in Europe, so the negative consequences of government-mandated benefits in the United States would be smaller than they are in Europe. That's only true if the benefits don't grow over time, which is unrealistic.

European programs didn't start off as big as they are now. The average length of family leave programs in the eurozone increased from 17 weeks in 1970 to 57 weeks in 2016. That's because what starts as a maternity leave program expands to parental leave and then becomes an even broader kind of leave, such as home care for sick family members.

There are many more poor arguments for mandated paid leave out there, many of which, unfortunately, demonstrate that facts and sound economics are, in this debate, too often optional.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Trump Wins Second Circuit Case Against Sanctuary Cities, in Ruling that Goes Against Broad Consensus of other Court Decisions

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. The Seen and the Unseen — Frédéric Bastiat was one fart smeller.

    1. Wait, you mean there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch? You can’t blame the well-intentioned government do-gooders if this goes awry. It’s the eeeeevil corporations after all.

      1. Yes just like Obamacare and a massive amount of new regulations cause premiums to rise. But it’s the evil insurers.

        1. in fairness it was insurers that wrote that law…obama never did a real days work in his life, do anyone think he spent ten minutes on the nuts and bolts of that shitpie? really? only insurers could take a simple idea and bloat it to 1400 page. obama care is a wetdream for insurers…mandate that we buy it and leave us to the whims of the market. sweet deal for them.

  2. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link……Read MoRe

  3. Odd that the same people who argue that a smaller population would be the very best thing for the environment are also mostly the same ones who argue for paid leave and subsidized child care so that it’s easier to have more babies without taking the sort of financial bit that having more than one kid or even zero kids normally would take.

    But then logic is an extremely rare thing. It should be on a critically endangered list.

    1. What is this “logic”? And where can I find one?

  4. Because paid leave is costly, when firms provide this benefit, they change the composition of their employees’ total compensation by reducing the value of workers’ take-home pay to offset the cost of providing paid leave.

    Well duh, these economic planners aren’t as dumb as you think, I’m sure there’s a provision in the law that employers aren’t allowed to pass their costs along to their employees or their customers. I’m sure they learned from the soda tax fiasco in Philadelphia – that plan would have worked fine except that they forgot to mandate that the taxes had to be paid by the retailer instead of the customer so the sneaky bastards just passed the ~20% cost increase on to their customers instead of taking a slightly smaller profit. (Although it did backfire on the retailers since when they jacked up their prices all their customers started going outside the city for their sodas so, hahaha, joke’s on you Mr. Retailer, you just lost all your customers when you try ripping them off by palming your costs off on them.)

    1. Far better to just eat the increased cost and sell the soda at a loss, that’s a surefire path to success.

      1. You lose money on each sale but you make it up in volume. I think that’s known as the Elon Musk Strategy.

  5. As Koch / Reason libertarians, the last thing we want to do is hurt low-income workers. That’s why our economic agenda consists of two main proposals: (a) unlimited, unrestricted immigration, and (b) no minimum wage.

  6. Really? Government meddling has costs?
    Say it ain’t so!

    Suggested constitutional amendment to replace the expired “equal” rights amendment –
    “No employer shall provide anything other than monetary wages to any employee under any circumstances.”
    Once everybody gets only pay, then everyone gets the specific “benefits” package they desire, because they buy it themselves.

    1. I’d be happy just having the option of negotiating a “pay only” contract, bu alas, there are too many laws controlling that.

      1. You can kinda do that, 1099 contract work is essentially “pay only”.

        There’s obviously a lot of regulation around that so it isn’t perfect, but if you’re 1099 whoever is paying you isn’t wasting their time on buying you health insurance.

        1. that gets harder by the day. see calif ab5. the matrix we use to define IndieContractor had gotten more convoluted even before that recent piece of shit

  7. The ridiculous assumption in this article is that corporations pay a fair wage. If they did, lower wage workers could afford to take time off. But they do not, have not, will not.

    So by having a minimum wage in recognition that companies use their power to drive down wages, and mandating certain benefits, it helps lower wage workers

    A thriving economy is one where healthy educated people are able to live their lives.
    If you want to live in a third world country follow right wing policies

    1. Plenty of corporations pay a fair wage. Lots and lots of corporations are small companies that try very hard to take care of their employees.

    2. A fair wage is simply the value you impart to your employer. You are a business cost. If you want a higher wage, make your value higher.

      1. Eeek. Don’t piss off the commie trolls.

    3. Every job, almost by definition, pays a fair wage, because it was negotiated by, and agreed by, both employer and employee. The negotiation may not be to your liking, consisting mostly of employers offering jobs and employees choosing which to apply for, but it’s there.

      You statists just can’t stand the idea of adults cooperating without government interference.

      1. bullshit

        the assumption that a worker has equivalent power to a multinational corporation is a proven falsehood

        1. “the assumption that a worker has equivalent power to a multinational corporation is a proven falsehood”

          Do lefties lie for fun? In the hopes someone might just believe their bullshit?
          Or are they simply abysmally stooopid?

          1. and yet you offer nothing

            again

            1. “…and yet you offer nothing…”

              Calling you on your bullshit is quite enough.

        2. Any worker has the power to choose whether or not to accept a job offer from a multinational corporation. A multinational corporation does not have the power to force any unwilling worker to accept such an offer.

          1. yet they have the power to determine what they will pay for a position, and smaller companies only have to compete with what else is out there
            employees have the option of working or starving
            not equivalent power

            1. yet they have the power to determine what they will pay for a position
              True. So?
              and smaller companies only have to compete with what else is out there
              True. So?
              employees have the option of working or starving
              True. So?
              not equivalent power
              To what?

              Nobody is forced against their will to take a job they don’t want to take. Just because a job doesn’t pay as much as a person would like or doesn’t have as many benefits as a person would like doesn’t mean it’s not worth having. Employers regularly hire people who don’t have the perfect set of skills for the job they need done, too. There are tradeoffs to every decision you make.

              1. This is like saying you have control over the price of gasoline

                You don’t

                1. “This is like saying you have control over the price of gasoline
                  You don’t”

                  Yes, he does.
                  You are a liar and an ignoramus.

        3. So does that corporation force you to come work, or do you have nearly endless employment opportunities? Can a worker walk off the job and never come back?

        4. Leftist nonsense. Almost everybody works for an organization bigger and more powerful than themselves. So does that mean the organization can use its power to ‘force’ each employee to work for low wages? Obviously not. Why not? Because the worker has the option of going to work for somebody else. Google can’t use its massive size to force all its developers to work for $15/hr (or even below market wages), because they’d all leave and go to work for Apple or Facebook or Microsoft or one of literally thousands other software companies. The size differential between employer and single employee is simply irrelevant.

          1. foolishness
            market power

            proven by the absence of increased pay with massive increases in worker productivity

            1. Well, since the “massive increase” in worker productivity was almost entirely the result of capital investments and not the result of changes in the workers, I’m not sure what you think this proves.

            1. So you called your own bullshit before you bullshitted?

              1. OMG I gave you information to argue against me

                What will you do with it?

                I wait breathlessly

                1. You linked one story which provided evidence that you are full of shit, and then linked some lefty propaganda.
                  What will I do with it? Ignore the propaganda.

                  1. well, since both have lots of big words in them I don’t expect much

          2. Google can’t use its massive size to force all its developers to work for $15/hr […] because […]

            … California ruled that non-compete contracts were invalid.

            Many other states, however, will enforce them.

            For that matter, corporate retaliation to talking about pay and benefits is a pretty classic tale, and is one of the many ways that corporations prevent employees from realizing that they are being underpaid.

        5. proven? may we see your sources? the employment landscape has NEVER been more level that it is today. easy examples are uber/lyft, recording industry, graphic designer, real estate agents, freelance writing, coding…i can go on but i think you might see my point. if you have a blinders-on perspective, i can see why you might have that viewpoint but my personal experience has been as a self employed person since 1990 and EVERY year since then my cost of business (excepting govt matters) has gone down. technology has truly flattened the world so that what used to be barriers to entry are in some cases GONE. ask any musician or artist or welder

    4. “The ridiculous assumption in this article is that corporations pay a fair wage”
      The wage is fair, because there is a willing employee who agrees to exchange their labor for the agreed upon wage.

      1. never in the history of the planet has this been true

        1. arpiniant1
          February.27.2020 at 10:31 am
          “never in the history of the planet has this been true”

          Are you really this stooooopid, or just trolling?

          1. Why how very persuasive,

            not

            imagine being able to make a point

            1. arpiniant1
              February.27.2020 at 11:18 am
              “Why how very persuasive,…”

              So, stoopid. Good to know.

          2. He’s just another mouth breathing lefty with no skills, so he’s pissed off that other people are more successful than he is. Rather than look in the mirror for why that has occurred, he needs to use violence to take down his betters.

            Personally, I hope he takes up drinking bleach.

            1. and yet you call me angry and a mouth breather
              interesting kindergarten logic there

              1. “and yet you call me angry and a mouth breather”

                He’s got your number.

              2. I’m making an argument that you’re capable of being both phenomenally dumb and irrationally angry at the same time. You should be pleased I’m giving you that much credit.

        2. Corporations pay fair wages not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they have to in order to attract employees and keep them from jumping to some other company that pays more.

          1. and yet they do not

            1. And yet they do.

            2. Define a fair wage, then.

    5. arpiniant1
      February.27.2020 at 8:06 am
      “The ridiculous assumption in this article is that corporations pay a fair wage…”

      The ridiculous assumption in your comment is that you have more than one brain cell.
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. [golf clap]

        so very convincing
        proving that you have the interests of the public at large in your opinions

        1. “…proving that you have the interests of the public at large in your opinions…”

          Proving you are stupid enough to think mandating benefits actually improves outcomes.

    6. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!! ™

      Haha

    7. Wow, I can’t remember ever seeing such a long subthread spawned by the failure of an irony circuit breaker.

  8. Keep licking those boots.

    1. “Keep licking those boots.”

      Keep sucking that ass.

  9. All those reasons given for this are merely a proxy for the ONE idea behind it all: that, as Congressman Mario Biaggi told me when I went to him to complain about a federal minimum wage increase being considered, “Employers are sharks.” According to this thinking, which I’d call Marxist except it’s pre-Marx, employers pay only what they’re forced to — that they would pay effectively nothing, and that employees would work for practically nothing, if no other conditions were forced. That is, we all live on whatever can be squeezed by force out of wealthy employers, who otherwise would have everything.

    1. And that’s why 99% of work is minimum wage.

      Oh wait.

    2. There is this thing called ‘history’ that you may look into, and you will see companies and how they profited by things called ‘slavery’ and conditions that came to be called ‘Dickensian’

      Yeah, and that lead to the rise of labor unions, which were violently opposed by corporations
      And yes Marxism[you seem to have picked that term up without understanding its meaning] and then corporations realized that unions were ‘better’ than communism, at least in theory
      Once communism was no longer a threat, they used their money to destroy unions as they were no longer useful

      ITs the short version, but it will give you a start

      1. arpiniant1
        February.27.2020 at 12:20 pm
        “There is this thing called ‘history’ that you may look into, and you will see companies and how they profited by things called ‘slavery’ and conditions that came to be called ‘Dickensian’”

        There is this thing called “history” you might look into which shows that the market economy has lead to the greatest increase in prosperity.
        In spite of which lefty assholes continue to pitch the lie that government interference is preferable.

      2. The unions weren’t destroyed by outside forces. They fell into decay since they aren’t really needed. Several things happened.

        1: Unskilled jobs greatly decreased due to automation and job exportation.
        2: Safety standards were increased legally.
        3: Increased skill levels of the workforce and competition between employers led to higher overall wages.
        4: Typically, even the worry of the threat of unionization is enough to keep employers in line.

        That last point is important. You shouldn’t need a union. If you can work without a union, then that’s better than forming one since you don’t have the standoff tension or the payment of dues. Most employers in my area seen unionization is a moral failing on the boss’s part. “What did you do to make them want a union?” However, if you CANNOT form a union, then you lose that power, and you can fall into the trap of those who do have moral failings.

      3. Haha. You progs just love to live in the past.

      4. It’s not Marxism, that gives Marx too much credit. It preceded him.

  10. If mandated paid leave creates negative impacts, especially for dark-skinned poor women, then obviously we need more government management of all pay structures, hiring, scheduling, and pricing.

    Sigh. The work of an enlightened, compassionate progressive is never done.

    1. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

  11. as Congressman Mario Biaggi told me when I went to him to complain about a federal minimum wage increase being considered, “Employers are sharks.”

    Okay, let’s go with that. If…

    1. employers are sharks
    and
    2. government employs people
    and
    3. politicians run the government

    then…

    4. politicians are sharks.

    The logical conclusion is that politicians can’t be trusted to have workers’ best interests in mind when they pass laws affecting those workers.

    1. because corporations can be trusted
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

      HA

      HA

      Heh heh

      oh man, you is funny

      at least the government is tasked with looking out for the people, and until trumpski forms the NEw Fascist Republic politicians can theoretically be voted out

      ‘The people’s’ impact on corporations?

      uh yeah, zero

      1. “at least the government is tasked with looking out for the people”

        And passing laws that hurt people is sure an odd way of demonstrating that, wouldn’t you agree?

        1. being tasked with something is not the same as successfully carrying out that task
          Corporations are tasked with making the maximum amount of money for their shareholders, and they fail all the time, and are not tasked with looking out for the public or the environment or….

          and yet you trust them more

          odd

          1. “being tasked with something is not the same as successfully carrying out that task
            Corporations are tasked with making the maximum amount of money for their shareholders, and they fail all the time, and are not tasked with looking out for the public or the environment or….”

            Try English next time.

            1. Why, can you read?

    2. Well, in Biaggi’s case, the sharks have their hands out. They eventually got him on an “illegal gratuity”.

  12. Never in history have corporations paid in relation to productivity

    They pay the minimum they can get away with
    Always
    There is absolutely no economic rule that works to change that

    When the .1 percent achieve possession of 99 percent of the wealth, who is going to argue against them?

    you?

    and why do you think that you are the ones that will be paid a fair wage when that happens?

    1. “Never in history have corporations paid in relation to productivity”

      I’ll ask again: Are you really this stoooopid?
      It takes a very low IQ to make that claim, so I’m willing to accept that you’re some OBL-level troll, but other than that, you really need help.

      1. again, failure to have or even copy an opinion

        1. “again, failure to have or even copy an opinion”

          Again, called on bullshit, replies with whine.
          Fuck off, slaver.
          That’s as much as you deserve.

    2. You know, you could read the comment just above yours, from I’m Not Sure, at 10:07 AM. Thoughts?

    3. “Never in history have corporations paid in relation to productivity

      They pay the minimum they can get away with
      Always”

      I got a raise six months after starting my job. I didn’t ask for one and I wouldn’t have quit if I didn’t get what I wasn’t even expecting. How does your claim account for this?

      1. there is no contradiction

        why do you think there is?

        1. You said:

          “They pay the minimum they can get away with
          Always”

          And yet, I’m being paid more than what “they can get away with”, a contradiction so obvious even an idiot can see it.

          1. only an idiot makes the assumption that their personal experience is indicative of the larger truth

            1. “only an idiot makes the assumption that their personal experience is indicative of the larger truth”

              Yeah, those black swans keep getting in the way of your idiocy.

            2. I didn’t say anything about a larger truth. You said “always”, I proved you wrong. End of story.

              1. You didn’t even prove it in your imaginary case

          2. Information necessary to judge whether your [probably imaginary] situation is relevant:
            Pay for your initial position in relation to that position industrywide
            Pay for your current position in relation to that position industrywide
            your productivity in relation to ….

            you get the point

            or are you just another idiot?

            1. “…you get the point…”

              Yes, you’ll condition any response on unknowable values and shove that goalpost.

    4. They pay the minimum they can get away with.

      Quite true. They also charge the maximum price they can get away with.

      “What they can get away with” is dependent on what their competitors think they can get away with. There’s a reason McDonalds doesn’t pay a dollar a week and charge 300 dollars for a hamburger – it’s called Wendy’s. Want to guess why Wendy’s doesn’t pay a dollar a week and charge 300 dollars for a hamburger? It’s called Burger King. Want to guess why Burger King doesn’t pay a dollar a week and charge 300 dollars for a hamburger? It’s called Walmart and macaroni and cheese.

      McDonalds and Wendy’s and Burger King aren’t just competing with each other, they’re competing with a whole universe of options for both employment and for food. Nobody has to buy a hamburger and nobody has to work at a fast food restaurant, they can’t just set wages and prices however they want. The market makes that determination. It’s the same reason Raytheon doesn’t pay their electrical engineers minimum wage.

      And if you aren’t willing to work for 10 dollars an hour and somebody else is, that’s just you valuing your time more than somebody else values their time – it’s a subjective opinion and “fairness” doesn’t enter into it. If you want a prospective employer to value your time as much as you value your time, you’re going to have to do better than argue “fairness”, you’re going to have to persuade him it’s in his best interest to do so.

      1. REally

        so I am going to go talk to the board of a major corporation and get them to listen?

        riiiiiight

        why doesn’t fairness enter into it?

        because you say so?
        because you believe without evidence that the market cures all ills?

        1. “…why doesn’t fairness enter into it?…”

          Because no one, especially lefty fucking ignoramuses, can begin to define that fantasy value.
          If “fair” were a consideration, you would be paid, oh. $0.05/hour. At best, by my estimation.

        2. no need to talk to them arp…the market does that for you. in my locality the fast foods (note, i do not work at one, but do ask around as it interests me) pay between 13-16 an hour and one manager i met says he cannot fill spots. the advantage where i am is to the employee who can get a job in a day provided they can pass the pee test and run the register (which most often has a picture of the food item). that same manager reports he has in recent years had to add many accommodations to employees to retain them. so…the evidence i cite is local, current and accurate

          i see you like to use broad generalities but my personal experience and that of my neighbors refutes you. at least lately

  13. I wish someone would compile honest data on what percentages of women in various countries have what benefits so we could dispel false notions of the US as an outlier and present that data alongside data on women’s career outcomes.

    1. “Still, data show that 63 percent of women today have access to such leave”

      Any word on how many *men* have access to such leave?

      But I kid. Obviously men are the evil oppressor overlords of The Patriarchy and should be denied access to any and all government mandated benefits.

      Well, unless their non-white. Or non-cishetero.

  14. How about ‘every industrialized country’

    rather than comparing the US to Zimbabwe or Laos?

    1. Linked article headline: Among 41 countries, only U.S. lacks paid parental leave

      Reality: The U.S. company I work for offers paid parental leave

      1. god forbid everyone else get what you have

        That would be, like, wrong

        1. god forbid you tell other people what to do.
          That would be totally fucked up to have such an idiot in control.

        2. I pointed out that the headline of the article you linked to was, in fact, a lie. I didn’t say anything about what other people should or shouldn’t have.

          You sure like to change the subject, don’t you?

          1. I did not change the subject

            actually you did, whining about the headline
            which is not false

            1. “I did not change the subject”

              No use counting your lies…

        3. They’re free to pursue the same employment and benefits as he has, what’s stopping them?

          1. The fact that the vast majority of companies do not offer it

            1. So irrelevant bullshit.
              Lefty ignoramus drivel.

      2. BLS:
        In March 2018, 17 percent of civilian workers had access to paid family leave and 89 percent had access to unpaid family leave.

          1. it was in response to a request for infomation, but you view information that did not originate inside of your skull as ‘false’ so naturally you would not understand

                1. Thank you for admitting the statistic is meaningless. Sorta like your existence.

                  1. thank you for, once again, failing to have a point

                    proving your own stupidity seems to be your point

                    1. “proving your own stupidity seems to be your point”

                      That mirror is tough, isn’t it?
                      I notice for all your lies and arm-waving and assorted bullshit, you’ve yet to show any advantage at all from your preferred mandate; you have not once addressed the losses caused by that requirement.
                      Instead, as is typical of lefty ignoramuses, you assume what you desire it better than the alternative.
                      Facts? Who needs those when your fantasies are so appealing? To idiots…

                    2. i’m sorry did you use a fact,

                      no
                      I am sure you can invent one soon enough

                    3. “i’m sorry did you use a fact, ”

                      Yes, I used the fact that your entire waste of bandwidth is based on an ignorant lefty assertion, absent evidence.
                      I’m not sorry, nor surprised that fucking lefty ignoramuses are unable to understand facts and use them to come to logical resolutions.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

      3. Among 41 countries, only US lacks paid parental leave.

        Also among 41 countries, only the US lacks somebody ahead of them on the list of the world’s largest economies.

        Coincidence?

        1. till tomorrow when China takes over…..

          so what is the combined GDP of the countries that do not expect their citizens to be wage slaves?

          Oh, Just EU+ Japan is more than the US, so of course you have no point

          1. With only twice as many people, how do they do it?!

            1. I’m sorry were we talking about GDP per capita?

              yawn

              US is in at 10

              yawn

              1. Does cherry-picking pay you a minimum wage, scumbag?

          2. Nobody is a slave in the US. If you don’t want to work for wages, you’re free to start your own business anytime you want. Unless, of course, your beloved government won’t let you, that is.

            1. right
              after you gutted their education
              after monopolistic companies use their market power

              oh, did i mention I have run my own company for 30 years?

              you are a fool

              1. “right
                after you gutted their education
                after monopolistic companies use their market power”
                More lefty bullshit absent evidence.

                “oh, did i mention I have run my own company for 30 years?”
                No and no one who has is going to believe that stinking pile of bullshit.

                “you are a fool”
                You should be so lucky as to be only a “fool” ignoramus.

              2. “after you gutted their education”
                Government runs education. You know, the people you want to run businesses, too.

                “after monopolistic companies use their market power”
                Which companies in the US have, without benefit of the use of government power, a monopoly? Name one.

                “oh, did i mention I have run my own company for 30 years?”
                You mentioned lots of things, most of it nonsense.

          3. “…till tomorrow when China takes over…..”

            On top of being an ignoramus, you lead an active fantasy life.

            1. really
              you cannot read can you

              https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-to-fall-behind-china-within-a-year-standard-chartered-says-2019-1

              the voices in your head are not an accurate news source

              1. Hmmm.
                Business Insider.
                And you lie about running a business? And expect us to believe that?
                Dumb, dumber and *ignoramus*!

                1. you have a source that resides outside your skull?

                  1. Yeah, reality.

  15. Perhaps if executives were paid what they’re worth (in line with other advanced capitalist countries) and didn’t use profits for stock buybacks and other ways that don’t create value, there wouldn’t have to be a trade-off.

    1. Please tell us, oh lefty ignoramus, what executives are worth.
      I’m sure you have some formula which allows you to determine the value of those skills.
      Actually, I know you don’t and know that you are:
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

      1. How about executives on boards setting compensation for other executives (which then becomes the basis for their own compensation). Or studies that show ceo compensation is unrelated to performance. Or that multipliers between ceo and staff pay are outrageously higher in the us compared to other modern capitalist countries. But keep telling yourself you pwned the libs bro

  16. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==►Read MoRe 

  17. I don’t agree, there must paid leaves it’s just so necessary

  18. Especially with the Coronavirus panic going around, it’s interesting that you got through an article about paid leave without mentioning sick leave.

    Fact is, one of the “costs” of our lack of mandated leave policies is an increase in the spread of communicable diseases (such as the flu and, in the future, possibly the Coronavirus) because people who probably should stay home instead go to work because some combination of (A) not being able to take the financial hit of missed days/hours, and (B) not being able to risk losing a job because of missing a shift.

    And this isn’t a new or unknown problem, it’s just one of those cases where a business pushes the cost of their business decision onto the public to improve their own bottom line. The exact sort of problem that unregulated markets are bad at handling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.