[zeroname]

Who is paying for those five extra days? Is it the health insurance? Your cost of health care will go up or service will get worse.

Is it taxes? Your taxes will go up or money will be missing in the budget (or you will need to get more debt).

Is it the employer? Wage suppression.

You haven't gained or won anything really. There's no free lunch.

I will make an exception though: If you make people stay home when they are sick, you may reduce sickness overall. However, if people spend their entire "Family Care Leave" on rugby matches and then illness strikes, it's not going to work.

[markdown]

> Who is paying for those five extra days?

The cost is shared between taxpayers and the employer – employers get a 150% tax deduction for wages paid for family care leave.

Taxes will go up, and perhaps some prices. This is good.

> You haven't gained or won anything really. There's no free lunch.

Workers maybe haven't gained anything, but a worker has, and that's wonderful. You can argue all you want about economic models and the absence of free lunches but at the end of the day, a parent who needs to take care of a sick child gets to do that, and having the cost paid elsewhere in taxes or higher prices is a boon.

[zeroname]

The cost isn't paid elsewhere. It's essentially going straight out of their own paycheck. Not immediately and in equal measure, but over time and on the average. It's effectively vacation days.

Remember, everyone gets those five days. Big earners, small earners. It evens out to nothing. Everyone can't live at the expense of everyone else.

[markdown]

An American parent has a sick child but can't care for them. A Fijian parent has a sick child and can care for them. This comes out of their own paycheck (not immediately and in equal measure, but over time and on the average. It's effectively vacation days)

If you really don't see how the latter position is so vastly better for the individual parent than I don't know what to say. Perhaps you've never been a wage slave.

[zeroname]

Believe it or not, an American parent can take a vacation day as well. The difference is, you're not forced to have vacation days and suffer lower pay for it.

In any event, why have only five days? If five days is good, why aren't two weeks even better? How could five days be enough to care for your family? Why not a whole month, that's even better than two weeks! I'll tell you why: Because it's not a free lunch. These laws are made so that politicians can sell them to clueless voters, not because they make sense.

[lotsofpulp]

It’s 5 days because there are no other paid leave laws. If the US had mandatory six to eight weeks paid leave for everyone like a civilized country, then there wouldn’t be a need to specify sick leave, other than allowing for leave without prior notice due to sudden illness or injury.

[zeroname]

If the US had mandatory six to eight weeks paid leave, that would come out of the employee's paycheck.

I don't see what's good or civilized about being forced to take a vacation. A lot of people are underemployed as-is, because of all the regulations that make it less attractive to hire people fulltime.

[markdown]

"Why have only one painkiller? If one painkiller is good, why not take the whole bottle? How one pill be good enough to ease your pain? Why not the whole bottle, that's even better than one pill!"

What a silly argument.