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The US can’t afford outdated policies that reduce the growth of the economy; working mothers can no longer accept a situation that creates stress and leads to lost income.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
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail