action. andy gallagher, al jazerra st. augustine, florida. and a quick reminder, you can keep up-to-date with all of the news on our website there it is on your screens the address aljazerra.com. that's aljazerra.com. ali velshi. "on target" tonight. many americans are force to choose. troubled waters, tension builds as china builds new islands in the pacific. is 12 weeks of leave, without pay. that's what working mothers with newborns are entitled to under the family medical leave act.

that is a far cry from what the rest of the world offers its working mothers. in fact countries like germany russia and japan offer paid maternity leave of one year or more. most of the developing world offers some paid maternity life leave to their mothers. america does not, putting it on the par of surinam and papua, new guinea. only three states rhode island new year's and california mandate paid maternity leaves that mandate four to six weeks of maternity leave, limit in the federal law limit the newspaper number

number ofunpaid women, employers with fewer than 50 workers on their payrolls are not obligated to you provide leave at all. this is why you should care. 70% of women today with children under the age of 18 are in the primary bred winners in 40% of households across the united states. american women are now an incredibly potent engine in the workforce driving this country's economic growth. yet, the laws and regulations on the books governing women in the workplace are stuck in a time warp. women aren't staying home anymore. even if they wanted to, many can't afford to and both men and women are balancing family responsibilities with work responsibilities. you wouldn't know that from our workplace laws, though. jeffrey myron is a economist at harvard yurt and the university and

the cato institute, the government should stay out of it he joins us now from washington. good to see you jeffrey. my pleasure. >> be do you think this is something the government should be involved in? allows women to be the contributorrors to contributors to the work force. >> i guess would i start by disagreeing a bit, about whether the private sector has done something reasonable. much longer than 12 weeks of unpaid leave or many cases paid leave. my own employer harvard university gives maternity and paternity benefits to faculty and administrative staff that are substantially longer than 12 weeks required. so you describe in your intro that the law in the united states doesn't mandate more than the 12 weeks. but that doesn't mean that's all

that's happening. lots of employers especially bigger employers are already doing substantially more. >> lots of people pay more than the minimum wage and clearly lots don't. those who do not allow womenfully reasonable amount of leave -- any reasonable amount of leave. those who do a great job, that's fantastic. that's not everyone. >> the question is who gets to define what's reasonable? the market defines what's reasonable and we let the market determine what the wages should be for employees and the work conditions and the things like mandated benefits and healthy retirements an all that. >> we don't jeffrey let the market define it. there are lots of arguments libertarians included. >> lots of skills people who are trained as lawyers or doctors get very high compensation and

people with lower skills get lower. that's determined by the market. and employers do that because they have to do that in order to attract people to work for them. so if lots of people do value things like extended maternity leaves, paid, unpaid, whatever then market is likely to provide that. if they don't, then it's because the market doesn't want it, it's very costly or people are unwilling to seven the wage reductions. employers are not going to stand by and say oh the government told me i have to pay are you for 12 weeks. they are trying to adjust things -- >> the countries that do do have more favorable policy, want to attract the best people and retain them. that's why you do it. you wouldn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. >> that's right. if they're doing out of the goodness of their own self interest why does the government

have to mandate it? >> low income levels, be people don't have a commitment to them and they leave so they don't have to do any obligation to keep employees with them they offer as low as they can in order to employ anybody. >> that's way markets work. companies who give lousy pay to workers are only going to be able to employ people who don't have good outside opportunities. the overall total compensation you get and leave policies and the like. >> you've implied if you do this there's a cost to it. when you have minimums of any sort there's a cost somewhere, you just mentioned productivity. california was the first state to pursue paid family leave, it launched a program in 2004 had a allowed employees to take up to six paid week a year. according to the center for economic and family research paid family leave had either a positive effect on productivity

or no noticeable effect on profitability turnover or employee morale. i imagine you are going to tell me that the center for economic and policy research was not aligned with your research and but that's what their study shows. >> i'm not going to dispute their study. there are lots of companies this have these studies and they come to some range of evaluations but second, i don't want to say that these belief policies would be extremely costly or even moderately costly. i suggest instead that they are mainly going to have minor effects on the overall welfare of the employees in question. part of what employers are going to do is try ooffset the fact that they are mandated to pay these benefits, these paid leaves by adjusting the wages downward that they pay to people in the relevant groups or in some cases there's evidence -- >> ite not sure that's true -- i'm not sure that's true though.

at the highest levels at places like you work at places like harvard, let me give you youtube, the ceo youtube wrote when we increase paid ma alternatively leave to 18 from 12 weeks in 2007 the rate at which new moms left google fell by 50%. mothers were able to take the time they needed to bond with their babies and return to their jobs feeling confident and ready and it's much better for google's bottom line to avoid costly turnover and to retain the expertise skills of our employees who are new mothers. google figured out by giving their people 50% more paid leave they were going to save money on turnover. >> that's great, completely consistent with my view, plenty of companies are going to do this because there's good business to do it. but i think there's a difference between companies choosing to do something like that on their own and a policy telling all

companies or most companies that they have to do it. because it's going to be relatively easy to accomplish for some companies because they are big, they have large workforces, they can substitute those that are on leave with someone who is not on leave, and substitute tasks that will be different, there maybe some costs but in many cases it is not going to have a huge huge effect because companies who want to do it on their own that's all fine. >> at the highest levels i agree with you. if you are employed by harvard or youtube or google. jeffrey, you could tell them you leave. if you are poor you are unskilled you work at a minimum-wage job, there's lots of turnover by virtue of the city, that's the least among us. >> that's exactly where the mandates are are most likely to

do harm. because the employers are substituting low level substitutable employees. saying gee when you are making me keep somebody in an industry that is already enormous and keep them for 12 weeks when they're not here, i'm going to try not hire like that. i'm going to hire 50-year-olds who may not have kids. >> we know that happens. i'll agree with you on that. we know that part happens. jeffrey good to have you thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> jeffrey myron, department of economics at harvard. up next, it's not just mothers. i'm going to introduce you to the man who sued his company to stay home with his children. >> al jazeera's investigative

unit has tonight's exclusive report. >> from coast to coast. >> people selling fresh water for fracking. >> stories that have impact. >> we lost lives. >> that make a difference. >> senator, we were hoping we could ask you some questions about your legal problems. >> that open your world. >> it could be very dangerous. >> i hear gunshots. >> the bullet came right there through the window. >> it absolutely is a crisis. >> real reporting. >> this... is what we do. >> america tonight. tuesday through friday 10:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

>> we are continuing you or very weird discussion about just guys talking about maternity leave in this country. the debate around paid family leave has traditionally centered around extending maternity rights to working mothers but broadcast journalist josh leves says companies should offer working fathers paid maternity leave too. third child born prematurely he sued the company for gender discrimination. he's now the author of a new

book, "all in how our work first culture fails dads families businesses" in it he calls for companies to extend benefits for fathers of new children, because he says today's fathers play a larger role in parenting than ever. josh gm to see you. ood to see you. we don't fully agree that maternity benefits should be extended to women around the world. >> it's very difficult that your last guess believes, most people don't understand what paid family leave is, what paid family leave is not a law requiring businesses to pay people when they're off for family business. most people don't think that law should exist. paid family law as it exists operates as an insurance system. you pay a little bit of money into it. when you need paid family leave you are paid into that fund.

before these states created it big business groups said it will be bad for jobs. the chamber of commerce these groups are totally silence. the reason is the facts are now in and we now know that paid family leave insurance programs are good for the cause of equality, good for businesses and good for workers, it's paying off dividend s across the world. >> you don't have to argue that to me. there are only two countries that do it as badly as the united states, papua new guinea and surinam. now we have three states in the united states that do it a little bit better. 30 years away from getting this right for women and you're starting a crusade saying men should be involved in this. >> i'm glad you put it this way. here's the key, the reason my book is called all in, i

immediately heard from women's groups and men's groups with this massive supportive groups. we talk all the time about how there's no paid maternity leave in this country. plus paternity leave is worse all of our structures are based on a sex is assumption that women stay home, the men are supposed to work. when you tackle these structures what you finally start to get is the kind of equality that i was raised to believe in. >> you said you -- who should be doing this? are we looking out for state rules are we looking for federal law or as my last guest says should we be pressuring companies to do the right thing? >> here's the problem, your last guest had one good thing, when a national policy that will establish this program, what we have found here there are

studies out there surveys, majority of republicans and democrats, when they find without family leave is they support it. one act now the family act state of new york one place considering it but more and more businesses are considering that when they create board policies that allow both genders time at home, they are doing better for their employees. businesses should through free market do more but what we need is basic humidity, it is like public education or med kate for health. when the child leaves the womb it should have a parent home with it for a bunch.weeks, it's not a left right battle, just human. >> who's helping the cause and who is standing in the way? book. there is a vicious cycle going on in which some people what you think of as old boy network raising up the few people who don't believe that way. the vast majority of fathers today like me and the vast

majority of moms all over the country want actual equality. we all stand together. the problem is in the vicious cycle heads of corporations raise people up the ranks who are not like that. what we need to do is get the word out. >> ss thatisn't that what my guest from cato just said? hiring or promoting people who might take this leave? >> from the book, we are seeing that any state that does have this that is not happening. people are not losing those job opportunities because it removes the pressure from businesses, i have an 18 person small business in boston in my book they have on their own decided to offer three months paid leave because it attracts and retains. with the state contributing funds through that process. that is simply not happening. it is one of those bogey man things had a people say happens and does not. these are steps we can take that

make these policies happen. >> josh leves, all in how our work family culture, china is flexing its muscles in the south china sea.

available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now >> the united states is called on china to stop its provocative actions in the south china sea. but china has essentially told the u.s. to butt out. its primary shipping lanes may

be home for billions of barrels of oil. on sunday a chinese admiral defended the country's construction of artificial islands in the region and just last month china warned a military aircraft to leave a military zone, quote after it argued over reefs. marga ortigues reports. >> china has built at least seven man made islands. over 800 hectares, where there was only once rocky outcrop. the u.s. calls the activity unprecedented. ashton carter criticized china's aggressiveness. >> china is out of step with both the international rules and

norms that underscore the asia pacific security architecture and the regional consensus that favors dploancy diplomacy and favors conversioncoercion. >> to criticize china for original piece and stability through construction activities. since china has never taken any proactive measure. in fact, the disputes in south china sea have been there for decades and over the past decades the region has been peaceful and stable just because china's great restraint. >> the philippines vietnam and malaysia three other claimants of the disputed waters also have their own installations but nothing on the scale of china's reclamation.

brought the dispute to an international tribunal for arbitration but china refuses to attend. >> simply on the face of it, it appears that the chinese will say one thing and in action do quite another. and i don't think it quite squares off. i think this is where the confusion lies and with the mistrust really lies. >> reporter: the u.s. and its allies fear that the ownership of south china sea should destabilize peace in the asia pacific and affect trade and security they rest of the world. no permanent is is expected at the end of the security conference here but it is hoped to give all parties the chance to share their differences and work together. china has sent a big delegation and that is being seen as a positive sign. marga

ortigas, al jazeera singapore. . >> eye sac stone fish is the editor of foreign policy magazine. he joins me from washington. isaac thank you for joining us. you say when it comes to china's action he in the south china sea, might makes right. that sounds light a bit of rationalization for appeasement and woig conflict in the face of china's new congregation. are you not -- chinese new aggression. >> i think it's very difficult to assign who's right and who's wrong in international relation is. and i think way these things always get played out is who's the stronger power and what ability do they have to affect change. carter's comments about how china is out of step with international norms, is

important to mention because the international norms in the entire asia pacific region come from the united states who has been the predominant power in the region since the end of world war ii. now china that is becoming a powerhouse, it wants to change that. >> pro voting beijing in the south china sea will only back fire on washington, when china declares an air defense zone in the south china sea the united states will have only itself to blame. isaac i know you didn't where this article but how does reacting to china's action he make any sense whatsoever? >> that is a view of one of our contributors and doesn't represent my views but what he seems to be trying argue is that china has far more of a right to the territory in the south china sea than any of the other claimant states or the united states.

and one of the points he makes is what u.s. military or strategic needs are served there and how do those compare to china's needs? he argues that china's needs in that particular region are far more important than america's and by butting into this dispute the united states is getting itself into an area where its interests are not served and according to this commentator it doesn't belong. >> in order to achieve the aims of the u.s. and with china the article does assert as do you i believe if the united states does truly want to deter china it needs to understand what the economic and military interests of china are in the regions. how would that inform better u.s. policy in the region? in other words don't we sort of know what china wants to so and would we change our approach in the united states if we had what you would argue would be a clearer understanding?

>> i think top levels of chinese political and military decision make are really a black box. and it's very, very difficult for us to understand who's actually making these decisions. is it xi jinping, is it other areas of the central body, the central military commission? the more we can see how much china is serious and how much it is bluffing the more we can cam great our response. >> here's my question is there much of a bluff going on here or is this china being expansionist? >> that's a great question and i wish i had a good answer for you. i think china is probably being expansionist and this is probably a sign that china feels comfortable enough with its domestic territorial issues that it can assert its territorial claims internationally. we don't know how much this is xi jinping or the secretary of the communist party, how much it's him pushing for this because it is a policy he actually believes in or how much

of this is conservative elements in the leadership and how much control he has over them. >> you are arguing if we understood it better the way we understand the byzantine political scene we would operate differently, we would make different overtures, make u.s. goals without necessarily hardening china's military position? >> it seems like right now our assumption is china is really being expansionist and trying to stir the waters in the south china sea. but if it turns out we got really good information that said that this is really not a mainstream policy in the leadership and this is a rogue general trying cause problems then i think we'd be better served and better policy that fixes that. >> don't push them into a corner just because the u.s. is bossing them into taking a position that might not be that important to them, back in 2013 china did do something similar, they declared an air defense zone in the east

china sea that disputed areas of china. can you tell me why this might be different? >> i think china had one really strong card, one time, it did that with japan, over the sincacus. if they wanted to do it again it would be far less of a surprise, chinese generals and concerns have hinted at it. -- and colonels have it. japan and china territorial disputes is over a single group of islands whereas this area we're talking about here is much more massive and it would be much more difficult for china to actually enforce an edict, i think there are strategic different out of it would be

less than adiz. >> when you say adiz that stands for air deference identification zone. that is our show for today. i'm ali velshi. [ ♪ ] american parents are moving away from shame, scorn and cutting ties with children who consider themselves different from their birth gender. that doesn't mean all the challenges that go along with changing from the gender on a birth certificate disappear. a lot of adjustment is required to see gender identity less as a binary this or that idea.