The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.
slate.com
slate.com
Most people (55%) in the US earn more than similarly situated people in Sweden [1]. (If you focus only on Swedish Americans, 55% goes up to 85%.) If you want to take paternity leave in the US, you can lower your spending/consumption to that of a comparable Swede and put the money you save in the bank. You can then withdraw it during your paternity leave.
The fact that most Americans choose not to do this suggests that paternity leave is not as blissful as the author suggests. The fact that the Swedish govt had to offer an "equality bonus" and use it or lose it incentives to get men to use more than 6% of the per-couple leave suggests that Swedes don't find it as blissful as the alternatives either.
[1] Income distributions overall: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distributio...
Swedes vs Swedish Americans: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-economy-in-o...
[edit: replaced the word "standard of living" with "consumption". "Standard of living" is a poorly defined concept and arguing over definitions is pointless.]
The Swedish have a very high standard of living, from everything I've seen when I've visited it's comparable to the USA.
It's described by that famous pro-Swedish anti-American body the CIA as "enviable" in their world factbook and the UN Standard of living survey places them around 5th (the USA is around 10th - both vary year by year but not the order they come in).
Even were your suggestion true, it's as much about the legal protection you have in Sweden to go back to your job. Try 18 months out of work in the USA and I'm guessing that you might find getting back into the work place (particularly in IT where your skills are now rusty and dated) harder than you might think.
Deleted comment
[User was dmm, unsure what original post was but he edited it to read "Reply to this if you're a nazi"]
As it goes I'd entirely agree with you that many people could lower their income and / or expenditure without impacting their standard of living and / or happiness.
First of all, every Swedish person I know seems to already have a higher standard of living than the American with an equivalent job in almost all aspects. Add to this the fact that the entirety of Sweden itself is maintained to a higher standard; consistently pure/clean water, well-maintained roads, clean parks, well-maintained public services, etc. I wonder how well the textbook definition of "standard of living" corresponds with real life. I think that einarvollset's point about actually having to spend time in Sweden to understand the quality of life is valid here.
Also, you're missing much of the point of the reasons that Swedish men choose not to initially take the leave. Your claim assumes that it's all economic, whereas the article cites that it is more likely a cultural aspect related to traditional thoughts about masculinity that discouraged them to take the leave. It's yet to be seen, but I'm pretty confident that if you gradually take away the bonus after 25 years, the numbers are likely to remain the same.
No, all my claim really assumes is that people have a better idea about what is good for them than I (or some enlightened bureaucrat) do.
Suppose men do prefer working because they enjoy feeling masculine, or that women prefer maternity leave because they enjoy feeling feminine. I generally accept people's desires as they are, rather than treating them as defective when they prefer things different from me and penalizing them if they don't make choices that conform to my desires.
So does Sweden; they are drawing the line at a slightly different point than yourself. I'm assuming that you believe that society's needs trump the rights of individuals at some point, otherwise you wouldn't believe in society at all. Personally, I don't see a problem with encouraging fathers to spend more time with their children; it's likely those children will grow to be better adjusted as a result, and the overall impact on society (including economic factors such as productivity) will be worth it in the long run. To give a similar example: I think that it has been detrimental to the US that parents aren't required to immunize their children; it's obvious that if it continues it will be an overall detriment to the health of American children despite the parents' "desires."
I think that framing the issue as "enlightened bureaucrats considering others defective" is sensationalist and incorrect; The bureaucracy reflects the society, and Sweden is known for their investment and research on gender issues with the aim of resolving societal problems; this policy wasn't some random bureaucratic afterthought.
Apparently not. Before the bureaucracy engaged in coercion, women took 15x more parental leave than men (according to the article).
I'm also curious why you feel that being cared for by the father rather than the mother will cause the children to be better adjusted. Are women so much worse as parents than men?
Your example of immunization is a separate issue - not being immunized creates a harmful externality. Having an unequal distribution of parental leave does not.
The democratically elected bureaucracy did what they were elected to do. It's not coercion. It reflects the society because society felt that something needed to be changed, and did the research to come to a conclusion on what to do.
Are women so much worse as parents than men?
The policy encourages fathers to share their leave with the mothers. I believe that a children being cared for by both parents will be better adjusted.
not being immunized creates a harmful externality
Again, we're drawing the line in a slightly different place. The lack of a benefit to society - especially those we once had and have since taken for granted - can also be viewed as a "harmful externality."
The way the policy was originally structured, every couple was forced to pay for a pool of 180 days of leave, to be split between both parents as they saw fit. Every day the father spent with the child is a day the mother didn't. Under this policy, women spent 15x more days with the child than the father did.
When people made choices the bureaucrats didn't like, they changed the policy - now the father is forced to pay for 60 days of leave which the mother is not allowed to use. Further, if the days are split unequally between parents, the couple is financially penalized relative to couples who split their days equally. Even with all these restrictions and penalties, less than 25% of parental leave is paternity leave.
But I'm sure Swedes are mostly bad parents and make poor decisions for their children. Luckily they make better decisions in the voting booth than they do at home.
There are a whole slew of reasons why people might choose not to do it. Same thing with vacations, which is a simpler subject: Americans, who earn more, could, in theory, give away some of those earnings to have longer vacations. In practice, very, very few do. Quite possibly due to some herd effects. No one wants to be the only one gone for that long, just like no one wants to always be the first one out the door.
In any case: "it's complicated", and my bet is that we'll see the same old rehashed discussions here.
I could probably have gotten private health insurance. However, it's very expensive once you no longer get it through a large institution with bargaining power, and I know many people who were denied due to existing health problems.
Plus, if your baby has health problems, you're in a very risky situation if you're an individual buyer.
Your original point still stands - it's essentially the same equation, but I think that health insurance changes the values of some of the variables. The pediatrician, rather than the rent/mortgage, was what kept me pinned to a job I actually kind of hated.
It's only 2% more expensive for you than for your former employer (for 18 months).
I have a buddy who was denied health insurance repeatedly until he got hired, so there's definitely a subgroup that has no choice but to keep the corporate job. I suppose you could also just buy insurance for the baby rather than get a family plan if you're denied but the child is healthy, though I've never heard of this.
Also, people don't just make choices out of the ether - people's range of choices are influenced by the policy environment. It holds in Sweden too - Swedes didn't make the choice to stay at home until they were given the choice, at which point they did.
At any rate, even if Americans are violently opposed to taking parental leave, surely a non-zero number of men would take it - what's the harm in guaranteeing that men have more chance to bond with their children?
Swedish policy reduces the marginal cost of parental leave to the consumer - they are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not, so the marginal cost of leave is $0.0. This implies Swedes find paternity leave to be worth at least $0.01, and so paternity leave has a positive marginal cost/benefit ratio. That does not mean it has a positive cost/benefit ratio.
I'm sure Americans also value paternity leave at something higher than $0.01. However, most Americans seem to feel that 18 months of paternity leave is not worth 18 months of salary.
The harm in forcing Americans to pay for it (regardless of whether they want it) is that they find the money more valuable. Forcing people to trade something of higher value for something of lesser value is harmful. I'd similarly be harmed if you forced me to trade my Thinkpad for a netbook or my Nexus 1 for an iPhone.
You're forced to pay for all kinds of stuff. Might as well get some social value out of it (like more cohesive families)
Your example of bombs/military spending doesn't fall into that category, since defense is neither rivalrous nor excludible. My enjoyment of Iraqi deaths does not hinder your enjoyment of same, and the military has no way of preventing me from enjoying Iraqi deaths if I don't pay my military bill. Thus everyone has an incentive to freeload and a free market will not allocate enough resources to killing Iraqis.
1) 46 weeks with 100% pay
or
2) 56 weeks with 80% pay
This is capped at ~ $70 K, but in practice many employers pay people on leave their normal salary (or 80% if you choose the longer leave period).
The relevant question: do they consider paternity leave to be worth more than 100% of their salary? If not, this policy is harmful.
I spend money like a person living on the blue line. I earn money like a person living on the red line.
Or, to make another comparison, I imagine people in Sweden consume similarly to people in Maine or Montana (two of the poorer US states).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S1C7-ttdD0I/AAAAAAAAMe...
(Note that those numbers are PPP adjusted.)
Your linked blog assumes that money spent on healthcare in Sweden and the US offer the same outcomes. This is plainly not the case - the swedish government spends dramatically less than individuals/companies do in the US to provide the same level of care. If, for example, the author subtracted healthcare benefits from US workers, and subtracted them from swedish workers as well, sweden would compare substantially better. One might find similar issues with respect to university spending.
Note that comparing health outcomes is nowhere near convincing. Lots of factors (ethnicity, lifestyle, genetics) affect health outcomes far more than health care quality. The health care gap between Asian and African Americans is 13 years, for instance.
Finally, there's the simple fact that the system in the US obviously encourages high prices. In the insurance-based model, there's little disincentive to performing as much work, necessary or not, as possible.
Furthermore, why the he'll should only the rich get to spend time with their kids?
While they may earn more, they also benefit from much much higher social security (for instance family allowances). Also I don't think the gap between Americans and Swedes is such that just by saving a couple of years you can match the paid leave. You must also consider various expanses that Americans have but not Swedes : a personal pension plan (or at least, a more consequent one), tuition fees for the older child, or saving for that of the child just born.
Finally the claim that people don't stop working to take care of their children is a proof it isn't enjoyable is laudable because it doesn't factor in psychological and sociological parameters.
tl;dr Swedes don't have a lower standard of living than Americans. Maybe the reverse is even true.
I'm doing as much as I can to help, but it's a shitty situation.
EDIT: His wife quit her job so she can be with the baby. Technically my friend's salary should cover everything they need, but if there are any complications, well, they'll be bankrupt in an instant. Thankfully they've got a good safety net (lots of good friends).
Or did you mean complications other than health issues?
Thanks.
What is relevant is whether the benefits exceed the costs. Most people with the freedom to choose believe the benefits of time off do not exceed the costs.
So in the end it comes down to cultural preference. If the majority prefers a certain way of doing things, it makes sense to back it up with legislation to harmonize it and make it safe for the individual (in this case, for instance, guaranteeing you to get your old job back after maternity leave).
Also, people are not economically rational. They will blow all their money and then, when they have a kid, not have enough to support themselves for an extended leave. Few people have the self-discipline to save for anything in the distant future, including retirement.
Maybe most people here enjoy spending time with their children more than they'd enjoy earning 100% instead of ~80% of their normal pay.
Cite?
Even in the US, the coworkers will have to pay for things like public schools and things of that ilk. Less direct, perhaps, but still part of their taxes.
In any case, accidents happen, yes.
"an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision."
The decision, however difficult, is still a decision which is precisely my point.
So the state arguably needs to encourage procreation in order to stave off the Japanese style demographic crisis: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53050/milton-ezrati/j...
That doesn't change the fact that Sweden has many such programs, and it's the fifth most rapidly shrinking nation. A shrinking population makes any social program where a bulk of the money is spent on the elderly i.e. health insurance or social security is going to take a severe economic hit. The Swedes think that by offering incentives like this one, they can help preserve some of their other programs.
What tells you so?
(12 months if only father or mother take the offer, or 14 months if both parents choose to, so e.g. the mother gets 2/3 of her pay for 10 months, father gets his 2/3 for 4 months. You also can double the time for half the money.)
Your employer, on the other hand, has to let you take unpaid leave for up to 3 years (I think, not precisely sure on that one) with a guarantee to continue your employment afterwards.
Chris - currently on paternity leave :-)
Can you imagine what it would mean to a small business with 3 employees if one of those employees goes on a 18-month paid break?
Not every business is a 10,000 employee omnicorp made up of fungible cogs.
You do realize that the paid leave is 1. not 100% of salary and 2. not fully paid by the employer, but funded in no small part by taxes on the general population?
Furthermore, if it's a "small business with 3 employees" (or 6, or even a dozen) chances are those people are at least somewhat close and talk to one another. And they know that it's not in their interest to bankrupt the business. There are generally ways to reach an arrangement: try to push the paternity itself further, correctly plan the pat' leave, use part-time instead, etc...
Actually it's all paid by taxes.
Obviously I'm not talking about high-powered startups here, but lifestyle businesses, freelancers, that sort of thing. Probably hard to draw out causation, but worth thinking about too.
But on the other hand: it's difficult to start a company (in the sense that there is a lot of bureacracy to negotiate) and the incentive to succeed is also lower (partly because the risk is lower, and partly because the tax system is punitive of anyone who breaks from the herd).
First year - 100%, second year - 85%.
Won't do that again :-)
Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? Do they benefit from those children having the parents at home a lot when they are very young - does it lead to better-adjusted adults in the long run? What are the alternatives - subsidised child care so that the parents can work? No subsidised child care so that parents are exhausted and do a bad job when they are at work? Does it pay off in ancillary benefits even for those who choose to have no children?
If everyone benefits, then why is it a bad thing? In order to persuade people that subsidising parental care is a bad thing, it's probably better to show your working. It's not clear to many people that it is a bad thing, even people like me who are single males who end up paying for it.
I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count.
Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than 18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.
You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people.
You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.
Probably.
> would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so
You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence?
> Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people?
I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit.
As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.
> You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis
Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".
It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence.
> You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence?
I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce?
>Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily.
> As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.
Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".
You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence?
Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.
However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....
> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable?
My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count on as much as folks who don't.
Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who was on leave then.
> Again, a distinct lack of details
Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who makes less money without being given "details".
> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article
Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going with "any criticism implies ...."?
> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.
As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other people.
For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit and less with cost. With (4) ....
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTa...
Actually, the taxes paid per person isn't significantly higher in sweden than the US. The US just delivers fewer services, and no, the military isn't the reason. At the same time, US income is higher.
Sweden can do certain things because it's dominated by Swedes. It does about as well as US states with comparable demographics. Other US states aren't as lucky.
If you have high taxes, wouldn't you like to receive a benefit?
We have lots of roads...