The UK government is making it possible — ahhhhh! – to let new fathers take three months’ paid leave off work. How nice. How generous. How could the heartless, flinty Gradgrinds like we libertarian free-marketeers oppose such a fine and dandy state of affairs?
You know the answer. The answer of course is that the cost of paying fathers paternity leave will be born by the employers, and hit small businesses disproportionately hard, as well as those employees who either through personal choice or circumstance do not, or choose not, to have children. And of course the whole issue ignores those subversive capitalist types who happen to be self-employed. What are they supposed to do, exactly?
My father (ex-RAF and farmer for 40+ years) would be chortling out loud at being told, just as the wheat harvest was about to start, that my birth would let him take three months off, far away from the combine harvester, plough and cattle shed. Perhaps we should start compiling a list of which Labour Party MPs have ever run a business from scratch and had to meet a payroll? I bet the list is short.
If our political masters were really wise on this issue, they would cut the overall burden of tax, so that parents could have a higher post-tax income with which to make decisions about family life that suit their own circumstances. Why is such a simple approach so difficult? (And by the way, I expectantly await what the Tory leadership candidates say about this).
Government types make these rules because governments always have 2-3 times more people than they need. So if a person is away three months, who cares?
In small businesses, every person is vital to its proper functioning. And how can they hire qualified replacements. Who would take a job for only three months?
On the other hand, how many men can stand being home with a crying baby 24 hours a day for more than a week?
Those that work in (sorry, are employed in) the public sector will doubtless have no difficulty in arranging cover for their paternity leave. Assuming they can find the time in between their sick leave, their suspensions on full pay, their stress leave, etc etc.
Johnathan, great point about your father. While redistribution may be hard for some to grasp, this issue is plainly obvious: more consumption, and less production= gov’t enforced reduction in wealth. God forbid that you guys have a baby-boom.
Well, Za-NuLab still has the power to astonish with its impertinence. This is part of the long-term programme to feminise men.
As an American worker, I hail the wisdom of the almighty British state. Anything that makes British industry less competitive can only help America’s prosperity. On the other hand, scratch that. The British economy is so small a threat it really doesn’t matter. And at least the pub owners will profit. Nobody really thinks the men are going to stay home with the crumb-crunchers, do they? By the way, I thought you folks had given up on child-rearing.
Cut the burden of tax and let people make their own decisions?
No, surely it’s far better for those super wise people in government to decide what you should have in a politically correct world and then take your money (with a cut for them along the way) to socially engineer the outcome they desire (for your own good, obviously).
Why, if you kept your own money, you might make the wrong decision about what to do with it.
ah, HJHJ has succinctly pointed out the problem of the nanny state and socialism in general.
Bravo!
Robert I may not be an economist but even I realise that if we Englanders are worse off the whole world will end up being worse off, we can buy less of your goods.
I’m equally mystified as to why Robert Speirs thinks that “us folks” had given up on child rearing.
Could he explain?
This legislation will make older farts like me (OK, I’m nearly 39) much more employable. After all, I won’t be taking paternity leave, will I?
I should think the answer is a neat round zero. The Labour Party is comprised of people who destroy businesses – whether through 1970’s or 80’s militant union activism (Reid, Blunkett, Prescott etc.) or “social” activism (Hain, Armstrong etc.) – not build them. This week we have already seen Blunkett yield to the public service unions by reducing the retirement age for parasites to 60, while the rest of us are being warned that the age of retirement may have to be increased to 70 or 75. Now they intend to hit employers even harder by making them pay for free leave for parents.
Of course with the rate at which someone like Blunkett apparently gets women pregnant he’d probably be on permanent leave from the Department for Work and Pensions.
Robert Speirs, your grasp of economics is rather tenuous as your remarks strongly suggest you have fallen prey to the notorious Fixed Quantity of Wealth fallacy.
Britain’s economy being weaker does not therefore mean the US economy will become stronger and seeing as how Britain is one of the larger trading partners of the US, the opposite result is more likely: less British people buying things (an inevitable consequence of a weakening economy) means they buy less things from the USA and sell less to the USA of the things the UK previously had a comparative advantage in, increasing prices to US consumers.
Julian Taylor – If Blunkett knocks up two, one after the other, in “sincere commitments” can he take his paternity leaves sequentially, to take care of “the little lads”? Is it mandatory? Could he be forced to take his paternity leaves?
The current context for all economic decisions, whether public or private, is that we are in a WORLD economy. The path to continuing growth is not a mystery (see the 7 characteristics of a successful economy); the myths of central planning and ownership have been debunked in so many places that only the blindly faithful, or academics, still promote them; the pernicious falsehood that economic interaction is the same as political/military predation is believed only by failed states, and the EU, for non-economic reasons.
While in the 18th and 19th century, certain industries were located in specific parts of a country because of resource availability, and people migrated to the place where work could be found, now the work moves to those areas which can supply a workforce, and goods and services which would have been ruinously expensive previously can be transported all over the globe and still be affordable to the average person.
The only reason statists can attempt to foist this type of nonsense on various societies is the phenomenal wealth production of capitalist industrial and post-industrial economies—wealth that is so widespread and accepted as normal that we forget that a century ago most people on earth didn’t have shoes, furniture or a house to put it in, an education beyond grade school, if that, and the list goes on and on.
Political theorists have spent several generations teaching ordinary people that they should be taken care of by society. Even though the various economic and social computer models show that this shell game cannot possibly continue much longer, the idea is so imbedded, and the political price for voting against it so high, that the only way to continue to promote these schemes is to use the blank-out.
Eventually, reality will fill in the blanks with a vengeance—it always does. It is then up to those who have seen through these ponzi schemes all along to force the “powers that be” to answer for their folly, instead of scapegoating “selfish capitalists” or some other convenient villain.
That’s where we come in.
Several comments came close to the real reason for these laws and regulations. Every government employee immediately receives the benefit.
In the UK the private sector is much more controlled than here in the US. Our government agencies both federal and state think of new reasons for benefits and new holidays. The government workers (military excepted) then get them. Private workers almost never do since most employers must face competition not only from domestic rivals but from overseas.
A message from a piece of bum fluff apparently employed by the British taxpayer:
(Link)
“If our political masters were really wise on this issue, they would cut the overall burden of tax, so that parents could have a higher post-tax income with which to make decisions about family life that suit their own circumstances.”
You’re assuming that tax rates aren’t taken into consideration in setting pay rates at present, right? I assume that any drastic lowering of taxes would be followed by many employers by freezing or reducing wages, so that the employee had the same take home pay or maybe even a tiny bit more, but less pre-tax income on paper.
And contrasting parental care options for farmers and predominantly urban populations is comparing apples and oranges.
Michael, I am not sure that you are on the right track, here. Employers pay the wage rate to get the people to fill a job. The after-tax income an employee gets is not really relevant to my boss. As far as he/she is concerned, the marginal cost of employing me vs not employing me is what counts, not my actual standard of living.
I can see why, in a dim sort of way, the government wants to encourage people to have children. The birthrate in this country is in decline for various reasons, with the exception perhaps of immigrant groups (something that Mark Steyn has noted). But this measure will not make much of a difference. What is key is making it easier for mothers to stay at home in the first months of a pregnancy without feeling great pressure to go back to work. Big tax cuts would help achieve that and strengthen marriage all round.
You say that the cost will be borne by the employers, and this is undoubtedly true; however, where possible those employers will (must) pass on the hugely increased costs – of paying two people to do the same job at the same time, while only the untrained one is actually doing it – either to their customers (in the form of higher prices) or to their other employees (in the form of lower wages). The way for other employees to get a slice of the pie is for them to make themselves eligible for paid idleness. Hurrah! More state-school fodder! As more people see that they can benefit from this largesse at the expense of non-breeders (whom they will soon outnumber), the less likely it is that any party that suggest trimming it back will ever be elected.
Look on the good side. hey may have finally solved the “glass ceiling”, by making potential fathers unemployable too.
Here’s a thought: does the National Health subsidize Viagra? You only have to lace the beverages of all the various ministry workers and wait nine months. If they’re all off on family leave, they can’t come up with more of these silly ideas. It may not be good government, but lack of government is better than stupid government.
The company I work for has just started some kind of childcare voucher scheme. It involves getting something like £1600 a year of your salary in tax free vouchers. Now I’m all for people getting things tax free, but obviously it means I’m subsidising other people’s children. I resent it.
Goodness. Maybe I was being sarcastic? But certainly I’ve heard that European birth rates are way down. Doesn’t that apply to the UK as well? And also I realize the interdependency of economies. But ever since 1812 we’ve realized here in Jesusland the necessity for destroying the British economy in order to safeguard US prosperity from the ravages of the King’s Navy. And you guys are doing the job for us!
Of course, if your birth rates are extremely low, the whole paternity leave issue is yet another pointless – and low-cost – exercise in saying the popular thing.
Perry is right about regulations in one country harming (not helping) other nations.
Certainly a particular industry (i.e. a group of companies) may benefit from their British competitors having more costs piled upon them – but the American population as a whole lose by the action.
As for why such regulations get through, it is the old story. People have come to see “rights” as nice things they get from the government (not as limitations on government power) – and so (of course) they want more and more of these “rights”.
Politicians and administrators provide them partly to be nice (after all, if you could give nice things to people, at no cost to yourself, would you not do so?) and partly to gain their votes.
Also (this is the case with both politicians and administrators) simply to fill up the day. People in government service do not sit about all day (as the myth holds) they are very active – doing paper work, going to meetings and so on. And there must be something to show for all this activity – hence regulations.
Also (of course) various commercial interests (normally big corps with admin departments) like some of the regulations because they tie in knots smaller competitors (who do not have departments to deal with the admin, and do not have the political connections to get excemptions).
Certainly there are often examinations of “costs and benefits”, but these will tend to come out in favour of just about any regulation, as the government (or some connected group) will be doing the analysis and most of the costs (the indirect costs) can not be known in advance anyway.
This is why a pragmatic, “case by case” approach to regulation must always tend (eventually) to social collapse.
Just as much as the power to tax, the power to regulate is also the power to destroy.
Neither will destroy civil society at a low level, but without effective resistance to their increase they (eventually) will.
Such resistance must be “dogmatic” (i.e. on principle) as any pragmatic resistance will be ineffective for the above reasons.
All the forces of politics are on the side of an increase in the size and scope of government. To reduce government at all (even by a very small amount), one must be incredibly uncompromising, against the powerful collectivist ideology or our time, and against both the special interests and just the instinct of folk in government to “do something” about various social problems (“I have all this power, I must be able to help”).
A government made up of a “band of brothers” (i.e. a real political party in the Burkean sense of a group of people who share basic political principles – rather than just a desire for office, or [much worse] a vague desire to “do good”) determined to roll back government so far that the vast majority of it was eliminated, might (if they were lucky) roll back government a little bit.
Dramatic action would need a very dramatic situation to get through – a “we do this or we are finished” situation, and it would still be unlikely to through (both the special interests and the general population would need a lot of convincing).
Robert, European birth rates are down. They have also fallen in places like Japan, as well. There are various reasons for this, but I think falling post-tax income of many men has meant that many couples cannot afford to have children until their 30s when both are in work, and by then they often choose, for personal or health reasons, to have just one baby.
It may also be that European men and women are less shaggable than elsewhere, but I would not want to comment further on that.
It’s probably more to do with birth rates decreasing as prosperity increases and infant mortality decreases.
EG
In societies where women can control how often they get pregnant with some degree of success and have more options in life than raising kids full time (which is wonderful, yadda yadda yadda) different women will have different numbers of children, but overall birthrates will fall relative to societies where neither of those is true.
Since we’re not exactly short of humans now, I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing.
Johnathon,
Is that shaggable or shagworthy? Are we tlaking about a return to chastity belts?
Michael Farris, why is it “comparing apples with oranges” to highlight the example, of say, a self-employed man who works in the countryside as opposed to say, a self-employed man who works in central London? The issue is the exactly the same – how on earth can a government rule forcing employers to pay their male staff 3 months paternal leave have any meaning for men who work for themselves? I suspect you disliked my father’s example because it was such a good one.
You say we are “not exactly short of humans now”. True. But it is nevertheless the case that many men and women are not having children as a result of economic circumstances and some of those circumstances are created by the State.
For one thing, because the nature of the rural and the urban populations, cultures, economies and societies are, fairly obviously, significantly different.
For another, farming is different again from simply a self-employed man in the countryside. You can’t farm from your study in between feeding babies and changing nappies, but you often can work like this if you are running a small urban business, depending of course on what that business does. Many people do, after all, so it’s hardly impossible.
EG
Euan, judging by your comments, you seem to take the view that a self-employed person working in London can relatively easily juggle the responsibilities of work and fatherhood as opposed to someone who works most of the time outdoors. But even for many self-employed people – like builders say – bringing up a family is extremely difficult, a fact which, as I said in my article, is probably lost to the idiots who run this government.
“I suspect you disliked my father’s example because it was such a good one.”
Caught out once again! Curses on you Johnathan Pearce and your good examples!
Seriously though, the original article basically is about increasing paid parental time from 6 to 9 months, giving fathers the option of taking up to three months of that. You can say that’s too much or poorly conceived (I might agree, I don’t know, I haven’t examined it all that closely). But the idea of fathers being able to have parental leave isn’t inherently laughable or despicable.
Some differences between the country and city (I’ve lived in both) that affect childcare:
– childcare tends to be easier to find in the country, nearby family, or even neighbors are usually willing and able to watch over younger kids for an afternoon or a week if need be
– earlier born children are trained to watch over their younger siblings and keep them from burning the house down or strangling each other
– if all else fails, you let the little buggers run wild and hope for the best and usually the worst won’t happen
– often the children are working with/among the adults out of choice/necessity
none of this is true in an urban setting where childcare requires foresight and planning.
– family members are liable to be unable to help in pinch, older children usually don’t get child minding training and the neighbors? haven’t you read a milk carton lately?
– childcare in the city is usually a paid proposition
– it’s usually not wise to leave children to their own devices.
– bringing your child to work is generally frowned upon
“True. But it is nevertheless the case that many men and women are not having children as a result of economic circumstances and some of those circumstances are created by the State. ”
So? People don’t have children for lots of reasons. Some might be created by the state, some might be created by the private sector.
The fact is longterm, the entire society benefits from a population reproducing at reasonable rates. The same way that longterm, the entire society suffers when childbirth rates are too high or low. I don’t see the private sector rushing to make it possible for women to have more children where the birthrate is declining.
Paying men more (presumably to encourage their wives to not work and have babies instead) would create more incentives to hire more women and probably have the opposite effect.
Reducing taxes probably won’t dramatically increase employee take home pay (if I can think of a way for that to not happen I can guarantee that personnel managers can think of a hundred better ways to arrange for most of that income to stay with the company).
Any more ideas?
Woops, must have touched a nerve there.
Yes there are lots of differences between working in a farm and working in a City office (things like trees, cowshit, ability to shoot pigeons, and other delights). But seriously (and do I have to drive home my points with a hammer drill?) the point that I raised in my article is this: how can a government deem that dads get paid leave and completely ignore those who happen to run their own businesses? I don’t give a monkeys whether such folk work in the middle of Reading or Mars.
Your other points about birthrates may be true but I think it is folly for the state or indeed anyone else to try to steer people in producing an optimal birthrate, whatever that is. Remember it was not so long ago that the doomongers claimed that drastic government measures were needed to stop people having “too many” children.
“The argument behind fathers being able to have parental leave is not inherently laughable or despicable” writes Mr Farris. Riiiiight. Let’s put the point again: who is paying for this leave? Father Christmas? Tony Blair? Thomas the Tank Engine?
“How can a government deem that dads get paid leave and completely ignore those who happen to run their own businesses?”
Easy. Make a law about employees and consider the self-employed to be employers. Is it that hard to understand?
“who is paying for this leave?”
You are personally, Johnathan Pearce, you and you alone. Hurry up now and write that check, there’s a dad in Manchester who needs a good stiff drink if he’s gonna be watching that little monster this afternoon.
Michael, you are still don’t quite get it. Self employed people are irrelevant to government measures like this. You cannot take 3 months off a business if you are the sole person in such a business. My dad, to take the example again, could not just stop and say, bugger it, I’ll let the wheat rot while I look after the baby.
As for dads in Manchester, it makes me all warm and fuzzy to think I am paying for em. Have a drink on me, matey!
Everyone who buys something from the employer, or everyone who is employed by the employer, or both.
Weasel, I know that. I said that in the article! Duh.
Yes, Johnathan, but Michael Farris appears to have missed that part.
Weasel, of course – forgive my tone. I let myself sound like a testy math teacher, or worse, Euan Gray.
I may post a separate piece on why people seem incapable of thinking outside the workers/bosses mindset when it comes to issues like this. Take this priceless quote from Mr Farris, for instance:
“Make a law about employees and consider the self-employed to be employers”.
Terrific. Make a law and hey presto, problem solved!
Johnathan, I did not say that passing a law was a solution, just that most people regard the self-employed more as employers so that laws applying to employees won’t apply to the self-employed. I nowhere wrote that I agree with that position (sometimes they’re employers, often a separate category altogether).
“The answer of course is that the cost of paying fathers paternity leave will be born by the employers… And of course the whole issue ignores those subversive capitalist types who happen to be self-employed. What are they supposed to do, exactly?”
Paternity pay will be paid by the taxpayer to the business. And it is actually paid at more than 100% to small business who take the extra to help them with administration costs. Employers are moaning because if they moan hard enough they will get a better deal to shut them up. As long as the self-employed are employed by a company they own (as opposed to cash in hand) they be entitled to paternity leave too. It may be inconvenient, but they can always hire someone to replace them for the time they take off.
I don’t expect libertarians to be happy with state subsided time off work (I’m not happy with it). But the costs are paid for by the childless and people with children who take little time off.
Nik, if you are correct – I am sure you are, BTW – then it merely proves the idiocy of the new dispensation. When you say that “they can always hire someone to replace them for the time off”, I am not so sure about that. Hiring people takes time and costs money, beyond the actual salary or wage bill. Some self employed people have clients who might be a bit alarmed at a temporary replacement.
Anyway, it just shows how generous one can be when it is other people’s livelihoods and money that is involved.