From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter)
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination) [LONG]
Keywords: maternity benefits, discrimination, birth rate
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:30:11 GMT

In article <9204131934.AA15513@GAUSS.CIMS.NYU.EDU> mckenney@CIMS.NYU.EDU writes:
>
>	Well, there are numerous reports that men are often hired even
>	when a woman who "really is the better person for the job" has
>	applied, enough to make me think that such discrimination
>	against women is common.  And why would discrimination against
>	women suddenly disappear when childbearing potential is brought
>	up?

There are also numerous reports of women hired when a man was "the
better person for the job".  Better yet, there are laws and quotas
behind some of these decisions; not just the irrational impulses of
a marginally-lawful employer.  If a man gets a job when a more-qualified
woman doesn't, she can take legal action against the employer.  If a
woman gets the job, despite being less qualified, they can claim that
Affirmative Action forced them to make that hiring choice.

>	I believe that your "equal likelihood" is oversimplified.  I
>	have read that women, on the whole, are *less* likely to
>	job-hop than men.  Moreover, if a woman *does* intend to take
>	advantage of maternity benefits, it's a real incentive to stay.
>	And if the company is one of those few companies that are
>	willing to be a little flexible with employees who are also
>	parents, it's even more of an incentive to stay.

In my business, at least, turnover corresponds roughly to the number
of opportunities available; in a recession, people hang on to what they've
got.  Otherwise, most job-hop decisions are salary-motivated ("my current
employer doesn't offer me as much of a raise as I'd get if I went to
work for...").  The typical scenario where I work:  Women take advantage of
their maternity-leave benefits, which are available very quickly.  Potential
fathers need to accrue time and defer taking vacations for a much longer
period if they wish to spend any real time with their new children.

I, for example, am entitled to a one-shot "bonus" of 4 weeks off, which
most men here seem to plan around child-bearing time.  However, that's a
benefit that I don't qualify for until five years of employment.


>	Hmm, try posting that claim on misc.kids!  *We* certainly
>	didn't have any "2-5 days of rest" after our son was born.
>
>	I notice that discussion of "two weeks after..." turned into
>	"two weeks before..."   From our extensive (:-) ) experience
>	(one child), my wife didn't need (and ended up not getting) the
>	two weeks before, but definitely needed the *six* weeks *after*
>	the birth to recover, and could have used another two weeks.
>	The whole area around where the baby came out was not recovered
>	at the end of the six weeks, and it took far more than six weeks
>	for my wife and my son to really get the hang of breast-feeding.

Again, that's a atypical case that IS covered by the policy I described.
If, for example, your doctor indicated a medical disability time of eight
weeks, the mother gets ten weeks of paid leave.  Most women, though, are
back to normal within four (especially for the second and subsequent
children).

>	These are nice theories.  They just don't correspond to any
>	reality I know.  E.g., (Russell McFatter:) "You wouldn't kick
>	someone out into the street unless there was someone else
>	interested in the same unit, would you?" -- they do it all the
>	time here in NYC.  There are lots of homeless people and lots
>	of unsold/unrented and abandoned housing.  And lots of bankers
>	and landlords standing around looking stupid, but then I've
>	noticed a lot of "business people" standing around looking
>	stupid in the news lately.

That's a short-term issue.  Real estate transactions are quite long-term
in nature; with the price falling, especially in NYC where rent controls
are so prevalent, people would rather hang on to an empty unit (hoping
for a price rebound) rather than lock themselves in to a lower rent, or
sell for a major loss.  Ultimately, though, even if there are some unsold,
unrented units, if the housing demand is low enough long enough, the
prices DO drop to make it affordable.  And, by the way, banks DO account
for perceived (substitute) demand for housing when deciding on
foreclosure-- a good unit in great condition, with many potential buyers,
gets a deadbeat tenant kicked out FAR earlier than another unit which has
no purchase demand on it.  Reason:  If they have nothing to lose, they
would rather NOT foreclose (evict) on a owner/renter who can't pay, for
the potential of collecting back rent/mortgage later should the tenant
find, say, a new job.  The only downside to them is possible damage to the
unit, and inability to "show" an empty unit on the spot.  If they evict
the resident, though, and have no new tenants lined up, they get nothing.
So demand affects not only affordability, but willingness to
foreclose/evict.  And population, on average, is directly proportional
to demand.

>	But, having discounted Russell's theories as to why "we" (as
>	a society) are suddenly unable to afford children, I have
>	to confess that I have no good answer.  I only know that if
>	we *don't* fix things soon, we will be in trouble.

>	For one thing, if we would leave childbearing and -rearing to
>	"the rich", i.e., those who can (easily?) afford it without
>	help from government, employers, and friends, which I suspect
>	would mean the top 10% or less of the population, then there
>	would be no way that we could produce enough babies, and thus
>	later adults, to keep our society going in anything like the
>	form we are accustomed to.  We are talking about a sustained
>	drop in the birth rate by a factor of at least 5 (that's
>	assuming that all these "rich" are willing to have *large*
>	families.)

I don't see that (drop in birth rate) as a major problem.  First of
all, you miss the point that with a lowered population comes a lowered
cost of living, due to less competition, and thus children become, once
again, more affordable.  Say that, right now, only about 40% (a much more
reasonable estimate) of the population can afford to raise children, and
the rest go childless.  This wouldn't cut the population in half for about
70 years (lifespan of the existing population).  This would give us a total
population equivalent to the population of about... 10-15 years ago (on
a worldwide scale).  (With the population doubling at about this interval,
erasing fully half the human population-- all at once-- only sets the
human population count back about this far, timewise!)

Imagine, for a moment, half the traffic on your roadways; old, abandoned
houses in your crowded neighborhood torn down, and the property bought for
a "song" by neighbors who now have an actual yard for their children to
play in; enough fresh water to satisfy everyone (only half the demand that
there is now!); an end to hunger, starvation, and homelessness as the cost
of these basic needs falls within the reach of everyone; empty tenement
housing torn down and replaced with wildlife areas.  Best of all, it
happens without the devastating plagues, destructive wars, or slow
starvation that will otherwise eventually serve to limit our population.

>	As E.F. Schumacher points out in _Small_Is_Beautiful_, (quoted
>	imperfectly from memory) "the one thing that society cannot do
>	without is a steady stream of educated, socialized people."

One would think that with resources being more plentiful, a stream
of educated, socialized people is exactly what we'd have.  We'd be
able to afford the education, and our social structures would no longer
be overtaxed.

>	Imagine what would happen if the pool of employees would drop
>	by a factor of, say, 5?  (Remember that getting 100 resume's
>	for each job ad doesn't mean that there are 100 job seekers
>	for each job, only that the job seekers are desperate.)

No effect.  The job/worker ratio wouldn't change significantly, as the
number of jobs would diminish with the reduced demand for products and
services.  Yes, this means that companies would go out of business.
In this model, though, certain constant things-- like tax RATES-- would
decrease, as we have fewer and fewer entitlement programs to worry about.
This would mean you end up doing less work for the same standard of
living.

With a decreasing population, your voice in government increases, and your
representatives become more responsible to you.  

>	And as for the present system, where children are born and
>	raised by parents who can't afford to *both* put a roof over
>	their family's head *and* nurture and educate their children as
>	much as they need, well, we see what a mess *it* is producing.

Exactly what I'm addressing.

>	I also see that employers claim that they "can't afford"
>	maternity leave, but they *can* afford corporate jets,
>	leveraged buyouts, ridiculously expensive executive
>	compensation, massive corporate blunders, etc.  Failure to
>	support parents is just another way in which business people
>	are penny wise, pound foolish.

Companies that "can't afford" maternity leave are perfectly able to
go into massive debt, lay off workers, and ultimately go bankrupt
WITHOUT corporate jets or massive blunders.  Just look around you.
Corporations generally do what merits best for their own survival,
which is generally good news for their employees.  Some companies have
jets because it lets their frequent travelers get from place to place
at a lower cost than using commercial airlines.  Executive compensation
is ultimately under the reins of the shareholders, and theoretically
buys better management (or should we have Edna the minimum-wage cleaning
lady run the company).  Everyone, corporate or not, makes "blunders" from
time to time.

But the thing you haven't suggested:  WHO is to support these parents?
Other parents, who can then no longer afford their own children's needs
(i.e. "share-the-misery")?  Childless people, who will then be strongly
encouraged to HAVE children so that they're not stuck paying for other
peoples'?  The "rich", who there are far too few of to make a dent in the
economic shortfall?  Businesses, who will simply have to lay more people
off to pay for the extra benefits for their remaining employees?  Should
the "government" pay for it by increasing the federal debt (thus borrowing
our "child support" dollars from the Japanese-- and ultimately our own
children?)  Or do you just raise the tax rate, which hurts all of the
above?

--- Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.COM]
Newsgroups: soc.women