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.

This

All of europe caps the paid leave that is taxpayer funded.

Your employer can choose to do whatever, make you whole for a few weeks, months, whatever. Depends how valuable you are.

More than 70% of Norwegian workers get 100% of their wages replaced with parental leave.

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.

All legal residents are automatically enrolled in free healthcare.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/norway

All legal residents have healthcare costs capped at around $300 USD annually (depends on exchange rate).

https://www.helsenorge.no/en/payment-for-health-services/user-fees-at-hospitals-and-outpatient-clinics/

Childcare is capped at approximately $290 USD per month for the highest income families. Low-income families receive 20 hours per week in free childcare, and families are generally not expected to pay more than 6% of their incomes for childcare.

https://nordics.info/show/artikel/childcare-infrastructure-in-the-nordic-countries

By contrast, Americans spend out-of-pocket between $3,478 and $5,266 per person per year for healthcare. (Probably more since this study is 6 years old.) So more than 10x Norway.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8572548/

Childcare is on average $1,300/mo, so more than 4x the cost in Norway.

https://blog.dol.gov/2024/11/19/new-data-childcare-costs-remain-an-almost-prohibitive-expense

Yeah got to keep those women in part time jobs!

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.

All legal residents are automatically enrolled in free healthcare.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/norway

All legal residents have healthcare costs capped at around $300 USD annually (depends on exchange rate).

https://www.helsenorge.no/en/payment-for-health-services/user-fees-at-hospitals-and-outpatient-clinics/

Childcare is capped at approximately $290 USD per month for the highest income families. Low-income families receive 20 hours per week in free childcare, and families are generally not expected to pay more than 6% of their incomes for childcare.

https://nordics.info/show/artikel/childcare-infrastructure-in-the-nordic-countries

By contrast, Americans spend out-of-pocket between $3,478 and $5,266 per person per year for healthcare. (Probably more since this study is 6 years old.) So more than 10x Norway.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8572548/

Childcare is on average $1,300/mo, so more than 4x the cost in Norway.

https://blog.dol.gov/2024/11/19/new-data-childcare-costs-remain-an-almost-prohibitive-expense

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.

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.

And this is one of the highest in Europe. Englands is 194 pounds a week. It’s not a replacement whatsoever.

I think American women think they’re getting 52 weeks paid at American salaries of 100k or so.

As I stated above, at least 75% of Norwegians have 100% real wage replacement during parental leave. And Norway has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

You all don't need to keep settling for our abysmally bad maternity leave policies in the US. You know the US stands alone with Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, and Tonga as the only 8 countries in the world that offer no guaranteed paid leave to moms? Let that sink in. The United States is in the bottom 5% worldwide sitting only with tiny, undeveloped island nations in offering ZERO guaranteed maternity leave to moms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This

All of europe caps the paid leave that is taxpayer funded.

Your employer can choose to do whatever, make you whole for a few weeks, months, whatever. Depends how valuable you are.

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).

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).

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.

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.

I actually do. That’s my unpopular opinion. I think at the end of the day a strong economy and higher wages help people have kids.

Not lowly paid parental leave from the government and pushing women into part time work under the guise of work/life balance.

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.