Pericles

You took issue with a number of my points in order to ‘show’ that I contradicted myself. I did not.

Re-read my post. When I wrote that 'In terms of the wider society, the benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic - more a symbolic statement of what we value as a society’, I was weighing the symbolic value over the economic value. I was not saying that there was no economic value to be had at all.

‘But hold the phone. You then proceed to contradict yourself [by saying] >>...maternity (parental) pay acknowledges that the job of parenting makes a direct economic contribution to society.<<’

I can't contradict myself over something I didn't say in the first place. The ‘economic contribution’ I write of here refers to the fact that the ‘job’ of parenting is officially unpaid. Yet the labour and time invested by the full- or part-time parent directly – but invisibly – contributes to the economy. Studies have estimated that the economic contribution of unpaid work – the vast majority of which is performed by women in the home – is equal to approximately 60% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product.

To put it bluntly – and controversially – unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour. Rather than asking whether or not the economy would ‘benefit’ from the introduction of paid parental leave, my question is this:

How much has the economy already benefited for centuries by not paying parents for the work they do?

It’s time to give something back.

SJF,

I'm afraid I cannot escape the conclusion that you have contradicted yourself on parental leave.

On the one hand you argue that "benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic", and on the other you claim that "the economic contribution of unpaid work – the vast majority of which is performed by women in the home – is equal to approximately 60% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product".

Furthermore, you argue that "unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour", even though parents are free whilst slaves are by definition unfree. That's a quite a notable difference which your analysis overlooks.

What you also overlook is the fact that most stay at home mothers have husbands working and earning for their families, and this undoubtedly includes the stay at home spouse. Families are not slave-like relationships. The reality is that they work as a team, often with one earning money and the other doing most of the home duties.

Yet in spite of that, you want taxpayers to also foot the bill. What you don't realise is that this will not have the effect of helping women who stay at home for their male spouses. Rather, it will result in ordinary families being taxed more in order to fund their own parental leave. So the biggest effect is the state taking away choices for parents when it comes to staying at home or returning to the workforce sooner to make more money.

The only income distribution effects will be from singles - who by definition don't benefit from unpaid work by stay at home spouses - to families who do. So what you are proposing is therefore fundamentally unjust.

SJF, your argument is that the parents contribute to the state by raising children, but you fail to factor in the benefit to the parents of having raised children and therefore having adult, productive children to assist in their old age. while the pension and aged-care facilities are useful for those without children, many aged people are able to remain in their own homes and survive far better because they have children to assist them. IOW, you would have us give parents an extra benefit for doing what is already in their own enlightened self-interest. Furthermore, since women live longer than men (it's about 8 years, I think), on average, they will be the ones to benefit most from having that assistance in their dotage.

IOW, asking for paid maternity leave is like asking to be paid to go for medical check-ups.

Antiseptic wrote: IOW, asking for paid maternity leave is like asking to be paid to go for medical check-ups.

Dear Antiseptic,

Being paid to go for medical check-ups might make very good sense financially. Medical conditions could be caught earlier when it is easier and cheaper to treat them.

Many more Women live longer than men so who is on the winning side? Women learn to survive this greedy world while men battle on in wars that men created. It is the same in the corporate world as any women who has been there will tell you - it is a war. Who needs it?
Wise women get out and start their own business, one that is user friendly that has time to stop and smell the flowers.
Who needs to get sucked up into the world of men? Not me

"unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour."

What are you for real?

What a ridiculous statement.

If one really wants to avoid being an officially sanctioned slave labourer, then don't become a parent.

Firstly once upon a time certain jobs had a married mans wages which were higher than a single mans wage. (Must have been because of patriarchial oppression that married men were paid more than single men)

Secondly governments have had child endowerment, now the family tax benefit.( another patriarchial construct)

Thirdly following divorce or separation a womans standard of living falls? WHY? (Must be a patriarchial conspiracy)

Because she loose her partners source of income, which was used to finance her lifestyle.

Families recieve various tax benefits for dependant children. So how can this be slave labour?

The slave labourer as SJF puts it, controls at least 80% of the families finances.