Family life sucks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

You still don’t understand SWF work do you?
Nor have you event been to Norway, nor have any friends there.

But hey, the generic ChatGPT links and studies out of context suit you just fine. I bet you even call that “research”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

Did you say CITIZENS??

What’s that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

That’s too bad.

I visited a newborn’s house and family over Memorial Day weekend and everything was fun and pleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what you are seeing on the outside looking in is that the overwhelming love overlooks the intense care new babies need. Nursing, diapering, changing, rocking a baby doesn't seem like work. It's just part of the new reality. Sure, it's a lot of work, but you're enjoying every second of it.

No lol

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree.

I don’t think most Americans understand that in the UK/EU, taxpayers pay the 6-12 month mat leave and at low income caps.

White collar jobs there will pay full salary the first 2-3 months, and for a temp if you have clients, but then it’s the low income caps if you want to stay home for 6,9,12 months.

I also don’t think most Americans know that Londoners pay 10% of their paycheck to NHS oh la healthcare AND also pay for private health insurance, alongside their employer. So it’s very costly to make a slates hire given 10% NHS + 20-30k quid/ year private benefits.

Anyhow, we had a nanny for years 0-5 and kids two years apart so nanny made sense, first full time, then afternoons. She cooked dinner and tidied up too.

Same.

Maybe once the mom goes back to work they will get a nanny for this shortish time period before preschool or kindergarten.

And if the mom isnt going back to work, they will no doubt sign up for some fun activities to socialize the child beyond the playground time.

How fun!

But yes Op, raising a child uses more money than not having or raising a child. It’s a balance of fun, cute, rewarding, tough, fatiguing, mysterious moments over and over as the child grows and changes its needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Doesn’t look like the single mom or multi gen Hispanics model of having the grandmother raise the children works so great for anyone either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Cool, glad you visited your sister and new niece or nephew.

Do you have any other friends with kids or is this your extrapolation set to apply to the most diverse nation in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Every stage of a child is different. Dealing both parents are on top of that.

Believe it or not, the diapers/ nap/ feeding/ playing stage is not the most difficult nor highest stake stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the problem is that as we become more economically stable, there is the expectation that you will hire help instead of rely on friends and neighbors. Some people are lucky that they have supportive families (good for you for helping out your sister), some of us are not so lucky. But beyond family, it would seem odd these days to just ask a neighbor or even a good friend to randomly babysit for free. In the old days, kids could just play together in the neighborhood, and whichever parent was around would take them in and not think too much of it. People helped each other out more.

I don't think it's only the expectation of hiring help, I think it's also that "whichever parent was around" started to be only 1 or 2 parents and it got old that no one else was willing to step in.

We live in a large neighborhood with community areas, a 20 MPH speed limit, and tons of sidewalks so we have a lot of kids out playing all the time. The things I don't like about having some of them over are that (1) they're rude (mostly to the other kids) and (2) they trash our house. So that's why I don't want those ones over. The others are welcome any time, but I feel like when I was growing up I didn't know any kids who talk like some of these and we certainly always cleaned up after ourselves. Our neighborhood is incredibly homogenous and all of these kids attend the same private school as ours so it's not like there are major differences between the families, some of the kids are just absolute jerks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Pumping is not the same experience for everyone. For me, I didn't pump much because I found it really unpleasant (yes I tried different pumps and pump parts) and time consuming. We were also advised not to start pumping until baby was 6 weeks old.

Blaming women for their husbands not doing their part as a parent because the WOMEN did not do extra labor during the most labor intensive phase of parenting is a special kind of misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

Sort of. Norway is oil rich and a significant chunk of its economy and GDP is due to its natural resources. It’s also partially how they funded such an extensive welfare state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

Sort of. Norway is oil rich and a significant chunk of its economy and GDP is due to its natural resources. It’s also partially how they funded such an extensive welfare state.

US is a big oil exporter too and we waste all this money on useless wars that we never win and just abandon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

You still don’t understand SWF work do you?
Nor have you event been to Norway, nor have any friends there.

But hey, the generic ChatGPT links and studies out of context suit you just fine. I bet you even call that “research”.

Yeah NIH and OECD studies are whack! Yes, I know how the SWF works. If you’re now trying to pivot and say Norway’s policy can only be pulled off because of that, you’re wrong. Numerous countries without an equivalent have similar policies. And the United States is wealthier overall.

Do we need to increase taxes to pay for this in the U.S.? Definitely. That’s okay! More taxes but healthcare at a tenth of price, childcare at a quarter of the cost, and college for free is a very reasonable trade off.

And fwiw, I’m in the highest tax bracket and would benefit the least from such policies. Part of why I’m passionate about parental leave is because my employer offers 22 weeks paid. Everyone should get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm sure you understand that it varies by country. In Norway, the pay is 80%. For one year of parental leave split between two parents. Their pay takes a 20% hit but they don't have to do any work, and their jobs are protected.

Do you think things work better in the U.S., where there are 0 weeks of mandated paid parental leave for either parent? And only 40% of Americans have access to unpaid leave under FMLA? Do you think that's encouraging people to have babies more than 80% paid leave for a year?

And I ask again, why are we as a society okay with only women taking a salary hit for having children? Why shouldn't parents bear equal risk in bringing children into the world?

If your solution is to fund parental leave 100% of salary instead of 80% of salary, I'm all for it. But I strongly suspect that's not what you're suggesting.

The max parental leave amount is $1,538 a week in Norway. It’s 80% if you have a lower wage job in Norway. Stop being misleading.

Wages aren't comparable in the US and Norway. Norwegians pay a maximum of $300 in a healthcare costs (free for minors and pregnant women), have free higher education, have highly subsidized childcare (costs about $115/mo), and get a monthly cash benefit for all children under the age of 18 to offset the cost of having children (with an extra supplement for infants and single parents).

Where are you getting your information and pls check the sliding scale. Only low income workers get that and they have to have individually paid into the system several years. You don’t just show up pregnant and your kid gets ER free delivery, snap and Medicaid like here.

Also, if you’re going to throw around “cost” data, you need to include what the employers or taxpayers are paying per month, not just the employee.
United Nations data has a good breakdown they release every few years.

I don't care what employers pay per month. I care about what ordinary citizens are paying.

And before you melt down, Norway literally has higher GDP per capita than the U.S. They're plenty productive.

You still don’t understand SWF work do you?
Nor have you event been to Norway, nor have any friends there.

But hey, the generic ChatGPT links and studies out of context suit you just fine. I bet you even call that “research”.

Yeah NIH and OECD studies are whack! Yes, I know how the SWF works. If you’re now trying to pivot and say Norway’s policy can only be pulled off because of that, you’re wrong. Numerous countries without an equivalent have similar policies. And the United States is wealthier overall.

Do we need to increase taxes to pay for this in the U.S.? Definitely. That’s okay! More taxes but healthcare at a tenth of price, childcare at a quarter of the cost, and college for free is a very reasonable trade off.

And fwiw, I’m in the highest tax bracket and would benefit the least from such policies. Part of why I’m passionate about parental leave is because my employer offers 22 weeks paid. Everyone should get that.

I disagree that increasing taxes to fund childcare or parental leave will result in more babies. If that’s your point. I personally don’t want the expectation that women stay home for extended periods of time after having a child.

What will result in more babies is a better economy and higher wages. This is what the Western European countries are missing. That’s fantastic you have paid parental leave, but what about the rest of the time? Mortgage debt is much higher in these countries and everyone I know seems more financially constrained than in the US.

Not only are the economies of these countries stagnant and declining, but they have fewer babies. Doesn’t seem like we should be copying their policies.