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).

You clearly haven’t been to Norway nor understand their tax structure or SWF or pricing.

A Big Mac costs 20 USD.

Norway literally ranks #3 for standard of living in the world. The United States ranks #30.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-quality-of-life

Norway is 7th in GDP per capita compared to the US at 8th.

https://data.imf.org/en/Data-Explorer?datasetUrn=IMF.RES:WEO(9.0.0)

Norway's poverty rate is 8% (OECD) compared to 18.1% (OECD) in the U.S.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country

Norway has a life expectancy of 83.5 vs. 79.5 in the U.S.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country

The United States does have moderately higher disposable income per capita at $62,700 vs. $53,300.

https://statranker.org/economy/top-100-countries-by-real-disposable-income-per-capita-2025/

Like you're going to have to present some real data that Norwegians are worse off than Americans. Are Norwegian deca millionaires worse off than American deca millionaires? Maybe. But that's not the question.

This is due to oil and gas money! Here in the US, we have privatized the oil and gas profits, while socializing the costs (plugging abandoned wells, environmental work/permits, etc).

[Anonymous]

Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Western Europeans have much lower levels of poverty, higher levels of happiness, and lower levels of financial stress.

Yes, providing generous benefits to families for having children will at least stave off further decline in the birth rate.

Are you aware of any industrialized nations with a birth rate over replacement? I only know of Israel, which also has much stronger parental leave and social safety net policies. Every other industrialized nation has a declining birth rate below replacement.

Perhaps if you’d like to increase the birth rate, you should take a page out of Somalia’s book and govern accordingly. That’s the kind of political system that supports a high birth rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

You have a skewed view based on where you live and your SES? 43% of American women have access to paid parental leave benefits. And you’re right, the highest earners who are least in need of paid leave are the ones who disproportionates get it.

[Anonymous]

The reason why so many are deciding to remain childfree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the early years are HARD but now with my two children -- 1 college aged and one just-graduated college -- it is pretty sweet. Sure, there are significant costs involved at this phase, but these two kids of ours are developing into amazing young adults and it is a privilege to have front row seats. Yes, there are prior years of "hard" but the long-term payoff is better than I had imagined.

+1. So agree with this.

OP your sister is lucky to have you to vent to, to show her down and worst side. That is what you are seeing. You're picking up on it because you're not used to seeing her this way. But I guarantee that if you ask her in quiet moment if she would do it again, she would say YES in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

You have a skewed view based on where you live and your SES? 43% of American women have access to paid parental leave benefits. And you’re right, the highest earners who are least in need of paid leave are the ones who disproportionates get it.

But wouldn't I be considered part of that % that didn't have paid parental leave? I used my own sick and annual leave. I would say I had maternity leave though. I feel like the numbers are skewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the early years are HARD but now with my two children -- 1 college aged and one just-graduated college -- it is pretty sweet. Sure, there are significant costs involved at this phase, but these two kids of ours are developing into amazing young adults and it is a privilege to have front row seats. Yes, there are prior years of "hard" but the long-term payoff is better than I had imagined.

+1. So agree with this.

OP your sister is lucky to have you to vent to, to show her down and worst side. That is what you are seeing. You're picking up on it because you're not used to seeing her this way. But I guarantee that if you ask her in quiet moment if she would do it again, she would say YES in a heartbeat.

This x 100

I think of it this way: if having a child is that awful why do the vast majority of the population go on to do so? Of course, there are so many reasons but overall, the underlining theme is that being a parent is such an incredible way to experience a love that can not be replicated any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Say it louder for the people in the back.
You accurately captured it
People just decide to push through and do it anyway.
Better way is to have a village bc it takes a village to raise kids. We are too isolated here. No one wants to rely on anyone.

YES! It almost makes me cry thinking back to that time. I love my kids more than anything but I don't blame people these days who say they don't want to do it. I think they see the isolation and exhaustion .....and how expensive it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

No, they don’t. This is the point so many people pushing parental leave completely miss. We don’t have it because most people don’t want it. The average woman who does want it doesn’t want it paid for by the government for X number of weeks. They want to stay home for years.

I’ve known many women who only have 4-6 weeks of leave but it’s been because they work for themselves, or a small company with a lot of flexibility. The statistics on this are incredibly misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Say it louder for the people in the back.
You accurately captured it
People just decide to push through and do it anyway.
Better way is to have a village bc it takes a village to raise kids. We are too isolated here. No one wants to rely on anyone.

YES! It almost makes me cry thinking back to that time. I love my kids more than anything but I don't blame people these days who say they don't want to do it. I think they see the isolation and exhaustion .....and how expensive it is.

A “village” just means relying on unpaid female labor.

I’m so thankful one day I can retire to Florida and don’t have to raise kids when I’m 75.

[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.

Did you say CITIZENS??

What’s that?

lol

You mean Norway doesn’t have needy economic migrants and their four kids storming their open borders daily for sanctuary cities!?! Gasp.

[Anonymous]

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.

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. Ideally both parents are on top of that; those families with two functional parents will be way ahead of others.

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

Gulp

[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.

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

Exactly. Let’s let China do that and take over.

[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.

Exactly! Norway and USA are so similar in everything - size, demographics, races, religions, marriage rates, education levels, literacy, incarceration rates, generational welfare recipients, climate, university entrance exam systems, diet, job track systems, language, health treatments, etc.

We’re practically the same! They just get free everything like PP said! Life must be so easy there, you can do anything you want.