Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

I'm a dad (of three) and I am not convinced that time spent at the very start of their lives is as significant as that later in their lives (note the "as", I am not saying it has no value!) when you can really nurture their passions, knowledge, etc.

I did spend a lot of time with my children in their earliest days because it was the right thing to do, but I don't feel either they or I particularly gained from it (than if I'd spent a bit less, say). Do I feel the time I spend with them now they're older pays serious dividend for their futures? Absolutely.

I own a company and can spend an above average amount of time with my children.. but are companies or the government going to support the majority of parents spending prolonged periods of times with older children? Sadly I can't see it happening, but I think that's a more important task than having two parents on tap for a newborn. All purely IMHO, of course.

View on HN

I think this is missing the point of equal parental leave and how it creates equality - it's for the mum just as much as the dad, so she can now get a bit of her life back earlier.

I took 3 months leave (wish it was more) when my daughter was born, spread out through the year a month at a time. I loved each month for different reasons and I know each month helped me understand what my wife was dealing with better and the slog of looking after a baby as well as the fun bits, and it helped her understand me better too - she really missed our daughter when she did a month's work and saw how going to work every day wasn't such great a holiday from childcare as she thought!

These policies have definitively contributed to a big social change. And while it looks on the surface like this is about "fairness for dad", on a macro level the changes mostly benefit women who want to both have kids and a career.

It's no longer a bigger risk for companies to hire late 20-s women compared to late 20-s men - both will go on leave if they get kids.

At my job, I also see way more dads staying home with sick kids or going to "planning day" or similar, compared to when I was growing up.

I think it also establishes a connection between the dad and the kids that makes the dad a better parent down the road. At least spending a lot of time with my infants did change me enough to be a much better parent for the rest of the journey.

Absolutely - and I love the change, in case that wasn't clear. But I think the motivation was about equality for the sexes - and specifically, making it easier for women to work. The rest is just a bonus. A very nice bonus.

I very much agree with this. Having an extended amount of time where I was 100% responsible for my daughter made me feel very different compared to the time spent jointly looking after her. I hope it's made me a better parent.

> It's no longer a bigger risk for companies to hire late 20-s women compared to late 20-s men - both will go on leave if they get kids

True. But now it is a risk to hire people in certain age groups in general. Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?

It would at least least disperse the risk from "don't hire women of a certain age" to "don't hire people of a certain age" which I think is a win on the margin.

"don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?" --> "Don't hire people during their most economically productive ages."

Not an economically viable strategy for any company looking to stay in business more than a year or two.

Surely whether it's "their most economically productive age" would depend heavily on how many children they have and how much parental leave they are allowed.

Ah, so "don't hire people who are planning to have multiple children at the peak of their potential economic productivity"?

We know that people in most developed countries aren't even hitting replacement rate, so I don't think that 6 months of leave is going to break the bank.

In my experience, employees who are bad employees and blame it on time commitment to their children have usually been bad employees to begin with. I have a child, spend upwards of 4 hours a day with them on average, and work at a FAANG, while hitting promotion tracks more quickly than my colleagues without children. I know a bunch of people doing the same.

> Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?

Not for a good company. I've had several employees go on maternity and paternity leave. I've given them respect, and time, and money, in order to make this time of their lives as unstressful as possible.

I've done it because it's the right thing, but these people remember being treated well. They've come back to work and done very well. They feel safer knowing that their day job explicitly supports their families.

The time someone needs off work to care for a new family is a drop in the bucket compared with a whole career, or even a few good years spent at one company. Optimize for the humans, and for the long term.

So you had good people that you wanted to get back? Great. A lot of us employ people who are just average and cannot afford to pay them multiple thousands while they are on leave, paying someone else to cover them, and then they could always decide to leave anyway.

If you can't afford an employee going on paternity/maternity leave, you have an unsustainable business.

Or you have a small business. Not every company is a 10,000 headcount multinational. Over 90% of small business employ fewer than 20 people and small businesses make up 30% of the economy.

Realistically, 1 person missing from a small business can mean 10% of their workforce is gone - and due to the size of the company they may not have people to cover the missing staff.

You don't need to have 10,000 people working for you to be able to afford to hire cover for when people going on parental leave.

10 people or 10,000 people, if you can't afford your staff going on parental leave / long term sick / vacation, you don't have a sustainable business.

> if you can't afford your staff going on parental leave / long term sick, you don't have a sustainable business

You've never run a startup or small business. At the beginning margins can be razor thin, and unplanned or extended leave can have a huge impact.

Parental leave shouldn't be unplanned though, there should be several months of notice surely

There's plenty of small business owners who are perfectly capable of managing the risk of losing staff for whatever reason without it sinking the company. Many business run at a big loss when starting up, never mind razor thin margins. The ones that survive manage their investors, debts, cashflow and staff risk properly.

If you run a business on the assumption that you're going to have all your current employees working for you continuously for the foreseeable future, you're going to have a bad time.

If small businesses in general can't afford an employee going on [mp]aternity leave, that seems like an argument for socializing the cost.

The company doesn't pay employees while they are on leave, social security (or some equivalent) does.

* Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?*

No. The only real way to avoid this is to just not hire folks who can birth or father children. You'd be mostly safe hiring folks over 45 (Though men over 45 would be more risky than women). This probably isn't a good strategy for an employer.

Marriage doesn't lend itself to children: Having sex does. Having a stable relationship does. Adoption does. On the other hand, lots of married folks don't have children, on purpose or by circumstance. There is no real way to sort folks out.

Maybe. As a new father, though, back to the office from parental leave, I'm not pumping breast milk in the lactation room. 3 times per work day, ~40-45 minutes a pop. This is something my wife is actively dealing with today and it causes her a lot of stress, due to the fact that she's essentially MIA on the job despite the fact that everyone is aware of what's going on and she has full support. The perception that she's not pulling her weight is potentially there, and she struggles with it herself because she also feels like she isn't pulling her weight. It's all really complicated and we'll never truly have equality here, I don't think.

I'm a dad in Norway too, and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Getting on with their life? It's the time with your kids that's the bit of the life that's more valuable.

Likewise, trying to measure how beneficial it is for the kids sort of misses the point. I'm sure it can be beneficial, but whether they draw lasting benefits from it or not, they value it there and then.

You do get deeply attuned to your babies as a parent - at least, we did. You got uncannily good at guessing what they want, what they feel, from practice and from the biological connection that they are like you in so many subtle ways most people aren't. And of course, two parents will understand their babies in slightly different ways. They're very capable of appreciating this.

Equality before the low == not discriminating in the law.

Now if it say "mom has X leave after birth and dad Y", this is discrimination in the law.

Please note im not saying this is bad, im just saying it is NOT equality.

I'm an American who received several months of paid paternity leave when each my children were born (my company is an exception to the rule here in the US). It's not just about the child that is born, it's about your partner as well as your other children. The introduction of a new child is a huge shift for everyone in a family and being there to support your partner during that time makes a huge difference if you spend that time well.

But the biggest benefit of all was in the lives of my older children. When a new baby comes along, their mother is almost entirely occupied caring for the newborn (my wife wanted to exclusively breastfeed our children, so that is a lot of why it played out this way), so having me there to spend time with them each day during those first few months and take them places and reinforce the fact that they are loved just as much as ever was immensely important. I've seen so many older siblings change, develop resentment, begin misbehaving during that transition period. My kids all handled it extremely well and I think I played a role in that.

I sincerely believe every father should have paid time off when a child is born. It's not about one person in the family, it's about how the entire process of bringing a new person into the home affects everyone.

But the biggest benefit of all was in the lives of my older children.

That's how it seemed to me, too. When my second child was born, I was working for Facebook so I got a nice chunk of paternity leave. My wife was breastfeeding, so she was basically with the baby all the time. The most helpful use of my time often wasn't to be the second parent in the same room as the baby, it was to go do something else with our 2-year-old so that he could still do fun stuff that the baby wasn't ready for, and so that at least my wife only had to deal with one kid at a time.

In Norway we get the paternity leave after the mother goes back to work. It is just the man for 4 months. When baby gets sick/teeths then it must be the man that is there with baby 24/7. You are describing a support role. The Norwegian model forces the father into the primary role.

It's amazing and really really hard.

I think you miss the biggest point. This will have a significant impact on the wages of women. As suddenly women are not longer at a disadvantage when companies need to decide who to hire for a certain position.

I think you're right in that women's disadvantage decreases, but I don't think it vanishes entirely. As an example, consider the problems many women experience during pregnancy, which is likely to affect their performance at work.

That's only true if men actually take the leave, which in a large percentage of cases is not going to happen. The unspoken truth about leave is, you can forget about that promotion you were angling for if you take a couple of months of leave, for whatever reason. So men by and large won't take it, especially when they find themselves under pressure to earn more and provide. I did take my 6 weeks in the US though when we had our son 16 years ago, but only because he wouldn't sleep and the first few months were very rough, so career plans were put on hold.

Also, women will still leave the workplace in droves to care for newborns and the young. That's just what a lot of them prefer to do, and I think it's the right ordering of priorities, for both parents. There's really no way to properly rear young children if both parents have full-time jobs and actually try to advance their careers at the same time.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.NE.ZS?en...

That having been said, I'm glad this is being introduced. In difficult cases like ours, for instance, this would have been huge help, for reasons not entirely related to work.

I don't understand this argument.

A man and a woman can decide that whats best for them is that he not take leave, but for the benefit other people he should take parental leave.

Even if he enjoys working, even if the mother has decided she wants to stay home, even if they need opportunity that work brings (such as the opportunity to get promotions). Even if there are a hundred reasons for a man to not want to take leave, even if taking leave is worse for him, his partner and child, he must take leave so that other people who he may never meet have an advantage.

Yes, encouraging a few weeks off work is good for the family, but forcing someone to take 7 months off of work is massively disruptive. Not even to speak of the disruption on small businesses, that may not be able to accommodate a person leaving for that period of time. If you run a business of 10 people, a single person is 10% of your workforce, and just due to the size you may not have staff to cover the missing expertise.

Forced long-term paternity leave is a system, that explicitly harms the outcomes of one group (working fathers) to provide benefits to others (working mothers, and non-working people in general).

I'm pretty sure no one can force you away from your laptop and colleagues, but also, no one can force you to work. It's a protection. I like it.

> no one can force you away from your laptop and colleagues

But they can! The article talks about 2 months the father must take off.

It is just government sponsored leave, you can choose not to take it.

Frankly I would rather you be forced to take the 2 months off so that I can safely take it without people like you sneering at me the entire time.

Who is sneering? You can take 2 months off, you can take 2 years off. Take time off for children, sickness, holidays. Its none of my business.

What I am against is the government enforcing someone who must take time off from work, that may not be in their best interests.

I support your right to chose to take time off, and I support your right to not take time off too. I don't support the government telling you, you must take 7 months off at the cost of your career, because you taking time off helps others.

This big point and the big point that you can also be there for you partner. And the big point that you might, as a father, develop a tighter bond with the kid then you would otherwise.

Not to downplay the importance of your fathering and nurturing your child's passions at all-

My understanding of the research around personality development is that something like 80% (BS statistic I know) of the personality is formed in the first 5 years of development. The early few years are when we get conditioned with the core emotional programming: "I am safe" vs. "I am at risk" - "I am lovable" vs. "I am unlovable." etc. which plays a huge role down the line in lifestyle, relationships, and life in general.

Probably not a big deal whether it's the father or mother at the young age, but having adults around to be available to the emotional needs of the young child seems to be extremely important. Maybe easier to split the "full time job" of parenting in this critical period?

If you want to nerd out, check out "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self - The Neurobiology of Emotional Development" by Allan Schore

> something like 80% (BS statistic I know) of the personality is formed in the first 5 years of development

And how much in the first five months?

Hey, good question. My gut says to go reference that book I mentioned and make a guess for you. The author talks about the different stages of attachment and how it affects the forming brain. I'll try when I get home tonight.

80% of the personality is formed in the first 5 years of development.

There's just a huge difference between a 3-month-old baby, who can't recognize faces yet and spends most of the day sleeping and eating, and a 3-year-old child who is running, jumping, telling stories, making friends, and learning to read. For a 3-month-old baby, I doubt that parents do much more than a random babysitter. For a 3-year-old child, there is a clear difference.

Is your doubt founded in any research or more of a gut feeling?

This is really wrong. My baby already recognised and was soothed by my voice and e.g. quieted in my arms much faster than the grandmother's at 2 months.

Research apparently indicates that being loved in your first year is key to your development.

My understanding is that the baby, equipped with only instincts / biological hardware, is hyper-aware of the raw emotional communication of their caregiver.

It's this really raw, basic emotional experience which shapes our "core" understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

"Healthy" attachment in this early stage comes from the caregiver being able to regulate the emotions of the baby. If the baby doesn't feel connected to the caregiver - such as if when the baby cries they don't receiving loving reassurance of their safety - then they form a dysfunctional template for social attachments and poor emotional regulation ability.

If the random babysitter has consistent and parent-like loving connection with the baby then maybe you're right, but I doubt that's the case.

We hope for "a 3-year-old child who is running, jumping, telling stories, making friends, and learning to read."

It could also be biting, jumping off of tables, hiding poo, poking holes in drywall, poking both ends of the dog, hitting sleeping parents with tools, and learning to scribble in books.

Children are haughty, disdainful, quick to anger, envious, curious, self-seeking, lazy, fickle, timid, intemperate, untruthful, secretive; they laugh and weep readily; the most trivial subjects give them immoderate delight or bitter distress; they wish not to be hurt, but they like hurting others: they are men already. – La Bruyere, Characters (1687)

I view it from a totally different perspective -- I took 2 months off at the start (and my wife left her job a while before that). Since we had no hired helper (nanny or doula) during that time and had limited grandparents help, it was mostly the 2 of us baby-caring during the first 2 months. It was both rewarding and exhausting, and we both agree that it was the most physically-intense time of our lives, to the point where I don't know how either of us would survive without the other person also being there.

I honestly don't know how parents who have to go back to work do it (especially in a family where one parent goes back to work very soon). There's so much work for the mother that without the father also being there, it seems to me it would create a major rift in the relationship when it comes to understanding what the other person is going through. I theorize that the father not being there (and being at work) during those early months is a foundation of the collapse of a spousal relationship years down the road, for many couples.

I'm guessing that most people have (or create) a support network. Their parents might move closer, they join parenting groups etc. so that there are people to watch the babies, give you help etc.

Of course there are people who don't have that but that is a sad state whether you have children or not.

My wife took her FMLA (unpaid) leave directly after pregnancy, then I took my (company benefit, paid) 16 weeks after that- with a two week overlap so that I was comfortable with all the work necessary. It meant that the kid spent the first half a year of his life with a parent providing care every moment, which was great, something that I am so grateful for, and something that I wish every parent could have an opportunity to have.

While I agree that the benefits of involved parents are most notable for kids at an older age, I think that the effect on the parent is largest at the beginning. Humans don't demonstrate their love by providing care, they provide care that turns into love. It is in the unrequited acts of service like changing diapers, feeding (bottle or breast), and rocking to sleep that build the parents feelings for the kid.

Swedish parental leave can be saved until the kid turns 12. Not that the 480 days will last that long, of course!

That sounds like a good idea and what I think would be better for everyone. Of course, then it's a case of avoiding the temptation of taking it too early(!) :)

If you wait too long, it's hard to find time that isn't taken by school already :-)

Is that per parent or is it shared between parents? That really sounds incredible, going to have to remember to look this up.

It's 240 days per parent.

That's incredible. That's something the rest of the world should strive for.

From another comment, it looks like the father only gets half, but I assume you get weekends off too. Sweden also has 25 days of vacation.

I have a kid about every 600 days. (have 12 so far) Out of that 600 days, it looks like I'd work just 164 days. It would be 2-day weeks for decades.

That is quite a way to run a country. I think it only works because there are very few births in Sweden.

Basing policy on 99.99 percentile sized families would certainly be odd.

Policy would change what the 99.99 percentile is. If having a large family means that you don't have to work, many more people might do it.

It might not be significant to a baby, but it surely is significant for the mother (presuming dad helps her, and not just sits around the house), and less stressed-out mothers are in turn good for babies and the family in general.

This all the way.

I mean, I also think it's significant for the baby & dad. But even ignoring that.. holy shit does the mother need support.

Maybe some moms don't, maybe they happen to have an easy baby.. have parents closeby to easily help.

But other mothers have a terribly difficult time, post-natal depression.. you name it. Having the dad around for support means everything during that time- I can speak from experience.

I've learned over the last few years that much of the parenting that parents do is far removed anything that can be seen. Anything that you can conclude is a direct function of your influence amounts to a very very low percentage of your actual influence. Not that I disagree with the importance of influence in the later bits, but so much of what a child is learning for the first time is all the subtle stuff you don't realize you're doing. How you and your spouse resolve conflict, and you and the child resolve conflict, and you deal with your own emotions, facial cues, body language, regular language, music taste etc

When kids a smal it is more the parents that enjoy the time with them. One, because it is just simply great. And because the workload caused by small kids is distributed between both parents. Because kids are stress. But yes, once they grow older, time with them gets more fun, simply becasue you can do more with them then just feeding and changing diapers. Which I did, a lot.

Agree. I spent five months home with a small toddler of around a year of age. He did get very attached to me, but let's face it, their needs at that stage are very simple. Actually, I think he got much more out of kindie subsequently, getting to play with and be around other kids and adults much more.

The experience of paternity leave is quite intense. It's not all fun. E.g. long nights when baby is sick or teething and the baby's mum has to go to work the next day so she has to sleep and the long night goes straight into a difficult day.

As someone that thought I spent a lot of time with my baby before starting pappperm it was an awakening - but also a wonderful bonding experience.

Yes time as a baby is important. Dad's shouldn't have to wait until their kids grow up before they get to know them.

Or what about the mother damaged by the birth not able to take care of the baby so the father is doing it all for the first month(s), both day and night?

I would largely agree.

In a dark humoured way, and beyond the essential need to create an unbreakable bond beyond infant & parent, you can be replaced and better optimised by an iterated Roomba. :)

But with each passing day/year the desire/need to spend time with your kids should grow.

Our kids are teenagers now>

And I agree that it feels like an hour spent with them today provide all of us more value than an hour spent with them as infants/toddlers.

Both are important, but I think I’m less replaceable today than yesterday.

It is so hard to know the effect on the children. But the effect on your spouse of having someone else around to help? The first couple of months are tough!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com