Maternity leave in the US - what do you think is reasonable?

[Anonymous]

Unless I read a "pay for," I don't find any of these suggestions interesting or compelling.

In a world of limited resources (and enormous deficits), I can't say what "fair" is until I hear whose program we will be taking away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless I read a "pay for," I don't find any of these suggestions interesting or compelling.

In a world of limited resources (and enormous deficits), I can't say what "fair" is until I hear whose program we will be taking away.

It would be paid for through taxes or, as is more common these days, through borrowed money. Either way, it's not exactly a mystery or all that different from a zillion other less useful programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Obviously those who are truly low-income and won't be able to do this, and there should be provisions made to help in that situation, but I bet you 90% of the women on DCUM who are outraged about the lack of unpaid leave could have skipped a few dinners out or pairs of shoes along the way, and over time saved up 16 weeks of salary. That's what we did, and we are by NO means wealthy.

You are wealthy
If you can sock away 16 weeks of salary by skipping a few dinners or pairs of shoes along the way. Then you really are wealthy
90% are not able to save that much by just giving up new shoes and dinners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get the ' don't have kids' or you chose to have kids, your problem'. reproduction is necessary for a continued workforce. If no one who worked had children, the economy would be in deep, deep trouble as the generation moves along.

Do you really want only unemployed people, people on social assistance and the very wealthy to have children?

Putting a newborn in daycare is a horrible idea from every perspective and good for no one.

I like that idea
Only the wealthy have children, therefore when the wealthy are in old age homes and the only ones who could possible come and change their diapers are the children of the wealthy!!!!!

I cannot wait to see that happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer, but I do think an employer who can afford to do certain things, should. Adults spend most of their lives at work, at least waking hours. We'd all be healthier and happier and likely more successful and productive if more employers made an attempt to make their employees lives easier. I don't think maternity leave is the only answer, and I don't think super long paid leaves are the answer. I'm thinking of the successful companies who have seen great results from having high quality daycare on site, to retain top talent and make it super convenient for the working mom or dad. Or the onsite clinics that is a growing trend so you don't have to either ignore symptoms or suck it up, or take off work, you can pop down and get taken care of. And flexible hours, and work environments that support things like healthy eating, exercise, and discourage smoking or let you work with a health coach if you want help in those areas.
.

That's just a way to keep you at work longer and away from your family more. I don't want onsite slavecare, I want to provide for my family and actually get to spend time with them too. "Convenience" always comes with a hidden cost.

[Anonymous]

6 months should be a minimum, and my preference would be closer to a year. That is humane for mother and child (and I am by no means an attachment parent). I was a mess the first year and suffered PPD as a result of having to balance it all. As I am the primary breadwinner I could not opt out of the workforce, even on a part-time basis.

If this country's priorities were in the right place, and the "pro family" crowd truly were, this would be doable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6 months should be a minimum, and my preference would be closer to a year. That is humane for mother and child (and I am by no means an attachment parent). I was a mess the first year and suffered PPD as a result of having to balance it all. As I am the primary breadwinner I could not opt out of the workforce, even on a part-time basis.

If this country's priorities were in the right place, and the "pro family" crowd truly were, this would be doable.

You are living in a dream land, honey. The country's priorities are fine. Perhaps it's yours that need rethinking.

[Anonymous]

Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

All those countries have lower birth rate than USA. SO we are doing something right because our lack of paternity leave isn't stopping anyone from having children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

Investing in the greedy employers is not investing in children
Mothers are people too, in other countries around the world, even in Swaziland, they have recognized the value of women and mothers and the benefit this has on infants. To them small children are a valuable resource worth investing in.

I cannot help but think US rules are because the conservatives do not want to see women in the work force. More like a prehistoric mind set from another era

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

Investing in the greedy employers is not investing in children
Mothers are people too, in other countries around the world, even in Swaziland, they have recognized the value of women and mothers and the benefit this has on infants. To them small children are a valuable resource worth investing in.

I cannot help but think US rules are because the conservatives do not want to see women in the work force. More like a prehistoric mind set from another era

But then why do those countries have lower birth rate than USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

this is non-sense. the pay is for the mother to spend time with her very young child, not because she is stressed but because the child needs her. in a vast majority of cases, the work can wait (and prudent women would do the work which can't wait). it can wait in germany, sweden, canada... - all countries with much better fiscal situation than the US.

What a lovely case you make to be a stay-at-home mom! I thought that's what day care centers are for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, pp, the countries priorities include starting wars that are useless without an exit plan, paying bonuses to bank ceo's, etc etc etc
I think we should invest in our children.

I think we should invest in our children, too. By keeping businesses solvent so that their parents will have a place to work. Paying mama for 6 months of maternity leave because she's feeling stressed, tired, and not sufficiently bonded is foolhardy, at best.

Investing in the greedy employers is not investing in children
Mothers are people too, in other countries around the world, even in Swaziland, they have recognized the value of women and mothers and the benefit this has on infants. To them small children are a valuable resource worth investing in.

I cannot help but think US rules are because the conservatives do not want to see women in the work force. More like a prehistoric mind set from another era

But then why do those countries have lower birth rate than USA?

Maybe because they are predominantly White? The birth rate for Whites in those countries and the US is very similar.

In any case - who cares? The point is not to boost the birth rate but to provide work-life balance for women in the existing population.