Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Lucia Parental leave just grows the State

There are a few posts in the Blogosphere on Labour's new parental leave bill, where they are going to attempt to have parental leave on the birth of a baby extended to one year six months.

Personally, I disagree completely with the idea of parental leave. If it's important to a society that women stay home to look after their babies, then, that society would make sure that the wages given to a married man were up to the task. As we seem to have created an economy where it is difficult if not impossible for most women to stay home to look after their children, getting the tax-payer to fund the birth of children and the employer to keep the job open is imposing an unreasonable burden on everyone and entrenches the status quo, which doesn't help anyone except the ever-growing and intrusive State.

Rather than getting the State to pay, it would be nice if politicians started looking at how to encourage stable couples to have children and rewarding them for that by letting them keep more of their own money, rather than taking money off these people to fund the dysfunctional.

And how on earth did we change from having a single earner economy to a dual earner economy? I've heard Muldoon did it, but I don't know how.

7 comment(s):

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"And how on earth did we change from having a single earner economy to a dual earner economy?"

Because that is what women wanted. To be educated, and independent (which didn't preclude them from being in partnerships with men and fathers of their children.)

Sb said...

It changed much earlier than that. Most people who study this sort of thing think it started about 1918!

Under the old rules it used to be
Married man doing job x was paid 50 somethings because he had a family to support. This used to be called the "family wage system".

Unmarried woman or married woman as she did not have to support a family, as it was assumed that there was a man present with the family wage, would get 30 somethings.

That works fine until the women
gets the vote!

Its hardly surprising that unmarried woman did not see why she is working just as hard as the man but being paid less.

Therefore she votes to change the system.

Remember at about that time due to the losses of males in the wars there were a lot of women who were going to remain single their whole lives and would have to work. For them the family wage system guaranteed poverty.

Lucia Maria said...

The irony of all this is that while women's wages increased, the money required for a family to live now necessitates two earners, not one.

Sb said...

>The irony of all this is that while >women's wages increased......

But if you are a single women or a couple without children you are far better off.

Lucia Maria said...


That's right, on the individual level, for those who don't raise the next generation, they are better off financially. And we all suffer greater government intervention for their good fortune.

Sb said...

but the concept and enforcement of the "Family Minimum Wage" was also government intervention.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

Government intervention to make wages for male and female the same = bad

Government intervention to make a Family Minimum wage = good.

Both are government intervention!

Either policy results in greater government intervention.

Lucia Maria said...

Some types of government intervention lead to the family being self-sufficient, other types lead to the family becoming dependant on the government. I will always choose the former rather than the latter when choosing what form of intervention to take, if intervention is necessary.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.