FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Want to Boost the Economy? Give Mothers (and Others) Paid Family Leave

Women’s paid employment rose dramatically in the US between 1979 and 2000, driven by dramatic increases in the proportion of mothers in paid employment and in their annual hours of work. When the share of women in paid employment peaked in 2000, three-quarters of mothers with children under the age of 18 held paying jobs and nearly half of mothers (46 percent) worked full-time. Largely as a result of mothers entering the labor force, the average annual hours of work for all adult women increased from 966 in 1979 to 1,281 in 2000. This had a major effect on the size of the US economy, increasing it by about 10.6 percent, or $1.5 trillion in today’s dollars.

Women’s average annual hours of work have stalled since then, actually declining by 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2016. As a result, the economy was 2.1 percent smaller in 2016 than it would have been if women’s hours had remained at their 2000 level. The drop in women’s work hours can be attributed to the decline in the workforce participation rate of women aged 25 to 54, prime years for both employment and raising children. It fell almost 3 percentage points between 2008 and 2016, according to a recent report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This contrasts with the experiences of other advanced countries where the share of prime-age women in the labor market increased steadily despite cyclical ups and downs and the effects of the financial crisis, giving a welcome boost to their economies. Many countries that lagged behind the US in women’s participation in the labor market in the 1970s have now caught up, and some have surpassed us by a wide margin. What explains this?

The answer is policy. In a cross-country analysis, the IMF found that – despite unfavorable cyclical developments and over and above the effects of education, family status, exposure to automation, and opportunities for part-time work – access to childcare and paid maternity leave enabled women who want to work to do so. This explains much of the growth of women’s participation in Europe and other advanced economies.

The US can’t afford outdated policies that reduce the growth of the economy; working mothers can no longer accept a situation that creates stress and leads to lost income.

Working mothers in the US need meaningful family leave policies. New mothers in the EU are entitled to a minimum of 14 weeks of paid maternity leave, and new fathers often receive paid parental leave as well, while new parents in the US have no guarantee of any paid maternity or parental leave.

The Trump administration’s proposed policy solution is to have workers borrow from Social Security to finance parental leave. Details are sketchy, but an analysis of the potential impact of such a plan finds that workers who take one 12-week leave to bond with a child would have to delay retirement by as much as 25 weeks. Those with two children would have to push retirement back until they are almost 68. For many workers, this is unrealistic: punishing physical labor, deteriorating health, or loss of a job leads many to retire at 62.

Depleting Social Security by diverting funds to pay for parental leaves threatens to weaken a system that should, instead, be shored up. Social Security would not recover funds paid out for parental leave until decades later when leave recipients reached retirement age. Furthermore, the proposal does not cover workers who need paid time off for their own medical or temporary disability needs, to care for a seriously ill family member, or for military caregiving purposes.

Contrast this proposal with the Family Act, which is designed to make it easier for women who want to work, or to work full-time, to do so – without forcing them to choose between their caregiving responsibilities and their retirement.

The Family Act would create a comprehensive paid family and medical leave program. Modeled on successful programs in California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island that have been shown to meet the needs of today’s working women and men, the Family Act would establish an insurance fund to provide workers with two-thirds of their weekly income for up to 12 weeks. The program would be funded by small employer and employee contributions of two-tenths of one percent of wages – typically less than $2 a week for the employer and the worker – to cover administrative and insurance costs for new parents and for workers with medical problems or who need to care for a seriously ill family member.

Faster economic growth and paid family leave for workers are both urgently needed in this country. The IMF’s analysis strongly suggests that passage of the Family Act will increase mothers’ participation in the labor market, simultaneously boosting economic growth and providing much needed support to working families.

This column originally appeared in The Hill.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail