Family life sucks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

Please cite evidence that any country forces a father to take parental leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

Please cite evidence that any country forces a father to take parental leave?

It’s not forced but it’s strongly encouraged and the system is structured to incentivize the leave. Now both parents take significant time away from work and don’t have access to childcare. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that some (many?) people don’t want this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

Hugely inconvenient to *checks notes* take paid, protective leave from work.

Why do you think only women should shoulder that “inconvenience”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

Please cite evidence that any country forces a father to take parental leave?

It’s not forced but it’s strongly encouraged and the system is structured to incentivize the leave. Now both parents take significant time away from work and don’t have access to childcare. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that some (many?) people don’t want this.

Wait, now it’s not forced, just encouraged, and you still think men are victims? And what do you mean “don’t have access to childcare”? It’s illegal to pay for someone to care for your child? Where is this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

They put these leave policies in place *because* the birth rate is declining. It’s not causal the way you think it is. The birth rate is below replacement in every developed country but Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

The long parental leaves are not the cause of the sinking birth rate. It's rising costs of living, greater focus on work, and increased delays in marriage/parenthood (due to all of the above).

There is nothing to indicate people in Nordic countries are having fewer kids because of the "burden" of generous paternity leave. Those policies are consistently rated highly by people in these countries. It's just not enough to counteract broader economic and cultural trends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

The long parental leaves are not the cause of the sinking birth rate. It's rising costs of living, greater focus on work, and increased delays in marriage/parenthood (due to all of the above).

There is nothing to indicate people in Nordic countries are having fewer kids because of the "burden" of generous paternity leave. Those policies are consistently rated highly by people in these countries. It's just not enough to counteract broader economic and cultural trends.

I think it’s a burden that is difficult to identify but it’s absolutely there.

Don’t discount what being out of the workforce for years does to a woman and consider that almost every woman in a Scandinavian country experiences this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

They put these leave policies in place *because* the birth rate is declining. It’s not causal the way you think it is. The birth rate is below replacement in every developed country but Israel.

The more leave that has been granted, the worse the birth rate has gotten. I don’t think it’s the only cause but I definitely think there is correlation. However, if you worship these cultures and can’t do some critical thinking you’re not going to be able to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

Please cite evidence that any country forces a father to take parental leave?

It’s not forced but it’s strongly encouraged and the system is structured to incentivize the leave. Now both parents take significant time away from work and don’t have access to childcare. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that some (many?) people don’t want this.

Wait, now it’s not forced, just encouraged, and you still think men are victims? And what do you mean “don’t have access to childcare”? It’s illegal to pay for someone to care for your child? Where is this?

I don’t think anyone is a “victim.” I simply think having men stay home for long periods of time after a baby is not helping increase the birth rate.

By not having access to childcare, I mean daycares are generally unavailable since it is assumed that a parent is home for an entire year after birth. Also due to the lower wages and high taxes, it’s rare for a woman to be able to hire a nanny or babysitter for a baby. That’s just not something that is commonly done. Instead, the women are expected to stay home for a year after the birth.

These cultures are homogenous and being unique and deciding to return to work right away will not be treated kindly. There is a lot of pressure to conform to what everyone does. You don’t go against the grain.

Regardless of how generous the paid leave and social benefits are, do you think women in the US would decide to have more babies if they limited daycares to babies a year or older? What if men were pressured to stay home for a few months? It all sounds great in theory, but at the individual level many people don’t want to do that.

These are just my observations from having friends in Nordic countries. While their benefits are generous, it seems way more disruptive to have a child there. Also, the parental leave isn’t fully paid for most higher earning jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

They put these leave policies in place *because* the birth rate is declining. It’s not causal the way you think it is. The birth rate is below replacement in every developed country but Israel.

The more leave that has been granted, the worse the birth rate has gotten. I don’t think it’s the only cause but I definitely think there is correlation. However, if you worship these cultures and can’t do some critical thinking you’re not going to be able to see it.

Do you have any evidence of causation? If not, the fact that these policies were put in place after the birth rate declined strongly disfavors a causal hypothesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

Please cite evidence that any country forces a father to take parental leave?

It’s not forced but it’s strongly encouraged and the system is structured to incentivize the leave. Now both parents take significant time away from work and don’t have access to childcare. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that some (many?) people don’t want this.

Wait, now it’s not forced, just encouraged, and you still think men are victims? And what do you mean “don’t have access to childcare”? It’s illegal to pay for someone to care for your child? Where is this?

I don’t think anyone is a “victim.” I simply think having men stay home for long periods of time after a baby is not helping increase the birth rate.

By not having access to childcare, I mean daycares are generally unavailable since it is assumed that a parent is home for an entire year after birth. Also due to the lower wages and high taxes, it’s rare for a woman to be able to hire a nanny or babysitter for a baby. That’s just not something that is commonly done. Instead, the women are expected to stay home for a year after the birth.

These cultures are homogenous and being unique and deciding to return to work right away will not be treated kindly. There is a lot of pressure to conform to what everyone does. You don’t go against the grain.

Regardless of how generous the paid leave and social benefits are, do you think women in the US would decide to have more babies if they limited daycares to babies a year or older? What if men were pressured to stay home for a few months? It all sounds great in theory, but at the individual level many people don’t want to do that.

These are just my observations from having friends in Nordic countries. While their benefits are generous, it seems way more disruptive to have a child there. Also, the parental leave isn’t fully paid for most higher earning jobs.

Must be hard for men to deal with cultural expectations that they be a primary parent for a finite period of time. I can't even imagine...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newborn and toddler years are really hard. And we live in a society with few family support policies (daycare costs a lot, housing costs a lot, maternity leave is typically unpaid).

These are some reasons the birth rate is falling.

For me, parenthood has been wonderful and so worth it for the love and fulfillment. There have been a lot of hard days. But the joy and beauty outweigh them.

Perhaps it could be because wages are higher here and housing costs lower (and homes generally larger), but birth rates are falling across all western countries. Generous paid leave is inversely correlated with the birth rate.

My unpopular opinion is that government leave makes it worse. In most European countries, the paid leave is at a low wage (similar to unemployment here) and women are expected to take it. This means every woman who has a kid is expected to stay home for a long period of time to earn low wages from the government. Women still have to work, especially since wages are generally lower, but they are second class citizens at work since it’s assumed they are away for years having children.

Do I want to have another kid and instead of working earn $300 a week? No thanks.

It's not just western countries. It's all developed/industrialized countries (except Israel).

I like the Nordic model for parental leave, which offers equal bonding time for fathers, but fathers have to take the leave separately from the mothers. It encourages dads to be primary caregivers early in their child's life. And it seems to be working based on research on time spent parenting by gender.

And they also aren’t having enough kids. Not only do the women have to suffer, but now the men too. Having children means you’re kept from working.

The Norwegian model is especially suffocating. Long, required parental leaves. Most jobs are uninspiring due to the oil money. Very average salaries. Not outsourcing anything.

Should someone cry for the men who are “forced” to take PAID parental leave?

Not cry. You’re missing the point. Preventing men from going to work after having a baby isn’t a way to increase the birth rate. It does the opposite.

No one wants babies with men who consider paid paternity leave to victimize them.

But their birth rate demonstrates the opposite. It’s pretty easy to figure out why. It makes having a baby a large inconvenience. While in theory it’s fair for men to take parental leave and they should, the long parental leaves had had unintended consequences. Women in these countries aren’t having enough babies.

The long parental leaves are not the cause of the sinking birth rate. It's rising costs of living, greater focus on work, and increased delays in marriage/parenthood (due to all of the above).

There is nothing to indicate people in Nordic countries are having fewer kids because of the "burden" of generous paternity leave. Those policies are consistently rated highly by people in these countries. It's just not enough to counteract broader economic and cultural trends.

I think it’s a burden that is difficult to identify but it’s absolutely there.

Don’t discount what being out of the workforce for years does to a woman and consider that almost every woman in a Scandinavian country experiences this.

Bless your heart. We women know that it's hard to be out of the workforce for a period of time. We're asking for it to not be the default that only women bear the costs associated with parenting because men are also parents and equally responsible for the human being they created.

[Anonymous]

Np I have friends overseas. The pay isn’t 100% of your salary on maternity leave (and their pay is already lower). So once they have a baby, their salaries take a big hit. They can’t return to work earlier because it’s stigmatized and daycare don’t take babies before 1 (one friend mentioned before 3 but idk if that’s true). Once kids are school aged, they have the same issues that moms have here where school ends at 3 but work ends at 5, however aftercare’s aren’t plentiful. Many stick to one kid for financial and logistical reasons. My Norwegian friends own their own condo, but it’s a 2 bedroom. They only had one kid for space reasons. I’m sure none of those reasons are insurmountable for people who really want kids but maternity leave isn’t this panacea that it’s purported to be.