a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen

Additional research has revealed more data that has reduced my confidence in the hypothesis that California's Paid Family Leave program has more costs than benefits to the average worker, and increased my confidence in the hypothesis that the program has more costs than benefits for poor workers.

The paper discussed gave the rate of mandatory employee contributions as 1.2%. This rate is adjusted yearly and in 2014 the rate is 1%. More importantly, this contribution funds the State Disability Insurance program, which in addition to providing the Paid Family Leave benefit, also provides short-term disability income replacement.

I haven't found a clear breakdown of the budget which would allow me to update my financial analysis with more accurate numbers, but it appears that the situation is not as bleak as I depicted it.

It is unfortunate that California workers are obligated to trust the state to manage the money that the state takes from their paychecks, when it is so difficult for a typical person like me to even determine how the money is spent.

Additional findings:

As usual, benefits are easy to see, while costs are obscured. An advocacy page depicts a sympathetic mom who received benefits. But it also has a request to divert some of the $2.2 billion sitting in the SDI fund to promotion because "According to 2011 survey data, less than half of respondents (42.7%) had heard of the [Paid Family Leave] program."

California is very good about collecting; compliance with the tax is almost universal. But the success rate at getting the benefits out to working families is not so great.

We should be suspicious of a program likely to transfer wealth from poorer to wealthier households. But wealthier households are more likely to know about PFL, and be able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops needed to collect. The survey showed that only a quarter (25.4%) of "low-income groups" know that PFL exists.

Most employees apply for benefits online. Information about the "digital divide" shows the pattern you would expect with respect to internet access and factors like household income, homeownership, disability, and education.

One can also apply for benefits on paper, with a dismal form. It's not hard to find evidence of even technically savvy people struggling with the process. The Employment Development Department has a 1.5-star rating on Yelp.

If 73% of low-quality job workers are already satisfied with the length of their leave and choose not to apply for the benefits they paid for (and about one in six of those who use PFL do not receive their benefits), is it reasonable to believe that this program is doing enough good to justify the cost?





b_b  ·  3556 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    We should be suspicious of a program likely to transfer wealth from poorer to wealthier households.

Here, we find common ground. There are many government programs purported to help the poor that are really just rent seeking money grabs by the wealthy. Section 8, for example, is one of these programs (the fact that it pays literal rent is coincidence, but it's illustrative). It serves to drive up prices for poor renters, while simultaneously encouraging apathy on the part of the landlord (he's getting his money no matter how much he disregards his tenants) and the renter (why would you care about a security deposit you're not paying?). I think there's an argument to be made that any substitute for cash that is labeled for a specific purpose (food stamps, for example) are much riper for abuse that actual cash payments. Cash payment allow for choice making on the part of the consumer, and thus offers them the ability to let business owners compete for their money. It's distasteful to many people to think what "those people" could do with "our money", but in a state where welfare seems like a necessity to many (and paid family leave is certainly a type of welfare), I prefer direct cash payments to earmarked dollars. As soon as this dollar is guaranteed to go to that good, lobbyists and politicians have a much greater chance to insert corruption into the system.

wasoxygen  ·  3556 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I still don't know if you support or oppose California's PFL program; most of your comments seem to be vaguely positive. Neither of us are experts on the program, but if you know that it exists you have better understanding than the average Californian worker who pays for it!

Suppose we did not have Section 8 housing. Suppose someone introduced legislation that included this language:

    The primary objective of this title is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.

Would you support it? It would appear to be consistent with this position statement:

I support subsidized housing, because I think part of the social contract is that we (civilized people) ensure that decent housing is available to persons of low income.

How could a program with the primary objective of improving housing for the poor do anything but that?

b_b  ·  3556 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I still don't know if you support or oppose California's PFL program; most of your comments seem to be vaguely positive.

Then you understand my position exactly as well as I do :)

As far as welfare goes, I think that earmarking monies is not a very good idea. I don't need to tell you of all people that if the government says that they will pay up to $800/mo for rent for low income people, then $800 is going to be the price, no matter how squalid the conditions. Cash solves that problem. I'm more of the mind that I support human dignity, and I think part of the social contract is that we treat each other with humanity. Practically speaking, direct payments to vendors on behalf of poor people seems to cause harm in a lot of ways. As your other post points out, it's often difficult to disentangle costs and benefits.

wasoxygen  ·  3556 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That sounds like a healthy skepticism, one which wasn't so obvious a week ago when you said this "really would probably benefit the entire country."

I am sure if we keep trying we will eventually find a subject on which we strongly disagree.