Lactation Breeds Lack: The High Cost of Breastfeeding

You can add “healthier babies” and “stronger pocketbooks” to the list of reasons why paid sick days and paid family leave are essential to economic recovery for America’s working families:

The percentage of American mothers who breastfeed their babies has risen over the past decade, but it remains far below the rate public health officials would like to see. Newly published research provides one possible reason why.

It turns out all that healthy, nutritious milk comes at a surprisingly high cost.

A study of 1,313 American women who gave birth between 1980 and 1993 finds those who breastfed for six months or more suffered “more severe and more prolonged earnings losses” than mothers who breastfed for a shorter amount of time, or not at all.

“Our results suggest that breastfeeding, at least for six months or longer, is not free in an economic sense,” write sociologists Phyllis Rippeyoung and Mary Noonan. Their findings are published in the American Sociological Review.

According to the most recent government statistics, 74.6 percent of mothers report they breastfed their babies. But only 44.3 percent were still breastfeeding at six months, and 23.8 percent at one year, the minimum cutoff age recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In an attempt to find out why, Rippeyoung and Noonan studied data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, an annual survey of a large group of Americans born between 1957 and 1964. They specifically looked at how childbirth and subsequent breast feeding impacted a woman’s earnings over the following years.

“We found that after childbirth, short-duration breastfeeders (those who stopped before the baby was 6 months old) and formula-feeders experienced similar earnings penalties,” the researchers write. “By contrast, women who breastfed for long durations experienced a much steeper decline in earned income over the first five years of their children’s lives.”

The cause of this gap is clear enough: “Long-duration breastfeeders are more likely to be non-employed in the years following childbirth, and they work fewer hours when they are employed.”

Learn why – and what can be done – in Miller-McCune »

[Cross-posted from Washington Policy Watch]

Without facts, NFIB resorts to magic for their case against paid sick days

Ellen Bravo

Paid sick days are good for our economy, according to numerous studies by seasoned economists.  That’s why Americans in cities and states across the country from all parts of the political spectrum support this policy.

The same policy is under fierce attack by big corporate lobbyists, whose job it is to protect the top 1% of society – folks who, of course, already have paid sick days.  In their attempts to scare small business owners and the public, the corporate lobbyists have created a whole new math system to justify their position.

The abra-ca-dabra arithmetic practiced by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, (NFIB,) one of the Big Six corporate lobbies, is simply about pulling numbers out of a hat and daring to call it economics.

The NFIB is currently peddling a so-called “study” in Massachusetts, proclaiming that proposed legislation allowing workers to earn paid sick days in that state would cost huge amounts and be a disaster for small business. Legitimate research estimates the legislation would save businesses in that state upwards of $348 million and save hospital emergency rooms another $22.7 million, including $13.4 million in taxpayer-funded public health savings.

As economists have pointed out about a similar tome produced in Philadelphia, the NFIB document rests on incorrect facts and flawed assumptions. Here are a few examples:Continue reading “Without facts, NFIB resorts to magic for their case against paid sick days”

Make sure candidates know you and your family care about paid sick days and paid family leave!

Will Washington’s 2013-14 Legislature support paid sick days and paid family and medical leave insurance? All the seats in Washington’s House of Representatives and half of the seats in the Senate will be on the ballot this November.

Washington’s regular 2012 legislative session ended without action on the Paid Sick Days bill. The special session that convened in mid-March is focused on the state budget.

Will Washington’s 2013-14 Legislature support paid sick days and paid family and medical leave insurance? All the seats in Washington’s House of Representatives and half of the seats in the Senate will be on the ballot this November.

Be sure the candidates running in your district know that you and your family members care about these issues! Here are questions you can ask at candidate forums:

  • Paid Sick Days: The City of Seattle as well as several other cities and the state of Connecticut have established minimum standards for paid sick leave, to protect public health, family economic security, and worker productivity and business health.In Seattle, businesses with between 5 and 49 full-time-equivalent employees (FTEs) will be entitled to up to 40 hours of sick leave  per year; those with 50 to 249 FTEs have up to 56 hours, and larger businesses will be required to provide up to 72 hours per year.

    Would you support adopting a similar standard for all workers in the state?

  • Family and Medical Leave Insurance: In 2007, the Washington State Legislature passed Family Leave Insurance that provided for individuals to take up to five weeks of paid leave to care for a new born or adopted child. However, the legislature did not set up a mechanism for funding the program and has postponed implementation until 2015.Other states, including California and New Jersey, have successfully established programs that provide 6 weeks of partial wage replacement to care for a new child or sick family member, as well as more extended leave for the worker’s own serious health condition, funded through modest payroll taxes.

    Would you support expanding and funding Washington’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance program as other states have done?