That’s about all I can say about the idea of mandated paid family leave.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/8166/lazy-bums-of-the-world-unite-to-destroy-labor-markets-and-wreck-the-economy/
Lazy bums of the world unite to destroy labor markets and wreck the economy
Previous post: SpokenMises.org
Next post: Gene Epstein on the Gold Standard
{ 21 comments }
According to the “Live Vote” survey associated with the linked-to article, 63% of participants feel it should be mandated. Only 28% (including my vote) feel that the federal government should never mandate benefits.
This is fair to people who never have children how?
More counterproductive interventionist (please excuse the redundancy) economic policy. Continue to make domestic labor more expensive and you reduce the demand for that labor. Do these economic fools understand the reason for moving production to other countries and outsourcing?
Actually, I believe that many of them do understand the consequences of their interventionist policies and realize that voters will demand additional interventions to supposedly fix the negative results produced by the previous intervention. And increasing interventionism by definition means more state power. Mises explained the dynamics of interventionism all too well many, many years ago.
surely the fact that it would apply only to companies with over 50 on the payroll is a tacit acknowledge of the damage it would cause. the drafters obviously recognize that the damage would be more clearly visible with smaller companies.
i see a great future for 49-person companies.
Yeah, we definitely don’t need more artificial incentives (basically boils down to a singles tax) to reproduce. There are already enough money marriages and abusive relationships around without this new subsidy.
Yes, ultimately it will make for a happier and more productive workforce.
63%
No, the government should never mandate company benefits.
28%
The great Economists of the masses think this should be mandated.
sigh
Won’t anyone think of the chiiiiildren!?!?!
We have something similar setup in Finland. I can’t say I’ve ever understood it, but it seems to fit into the social democratic concept that employers are somehow responsible for their workers, both while working and outside of work. Which in turn fits into the hazy notion of everyone caring for everyone so there is more caring in the world.
So start caring or you’ll end up in prison care!
If these programs are so good then why mandate them? If they only help and hardly cost employers anything then why don’t employers do this themselves?
What makes you think they’re lazy? The voters are probably worried how to pay the mortgage when the wife has a baby. It doesn’t help educate them to call them lazy
.
Yes, I should clarify that my use of the phrase lazy bum is a gratuitous insult designed to belittle and humiliate those who would push laws that are guaranteed to ruin people’s lives and liberty.
If they only help and hardly cost employers anything then why don’t employers do this themselves?
Because they are pure, undiluted evil.
It’s true, I swear. Barack Obama told me so.
The policy is not for the companies self-interest but for societies interest as a whole. The most influential period to take care of a human child is during its infancy. The reason for the U.S.’s cycle of poverty starts at infancy. All children are inherently blank slates and on an equal level but time and care spent at an early age helps to cultivate an educated mind.
If they are worried about their mortgage then perhaps they should have held off on having a child a bit? Or perhaps taken out a smaller mortgage? Just like anything else, if you can’t afford it, don’t do it or if you do then don’t expect everyone else to bail you out. Maybe it is just me, but lack of planning/saving does tend to fall under the category of lazy.
Steven Shaw wrote…
.
What makes you think they’re lazy? The voters are probably worried how to pay the mortgage when the wife has a baby. It doesn’t help educate them to call them lazy
Thanks, Chris. It’s good to know that politicians know EXACTLY what’s best for us and can fix all of our problems for us…NOT!
And of course such a program would not have any effect on the ability of someone to get a job if he is married and likely to have children.
I’m going to start writing down (as discretely as possible) that I don’t have kids and have no plans to have kids on my job applications. Oh, and my parents are already dead, too…
Taras said, “There are already enough money marriages and abusive relationships around without this new subsidy. “.
Is this a reference to subsidies for married couples in the form of favored tax treatment? This is something I was just thinking about recently, but know little about.
Actually, I’ve heard others claim that certain tax codes create a “marriage penalty”, while others say certain tax measures might provide marriage subsidies or incentives to marry. I’m sure I would not be alone in saying that it would be wrong for government to try and influence either outcome or any kind of living arrangement (marriage vs. single living).
I know this is a little off-topic, but Taras’ comment got me wondering again…
Chris,
The policy is not for the companies self-interest but for societies interest as a whole. The most influential period to take care of a human child is during its infancy. The reason for the U.S.’s cycle of poverty starts at infancy.
And here I thought the reason for the cycle of poverty was lack of capital investment and debasement of the currency, but I guess the universe is wrong… and the reason for poverty is because we have to work.
Soap operas and Hollywood have convinced me that bosses are the fathers of most of the staff of their employees’ children, so the bosses SHOULD be forced to subsidise their own kids! It’s only right, after all!!
What do you mean, it’s make-believe???
You mean even Hollywood tells lies?!!!
I love the comments here, all so true.
This sounds like a clever way around the welfare reform of the 1990s. Since then, parents can no longer have extra children just to boost their welfare benefits.
Instead, fully-employed people can get a piece of the action: Have a kid, continue to collect paychecks and PPO benefits while on leave and give half of it to a boarding center to take care of the kid while on a paid vacation in Cabo! Brilliant plan!
Trouble is that all of the money for this scheme comes out of one employer’s pocket, instead of skimming the pockets of millions.
In 20 years, this ridiculous disaster will all be behind us. Sadly, by then I’ll need to know a foreign language to get one of the last remaining jobs, which will surely be with a foreign firm in another country that has learned the lessons of socialism. The Soviets may not have defeated America militarily, but they did a fine job assimilating us nonetheless.
Comments on this entry are closed.