Hello Maphen,

Thank you for sharing your story and this article, it sparked some great discussion. I wish you and your family the best.

Because this debate went on so long, I here offer a summary of my position, and invite others do the same.

The article reports that President Obama said the United States should offer paid time off for mothers of newborns, like France.

The cost of the benefit would be paid by the employees, whether they used it or not. This is true of the Paid Family Leave plan now active in California, where an employee is eligible to collect 55% of their usual salary for up to six weeks to bond with a newborn baby. The benefit is entirely funded from a mandatory disability insurance tax on salary, currently 1%.

This is also true in France, where health benefits are funded about half by direct payroll tax, one third by a general tax on earnings, and the rest from additional special taxes.

No one disputes that paid time off for new parents is beneficial. The debate focused on the costs of this benefit, and whether the policy would result in a net positive effect, such that the total benefits outweigh the total costs.

I tried to answer the question Do parents get more out of the program than they put in? for the PFL plan in California, focusing on the financial aspects. (PFL is an income replacement program; it does not alter existing rules about how much time parents can take off, or whether their job is protected.)

Because I couldn't determine how much of the 1% tax is devoted to PFL and what other benefits that revenue supports, I couldn't answer this question for the "average" California worker. But I found many reasons to suspect that the policy is a bad deal for poor California workers.

Most importantly, three-quarters of people in low-income groups do not even know that the program exists. It is undeniable that workers in this category are harmed by the program.

To receive benefits, those who are aware of the program must use an online application process or else submit paperwork to an agency with a poor reputation. It seems likely that poor workers will be less able to successfully navigate this process, so that wealthier households will tend to receive benefits paid in part by poorer households.

Among "low-quality job" workers, 31% received at least half their salary during leave despite not using the PFL program. About one in six who used PFL did not receive at least half their salary, for unclear reasons. Among those who did not use the program, 73% were satisfied with the length of their leave. The source for these numbers is the Leaves That Pay paper which seems generally supportive of the program.

I have little doubt that California's Paid Family Leave program could be better run. Perhaps similar programs get better results in other countries. Or perhaps they are worse; it is merely speculation to think one way or the other without examining evidence.

It seems reasonable to me to suppose that new programs created in response to the president's urges would resemble programs that have already been created for the same purpose. Given that California's program appears to do more harm than good to the low-income workers I believe we should be most concerned about, I oppose such new programs.