Nancy Kenna, Tom Stratman, Kristi Kuhl, Kenneth Kesaji, 

Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility: Is There a Trade-Off?

Does tying health insurance to employment limit job mobility? 

According to Rebecca Blank, in her book Social Protection Versus Economic Flexibility, it appears tying health insurance to employment does limit job mobility.  In the United States up to 75% to employees are covered by employer-provided health insurance.  These workers can be covered relatively cheaply by a company’s existing insurance program when a health problem arises, but it becomes much more expensive for a new employer to provide insurance for an individual with a pre-existing condition.  It might be appropriate to say the job lock hinges on changes in an individual’s health status more than the individual’s health, because employers are not likely to hire a worker who they will have to pay high premiums to insure.  This means some companies would not hire a costly employee, which limits the job mobility of that worker.  A study done by Madrian shows there is the presence of a job lock because of health insurance, and that an insurance system separate from employment would enhance the efficiency of job mobility.  The job lock on workers becomes tighter as insurance becomes more important, namely for those with poor health who rely on insurance to pay their expensive medical bills.  From the evidence provided by Rebecca Blank it appears health insurance that is tied to employment does limit job mobility.

Do housing policies inhibit workers from moving to new jobs in different areas? 

Housing policies can and cannot inhibit workers from moving to new jobs in different areas. It is dependant upon the type of housing policy offered. If the housing policy allows for homeownership their will be a low mobility rate. Homeownership ties people to their property. It becomes a part of their identity.  Mobility rates are dramatically lower for households who live in owner-occupied housing in comparison to housing policies that provide housing on a renting basis. Moves occur 4.4 more times for renters in the US compared to those who are provided with homeownership. Housing policies can limit workers from moving to new jobs in different areas.

What are the effects of daycare and maternity leave policies on working mothers?

            In terms of daycare, the amount of daycare varies.  In the United States, our children go when mothers are working and from any age.  In France, almost all children go to daycare from the age of three on.  It is almost like a preschool.  This brings about the questions of what effect does each of these have on the mothers.

            For the women of the U.S., the effects on the working mothers can go two ways.  Either the mother feels more security that her child is with other children in a daycare and now she can work guilt free, or she feels bad.  In the U.S., women are still struggling to prove that it is okay for them to work.  The way the U.S. system works, children go to school at the age of 4 or 5 and even then, it is sometimes looked down upon for the mothers of these children to work.  In many places, it is very frowned upon for mothers to take their babies or infants to daycare while they work.

            The effects of the daycare policy for the women of France are much different.  Since it is typical of most to all children to go to daycare at an early age, it is not frowned upon.  The mother can therefore go to work and not feel bad.