Andrew Biggs and Betsey Stevenson: Perspectives on the Future of Paid Family Leave

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE 

HOPE YOU'RE ALL DOING WELL THANKS FOR

JOINING US HERE.

I'M MICHAEL BARR I'M THE JOAN AND

SANFORD WEILL DEAN OF THE GERALD R FORD
 
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY. I'M REALLY
 
DELIGHTED TO SEE YOU HERE TODAY FOR THIS

SPECIAL POLICY TALKS AT THE FORD SCHOOL

EVENT WE CALL IT WE ARE CALLING IT
 
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF PAID

FAMILY LEAVE WE HAVE THE AMERICAN

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

ANDREW BIGGS AND THE FORD SCHOOLS OWN

BETSEY STEVENSON WE'VE BROUGHT DR. BIGGS

AND DR. STEVENSON TOGETHER AS PART OF
 
OUR INITIATIVE CONVERSATIONS ACROSS
 
DIFFERENCE IN A DIALOGUE TODAY MODERATED

BY OUR OWN FORD SCHOOL STUDENT NICTA MAY
 
KNOW WHO'S AMONG OTHER THINGS A

CO-FOUNDER OF THE STUDENT GROUP WE
 
LISTEN AS YOU WELL KNOW THESE ARE

CHALLENGING TIMES FOR OUR COUNTRY WITH

FRACTIOUS POLITICAL DISCOURSE GRIDLOCK

PARTISANSHIP IN OUR NATION'S CAPITAL AND

AN INCREASING LACK OF TRUST IN

INSTITUTIONS EVERYWHERE OUR

CONVERSATIONS ACROSS DIFFERENT SERIES

LOOKS TO BRING TOGETHER PEOPLE FROM

DIVERGENT VANTAGE POINTS TO TACKLE

SIGNIFICANT POLICY ISSUES WITH THE GOAL

OF DEEPER UNDERSTANDING AND TO SEARCH

FOR COMMON VALUES THE TOPIC OF THIS

EVENT PAID FAMILY LEAVE IS EMERGING AS A

SIGNIFICANT ELECTION ISSUE PARTICULARLY 

IN SWING STATES AS WE MOVE CLOSER TO THE

ACCORDING TO PEW RESEARCH 82% OF

AMERICANS SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF PAID

FAMILY LEAVE BUT ONLY SIX STATES IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PASSED FAMILY LEAVE

LAWS.
 
TODAY WE HEAR TWO DIFFERENT

APPROACHES THOUGH THE POLICIES

THAT AFFECT WORKING FAMILY.

LET ME GIVE YOU A WORD ON

FORMAT.

WE WILL HAVE SOME TIME AT THE

END FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE

AUDIENCE, PLEASE WRITE THE

QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PROVIDED

AND WE WILL COLLECT THEM.

THE STUDENTS AT THE FORD SCHOOL

AND KIM IRA, STUDENT AND MEMBER

OF AE I EXECUTIVE COUNCIL WILL

SIFT THROUGH YOUR CARDS, AND FOR

THOSE WATCHING ONLINE, TWEET

YOUR QUESTIONS USING THE HASHTAG

POLICY TALKS.

AND NICK, LET ME TURN THINGS

OVER TO YOU.

[APPLAUSE]

MR. BIGGS: THANK YOU FOR THAT

KIND INTRODUCTION.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

I'M EXCITED TO BE WITH PROFESSOR

STEVENSON, AND DR. BIGGS ON THIS

ISSUE.

I REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MONTHS

AGO, IN SEPTEMBER ANXIOUSLY

AWAITING NEXT DOOR MY FIRST

ECONOMICS CLASS WITH PROFESSOR

STSTEPHENSON BE BUT A FEW LECTURES

INTO THE CLASS, SHE HAD

MENTIONED THAT SHE JUST WRAPPED

UP OF THE WORKING ITERATION OF A

WORKING GROUP IN THE BROOKINGS

INSTITUTION ON THE TOPIC OF PAID

FAMILY LEAVE.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT

IDEA TO BRING PROFESSOR

STEPHENSON AND SOMEBODY FROM AEI

AT THE FORD SCHOOL FOR A

DISCUSSION.

I'M EXCITED THAT THIS WAS ABLE

TO COME TOGETHER.

I WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF BEGIN

THE DISCUSSION BY PREFACING WITH

THE IDEA THAT AS THE DEAN

MENTIONED IT SEEMS THAT ON THE

TOPIC OF FAMILY LEAVE BOTH

LAWMAKER ON THE RIGHT AND THE

LEFT HAVE COME TO THE GENERAL

CONSENSUS THAT THIS AN ISSUE

WHOSE TIME HAS COME AND THAT IS

WHAT THE AEI AND BROOK LINS

REPORT SAID.

LAST JULY WHEN YOU TESTIFIED

BEFORE THE SENATE, SENATOR BROWN

MENTIONED THAT IF WE SORT OF

ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPRECIATE THE

HUMAN DIGNITY OF WORK AND THE

DIGNITY OF THE WORK, WE NEED TO

NEED TO EMBRACE A PAID FAMILY

LEAVE POLICY PLAN, AND PREFESS

PREFESSOR STEVENSON YOU HAVE BEEN

WORKING ON THIS FOR OVER TWO

YEARS.

WOULD YOU TALK MOST BASICALLY

WHAT PAID FAMILY LEAVE IS.

WHAT ARE THE SIMILAR STYLES TO

THE PROGRAM AND POTENTIALLY IF

ANY MISCONCEPTIONS EXIST, WHAT

MISCONCEPTIONS ARE UP THERE ON

THE POLICY?

MR. BIGGS: THANKS GROWING C CONSENSUS THAT

IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR FAMILIES

AND GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY AS

WELL.

THE IDEA IS THAT WHEN A NEW

PARENT, IT'S OFTEN THE MOTHER,

BUT THE IDEA IS THAT MOST OF

THESE PLANS WILL BE GENDER

NEUTRAL SO FATHERS CAN TAKE

PATERNITY LEAVE AS WELL.

WHEN THEY HAVE A NEW CHILD, OR

ADOPT A NEW CHILD, THEY CAN TAKE

TIME OFF FROM WORK WHILE STILL

RECEIVING PAY AND SPEND TIME IN

THAT CRUCIAL PERIOD OF RACING

THEIR CHILD -- RAISING THEIR

CHILD.

THERE'S RESEARCH THAT SAYS THAT

HAVING PAID LEAVE AVAILABLE IS

GOOD FOR CHILDREN IN TERMS OF

EDUCATION, NUTRITION AND HEALTH.

IT'S ALSO GOOD FOR PARENTS.

IT'S AN IRONIC THING, IN THE

SENSE THAT YOU WOULD SAY, WHY

WOULD PAID LEAVE AWAY FROM YOUR

JOB BE GOOD FOR PEOPLE'S

CAREERS?

WELL IN THE ABSENCE OF PAID

LEAVE, WHAT SEEMS TO HAPPEN,

PARTICULARLY FOR MOTHERS IS THAT

THEY BECOME SEPARATED FROM THE

JOB.

THEY QUIT THEIR JOB WHEN THEY

HAVE A CHILD AND THEN LATER IF

THEY WANT TO COME BACK INTO THE

WORKFORCE, THEY HAVE LOST SARE

SENIORITY, THEY HAVE LOST THE

SKILLS SPECIFIC TO THAT JOB.

A PAID LEAVE POLICY HELPS KEEP

PEOPLE CONNECTED TO THEIR JOBS.

WHEN THEY COME BACK INTO THE

WORKFORCE AFTER SPENDING TIME

WITH THEIR KIDS, THEY COME BACK

AT HIGHER WAGES, THEY COME BACK

WITH MORE HOURS WORK, AND

SOMETHING WHICH IS BENEFICIAL,

NOT JUST IMMEDIATELY BUT OVER

THE COURSE OF THEIR CAREER.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD REDUCE

THE GENDER WAGE GAP WHICH IS

DRIVEN BY PEOPLE COMING OUT OF

THE WORKFORCE WHEN THEY HAVE

KIDS.

IT'S A POLICY WE THINK WOULD BE

GOOD FOR FAMILIES, BUT ALSO GOOD

FOR THE ECONOMY IN THE SENSE OF

MAXIMIZING PEOPLE'S

PRODUCTIVITY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS BRINGING

TOGETHER PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDE.

MS. STEVENSON: SO I THINK

IT'S REALLY YOU GOOD YOU START

ASKING THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT

DO WE MEAN BY PAID LEAVE?

ONE THE THINGS WE HAVE SEEN

HAPPEN IS SOME OF THE DISCUSSION

AROUND WHAT A PAID LEAVE PLAN

SHOULD LOOK LIKE GETS CAUGHT UP

IN WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY

PAID LEAVE.

I JUST TALKED ABOUT PAID

MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE.

THAT'S A VERY SPECIFIC BUCKET.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE SIX MONTH

CHECK-UP?

OR WHAT ABOUT THE ONE YEAR

WELL-CHILD VISIT?

WHAT ABOUT THE PARENT-TEACHER

MEETING?

SO CAN YOU TAKE TIME OFF WHEN

YOU NEED TO CARE FOR WHERE YOU

ARE KIDS WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG,

WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE 12?

WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE 14?

WELL, NOW, WE WANT TO THINK OF

PARENTS BEING ABLE TO TAKE TIME

THEY NEED WHEN A KID IS SICK.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE

SICK?

WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEIR SPOUSE IS

SICK?

SO WHERE -- HOW DO WE START TO

THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PAID

LEAVE PLAN TO WE WANT?

DO WE WANT SOMETHING THAT IS IN

TERNTY OR PATERNITY LEAVE.

WHEN WE SAY PARENTAL LEAVE MOST

PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEING

ABLE TO TAKE TIME OFF TO TAKE

FOR A SICK CHILD.

THAT STARTS TO DIG INTO THE

POLICY DEBATE, WHICH IS HOW BIG

OF A PROGRAM DO HE WITH WANT?

WHAT ARE PEOPLE EXPECTING

GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE?

IT GETS AT THE ROOT OF THE LAB

CHANGES IN THE LABOR MARKET THAT

HAS BROUGHT US WHERE WE ARE

TODAY.

IN THE LAST SIX YEARS MALE LABOR

FORCE PARTICIPATION HAS COME TO

A DECLINE AND FEMALE LABOR

PARTICIPATION HAS LARGELY OVER

THE HE SEVEN DECADE HAS BEEN

INCREASING.

IT'S MUCH SMALLER, AND WHAT THAT

MEANS IS THAT FOUR GENERATIONS,

AGO, 3 GENERATIONS AGO, THERE

WAS A SECONDARY EARNER AND A

PRIMARY EARNER.

IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WHERE

SOMEBODY NEEDED TO TAKE A KID TO

A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT, MISS A

DAY OF WORK IN ORDER TO CARE FOR

A SICK CHILD, WITH HE KNEW WHO

WAS GOING TO DO IT.

IT WAS GOING TO BE THE PARENT

WHOSE JOB WAS LESS IMPORTANT.

NOW ALL THE JOBS ARE IMPORTANT.

SO WE SEE WOMEN ARE OUT EARNING

THEIR HUSBANDS IN 38% OF

MARRIAGES WHERE WOMEN WORK AND

THEY ARE EQUAL IN AN EVEN LARGER

SHARE.

SO THERE'S NOT SOMEBODY WHO IS,

LIKE -- WE COULD USE IT OR LOSE

IT WHEN IT COMES TO MY WAGES.

IT BECOMES VERY HARD FOR PARENTS

TO JUGGLE.

THAT IS WHERE THIS PRESSING NEED

COMES FROM.

IT DOES COME PARTIALLY FROM THE

-- WE KNOW THAT KIDS ARE BETTER

OFF, AS YOU SAY, WE KNOW THAT

WOMEN ARE MORE ATTACHED TO THE

LABOR FORCE IF YOU CAN TAKE TIME

WITH THE NEW BABY, BUT WE ALSO

HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW PEOPLE

CAN MANAGE WORK LIFE AND TAKING

TIME TO CARE FOR THEIR FAMILIES

THROUGH THE COURSE OF RAISING

CHILDREN.

THAT IS GREAT.

SO I SUPPOSE MY SECOND QUESTION,

YOU HAVE SORT OF OUTLINED WHY

THE TIME IS NOW TO APPROACH THE

ISSUE.

FOR BOTH OF YOU, COULD YOU TALK

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY YOU THINK

IT IS THAT IT HAS TAKEN THIS

LONG.

THERE'S SORT OF TWO WAYS, THAT I

SORT OF THINK ABOUT GOING ABOUT

THIS.

THE FIRST IS IT, DO WE BELIEVE

THAT PRIVATE EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE

THE  ONES PROVIDING THIS SORT OF

BENEFIT, OR ALTERNATIVELY COULD

YOU TALK ABOUT WHY IN YOUR

ESTIMATION THEY SHOULD BE

INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM AT ALL.

MS. STEVE.MR. BIGGS: THAT'S A GOOD

QUESTIONED, I'M A FREE MARKET

ORIENTED MYSELF.

IF I THINK OF PROPOSING A NEW

GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, YOU WANT TO

ASK YOURSELF, WHY IS IT THAT

GOVERNMENT NEED TO DO THIS?

WHY IS THE PRIVATE SECTOR NOT

DOING IT ALREADY?

DO WE NEED TO MANDATE SOMETHING,

OR CAN IT BE DONE VOLUNTARILY?

PAID LEAVE IS HAPPENING IN A LOT

OF INSTANCES IN THE PRIVATE

SECTOR.

MANY ALREADY HAVE PAID LEAVE

BENEFITS, BUT SMALLER FIRMS ARE

RUNNING ON A SHOE STRING, THEY

ARE JUST GETTING STARTED.

A

BECAUSE THIS IS WORTHWHILE.

THE PEOPLE SEE THE

DISRUPTIVENESS, AND PEOPLE ARE

TRYING TO MANAGE THEIR LIVES,

TWO EARNERS, YOU'RE WORRIED

ABOUT TAKING TIME AWAY FROM

LEAVE.

THIS SEEMS LIKE A WAY YOU CAN DO

IT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE ALL THE

PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE HAVE.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE COMING

TOGETHER AND SAYING THIS IS

GOING TO MAKE LIFE A LITTLE

EASIER FOR PEOPLE.

SO IT'S GOING TO FACILITATE THIS

KIND OF THING.

MS. STEVENSON: TO DIG MORE

INTO WHY SOME PEOPLE GET THIS AS

A BENEFIT AND WHY WON'T THE

MARKET PROVIDE IT FOR EVERYBODY?

ONE IS SOME WORKERS DEVELOP

REALLY SPECIFIC SKILLS THAT ARE

TIED TO THE JOB.

WE THINK OF THOSE AS YOU KNOW,

JOB-SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS.

WHEN THAT PERSON LEAVES THE

LABOR FORCE, NOT JUST THE LABOR

FORCE, BUT QUITS THAT JOB,

BECAUSE THEY GOT A NEW CHILD AT

HOME.

THE EMPLOYER LOSES OF SOMETHING

OF VALUE.

WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF COMPANIES

THAT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THE MATH

ON THIS.

SO GOOGLE SAT DOWN AND REALIZED

THAT THEIR PAID LEAVE PROGRAM AT

THE TIME OF A NEW BIRTH WAS TOO

SHORT GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

THEY WERE LOSING THAT WERE NOT

RETURNING BACK.

THEY LENGTHENING IT AND GOT

BETTER RETURN.

AND IT GAVE THEM GREATER

RETENTION OF VALUABLE EMPLOYEES.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEES

WHERE IT CAN COST THEM ONE TO

TWO YEARS SALARY JUST TO RECRUIT

A REPLACEMENT, SO HOLDING ON TO

THAT PERSON IS WORTH PAYING THEM

FOR FOUR MONTHS.

THERE'S PEOPLE WHO HAVE JOB

SPECIFIC SKILLS, AND THAT IS WHY

WE'RE GOING TO SEE HIGHLY

COMPENSATED WORKERS ARE GOING TO

BE MORE LIKELY OFFERED THIS

BENEFIT, THAN LOWER SKILLED

WORKERS, WORKERS WHO ARE LESS

PAID BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AS

EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE, THAT THE

BOTTOM LINE.

YOU ALSO MENTIONED SMALL

EMPLOYERS.

THERE'S ALSO JUST AN ISSUE OF,

YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU SMOOTH THIS

OUT?

IF YOU ARE A GIANT EMPLOYER WITH

TO BE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT

EACH YEAR IN MATERNITY COSTS.

IF YOU GOT 50 EMPLOYEES AND YOU

HAVE A BAD YEAR WHERE THREE OF

THEM ARE GIVING BIRTH, IT'S

GOING TO SHAKE YOUR COSTS.

NEXT YEAR NOBODY GIVES BIRTH,

YAY, WE'RE REPORTING AWESOME

PROFITS.

THAT IS NOT HOW YOU WANT TO RUN

YOUR BUSINESS WITH THAT KIND OF

VOLATILITY.

THAT THOSE ARE THE TWO TISSUES

THAT THINK ABOUT.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE

FIRM VERSUS SOCIETY.

AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID.

THERE'S BIG BENEFITS TO SOCIETY.

THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

I DID WANT TO MENTION WHICH IS

THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT PROVIDING

IT.

SHOULD WE REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO

PROVIDE IT.

I THINK THAT HOPEFULLY, EVEN

THOUGH THE PUBLIC TENDS TO

SUPPORT THE IDEA OF AN EMPLOYER

MANDATE, I THINK REGARDLESS OF

PARTY, WE ALL HATE IT.

THAT WAS LIKE THE THING WE GOT

TO UNITE BEHIND IN OUR AI

BROOKINGS PROPOSAL, WHICH IS A

EMPLOYER MANDATE IS A TERRIBLE,

TERRIBLE IDEA, RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO PUT

ADDITIONAL COSTS ON BUSINESSES.

WHAT -- THAT REQUIRE THAT LEAD

THEM TO DO THINGS LIKE

DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CERTAIN

GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

IF YOU'RE A SMALL BUSINESS AND

YOU DON'T THINK YOU CAN HANDLE

THE COST OF PAID LEAVE, AND

WE'RE SAYING, YOU HAVE TO PAY

IT, THEN WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO

DO?

THEY'RE GOING TO AVOID THE

PEOPLE THAT LOOK THE MOST LIKE

THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT AND

THAT'S A PROBLEM.

AND THAT IS WHY HAS A PAID

MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE.

BEFORE DIVING DI COMPROMISE

THAT THE WORK CREATED.

SORT OF KEEPING IN THE IDEA OF

CONVERSATION ACROSS THE DIRVES,

SORT OF THE IN THE CONTEXT.

AIE OR BROOKINGS WORKING FRAP.

SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE PAID

FAMILY LEAVE, COULD YOU TALK

ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN

LIKE, BOTH IN D.C. AND ACADEMIA,

GENERALLY, WHAT SORT OF PROBLEMS

DO YOU ENCOUNTERED, THINGS OF

THAT NATURE?

MS. STEVENSON: YOU WERE WITH

MR. BIGGS: YOU WERE WITH THE

WORKING GROUP LONGER.

MS. STEVENSON: I THINK THE

THING -- IT'S SOMEWHAT

SURPRISING TO ME.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START.

WE WENT FROM BARELY BEING ABLE

TO TALK ABOUT PAID LEAVE AS A

REALISTIC POLICY CHOICE IN SA

SAY, 2009 TO, I THINK, HAVING

GENUINE BY PART BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN

THE POLICY WORLD THAT WE NEED

SOMETHING.

HERE WE ARE IN 2019 SO THAT IS A

BIG MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF

ATTITUDE.

YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER WHY THAT

MOVEMENT HAPPENED SO FAST?

I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE ANSWER

TO THAT.

I THINK THAT IT IS THE

CULMINATIONING OF COMPANIES

DOING, YOU KNOW, THE MATH, THE

RESEARCH COMING OUT, AND PEOPLE

STARTING TO SAY, WOW, WE ARE

ACTUALLY SHOOTING OURSELVES IN

THE FOOT.

THE OTHER THING WE LEARNED IS

THAT THE U.S. USED TO BE ONE OF

THE HIGHEST COUNTRIES IN TERMS

OF FEMALE LABOR FORCE

PARTICIPATION IN THE OECD.

NOW WE SLIPPED TO VERY FAR, SO

WE WERE NUMBER SIX, WE'RE NOW

LIKE NUMBER 20.

AND RESEARCHERS HAVE PINNED A

LOT OF THAT ON THE FACT THAT YOU

KNOW, OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD, ALL

OF THESE OTHER COUNTRIES STARTED

TO PASS THINGS LIKE PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE, IMPROVE THEIR

ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY CHILD

CARE.

IT'S PART OF OUR LOSS OF

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS.

ONCE PEOPLE START TO THINK OF IT

THAT WAY, IT STARTS TO CHANGE

THE CONVERSATION.

I THINK HAD THE BIGGEST

CHALLENGE IN TALKING TO PEOPLE

IS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO FUND IT?

HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO COVER?

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO BE?

AND THAT'S A REALLY -- I THINK A

BIG DEBATE, BECAUSE NOBODY IN

THE U.S. IS TALKING ABOUT THE

KIND OF LEAVE YOU SEE IN EUROPE.

IN EUROPE, PEOPLE GET A YEAR

OFF, NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT

LEAVE LIKE THAT.

BUT RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE HEALTH,

WANT TO SEE 12 WEEKS.

THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN IS

GOOD FOR THE KID AND THEY HAVE A

HARD TIME COMPROMISING ON THAT.

I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE

CONSERVATIVE, ARE LIKE, WOE,

THAT IS A LOT OF TIME, TO JUMP

INTO.

WHY DON'T WE START WITH

SOMETHING SMALLER?

YOU KNOW, WE JUST -- THAT HAS

BEEN A BIG ISSUE.

I THINK THERE'S THIS NATURAL

INCLINATION, HUM, ON THE

REPUBLICAN SIDE TO FIGURE OUT

WHAT YOU CAN DO THROUGH TAX CUTS

AND TAX INCENTIVES, AND THEY

JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS ONE

WHERE WE CAN DO IT

COST-EFFECTIVELY THROUGH TAX

INCENTIVES, BUT I THINK THAT HAS

BEEN A BIG PART OF THE DEBATE,

AND I THINK THE BIGGER OVER

ARCHING THING THAT YOU RUN INTO,

WHEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT

THIS, IS WE HAVE TO MAKE

DECISIONS AS A NATION ABOUT HOW

MUCH SPENDING WE WANT TO DO, AND

THIS IS GETTING CAUGHT UP IN

THAT.

YOU KNOW, 50 YEARS AGO, MORE

THAN THAT, 70 YEARS AGO, WE MADE

A DECISION THAT WE WERE GOING TO

SPEND LIKE CRAZY FOR PEOPLE OVER

THE AGE OF 65.

AND GOODNESS, WE HAVE BEEN

SUCCESSFUL, NOW THEY LIVE

FOREVER.

SO NOW WE'RE SPENDING EVEN MORE

ON THOSE FOLKS, AND THAT HAS

LEFT OUR ABILITY TO SPEND ON

KIDS LIKE REALLY, REALLY CON

TRAINED.

SO WE START TO GET INTO

ARGUMENTS, ABOUT, WELL, WE'VE

GOT A BIG CHUNK OF GDP GOING TO

TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE OVER 65.

ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SPEND

THAT MUCH MORE ON TAKING CARE OF

CHILDREN.

MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE FROM THE

PEOPLE OVER 65 -- SO THERE YOU

START TO SEE THE PROBLEMS.

SO MOVING MORE TOWARD THE

BROOKINGS PUT OUT.

SORT OF WATCHING IN PRINCIPLES

OF ON THE GROUP THE CODIRECTORS

OF IT BASICALLY SAID THAT THIS

WAS IN FACT, A COMPROMISE,

BECAUSE AS THEY PUT IT, NO ONE

ON THE GROUP LOVED IT.

FROM ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST

MENTIONED, HOW TO PAY FOR IT,

HOW LONG THIS SHOULD LAST,

THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

THERE WAS CERTAINLY A GREAT DEAL

OF DISCUSSION AND CERTAINLY

POTENTIALLY GRIDLOCK.

FIRST, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT

THAT SORT OF COMPROMISE LOOKED

LIKE?

WHAT IT WAS MOST BASICALLY, AND

THEN SOME OF THE ECONOMIC AND

MORAL PRINCIPALS THAT SORT OF

ANIMATED THAT DISCUSSION?

MS. STEVENSON: SO ONE OF THE

ISSUES IS, WHO ARE WE GOING TO

COVER?

WE DID MATERNITY AND PATERNITY

LEAVE.

FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WAS

REALLY PAINFUL.

SO IT SORT OF LEAVES EVERYTHING

ELSE BEHIND.

WE SAID THAT WE WOULD COME BACK,

AND WE DID TO TALK ABOUT TDI,

AND A BROADER PARENTAL LEAVE

PROGRAM, BUT WE WERE LIKE, LOOK,

WE CAN ALL AGREE.

EVERYBODY CAN UNITE ON THE FACT

THAT KID ARE BETTER OFF, THERE

ARE ENORMOUS SOCIETAL BENEFITS

WHEN PARENTS TAKE TIME TO BOND

WITH A NEWBORN.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST -- A

TWO-WEEK-OLD DOES NOT DO WELL IN

CHILD CARE.

LIKE THEY NEED CONSTANT

ATTENTION.

WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, NURSING

HAS BENEFITS.

LIKE WHEN A KID IS TWO WEEKS,

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OTHER

THINGS YOU CAN BE DOING IN THE

DAY IF YOU'RE NURSING BESIDES

NURSING.

SO THERE'S JUST REAL BENEFITS TO

PARENT BEING ABLE TO STAY HOME

AND THERE'S REAL BENEFITS TO

BOTH PARENTS BONDING WITH THE

CHILD SO THAT THE CHILD MAKES

THAT CONNECTION.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE

HEALTH RESEARCHERS REALLY FEEL

LIKE IT NEEDS A FULL 12 WEEKS SO

THAT THE KIDS GET THE FULL SIX

MONTHS.

YOU STACK THEM, YOU DO MOM FOR

THE FIRST THREE MONTHS, YOU DO

MOM FOR 3 TO 6, AND THE KID

DOESN'T NEED OUTSIDE PARENTAL

CARE UNTIL AFTER SIX MONTHS.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

LIKE WE SAID, SOMETHING SHORTER.

I THINK WE SAID EIGHT WEEKS,

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THIS REALLY

HEDGY LANGUAGE, LIKE A FIXED

AMOUNT OF TIME TO BE DEBATED

LATER.

LIKE SIX WEEKS.

I WILL SAY IT WAS A DEBATE JUST

TO PUT CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS

IN.

WHEN WE WERE FIRST GOING TO COME

OUT WITH THE REPORT, WE WEREN'T

GOING TO PUT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS

AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THIS AND

SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT.

AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TELL ME

I WASTED A YEAR OF MY LIFE AND

WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND SOME

NARROW THREAD THAT WE'RE GOING

TO AGREE ON.

THAT IS WHY WE CAME UP ON WITH

THE THING THAT EVERYBODY HAD TO

SWALLOW HARD AND SAY, I DON'T

LIKE THIS.

AT LEAST NOW WE CAN SAY, WE HAVE

PUT THIS ON THE TABLE.

THERE'S BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.

THAT KIDS SHOULD HAVE TIME WITH

THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ARE

BORN.

THERE'S BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT

THAT THIS SHOULD BE FUNDED AT

LEAST PARTIALLY THROUGH A TAX

INCREASE.

THAT IS ANOTHER PART OF IT.

I MEAN WE HAD TO HAVE A PLAN TO

PAY FOR IT.

NOT LIKE MONEY COMES LATER.

WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT

TODAY, IT'S GOING TO COME

THROUGH CUTS OF SOME OTHER

ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM AND IT'S

GOING TO BE THROUGH SOME OTHER

REVENUE, THAT IS PAINFUL FOR

OTHERS OF US, SO THAT IS A

COMPROMISE.

THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS

WHERE WE PUT THAT COMPROMISE OUT

THERE.

IT'S A BASIC MINIMAL PLAN.

EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE WANTED

EITHER SOMETHING BIGGER OR

SOMETHING SMALLER, BUT NOBODY

OBJECTED VEHEMENTLY THOUGH WHAT

WE PUT TOGETHER.

MR. BIGGS: I THINK IT'S

IMPORTANT THAT THE SPECIFICS

WENT IN THERE.

IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU WANT

SOMETHING FROM CONGRESS, YOU ARE

ASKING THEM TO PUT THEIR JOBS ON

THE LINE.

PEOPLE IN CONGRESS WHO VALUE

THEIR JOBS VERY HIGHLY, IF THE

THINGS TANK, EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE

EARNED, IF THEY CAN'T EVEN PUT

SOME SPECIFICS AND COME TO A

COMPROMISE, THEN THERE'S NOT

MUCH HOPE ON THE CONGRESSIONAL

END.

I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT IN THE

SENSE THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT THE BONDING WITH THE

NEWBORN.

IF YOU'RE UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS,

YOU ARE TAKING THIS FOR GRANTED.

YOU ARE READING THE BOOKS.

WHEN WE HAD A CHILD, THE STUFF

WE DO IS INSANE, AND WHY

SHOULDN'T EVERY AMERICAN HAVE

THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE SAME

INSANE THINGS I DID.

THIS IS IMPORTANT, IT'S NOT JUST

IMPORTANT IF YOU ARE UPPER

MIDDLE-CLASS.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE.

IT'S BRINGING BENEFITS TO

EVERYONE.

IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE

CERTAIN COMPROMISES IN A PERFECT

WORLD WE WOULDN'T MAKE.

WE'RE NOT LIVING IN A PERFECT

WORLD.

WE'RE IN A WORLD WE'RE TRYING TO

MAKE PROGRESS ON THINGS.

I THINK THIS SORT OF WORK

BETWEEN AEI WHICH IS THE RIGHT

CENTER IN BROOKINGS, WHICH IS

LEFT OF CENTER IS A REALLY

FRUITFUL THING IN THIS TIME WHEN

GENERALLY THAT SORT OF

COOPERATION IS PRETTY ABSENT.

SO, DR. BIGGS AS YOU SORT OF

HAVE COME ON THE WORKING GROUP

IN MORE RECENT MONTHS, WHEN THE

REPORT FOR 2018 WAS PUBLISHED,

IT TACKLED, AS PROFESSOR

STEPHENSON PAID MEDICAL AND PAID

FAMILY LEAVE.

FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE THERE

WASN'T A TOTAL COMPROMISE, HENCE

THE DISCUSSION NOW.

BUT THEY FOUND A COMPROMISE WITH

REGARD TO PAID MEDICAL LEAVE.

THAT SORT OF CAME IN THE FORM OF

TDI, THE TEMPORARY DISABILITY

INSURANCE.

I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD

TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?

WHERE ELSE -- I KNOW YOU SAID

SOME STATES, CALIFORNIA OR

HAWAII IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN

WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.

WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE OUTSIDE

MUCH A THINK BANK ENVIRONMENT

AND MORE IN THE STATES HANDS.

MR. BIGGS: CALIFORNIA HAS HAD

PAID LEAVE FOR 15 YEARS OR SO.

AND I THINK THERE'S INTERESTING

RESULTS THERE FROM THE RESEARCH

ON HOW THAT HAS AFFECTED

FAMILIES IN A POSITIVE WAY.

MOST OF THE STATES ARE USING A

PAYROLL TAX TO FINANCE IT.

THEY ARE NOT AS BETSEY SAID,

IMPOSING A REQUIREMENT ON

EMPLOYERS, ALTHOUGH I THINK

HAWAII MAY BE GOING IN THAT

DIRECTION.

BUT YOU HAVE CONNECTICUT HAS

IMPLEMENTED.

AND SO, IT'S A POSITIVE THING IN

THE SENSE YOU'RE SEEING

EXPERIMENTATION AT THE STATE

LEVEL, AND YET THERE'S LIMITS TO

THAT GIVEN THE MOBILITY WE SEE.

IT'S OFTEN RUN AT STATES THROUGH

-- MANY STATES HAVE STATE LEVEL

DISABILITY PROGRAMS IN ADDITION

TO THE FEDERAL DISABILITY

PROGRAM.

THEY'RE OFTEN RUN THROUGH THE

STATE DISABILITY OFFICE.

SOME STATES DON'T HAVE THAT.

SAY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS

ESTABLISHING A PAID LEAVE

PROGRAM.

THEY DON'T HAVE A DISABILITY

OFFICE, SO THEY ARE GOING TO GO

THROUGH THE UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE OFFICE.

A LOT OF THIS IS THE MECHANICS

OF HOW DO YOU YOU HAVE DATA

ABOUT PEOPLE AND THE JOBS AND

THE EMPLOYERS THAT THEY WORK

FOR.

YOU WANT TO PIGGY BACK ON THE

EXISTING PROGRAMS AS MUCH AS YOU

CAN, BUT MOST OF THE CASES IT'S

BEEN A PAYROLL SURTAX THEY'RE

USING TO FINANCE IT.

MS. STEVENSON: AS ANDREW

MENTIONED, THERE'S A HANDFUL OF

STATES THAT HAVE TEMPORARY

DISABILITY SYSTEMS.

THOSE ARE THE STATES THAT FOUND

IT EASIEST TO GET A PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE IMPLEMENTED,

BECAUSE THEY JUST ADD IT ON.

IT COUNTS AS A TEMPORARY

DISABILITY, AND WASHINGTON

STATE, PASSED THAT IRPAID FAMILY

LEAVE A LONG TIME AGO, BOUGHT

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO IT,

BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SORT OF

MECHANICALLY DO IT.

THIS ISSUE OF TEMPORARY

DISABILITY INSURANCE, A LOT OF

STATES HAVE IT AND IT WORKS

PRETTY WELL IN THOSE STATES.

THEY HAVE HAD IT FOR A LONG

TIME.

THIS ISN'T LIKE A BUNCH OF

STATES HAVE RECENTLY PASSED.

IT IT'S DECADES OF HAVING A

TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE

SYSTEM.

IT'S NOT FOR A SICK DAY, MISTION

ONE DAY, BUT IT'S NOT FOR A

LONG-TERM DISABILITY.

IT'S FOR SHORT-TERM DISABILITY.

THE IDEA IS THAT YOU HAVE

SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE AN

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURE AN PAYMENT

BUT IT'S A DISABILITY INSURE

ANSWER PAYMENT.

 -- INSURANCE,

PAYMENT.

FOR ISSUES LIKE FMLISH, IF YOU

HAVE, YOU CAN MISS WEEKS OF

WORK, YOU CAN APPLY FOR THE TDI

PROGRAM.

THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT

AMOUNT MUCH ACADEMIC RESEARCH OF

WHETHER TDI REDUCES THAT YOU GO

ON LONG-TERM DISABILITY.

WE HAVE SEEN IN STATES WHERE

THERE'S TDI PROGRAMS, THERE'S

LOWER NUMBERS OF PEOPLE GOING

INTO PERMANENT DISABILITY.

IT'S HARD TO ESTABLISH HOW

CAUSAL THAT RELATIONSHIP IS, AND

THEREFORE HOW BIG IS THE

POSITIVE EFFECT OF REDUCING DI;

IT'S A SINK HOPE, YOU GO ON DI

AND YOU'RE NEVER COMING OFF.

THAT T IS THE PROBLEM.

IF YOU CAN GO ON TDI FOR SIX

WEEKS AND THEN YOU GO BACK TO

WORK ASK T AND THAT IS IT.

MAYBE YOU GO ON TDI IN FOUR

YEARS FOR 6 WEEKS, THAT IS LESS

AMOUNT OF SPENDING THAN GOING ON

DI AND GO ON THERE FOR 10 YEARS.

BUT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STAY ON

IT FOREVER, THEY COULD END UP

HAVING BIG COST SAVINGS.  SO

THERE'S SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE IN

THE RESEARCH THAT A TDI SYSTEM

ESSENTIALLY PAYS FOR ITSELF BY

REDUCING PEOPLE'S APPLICATIONS

TO DI.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT

CAUTIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE RESEARCH

ISN'T COMPLETELY CLEAR.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY

WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO AGREEMENT

ON T DIFFERENT.

DI.IN A WORLD WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE

DI.

WE WOULDN'T GET TO AN AGREEMENT

ON DI.

IF WE CAN START PULLING PEOPLE

ON PERMANENT SYSTEM AND GIVE

THEM TEMPORARY SUPPORT WHERE WE

TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET

THEM IN A BETTER SITUATION SO

THEY CAN STAY ATTACHED TO THE

LABOR FORCE, THAT SAY COMPROMISE

WORTH DOING.

THAT IS WHY WE COULD GET THERE.

WHAT ABOUT THE BROADER SENSE OF

LEAVE?

I WILL TELL YOU WHERE WE GOT

CAUGHT UP ARE IS THE BABY

BOOMERS.

THEY'RE GETTING OLDER AND THEY

NEED CARE.

AND IT COULD BE REALLY EXPENSIVE

IF WE ALL OF A SUDDEN START

LETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE

IN THEIR 50S TAKE TIME OFF TO

CARE FOR THEIR -- MY 70-YEAR-OLD

DAD WAS IN THE HOSPITAL LAST

WEEK FOR HEART PROBLEMS.

AND LIKE, DO YOU HAVE LIKE,

SHOULD I HAVE TAKEN.

SHOULD I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR THE

WHOLE WEEK.

THAT'S A PERSONAL ISSUE.

LIKE YOU HAVE THIS ISSUE.

IMAGINE I HAVE A JOB WHERE YOU

KNOW, I'M EITHER AT MY -- IN MY

OFFICE OR MY EMPLOYER IS PAYING

ME TO NOT DO DO ANY WORK.

DO YOU GIVE ME TIME OFF TO DO

THAT EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.

I DIDN'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE

THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENS.

THAT IS THE THING WITH THE SORT

OF AGE RELATED PROBLEMS, THEY

ARE NOT SHORT DURATION, THEY ARE

LONG DURATION AND THEY CAN LAST

A REALLY LONG TIME.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT MADE IT

HARD FOR US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

THE COST ESTIMATE WAS GOING TO

BE.

THAT CREATED A LOT OF AV ANXIETY

FOR PEOPLE WHO WORRY ABOUT THE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING TOO MUCH.

IT MADE IT REALLY HARD FOR US TO

SAY, WELL, YOU CAN CARE FOR

ANYBODY, EXCEPT FOR YOUR AGING

PARENTS.

THAT SOUNDS PROBLEMATIC, AND THE

REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET

PEOPLE OVER 65 THAT UPSET.

SO LIKE, EVERYONE IS LIKE, LET'S

NOT TALK ABOUT THIS ONE.

I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE A

BIG PROBLEM.

FRANKLY, THERE'S THIS WHOLE

SANDWICH GENERATION.

THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD KIDS LATER

IN LIFE, SO THEY'RE TRYING TO

TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS AND THEY

GOT PARENTS WHO ARE IN THE 70S

AND 80S.

YOU KNOW, ONE -- THAT WAS LIKE

LAST WEEK.

MY DAD IS IN THE HOSPITAL WITH A

HEART CONDITION AND BOTH OF MY

KIDS HAVE THE FLU, AND I HAVE

THE FLU AND WE'RE RUNNING

WHAT DO YOU DO?

THAT IS THE SANDWICH GENERATION.

HOW MUCH SUPPORT DO WE PROVIDE

THEM.

MR. BIGGS: THIS GETS ON WHAT

YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE.

HIGHER INCOME EMPLOYEES TEND TO

HAVE JOB-SPECIFIC SKILLS.

THEIR EMPLOYER DOESN'T WANT TO

GET RID OF THEM.

IF I CALL AEI AND SAY I HAVE TO

TAKE A WEEK OFF TO CARE FOR MY

WIFE OR MY SON; THEY'RE GOING TO

SAY FINE.

THEY DO NOT WANT TO SPEND THE

TIME TO FIND ANOTHER ME.

IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS TO

BE ON THE JOB 9:00 TO 5:00,

RETAIL, THAT IS A DISRUPTION

THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO DEAL WITH.

IT'S TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO

FACILITATE THIS, AND I THINK A

LOT OF IT GOING TO BE WORKING

FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE THE REAL

BENEFICIARIES OF GIVING THEM THE

SAME OPTIONS THE HIGHER INCOME

PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE.

MOVING MORE TOWARD WHAT

FEDERAL COMPROMISE MIGHT LOOK

LIKE.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT

SOME THE PLANS OUT THERE ARE

SAYING, WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING

AND SORT OF WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS

ON THOSE ARE.

SO FISTLY, I W I -- FIRSTLY, I WOULD

LIKE TO TALK DR. BIGGS ON A

PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN

ON, AND THAT IS IN REGARD TO

HAVING PEOPLE CLAIM A TEMPORARY

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT SEEMS

RELATIVELY SIMILAR TO SENATOR

RUBIO'S PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS

AND MOVER RECENTLY, SENATOR'S

PLAN, I WAS WONDERING, INITIALLY

COULD YOU TALK INITIALLY ABOUT

WHAT THAT PLAN IS AND SORT OF

FLUSH OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

THAT.

MR. BIGGS: ABOUT A YEAR AGO,

I WROTE A PIECE FOR THE "WALL

STREET JOURNAL."

SO I THINK IN TERMS OF SOCIAL

SECURITY.

WHAT OCCURRED TO ME IS TREATING

PARENTAL LEAVE AS A SORT OF A

TEMPORARY PERIOD OF DISABILITY

AND SUCH THAT SOCIAL SECURITY,

THEY KNOW YOU ARE EARNING.

IT'S A PROGRESSIVE P BENEFIT

FORMULA.

IT WOULD BE A BETTER ADVANTAGE

FOR LOWER INCOME PEOPLE AND

HIGHERS.

THROUGH SOCIAL SECURITY CAN YOU

COULD CLAIM A PARENTAL LEAVE

BENEFIT FOR A PERIOD.

THERE'S A QUESTION OF HOW YOU

PAY FOR IT.

KNOWING THAT PEOPLE DON'T JUST

WANT TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY

UNDER FUNDED, KNOWING THAT

REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO RAISE

TAXES, WHAT I AND MY CO-AUTHOR

CHRISTIAN SHA SHAPIRO IS THAT PEOPLE

WHO AGREED TO TAKE THE PAID

BENEFIT WOULD AGREE TO DELAY

THEIR RETIREMENT AGE FOR A

PERIOD SORT OF TO MAKE UP FOR

IT.

IF YOU TAKE ONE MONTH OF PAID

LEAVE, YOU AGREE TO TAKE TWO

MONTHS OF PAID YOU RETIREMENT

AGE.

THAT WOULD CUT YOUR SOCIAL

SECURITY BENEFIT 1.5%.

IT'S NOT A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, THIS GOT A

LOT OF INTEREST.

SENATOR RUBIO SPONSORED A BILL

BASED ON THIS IDEA.

HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH -- HAVE A

BILL BASED ON THIS.

IT'S CONTROVERSIAL, SOME PEOPLE

LIKE IT, SOME PEOPLE DON'T.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THROWING

AN IDEA OUT THERE AND SEEING

WHERE IT GOES.

THERE'S BEEN A REAL ADVANTAGE IN

SENSE THAT EVEN THOUGH SOMEBODY

DOESN'T WANT TO DELAY FINANCE,

WHAT IT DOES, IT GETS PEOPLE IN

THE TENT.

WE THINK PARENTAL LEAVE IS A

GOOD IDEA.

THEN WE CAN START TALKING ABOUT

THE ALL THE OF THE PRIZE THAT

NEED TO GET IT HAPPEN.

ONCE WE GET PEOPLE TO ARGUE

ABOUT THE POLICY AND THE RESULTS

THAT IT GETS TO PEOPLE, IT GETS

CLOSER TO THE HE A SOLUTION EVEN

WHAT I OUTLINED ISN'T THE WAY IT

EVENTUALLY GOES.

SO SPEAKING MORE TO THE

PROPOSAL, PROFESSOR STEVENSON,

COULD YOU TALK ABOUT EVALUATING

WHAT YOU THINK THE POTENTIAL

ERNZ CCONCERNS ARE, AND IMPLICATIONS

AND MAYBE WE CAN MOVE TO AN

ALTERNATIVE POLICY AFTER THAT.

MS. STEVENSON: WHAT I THINK

PEOPLE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT

IS WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE, YOU

KNOW, WHETHER PEOPLE HAVE

APPROPRIATE SAVINGS FOR

RETIREMENT AND WHETHER THIS IS

JUST, YOU KNOW, SOLVING A

PROBLEM TODAY BY CREATING A

PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME

PEOPLE FOR WHOM THIS ISN'T GOING

TO CAUSE ANY KIND OF PROBLEM

WHICH ARE HIGHER INCOME PEOPLE

WHO ARE PROBABLY GOING TO RETIRE

AT A SLIGHTLY HIGHER AGE ANYHOW.

THE THING IS THOSE ARE THE

PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY GETTING

ACCESS TO PAID LEAVE THROUGH

THEIR EMPLOYER.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON WHO IS

DOING, YOU KNOW MORE MANUAL

LABOR, WORKING RETAIL, OR LOWER

INCOME WORKERS WORKING MINIMUM

WAGE FOR A LOT OF THEIR CAREER.

THEY ARE RELYING ON SOCIAL

SECURITY TO EAT.

AND IT'S ALSO HARDER FOR THEM TO

EXTEND THEIR RETIREMENT BY

ANOTHER TWO MONTHS.

SO THAT IS THE CONCERN WITH THAT

KIND OF PROPOSAL IS THAT THE

PERSON WHO NEEDS IT MOST FOR

WHEN THEY HAVE A CHILD IS ALSO

THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT MOST AT

THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.

SO COULD WE USE SOCIAL SECURITY

TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO REFORM A

SAFETY NET WHICH PROVIDES US

SUPPORT WHEN WE HAVE A TEMPORARY

NEED, LIKE PARENTAL LEAVE?

YES.

BUT COULD IT BE MECHANICALLY

QUITE THAT WAY?

I THINK, NO.

I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO USE

SOCIAL SECURITY, WE NEED TO MAKE

SURE THAT WE'RE ALSO, YOU KNOW,

READJUSTING BENEFITS IN A WAY SO

THAT WE'RE SUPPORTING THE MOST

VULNERABLE, LOWEST INCOME

WORKERS  A LITTLE BIT MORE IN

RETIREMENT AND MAKING SURE THAT

THEY'RE GETTING THE COVERAGE

THEY NEED FROM FAMILY LEAVE.

SO MY CONCERN IS NOT, DON'T

TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY.

I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD

HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT YOU

KNOW, HOW DOES A PAID FAMILY

LEAVE PROGRAM FIT IN WITH OUR

OVERALL SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,

BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE

REALLY CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT

MAKING ADJUSTMENTS THAT END UP

HURTING THE WORKERS WHO NEED IT

MOST.

THE LOWEST PAID WORKERS ARE ALSO

THE ONES WHO TEND TO GET THE

SMALLEST AMOUNT OF SOCIAL

SECURITY BENEFITS.

NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY PAID IN

LESS, BUT THEY HAVE A SHORTER

LIFE EXPECTANCY.

SO SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, MY

DEMOGRAPHIC HAS A MUCH HIGHER

LIFE EXPECTANCY, I'M GOING TO

DECADE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

PAYMENTS WITH ANY LUCK.

AND THAT MEANS THAT I GET A BIG

HE BENEFIT THAN SOMEONE WHO

MIGHT HAVE A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF

ONLY 70 CUTTING INTO TWO MONTHS

INTO THEIR SHORT LIFE EXPECTANCY

IS A LOT.

THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE

NEED TO THINK ABOUT.

THINKING MORE IN THE

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH THAT HAS

BEEN PROPOSED RECENTLY BY

SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, THE

FAMILY ACT, SORT OF THINKING OF

IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT TO LOOK

AT SOCIAL SECURITY AT ALL.

COULD YOU TALK BOTH A LITTLE BIT

ABOUT YOUR SORT OF THOUGHTS ON

THE FAMILY ACT FIRSTLY START

OUTLINING WHAT IT SAYS, AND WHAT

IT PROPOSES AND SIMILARLY WHAT

SORT OF CONCERNS YOU HAVE ABOUT

IT.

MR. BIGGS: THE FAMILY ACT IS

THE LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS.

IT WILL PROVIDE BOTH PARENTAL

LEAVE BUT IT WILL TAKE CARE

GIVER LEAVE.

IN CASE YOU HAVE TO LEAVE AND

CARE FOR A FAMILY MEMBER.

IT'S A MORE COMPREHENSIVE

BENEFIT THAN SORT OF WHAT I

TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS STRICTLY

PARENTAL LEAVE.

SO IT'S A BIGGER SET OF

BENEFITS.

IT WOULD BE FINANCED WITH A NEW

PAYROLL TAXING ON BOTH THE

EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE OF LEFFING THE PAYROLL

TEX ON EMPLOYERS, THE LARGER

ISSUE, WHEN IT'S FINANCED.

 THAT PUT -- WE SEE

ALL THE INCIDENTS ON THE

WORKERS, SO THE WORKERS PAY FOR

IT.

IT'S OKAY, THE WORKERS WANT IT.

SO I DON'T MIND THAT.

THE QUESTION IS, FIRST OF ALL,

IS THE ESTIMATE RIGHT?

SO 0, .4% FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE

DOESN'T SOUND THAT BAD.

IT'S $2 A WEEK FOR A TYPICAL

WORKER.

THIS ISN'T A BURDEN.

BUT IT FOLDS INTO OUR ALREADY

PRETTY HIGH SOCIAL SECURITY

TAXES.

THOSE AREN'T .4%, THOSE ARE

SO THE QUESTION IS CAN WE REFORM

SOCIAL SECURITY WITHOUT RAISING

SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES?

YOU KNOW, IF OUR OVERALL REFORM

WAS TO HAVE A PAID PARENTAL

LEAVE LIKE THE FAMILY ACT, SOLVE

SOCIAL SECURITY, SOLVENCY AND WE

DID ALL WITH ONLY RAISING

PAYROLL TAXES BY .4%.

I THINK WE SHOULD ALL DECLARE

THAT A VICTORY, AND BE VERY

EXCITED ABOUT IT.

I THINK THE CONCERN COMES FROM

IF WE DON'T DO THIS TOGETHER,

CAN WE PUT THIS PAYROLL TAX ON

WHILE TALK ABOUT RAISINGS THESE

OTHER SETS OF PAYROLL TAXES?

IT'S VERY HARD TO GET CONGRESS

TO THINK COMPREHENSIVELY IN THIS

WAY.

LIKE WHAT SHOULD OVERALL PAYROLL

TAXES BE, AND HOW DO WE

THEREFORE WANT TO ALLOCATE THEM.

A DEALEY THAT IS A POLICY.

THAT IS WHAT I WANT THEM TO DO.

GETTING THEM TO DO THAT IS A

TOUGH JOB.

MR. BIGGS: ONE THING I WILL

SAY IN FAVOR.

FAMILY ACT IN TERMS OF HAVING

THE BULL PACKAGE OF BENEFITS.

IT -- THE FULL PACKAGE BENEFITS.

IT HAIKS MAKES IT EASIER.

IT COULD BE THAT PEOPLE OVER

CHILD BARING AGE WOULD NOT LOOK

AT KINDLY ON THAT.

IF IT'S OFFERING MORE

COMPREHENSIVE BENEFIT, CARING

FOR AN AGING PARENT OR GIVING

YOURSELF SOME LEAVE, WHEN YOU

NEED SICK TIME OFF OF WORK, THAT

IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD SEE THE

BENEFIT THEMSELVES.

THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH BUT IT

WOULD BE A WAY OF BROADENING THE

COALITION THAT MIGHT SUPPORT IT.

MS. STEVENSON: SO DEMOCRATS

-- SO WE POLLED THE IDEA OF A

PAID FAMILY POLICY LIKE THIS

INCLUDING, THIS IS WHAT IT'S

GOING TO TAKE OUT OF YOUR

PAYCHECK IS WE STILL GOT THE

MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAYING, IT

SOUND GOOD.

BUT IT INCLUDED YOUR OWN

BENEFITS, NOT JUST PAID

MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE.

AGREE WITH YOU, WHEN WE ASKED

PEOPLE WHAT IF ONLY COVERED PAID

MATERNITY AND MATERNITY LEAVE,

THEY WERE LESSEN ENTHUSIASTIC,

NOT SURPRISINGLY.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT

WOULD GO,  I WOULD TAKE THIS

BENEFIT.

WHEN HILLARY CLINTON RAN FOR

PRESIDENT, SHE WOULDN'T SIGN ON

TO IT, MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN.

SHE DID NOT WANT A PAYROLL TAX A

PATCHED TO IT.

SHE SAID I WILL PASS A PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY IS WE WILL

PAY OUT OF IT GENERAL REVENUE.

LIKE GENERAL REVENUE IS A NOT A

MAGIC MONEY TREE.

WHERE IS THE FUNDING GOING TO

COME FROM, BUT IT MADE HER

NERVOUS TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO

RAISE TAX THIS HAS MUCH IN ORDER

TO COVER IT.

SO MY LAST QUESTION BEFORE

WE TURN TO QUESTIONS FROM THE

AUDIENCE IS SORT OF RELATED TO

WILSON, AND THE FEASIBILITY.

WILISON AT MICHIGAN IS AN

ORGANIZATION THAT BRINGS PEOPLE

TOGETHER FOR DISCUSSION ON

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES.

ALTHOUGH THE EMOTIONS MAY NOT BE

SUPER HIGH ON PAID FAMILY LEAVE,

IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT

THERE'S A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT.

WHY I BRING THAT, IS AT END OF

THE MOST SESSIONS, STUDENTS,

PARTICIPANTS GENERALLY SAY, THIS

WAS PRETTY NICE.

THIS WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION, BUT

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

WHEN AEI AND BROOKING PUBLISHED

A REPORT, THAT IS ALL GOOD, AND

I THINK IT'S REALLY GREAT.

AND IT'S REALLY SPECTACULAR,

THAT LEGISLATION IS BEING

PROPOSED ON THIS POLICY NOW.

ALL OF THAT CONSIDERED, THOUGH,

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE POLITICAL

FEASIBILITY OF THESE SORT OF

PROPOSALS ARE?

PROFESSOR STEVENSON, AS YOU

MENTIONED 2009, WE WOULDN'T BE

HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AT ALL.

IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS,

GETTING TO THE 2020 ELECTION, AS

WE ARE SORT OF IMMERSED IN THE

CYCLE NOW.

WHAT DO YOU THINK AS THE TITLE

OF THIS LECTURE, THE FUTURE

LEGISLATIVELY LOOK LIKE IN THIS

RESPECT?

MR. BIGGS: LOOK AT THIS THIS

WAY, IN TODAY'S POLITICAL

ENVIRONMENTING SOMETHING THAT IS

PROPOSED AND SUPPORTED BY DONALD

TRUMP IS USUALLY NOT GETTING

MUCH DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT AND VICE

VERSA.

YOU KNOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND

THE STATE OF THE UNION STATED,

YOU KNOW, HIS SUPPORT FOR PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE.

YOU ALSO HAVE SUPPORT FROM

DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS.

YOU ALSO NOW HAVE SUPPORT FROM

SOME REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE.

THEY'RE NOT ALL COMING AT IT

FROM THE PRECISELY THE SAME WAY,

BUT YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO TAKE

YOUR WIN WHERE YOU CAN GET THEM.

THESE DAYS THERE'S NOT THAT MANY

ISSUES ON WHICH THERE SEEMS TO

BE AT LEAST AGREEMENT ON GOALS.

SO I SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE IN A

TIME IN WHICH THERE ARE NOT TOO

MANY POSITIVES TO BE HAD.

I THINK THE AEI BROOKINGS

WORKING GROUP IS ALSO AN EXAMPLE

MUCH TRYING TO KEEP THE CENTER

STRONG AND SAYING, WHERE ARE THE

THINGS WE CAN AGREE ON SO THAT

STUFF DOESN'T JUST SIMPLY FALL

APART IN THE WASHINGTON D.C. MUD

SLINGING MATCH?

MS. STEVENSON: SO WE MOVED

GENERALLY TO A PLACE WHERE

THERE'S EMBRACEMENT, YOU KNOW,

THE IDEAS OF BEING EMBRACED BY

BOTH SIDES.

TAX CUT AND JOBS ACT INCLUDED

MONEY FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE,

RIGHT?

I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT

THEY'RE SEEING THAT IT INCREASE

-- IT DIDN'T INCREASE ACCESS TO

PAID LEAVE.

IT DID COST A LOT OF MONEY.

IT'S A POLICY IDEA THAT HAS BEEN

TRIED.

FAMILY LEAVE, SO I THINK THE

GOOD NEWS IS, YOU KNOW, THAT

WILL AUTOMATICALLY SUNSET, AND I

DON'T KNOW.

LIKE MAYBE I'M JUST POLY ANNA --

BUT I'M HOPING THAT IDEA DOESN'T

WORK AND COSTS A LOT OF MONEY.

THAT IS WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS

SET OF SOCIAL SECURITY

PROPOSALS.

THAT IS MOVING ON TO

UNDERSTANDING TAX INCENTIVES TO

BUSINESSES ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE

THIS PROBLEM.

SO I SEE THAT AS OPTIMISM.

I'M SEEING REAL PROPOSAL THAT

WILL INVOLVE LIKE THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

THAT IS PROGRESS.

AND WHO KNOWS?

I DON'T SEE HOW THEY PASS

ANYTHING BEFORE 2020.

BUT I THINK THE 2020 ELECTION,

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO A

POSITION OF HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT

PAID LEAVE.

I THINK WE ARE SEEING BILLS

COMING OUT.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING

THINGS AND WE WILL SEE INCREASED

DEBATE ABOUT THE NITTY GRITTY OF

THE POLICY, NOT WHETHER WE

SHOULD HAVE ONE, BUT WHAT KIND

OF ONE WE SHOULD HAVE AND THAT

IS PROGRESS.

MR. BIGGS: WITHIN THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY, YOU'RE GETTING

KIND OF A RETHINKING AMONG

POLICY FOLKS OF HOW DO WE

DEVELOP POLICY IN A WAY THAT IS

NOT JUST SMALL GOVERNMENT TAX

CUTS.

HOW DO WE ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS

THAT PEOPLE FACE TODAY?

SO SOMETHING LIKE PAID LEAVE IS

ADDRESSING A PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE

HAVE, AND IT'S TRYING TO FIND A

WAY THAT  WE CAN CA DO IT, THAT'S

CCOST-EFFECTIVE.

IT'S A POSITIVE THING OF PEOPLE

WITHIN MY PARTY THINKING ABOUT

HOW TO DO THIS AND TRYING TO

SHARE GOALS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I THINK AT THIS TIME WE WILL

TRANSITION TO QUESTIONS FROM THE

AUDIENCE.

WITHOUT FURTHER ADIEU.

WE WILL START A Q&A SESSION.

I'M A JUNIOR AT THE LSA SCHOOL

OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND I'M

A MEMBER.

AEI EXECUTIVE COUNCIL HERE AT

MICHIGAN.

MY NAME IS TOLLIA, I'M A

SENORAT THE FORD'S SCHOOL, AND

I'M ON AI EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, I

WAS INTRODUCED AEI FROM

PROFESSOR'S STEVENSON.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

WHEN APPROACHING SEEMINGLY

BIPARTISAN POLICIES, WHAT ROAD

BLOCKS DO YOU FACE FROM CONGRESS

THAT IMPEDE AN ISSUE BOTH SIDES

LARGELY SUPPORTS?

MR. BIGGS: I WOULD SAY A LOT

OF IT ON THE FINANCING AND THAT

IF YOU GO HE TO CONGRESS,

THERE'S MANY OF THEM, MOST OF

THEM WHO SIGN THESE PLEDGES,

SAYING I WILL NEVER UNDER ANY

CIRCUMSTANCES RAISE TAXES.

AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A TAX

RAISER MYSELF, BUT IF YOU FIND

SOMETHING THAT IS A WORTHY

PROJECT THAT PEOPLE WANT AND

WHICH THEY ARE WILLING TO FUND

WITH A DEDICATED TAX, TO ME THAT

MAKES SENSE.

THESE ARE OFTEN CONGRESS AND

POLITICS WORK ON THESE BROAD

RULES OF, I WILL ALWAYS DO THIS,

OR I WILL NEVER DO THIS.

SOMETIMES THE SUBTLETY GETS LOST

THERE.

MS. STEVENSON: I THINK THE

FINANCING IS ALWAYS THE BIGGEST

ISSUE WITH CONGRESS IS HOW WE'RE

GOING TO PAY FOR SOMETHING.

WHAT YOU SEE IS LARGELY THE

ANSWER IS SOMETIMES THEY JUST

GET OVER IT.

THEY RUN UP THE DEFICIT AND THEY

DON'T USUALLY FIND A WAY TO FUND

IT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO -- SO I

THINK THAT WILL REALLY BE THE

BIG STICKING POINT.

I ALSO -- I THINK THE REAL

CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE

THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT

CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE BEING

SERVED BY THE POLICY, AND WHO IS

GOING TO BE IN ORDER TO FIGURE

OUT WHO IS GOING TO BE

SUPPORTING WHAT KIND OF POLICY.

SO THE NEXT QUESTION

SUPPORT CONTINGENCY ON SOCIAL

SECURITY AND SOLVENCY.

MR. BIGGS: I DO A LOT OF WORK

ON SO SOCIAL SECURITY WORK.

THERE WAS BY APARTY SON BILLS IN

GONE DOWNHILL AND SEPARATED ON

THAT ISSUE.

I WORK ON IT A LOT.

YOU HOPE THAT THE TWO SIDES WILL

COME TOGETHER, IT'S BETTER TO

SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE THAT SOONER

RATHER THAN LATER.

CONGRESS IS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A

TEENAGER WITH THEIR HOMEWORK.

THEY OFTEN DON'T DO THINGS UNTIL

THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO THEM.

SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND IS

PREEXPECT DICTED TO RUN OUT IN

THE EARL -- PREDICTED IN THE

EARLY 2030S, I WOULD NOT IF THEY

WAIT.

CONGRESS HAS NOT SHOWN TO BE A

PARTICULARLY GOOD STEWARD OF

THAT PROGRAM.

MS. STEVENSON: SOCIAL

SECURITY IS AN ISSUE WHOSE

BIPARTISAN TIME CAME AND WENT

WITH NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING.

AND THAT IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE,

AND WE'RE NOW IN THIS REALLY

DIFFICULT POSITION WHICH IS THAT

MOST SOCIAL SECURITY

BENEFICIARIES VOTE REPUBLICAN.

REPUBLICANS HAVE TRADITIONALLY

BEEN THE MOST WILLING TO TRIM

BACK THE PROGRAM.

NOW THEY'RE, LIKE, MAYBE NOT SO

FAST.

RIGHT?

THESE ARE -- THIS IS OUR CORE

CONSTITUENTS, SO THEY DON'T WANT

TO CUT IT.

DEMOCRATS ARE, WHERE WOULD WE

CUT IT?

WE ARE HAPPY WITH THE BIG SOCIAL

SAFETY NET.

THEN YOU END WITH THE KICK THE

CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

I THINK -- I'M AN OPT M OPTIMIST, AND

I THINK THAT WHAT WE REALLY NEED

IS SOMEONE WHO SAY, WE CAN DO,

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE WITHOUT

THINKING THROUGH THIS WHOLE

SYSTEM AND TRYING TO FORCE IT

TOGETHER.

I THINK YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE

THINGS FROM PEOPLE.

YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SET OF

POLICY REFORMS THAT ARE REFORMS

BE NOT PURE SET OF GIVE ME, NOT

WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE.

NOT A PURE SET OF CUTS, WE'RE

GOING TO MAKE YOU WORK UNTIL

YOU'RE EVEN OLDER.

YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT

SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A

LITTLE BIT OF THIS, WE ARE GOING

TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.

AND THAT, I THINK IS THE MOST

EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET IT DONE.

IT'S GO TO BE WHETHER CONGRESS

HAS THE WILL DO THAT.

MR. BIGGS: BACK IN THE LATE

SECURITY WHICH WERE SEEN AS

SWEETERS TO MAKE THE MORE

DIFFICULT POLICY DECISIONS GO

DOWN EASIER.

CONGRESS ULTIMATELY GAVE THOSE

SWEETENERS AWAY WITHOUT DOING

THE REFORM.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS

ENCOURAGING, BUT HOPE SPRING IS

ETERNAL.

SO OUR NEXT QUESTION, IS, DO

YOU THINK THAT A CHANGED POLICY

TOWARD PAID FAMILY LEAVE COULD

IMPACT SMALL BUSINESSES?

MS. STEVENSON: I'M GLAD YOU

ASKED THAT QUESTION.

WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE MOST

IMPORTANT ISSUE, WHICH IS NOT

ABOUT THE LEAVE, IT'S ACTUALLY

ABOUT THE JOB GUARANTEE.

FIRST OF ALL, IT'S IMPORTANT TO

KNOW THAT THE EMPLOYERS ALREADY

BEAR MOST OF THE COST OF PAID

FAMILY LEAVE, BECAUSE THEY ARE

REQUIRED TO GIVE PEOPLE UNPAID

LEAVE.

THE COST TO EMPLOYERS IS WHEN

PEOPLE ARE GONE FROM THEIR JOB

FOR THE DURATION OF THE LEAVE.

THEY ARE BY LAW, ALREADY

REQUIRED TO DO THAT.

NOW NOT AUTOMATIC SMALL

BUSINESSES ARE.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE

TAKE UP BE HIGHER SO MORE OF

THEM ARE FACE AING THESE

ABSENCES -- FACING THESE

ABSENCES?

I THINK THAT IS PRETTY SMALL.

THE BIGGER ISSUE, IS HOW LONG DO

EMPLOYERS HAVE TO HOLD THE JOB

OPEN FOR, AND HOW SMALL WILL THE

BUSINESS BE THAT WE REQUIRE.

IT'S NOT A BURDEN ON SMALL

BUSINESSES IF I GO ON MY PAID

PARENTAL LEAVE AND THEY ARE FREE

TO REPLACE ME, AND I CANNOT COME

BACK TO MY JOB.

BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THAT

IS LEAVE WHEN I DON'T GET JOB

PROTECTION.

THAT IS ONE OF THE THING WE

SPENT A LOT OF TIME DEBATING.

A.

 EI BROOKINGS WORKING GROUP,

IT'S EASY TO TELL A 500 OR A

A JOB OPEN FOR 12 WEEKS.

IT'S HARDER TO TELL THAT TO A 10

OF PERSON FIRM.

AND THE LONGER THE NUMBER OF

WEEKS ARE, THE BIGGER THE BURDEN

IS.

I THINK MOST -- I DON'T KNOW

THAT IT'S SO MUCH OF AN ISSUE OF

SMALL EMPLOYERS VERSUS LIKE WHAT

KIND OF EMPLOYER IT IS, HOW EASY

IT IS TO SUB-IN, THAT IS WHERE

THE BURDEN COMES FROM NOT FROM

THE FACT THAT THE PERSON IS

GETTING PAID LEAVE, NOT FROM THE

COST OF PAID LEAVE.

IT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT WHO

IS GOING TO DO THE WORK WHILE

YOU'RE GONE AND DO YOU HAVE

ENOUGH STAFFING AND OPTIONS TO

BE ABLE TO DO THAT?

SO THAT -- HOW SMALL OF A

BUSINESS -- HOW SMALL DOES THE

BUSINESS -- OR HOW BIG DOES A

BUSINESS HAVE TO BE BEFORE WE

PUTTED THAT REQUIREMENT ON THEM

WAS A BIG PART OF OUR DISCUSSION

CAND WE DIDN'T REACH A GOOD

CONCLUSION ON THAT.

IT'S HARD TO THINK ABOUT WHAT

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE IS, WHEN

IT'S REALLY A SEVERANCE PAY.

SO NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT ARE

YOUR OPINIONS ON A GOVERNMENT

FUNDED RETIREMENT SAVINGS?

MR. BIGGS: ON THE PARENTAL

LEAVE FRONT, THERE'S BEEN

PROPOSALS THAT HAVE TAKEN THAT

MODEL, AND THE CONCERN I HAD WAS

GIVEN THE AGE AT WHICH MOST

PEOPLE HAVE KIDS, AND GIVEN

THEY'RE COMING INTO, HAVING PAID

OFF STUDENT LOANS OR SIMILARLY,

THEY MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME OR

RESOURCE TO BUILDUP THAT KIND OF

ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO COVER PAID

LEAVE.

IT'S JUST THE TIMING IS NOT

RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE TIME OF

THEIR LIFE.

WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT THE SOCIAL

SECURITY-BASED PROPOSAL IN A

SENSE, I WAS SAYING, AT A TIME

IN SOMEBODY'S LIFE WHEN THEIR

INCOME IS VERY LOW, THEY'RE ABLE

TO ESSENTIALLY BORROW FROM THEIR

INCOME IN THE FUTURE, USUALLY

SOMEBODY INCOME WHEN THEY'RE AT

CHILD BEARING AGE IN REAL TERMS

IS HALF WHAT IT IS WHEN THEY'RE

IN THE MID-50S.

IT WAS THE IDEA OF NOT JUST

GETTING INCOME THERE, BUT

GETTING IT THERE AT A TIME WHEN

THEY CAN USE IT.

I'M NOT REALLY OPPOSED TO THE

IDEA, I'M JUST NOT SURE IT'S

SUFFICIENT FOR THE JOB.

MS. STEVENSON: SO I HATE

FLEXIBLE SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

MR. BIGGS: SHE IS OPPOSED TO

IT.

MS. STEVENSON: I'M OPPOSED

TO.

LET ME EXPLAIN WHY I'M OPPOSED

TO IT.

IT'S A LOT ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

TO GET THE MONEY BACK.

THE SECOND OF ALL THE ONLY

BENEFIT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT

YOU'RE PAYING TAX INSIDE FIST

PLACE.

IT DOESN'T -- FIRST PLACE.

IT DOESN'T GET YOU OUT.

THIS IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO TOP

AT THE HALF INCOME DISTRIBUTION

AND THEY'RE GOING TO THE PEOPLE

AT THE TOP END OF THE INCOME

DISTRIBUTION.

IF YOU'RE PAYING A HEFTY 35%

MARGINAL TAX RATE.

FLEXIBLE SPENDING IS GOING TO BE

A GREAT OPTION, BECAUSE YOU ARE

GOING TO REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN.

THOSE GUYS ALREADY GET PAID

LEAVE THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYER.

SO THEY DIDN'T NEED THE HELP.

WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A

REGRESSIVE POLICY THAT DOESN'T

HELP ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE

ACCESS TO PARENTAL LEAVE.

ASK WE ARE GOING TO DO IT IN ONE

OF THE MOTT COSTLY WAYS WE CAN.

I THINK IT'S A -- I'M HAPPY TO

GIVE THEM INCENTIVES TO SAVE

MORE, BUT SAYING THIS A SOLUTION

TO PAID FAMILY LEAVE IS

COMPLETELY FALSE.

IT DOES NOT OFFER ANY SOLUTION

TO THE PROBLEM.

MR. BIGGS: CAN AFTER THAT

DESCRIPTION, I'M NOW READY TO

PREDICT CONGRESS WILL PASS IT.

YOU ON NEXT QUESTION FROM

THE AUDIENCE, HOW WILL ENACTMENT

OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IMPACT

FUNDING ISSUES FOR PAID FAMILY

LEAVE?

MR. BIGGS: THIS IS SOMETHING,

WHEN I HAVE BEEN AT CAPITOL

HILL, I'VE TALKED TO DEMOCRATS,

FOLKS WHO FAVOR THE FAMILY ACT,

WHICH HAS A BIG BENEFIT PACKET

AND PAYROLL TAX ADDED TO IT.

TO FUND IT, I HAVE SAID, YOU

ALSO FAVOR SOCIAL SECURITY

EXPANSION, WHERE YOU HAVE 2 1/2

PERCENTAGE POINT IN THE SOCIAL

SECURITY TAX TO PAY FOR THAT.

YOU ALSO FAVOR MEDICARE FOR ALL,

WHICH LIKE IT OR NOT, WILL BE

FUNDED BY SOME TAX THAT WOULD

IMPACT LOWER INCOME PEOPLE.

NOT ALL IS GOING TO COME FROM

THE RICH.

ECONOMICS IS ABOUT SCARCITY AND

POLICY MAKING IS ABOUT SCARCITY,

IT'S ABOUT HOW DO WE BALANCE

THESE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES.

THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO

THINK ABOUT THAT YOU CAN ONLY GO

TO THE WELL SO OFTEN ON THE

FINANCING SIDE.

HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THINGS FROM

THE BENEFICIARY'S POINT OF VIEW.

I DON'T KNOW.

THE FINANCING SIDE OF IT IS

WHERE THE TROUBLE COMES.

MS. STEVENSON: THE PROBLEM

WITH, YOU KNOW, MEDICARE FOR ALL

IS THAT IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE

HUGE AMOUNT OF TAXES.

NOW ON THE PLUS SIDE, WE WON'T

BE PAYING FOR PRIVATE HEALTH

INSURANCE.

AND JUST LIKE WORKERS BEAR ALL

THE BURDEN WHEN THEIR EMPLOYERS

ARE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR

BEHAVE, THEY'RE ALSO BEARING ALL

THE BURDEN WHEN THEIR EMPLOYER

IS PAYING HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS

ON THEIR BEHAVE, SO PEOPLE'S

TAXES WILL GO UP, BUT THEIR

WAGES SHOULD GO UP A LOT BECAUSE

THEIR EMPLOYERS CAN PAY THEM

WHAT THEY WERE PAYING IN WAGES,

WHAT THEY WERE PAYING IN HEALTH

INSURANCE, THEY CAN PAY IN

WAGES.

THE HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU

KNOW THE MASSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

COST ASSOCIATED WITH U.S. HEALTH

CARE PROVIDES A BIG ENOUGH

CUSHION THAT ONE COULD RAISE

REVENUE TO PROVIDE A UNIVERSAL

HEALTHCARE PLAN IN A WAY THAT

DIDN'T -- THAT DIDN'T LEAVE

FAMILIES WITH LESS INCOME FOR

NONE HEALTH RELATED THINGS AT

ENTD END OF THE DAY.

THAT IS GREAT IN THEORY, BUT I

THINK WHEN PEOPLE SEE THE ACTUAL

PAYROLL TAX REQUIRED TO ADOPT

THIS KIND OF PROGRAM, IT'S GOING

TO BE TOUGH, AND PUTTING THAT

AND THEN SAYING, I'M GOING TO

ADD THIS OTHER 4.4%, IT'S GOING

TO BE LIKE ROUNDING ERROR WHEN

IT COMES TO HEALTHCARE.

THE GOOD THUS IS THEY'RE GOING

TO GO, LET'S GO WITH THIS LITTLE

ONE INSTEAD.

I THINK THE HEALTHCARE

CHALLENGE, THAT IS ITS OWN

CHALLENGE.

IT'S BIG.

I DOUBT IT CROWDS UP PAID FAMILY

LEAVE, BUT IT CERTAINLY WILL

RAISE BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW

BIG WE WANT THE SAFETY NET TO

BE.

OKAY, NEXT QUESTION HERE IS

FATHERS OFTEN DO NOT TAKE

PARENTAL LEAVE TO WHICH THEY ARE

ENTITLED SHOULD A PARENTAL LEAVE

POLICY ENCOURAGE PARENTS TO TAKE

THAT TIME OFF AND HOW SO?

MR. BIGGS: IN SOME OF THE

SCANDINAVIAN POLICY.

MS. STEVENSON: THEY'RE USE IT

OR LOSE POLICY:  IT'S NOT JUST

USE IT OR LOSE IT.

THE GUYS HAVE LEAVE, AND THEY

USE IT OR LOSE IT.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM, THERE'S A

LOT OF GUYS IN THE U.S. WHO HAVE

LEAVE AND THEN THEY LOSE IT.

MR. BIGGS: IF YOU SPEND A

COUPLE OF WEEK WITH A NEWBORN,

RETURN TO WORK DOESN'T SEEM AS

BAD.

THERE'S A SOCIETAL PRESSURE AND

THERE'S YOU KNOW, I'VE READ

REPORTS FROM EMPLOYERS

THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY, LIKE

LAW FIRMS, CONSULTING FIRM WHERE

IF, YOU NO HE, THEY OFFER

PATERNITY LEAVE, BUT OFTEN THE

MEN WHO TAKE IT ARE FROWNED

UPON.

I THINK THERE'S LEGAL AND

THERE'S SOCIETY ISSUES AS WELL

OF EMPLOYERS YOU KNOW, NOT

PENALIZING PEOPLE FORMALLY OR

INFORMALLY IF THE FATHERS TAKE

IT.

THAT MAY BE A TOUGH NUT TO

CRACK, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST

PASSING A BENEFIT, IT'S THINKING

ABOUT WHOLE YOU THE WORKFORCE

INTERACTION.

MS. STEVENSON: IN THE U.S.

WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE KIND

OF POLICIES THAT THEY HAVE IN

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

THE POLICIES ARE FAMILY BASED.

THE FAMILY DECIDES HOW THEY'RE

GOING TO SPLIT THE LEAVE UP.

THEY MIGHT HAVE ACCESS TO 12

MONTHS, AND IT USED TO BE THE

MOM CAN TAKE 12 MONTHS OF IT,

THE DAD CAN TAKE 12 MONTHS, THE

DAD CAN TAKE 6 MONTHS, AND WHAT

YOU FOUND IN A COUNTRY LIKE

SWEDEN, THE MOM TOOK THE WHOLE

THING AND THE DAD TOOK NOTHING.

NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT

ANYMORE.

NOW IT'S GOING TO BE 13 MONTHS

BUT ONLY IF THE DAD CAN TAKES AT

LEAST ONE MONTH, OTHERWISE IT'S

ONLY 12 MONTHS.

OTHERWISE THERE WAS A HUGE

INCREASE IN DADS TAKING, WELL,

OTHERWISE WE WOULD LOSE IT.

U.S. WE'RE TALKING A POLICY THAT

IS SEPARATE FOR MEN THAT IS

SEPARATE FOR WOMEN.

BY DEFAULT THAT IS USE IT OR

LOSE IT IF THE GUY DOESN'T TAKE

IT.

LIKE YOUNG MEN WHO ARE STUDENTS

HERE, I TALK TO MEN IN THEIR

EARLY 30S, I LOOK AT SURVEY

DATA, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT

ATTITUDE TOWARD PARENTING TODAY.

AND MOST GUYS WANT TO BE THERE,

AND WANT TO GET TO KNOW THEIR

KID AND WANT TO PARTICIPATE.

THEY'RE NOT LIKE, OH, YEAH THAT,

YOU KNOW, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE

I BABY-SIT MY KIDS.

THAT IS NOT A VERY MODERN

APPROACH TO FATHERING AND --

LIKE FATHERS ARE THREE TIME AS

LIKELY AS MOMS TO SAY THAT

THEY'RE STRUGGLING WITH WORK

LIFE BALANCE.

I THINK THAT IS LIKE, THEY NEED

TO GET A GRIP.

[ LAUGHTER ]

IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY

DO FEEL MORE PRESSURE IN THE

WORKPLACE, BUT YOU'RE SEEING AN

I CREASING NUMBER OF DADS, WHO

ARE, I CAN'T DO A MEETING AT THE

I NEED TO PICK UP MY ID CAN FROM

DAYCARE.

-- MY KID FROM DAYCARE.

I THINK THAT CHANGE HAS STARTED

TO HAPPEN.

YOU MENTIONED A LAW FIRM.

MY BROTHER IS A LAWYER AND IN

HIS LAW FIRM.

WHEN HE TOOK HIS FIRST PATERNITY

LEAVE, HIS SENIOR PARTNER WAS,

WE HAD IT WHEN WE DIDN'T TAKE

IT.

MY BROTHER, IS YEAH, MY

GENERATION TAKES IT.

THERE ARE THINGS THEY DO FOR

EACH OTHER.

ONE TIME, HE SAID, I'M COVERING

FOR THIS GUY WHO IS COVERING FOR

ME WHEN I WAS IN A PATERNITY

LEAVE.

AND THEY ARE LIKE CAN YOU COVER

THIS TIME WHEN I'M GOING TO BE

OUT I'LL COVER FOR YOU.

I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED A

COHORT TO CHANGE.

IF YOU ARE COVERING FOR EACH

OTHER, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A

BURDEN ANYMORE.

RIGHT, IT'S NOT LIKE I'M TAKING

ON YOUR WORK BECAUSE YOU'RE

STAYING HOME WITH YOUR BABY.

MR. BIGGS: IT NO LONGER FEELS

LIKE A FREE RIDE.

MS. STEVENSON: YOU DO NEED A

NOBODY DOES IT OR EVERYBODY DOES

IT.

I'M STARTING TO SEE THIS SWAP

FROM NOBODY DOING IT TO

EVERYBODY DOING IT.

OUR NEXT QUESTION IS, COULD

JOB SECURITY BE A SUITABLE BACK

UP TO A POSSIBLE FAMILY LEAVE

WITHOUT PAY FOR EXTENDED TIME

OFF?

MR. BIGGS: I DON'T TOTALLY

UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SO I

WILL LET YOU ANSWER.

MS. STEVENSON: JUST GIVEN THE

PAID PROTECTION WITHOUT THE PAID

LEAVE?

YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT

PERSON IS TRYING AS TO ASK.

MS. STEVENSON: THE FMLA

ALREADY GIVES YOU JOB

PROTECTION.

THE FMLA HAS PROBLEMS, IN TERMS

OF IT DOESN'T COVER EVERYBODY,

BUT THEY'RE, THAT IS THE SMALL

BUSINESS ISSUE.

I THINK WHAT -- IF YOU WANT TO

GET THE BENEFITS OF KEEPING FEEL

ATTACHED TO THE LABOR FORCE,

IT'S REALLY THE PAID PARENTAL

LEAVE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.

AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE

FEEL LIKE I AM STILL AT WORK.

I'VE MADE A COMMITMENT TO GO

BACK.

I'M GETTING PAID DURING THIS

PERIOD, I HAVE -- I'M MAKING A

TRANSITION PLAN TO GO BACK TO

WORK, AND THAT IS WHY YOU SEE

GREATER RETURN TO WORK AFTER

PAID LEAVE THAN AFTER UNPAID

LEAVE.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE THINKING, LOOK,

IT'S UNPAID, I'M JUST GOING TO

QUIT, AND I'M GOING TO DEAL WITH

IT.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WANT

EIGHT WEEKS OR 12 WEEKS, OR 16

WEEKS OR 20, IT DOESN'T MAKE A

DIFFERENCE WHETHER I QUIT OR

DON'T.

YEAH, I COULD GO BACK TO MY JOB,

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF JOBS I CAN

GET.

THAT IS WHY WE SEE TOO MANY

PEOPLE QUITTING AND THEN IT

TURNS OUT, THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE

DO FEEL LIKE IT'S EXHAUSTING

BEING HOME WITH A KID, AND IT

WOULD BE BETTER TO JUST GO BACK

TO WORK.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB, THE

IDEA OF FINDING A JOB BECOMES

OVERWHELMING, AND SO YOU END UP

WITH THIS PROBLEM THAT THEN, YOU

KNOW, IT'S THREE YEARS LATER,

AND THEY'RE JUST THINKING ABOUT

TRYING TO GO BACK TO WORK.

SO I DON'T -- THE NO I DON'T

THINK JOB PROTECTION IS ENOUGH.

AND I THINK JOB PROTECTION IS

THEISTIC YESTERDAY WICKED FOR US

TO ADDRESS WHEN IT COMES

STICKIEST FOR US TO ADDRESS WHEN

IT COMES TO BUSINESS.

IT MADE SENSE FOR GOOGLE TO

PROVIDE SOME SORT OF PAID FAMILY

LEAVE FOR THAT KIND OF

EMPLOYMENT, BUT FOR MORE LOW

SKILLED JOBS THAT MIGHT BE

EVENTUALLY REPLACED WITH

AUTOMATION, HOW DO YOU THINK

PAID FAMILY LEAVE MIGHT AFFECT

THOSE WORKERS?

OR YOU THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE

LESS OF A NEED FOR A PUBLICLY

FUNDED PROGRAM LIKE THAT.

MS. STEVENSON: SO I THINK

THAT IT'S SORT OF ODD TO MIX

THIS IN WITH SORT OF AUTOMATION.

ALTHOUGH, IF YOU WANT TO SAY,

WELL, YOU KNOW, AS WORKERS

BECOME COST MORE AND MORE, THEN

MAYBE I SHOULD JUST DEEPEN MY

CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO MAKE SURE

MY WORKERS ARE MORE PRODUCTIVE

AND USE FEWER WORKERS.

SOME OF THAT -- I THINK THAT IS

A DEBATE FOR A DIFFERENT

DISCUSSION.

I THINK THE BIG ISSUE IS WHAT

DOES THIS COST EMPLOYERS?

FOR EMPLOYERS, WE HAVE ALREADY

DISCUSSED IT.

IF IT IT'S PAID FOR A PAYROLL

TAX, IT'S COMING OUT OF WORKERS

WAGES.

ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS MINIMUM

WAGE WORKERS.

IF YOU'RE MAKING THE MINUTE IN

UM WAGE, THEY CAN'T LOWER YOUR

WAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING

ANOTHER TAX ON YOUR BEHAVE.

I THINK THERE'S A BIG BODY OF

LITERATURE THAT SAYS THAT THE

MINIMUM WAGES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT

NOW THERE AREN'T ANY BIG

UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF RAISING

COMPENSATION COSTS.

I'M NOT VERY CONCERNED THERE.

I THINK THAT THE WAY TO THINK

ABOUT THE COST -- AND WITH

SOMEBODY STEPPING AWAY FROM THE

WORKFORCE FOR HOWEVER MANY WEEKS

IT'S GOING TO BE.

WE'RE NOT TALK ABOUT FORCING THE

EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR IT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAYING FOR

IT THROUGH A PAYROLL TAX WHICH

IS THE INCIDENTS FALLS ON

WORKERS.

SO THEN THE QUESTION IS WHICH

WORKERS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT

THAT WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT?

I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE ONES

THAT CAN BE REPLACED BY

AUTOMATION.

A ALTHOUGH THE OF THOSE THEY'RE

NOT -- THEIR WORKERS ARE EASY

FOR THEM TO HIRE.

HAVING A GAP WHERE SOMEBODY

STEPS AWAY FOR 12 WEEKS AND THEN

COMES BACK ISN'T THAT COSTLY FOR

THEM.

I AM MORE WORRIED ABOUT YOU

KNOW, A COMPANY THAT RELIES ON

REALLY KNOW HOW TO GET THROUGH

THE PERIOD OF LEAVE WITHOUT

HIRING SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT THEY

CAN'T REALLY AFFORD TO HOLD ON

TO 13 PEOPLE, SO DO THEY HAVE TO

GO THROUGH A TEMP AGENCY?

HOW DO THEY MANAGE THAT?

WHAT ARE THE TRAINING COSTS OF

GETTING SOMEBODY UP TO SPEED?

CAN THEY SHARE THE BURDEN?

I DO THINK A LOT OF BUSINESSES

WORK THAT OUT PRACTICALLY EVERY

SINGLE DAY.

IF YOU WORK WITH 12 PEOPLE,

THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE A FAMILY.

IT'S HARD TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY

WHEN YOU ONLY WORK WITH 12

PEOPLE.

I KNOW YOU ONLY -- YOU JUST HAD

A BABY -- EVEN THOUGH IT'S HARD

FOR ME AS AN ECONOMIST TO WORK

ON HOW THEY FIGURE IT OUT.

THEY SORT OF HAVE TO BASED ON

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WORRY

THAT SOMEHOW PAID FAMILY LEAVE

IS GOING TO BRING ON THE ROBOT

REVOLUTION.

MR. BIGGS: I DO A LOT OF WORK

IN PUERTO RICO WHERE THEY HAVE

EIGHT WEEKS OF MATERNITY LEAVE

PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYER AND I'M

JUST PULLING GOVERNMENT STATS

OUT OF MY HEAD.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,

ANY GIVEN TIME IS ONE OUT OF 400

EMPLOYEES IS OUT ON MATERNITY

LEAVE.

BUT THERE'S OTHER TERMS THAT ARE

MORE THAN IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF

THE EMPLOYER'S WHETHER THEY TRY

TO AUTOMATE A TASK OR NOT.

I SUSPECT IT'S A MARGINAL

EFFECT.

WITH THAT, I THINK THAT ENDS

OUR CONVERSATION FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR

SPENDING THE TIME ON THIS GREAT

DISCUSSION AND THANKS TO ALL OF

YOU FOR JOINING US THIS

AFTERNOON.

I KNOW AFTER THIS, OUTSIDE IN

THE GREAT HALL WE WILL BE HAVING

A SHORT LITTLE RECEPTION.

I HOPE ALL OF YOU WILL JOIN US

OUT THERE.

BEFORE WE END, PLEASE JUST HELP

ME THANKING PROFESSOR STEVENSON,

AND DR. BIGGS ONE LAST TIME.

MS. STEVENSON: THANK YOU FOR

ORGANIZING THIS.

IT'S GREAT.