Paternity and Maternity Leave

[AViking]

Ok first things first. You're going to have to read a little bit. Sorry about that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/here...t-about-parenting-that-americans-dont-2013-11

Years ago I needed to make a decision. I had been living in Europe for a few years and partying it up. I studied at university here and I had a job. Should I stay or go back to the USA? I chose to go back to the USA. I felt that culturally it made more sense and I really objected to the taxes and felt like I was better off making more money in the USA.

So I went back to the USA. I busted my ass and made a lot of money in a very short period of time. The American Dream right? Then it hit me though. If I wanted a higher quality of life and wanted to raise a family it made almost no sense to live in the United States. As a dual citizen I had a choice again and I chose to live in Europe for the second time in my life.

You see I once asked my father what his biggest regret in life was. His answer kinda shocked me since I don't remember it like this. He said that he regretted barely being there for my first 9 years of life. He was always working, commuting, travelling, and didn't see me very much. That's just the way it is in the US.

My friends in CA have 1-2 hour commutes to work each day. They work in Silicon Valley but can't afford to live there so they have to drive for 65-80 miles twice a day. Some more. Some less. They get their 2 weeks of vacation, pay over $1000 a month for daycare per child, but make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. They have combined income families around $130,000 for the most part. Not bad. They're all in the top 20% of American families. It really doesn't get much better for most.

Well it does. It gets a lot better.

• I get 6-8 weeks of vacation plus a whole bunch of national days off. If a national holiday occurs on a Thursday or Tuesday you get Friday or Monday off as well.
• Daycare is among the best in the world and costs $189 per month for your first child, $126 per month for the second, $63 per month for the third, and is free for any additional children.
• There is a lot of opportunity for working at home and flex time.
• Maternity and Paternity leave are 16 months long at 80% pay. Now I think the father is required to take 3 months off. Generally with my friends and family the father takes about 6 months off.

On top of these basics is just how family friendly the culture is. If I go to the store where I live they have a daycare in the store. All the big supermarkets have this. You can drop your kid off with paid professionals for 3 hours and it's free. Everything is balanced around these giant tank like strollers that people have and the mass transit is free to anyone with a kid in a stroller. So while you have young children your transit costs are basically cut in half since one parent will not need to buy a metro card. Then you have city parks everywhere and even in the worst parts of town the parks are better than anything I have ever seen in the USA.

Now I could go on about the financial implications but I think the main point is just on the quality of life. I think this is by far the better way to raise a child. Lets just look at quick numbers though. If you're making $100,000 a year your take home is going to be around $5,800 a month. Subtract at least $2000 a month for daycare for your two children. Lets be somewhat fair to the whole USA and say you have a $1,800 mortgage. Your cars and insurance cost you $700 a month. Food is another $500. Another $200 for utilities. Health insurance is $500 a month. We're out of money. That $100 left is for entertainment. A baby sitter, dinner, and a movie. It was at this point that I threw my hands up in the air and wondering whose bright idea this was. You can make $100,000 a year and have zero money left over to put in your 401K or for retirement and be scraping by if you want 2 kids. Worse yet you are not going to see them very much since you're always working. You're not going to have very long vacations, or money to go on one, and you're not going to get very much time with them after birth. And here's the part that hurts the most - the numbers I used above are VERY conservative. A family of 4 is not going to be eating very good on $500 a month. $200 to cover gas, electricity, water, trash, mobile phone, and internet? Good luck.

So the question I have to ask is why do we put up with this? Can it change? Do you want it to change?

A couple immediate problems present itself. First off if you live in an at-will state you would be fired for even suggesting paternity or maternity leave. Next up is that we don't have organized labor and that's probably the key to the rest of the world offering these benefits. Lastly Americans loathe taxes.

 

[dank69]

Why do we put up with this? Because it sounds like socialism which a great majority of US citizens think is anti-American. A great deal of money was spent making sure of that. It's sad, really.

 

[AViking]

Yeah I was trying to convey that above but when I was a teenager I felt like socialism was bad. It had to be since I saw them take 33% of my money from me over here even on $10/hr and I had heard it my whole life. Granted they gave me 12% back for vacation pay. Regardless I moved back to the states. I felt like I wasn't benefiting from the system. Well it turned out I was. I didn't pay for University in Sweden but I paid for it in the USA and had to take student loans. Where it becomes super obvious though is when you want to raise a family. At this point in my life I would need to make $150,000 a year to come out ahead of Sweden. Maybe more since I don't want to live in a $1800 a month place with a 3 hour commute everyday and I don't want to live in the midwest. How many families can make that kind of money and afford to pay that kind of money?

So basically our system is pretty good from about the time you graduate college until you want your first kid. Those years don't require much and you work, work, work. Of course this is debatable since working 95% of the year is really a low standard of living. After that though our system is bad for nearly all Americans who wish to raise a family.

 

[DesiPower]

I believe 6-8 weeks of temporarily disability is very adequate. We are not a nanny state, people work they get paid, if not then they don't get paid. I don't see the confusion. What the nanny states offer is not actually all that free, you pay highr taxes all your life and then you get these benefits. Here you get to keep more for yourself, you can take addition weeks or months or even years off, I have seen people do that quiet a lot. Given that it can hurt your career, but in socialist nations you don't have these kind of careers to being with. many people here work for 8 - 10 years and reach where they want to be in their career and then have kids.

We have 2 kids and my wife took 8 weeks for the 1st and 12 for the 2nd. It did not hurt her career one bit and we were totally satisfied with the arrangement. Our kids are going to day care from 8 weeks and they are doing just fine.

 

[soulcougher73]

Sounds great. Id leave in a heart beat if i could afford to move there

 

[Pulsar]

We have 2 kids and my wife took 8 weeks for the 1st and 12 for the 2nd. It did not hurt her career one bit and we were totally satisfied with the arrangement. Our kids are going to day care from 8 weeks and they are doing just fine.

I disagree with this approach on so many levels.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I disagree with this approach on so many levels.

Just pop'em out and throw'em in daycare.

I was lucky that my parents never put me or my siblings in daycare. I would like the same if I ever had children, but the way that things are in this country, that would be difficult without one parent sacrificing their career.

I think the way the Nordic countries do things is far better for quality of life. Maybe I will move there, lol.

 

[Pulsar]

Just pop'em out and throw'em in daycare.

I was lucky that my parents never put me or my siblings in daycare. I would like the same if I ever had children, but the way that things are in this country, that would be difficult without one parent sacrificing their career.

I think the way the Nordic countries do things is far better for quality of life. Maybe I will move there, lol.

I take issue with the idea of 'Sacrificing' a career too. People work to live. Not live to work. If someone is having kids, then that's their focus in life (or should be). If someone can't prioritize their kids before everything else, then they probably should have thought twice before popping 'em out.

 

[Screech]

What the nanny states offer is not actually all that free, you pay highr taxes all your life and then you get these benefits.

Nothing is ever free of course -- there is no free lunch -- but it would be interesting to compare the "amount of money to enjoy life with at the end of the year after taxes and all money sent to the government but plus the benefits that money gives to you" between the USA and other "socialist" (really capitalist, of course, just with a slightly stronger/more imposing government) countries. I imagine the "bang for the buck" in terms of life enjoyment gained per dollar spent on taxes is a lot better in those countries than here, but admittedly I don't have that data in front of me.

Here you get to keep more for yourself, you can take addition weeks or months or even years off, I have seen people do that quiet a lot. Given that it can hurt your career, but in socialist nations you don't have these kind of careers to being with.

Anyone with enough saved money anywhere (and the ability /skillset to find a job upon wishing to reenter the workforce) certainly could. I suppose if everyone in america has the ability to save more money per year than in those "socialist" countries then this point is true. But again, I'm not sure there is really any factual basis to that point in either direction; many americans save close to no money because the costs of things that we have to pay for cut so far into many people's salaries that there isn't a lot left to save, or because people are absolutely terrible with money, or a combination of both. I'm not sure what you mean regarding 'in socialist nations you don't have these kind of careers.' Certainly there are some very specialized jobs that will exist in some countries and not in others based on unique resources or bank headquarters, etc, but not every american can be the CEO of a large multinational.......and the last time I checked, social mobility is actually higher in Europe anyway, so the idea that someone can work hard, regardless of background, to get somewhere comfortable is effectively less true here on the average than there. Most first world countries, especially ones tending towards a service economy(yay....), tend to have a number of similarities in careers. Well, maybe those other countries have fewer daycare centers

We have 2 kids and my wife took 8 weeks for the 1st and 12 for the 2nd. It did not hurt her career one bit and we were totally satisfied with the arrangement. Our kids are going to day care from 8 weeks and they are doing just fine.

Good for you for figuring out how to make things work :thumbsup: I think it remains an interesting discussion on what would be idea. Certainly going towards more government involvement comes with downsides.

 

[AViking]

I believe 6-8 weeks of temporarily disability is very adequate. We are not a nanny state, people work they get paid, if not then they don't get paid. I don't see the confusion. What the nanny states offer is not actually all that free, you pay highr taxes all your life and then you get these benefits. Here you get to keep more for yourself, you can take addition weeks or months or even years off, I have seen people do that quiet a lot. Given that it can hurt your career, but in socialist nations you don't have these kind of careers to being with. many people here work for 8 - 10 years and reach where they want to be in their career and then have kids.

We have 2 kids and my wife took 8 weeks for the 1st and 12 for the 2nd. It did not hurt her career one bit and we were totally satisfied with the arrangement. Our kids are going to day care from 8 weeks and they are doing just fine.

I will respect your opinion but I am very curious how you came to the conclusion that 6-8 weeks was very adequate. When I was in High School and college I worked with women in the states who just had a baby and it's great. Activate sarcasm meter. They're back in a handful of weeks, lactating all over their shirt, pumping milk at lunch, just recovering from their c-section but they have a nice pillow they've placed on their chair, and their infant is in the hands of a complete stranger for 8-10 hours a day. They took a few weeks off before the pregnancy since they were as big as a whale and that cuts into their tiny allotment of time off. Now the best part is that they get their vacation used up, they don't get paid for maternity leave unless their employer chooses to do so, and if you live in an at-will state you can be fired for trying to take more time off. Although I haven't had any friends or family with serious complications in the US I have had family in Sweden with major complications and bleeding. She had to take several months off before delivery. How would a US employer handle that? They have zero obligations. Unless you're in a great position why would they keep you?

As far as careers what are you basing that on? What kind of career can you have in the US that you can't have in Sweden? I admit there might be some however they affect only the top echelon of our society. The other 99% do not have such unique careers. Even that might be debatable but something like the CFO of Walmart is going to dwarf anything we have here since they have over 2 million employees. Salaries are not as high here but family expenses are so much lower and the benefits are so much higher that I think any family wanting children here is going to come out ahead of almost every American family. I think the average salary in Stockholm is $55,000. Take out taxes (33%), add in benefits, and you're doing ok here. You might not live in a McMansion but that's not needed.

You say people can take months and years off work. I have never seen anyone do that in the USA. If you want time off you can take time off but you can't keep your job. Sorry but these are bad economic times and you either work or someone else will right? How is any company going to remain competitive with their employees taking time off, right?

You also say that many people take 8-10 years to get where they want in their career and then have kids. What are you basing that on? That's actually partially true in Sweden. The average age they have children here is 31. Figure they graduate high school at 19, travel for one year, go to University for 3-5 years, and then start their career at 23-25. That's 6-8 years. Your 8-10 year figure doesn't seem to work since in the US the average woman has her first baby at 25.

Now you brought in the cost and I did as well. I actually put in figures and showed how our system doesn't work. Not until you make a ton of money and are in the top percents of our society. I figure since the USA is so big I can't speak on behalf of whole country but I'm pretty confident in the coasts and over 40% of Americans live there. Even then money is not everything and since I made a lot of it I can assure you that money does not buy time unless you quit your job. This thread is about time. If it was about money I would grant you in a heartbeat that the USA is the best place on earth to make the most amount of money possible. Assuming you are exceptional and the best of the best which most people are not. It would be a very short discussion since most Americans have no savings, almost no retirement, a lot of debt, almost no benefits, and very little time off.

Ultimately I think the best career would be lots of money and lots of time. I know a few people who do consulting and that's pretty good for both but overall most people cannot do both. Most Americans have just enough money to pay their bills, almost no time off, and zero mobility. I'm always advocating moving when shit isn't working out in your favor but everyone has an excuse for that. Money isn't everything. I'd argue that standard of living is. Money is really only an issue when you don't have any. So when the average American is struggling with time, money, and mobility I'd argue our standard of living is heading in the wrong direction.

I'm glad your children are doing good. I'm also really glad I grew up in a family where my mother stayed home. Eight weeks is pretty good though since I recall reading that most women are back at work 4 weeks after childbirth. They probably can't afford to take anymore unpaid leave since they've used up all their vacation and have no savings. Whether they should be having children with that kind of economy is another discussion as well. In Europe they have done a number of studies and determined that 40 weeks is pretty much ideal. That's why here they generally do something like the mother takes time off at first, then maybe both, then the father.

 

[AViking]

Nothing is ever free of course -- there is no free lunch -- but it would be interesting to compare the "amount of money to enjoy life with at the end of the year after taxes and all money sent to the government but plus the benefits that money gives to you" between the USA and other "socialist" (really capitalist, of course, just with a slightly stronger/more imposing government) countries. I imagine the "bang for the buck" in terms of life enjoyment gained per dollar spent on taxes is a lot better in those countries than here, but admittedly I don't have that data in front of me.

I'd be interested in seeing the same thing. If you're a single, young, executive, making a boat load of money in the USA then you're going to come out way ahead. You don't need much. However if you look at the entire lifespan and factor in the time you are going to have children and your retirement it looks different.

It's tough to do for most people though. Look at the healthcare debate. People struggle with the concept of having to pay for health insurance when they're a healthy 24 year old who only spends $100 a year on a doctors checkup. If you factor in your whole life though you're going to need proper healthcare and that's why you're paying into the system. On top of that even a healthy person can break their leg and go bankrupt without insurance in the USA.

Same thing applies to the way your tax money is spent here. Lets just say you have a great career in Sweden. This is the big bad socialist nanny state and they are going to take 40% of your money from you. I could do the math exactly for a specific salary but lets just say 40%. For that insane tax amount you will get the following:

1. Free education
2. Free healthcare ($165 a year)
3. Super cheap daycare
4. Minimum of 6 weeks vacation
5. Lots of national holidays
6. 16 months M/Paternity leave at 80% of your salary
7. Pension plan. Basically 60% of your salary. You can get insurance for more.
8. Subsidized mass transit that costs about $115/mo
9. Unions, job security, unemployment, job training, etc.

Then there's things like employers giving free massages, gym memberships, and things of that nature to keep people healthy and happy.

Where we get killed over here is in sales tax. That's the real killer. 25%.

 

[dank69]

... Although I haven't had any friends or family with serious complications in the US I have had family in Sweden with major complications and bleeding. She had to take several months off before delivery. How would a US employer handle that? They have zero obligations. Unless you're in a great position why would they keep you?

...

As for this specific question, many (most?) employers in the US offer short and long term disability pay.

 

[sm625]

It may one day violate some sexist law to say this, but until then I'm jsut gonna say it: paid paternity leave is a friggin stuporifically retarded idea.

 

[Pulsar]

It may one day violate some sexist law to say this, but until then I'm jsut gonna say it: paid paternity leave is a friggin stuporifically retarded idea.

Do you have children?

Have you ever read the numerous studies about parental involvement and raising children?

Your statement is contra-indicated by about 40 years of research. It also goes against every ounce of common sense. Of course, if you own your own company or are only looking at it from a corporate point of view, I'm sure you're right.

After all, we need more delinquent damaged children running around turning into delinquent damaged adults.

 

[Zargon]

It may one day violate some sexist law to say this, but until then I'm jsut gonna say it: paid paternity leave is a friggin stuporifically retarded idea.

not as retarded as what you just said


I had 2 weeks paternity leave, the first week I wouldn't have been useful at work anyways as I was exhausted the entire time and had no business doing critical work

week 3 I was barely holding on, with the 4 hours of real sleep a day

I was happy to go back to work just to have a real schedule again and not feel so aimless, but I would rather have been able to stay home for another 2 weeks. But I had changed jobs mid-pregnancy and thus didnt have alot of days off to use. I probably will with the second one




my kid went to day care for 4 days at week 14, then my wife was off another 8.

but holy crap he LOVES his daycare, which is a small licensed home daycare with like 4 kids in it, hes basically with family

 

[AViking]

It may one day violate some sexist law to say this, but until then I'm jsut gonna say it: paid paternity leave is a friggin stuporifically retarded idea.

When you see it in action you realize how awesome it is. There are Dad's with strollers all over this city and although I can't speak on behalf of it first hand I can say that seeing my friends and family stay home with their kids, do that bonding, and share the responsibility is really great.

Anecdotes aside all the research done on the subject proves you're wrong.

 

[ControlD]

Do you have children?

Have you ever read the numerous studies about parental involvement and raising children?

Your statement is contra-indicated by about 40 years of research. It also goes against every ounce of common sense. Of course, if you own your own company or are only looking at it from a corporate point of view, I'm sure you're right.

After all, we need more delinquent damaged children running around turning into delinquent damaged adults.

I don't see what your statement or your unspecified research has to do with anything here. You can still be a father/mother with plenty of parental involvement while having a career. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. If your kids spend part of their time in daycare they aren't growing up without parental involvement.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah I was trying to convey that above but when I was a teenager I felt like socialism was bad. It had to be since I saw them take 33% of my money from me over here even on $10/hr and I had heard it my whole life.

The odd thing is, if what I read a while ago is correct, that people in the US pay more taxes than in quite a few other developed countries, yet "socialism is bad" and "I'd see loads more of my paycheque disappear".

I would quite willingly pay more NI contributions if it meant that the NHS (the UK's "national health service") improved, but unfortunately more funding does not necessarily result in a better service. The US way of doing things shows that even in a more capitalist-driven system that the same is true as well though.

It may one day violate some sexist law to say this, but until then I'm jsut gonna say it: paid paternity leave is a friggin stuporifically retarded idea.

Throwing a statement out there without any qualification, citation or justification doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

 

[ControlD]

The odd thing is, if what I read a while ago is correct, that people in the US pay more taxes than in quite a few other developed countries, yet "socialism is bad" and "I'd see loads more of my paycheque disappear".

I would like to see where those statements came from. It is hard to get real rankings, but a quick Google search shows that the US is ranked somewhere around number 55 in effective tax rate at $100,000, and is #53 at $300,000. Unsurprisingly, most Nordic and European countries are right at the top in taxes paid.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

 

[mikeymikec]

I would like to see where those statements came from. It is hard to get real rankings, but a quick Google search shows that the US is ranked somewhere around number 55 in effective tax rate at $100,000, and is #53 at $300,000. Unsurprisingly, most Nordic and European countries are right at the top in taxes paid.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

I came across the wikipedia article you quoted when I was having a browse around after posting, and I also found this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...n-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/

In short, I don't know what to think on this score, it would be nice to see some independent sources of stats that generally agree with each other rather than finding a different answer everywhere I look.

It would be quite difficult to get a comparison I imagine, for example in the UK our "health insurance" comes out of the tax we pay, but in the US that's a separate expense as I understand it. I suppose the most ideal way to figure it out would be to take a group of people out of each country with a fair representation of incomes and locations and just look at their pay cheques / tax returns.

I read another page (again on wikipedia) that suggested that the US has quite a fair system of taxation, yet other sources I've read suggest that the US goes rather easy on its richest citizens.

I heard recently that the UK's "national insurance contributions" doesn't actually go to the NHS, which (if it's true) is a sandwich-short-a-picnic-type crazy IMO.

 

[Blackjack200]

I came across the wikipedia article you quoted when I was having a browse around after posting, and I also found this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...n-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/

In short, I don't know what to think on this score, it would be nice to see some independent sources of stats that generally agree with each other rather than finding a different answer everywhere I look.

It would be quite difficult to get a comparison I imagine, for example in the UK our "health insurance" comes out of the tax we pay, but in the US that's a separate expense as I understand it. I suppose the most ideal way to figure it out would be to take a group of people out of each country with a fair representation of incomes and locations and just look at their pay cheques / tax returns.

I read another page (again on wikipedia) that suggested that the US has quite a fair system of taxation, yet other sources I've read suggest that the US goes rather easy on its richest citizens.

I heard recently that the UK's "national insurance contributions" doesn't actually go to the NHS, which (if it's true) is a sandwich-short-a-picnic-type crazy IMO.

IMO the rates are not that bad, I think the highest marginal rate is like 38%. The problem is that capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate, and that is a major source of income for many wealthy people in the US.

 

[AViking]

As an aside have you heard of the Human Development Index? Most have. They quote the USA as being at the top of it.

It factors in 3 main categories:

A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)

There's two lists now though. There's the HDI and there's the IHDI. The second one is the inequality-adjusted HDI. Something new these last couple years.

"the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for inequality)" and the unadjusted calculations for "the HDI can be viewed as an index of “potential” human development (or the maximum IHDI that could be achieved if there were no inequality)".

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."

So Sweden is #3 and the USA is #16 (up from #23).

 

[AViking]

IMO the rates are not that bad, I think the highest marginal rate is like 38%. The problem is that capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate, and that is a major source of income for many wealthy people in the US.

If we just want to look at earned income you have the federal rates plus the state rates. The US is much lower than say Sweden since if I make $100,000 here I would have to pay around 40% and if I make $100,000 in the US my federal rate is around 22%. You have to add in your state rate though so for CA add in another 10% and you're at 32%. You're comparing roughly 40% with 30%. Table napkin math. That extra 10% gets me all the benefits outlined above.

Like I said above though where I truly get killed is sales tax. My purchasing power here is much lower since I have to pay 25% sales tax and things are generally a bit more expensive probably due to import duties. Using a tech gadget as an example the Nexus 5 costs me about $550 instead of $450 due to the weak dollar, having to buy it in Euros, and the extra taxes. If I wanted to buy computer parts here it's crazy expensive. Lots of people just go to New York for a shopping trip and small vacation since it pays for itself. It's not really that big a deal since the consumer culture is not as prevalent here and I buy my toys from the USA.

 

[soulcougher73]

I know this isnt 100% related to the topic but i would like to know. In Sweden or other European countries do you guys have car insurance that you are required to have? That is a pretty big expense for lots here in the US. And also do you guys have a version of our IRS? Do you have to sit down once a year with deductions and crap to figure out if they took enough taxes from you or if you owe more? I hate the IRS and that whole "tax season". Id rather just do away with deductions and credits etc and tax me exactly the bracket i fall into based on my income.

I personally hate our system here and think most of the Euro countries are doing it right. We are young and maybe you guys have already been through this phase of doing things wrong and found the most ideal way of handling things and what works best since your countries are so much older.

 

[mikeymikec]

In the UK you're legally required to have car insurance if you want to own/drive a car.

Here we have HMRC. With regard to tax returns, most people don't have to as the employed typically pay taxes through PAYE. People who run their own businesses, the very rich and/or those with unusual investments have to file tax returns.