Childcare is much cheaper in other countries, even relative to the lower earning potentials.
Canada for example is working towards $10/child/day childcare https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/campa...
And you get a small monthly stipend per child during this time. It's small but it's something.
Or am I misunderstanding?
given that in most cases a single salary is no longer enough the male breadwinner theory is no longer reality.
on the other hand men are more likely to find a new job so they are less impacted, which should make it more likely that they are chosen.
what the actual results are needs a look at statistics
we already have or work on laws that makes peoples salaries public to allow employees to know if they are paid fairly, and you are not going to hide your kids in a basement, so the most important factors to consider are more or less public already
you also do not have any job protection, so you don't benefit from sharing this. but the number of kids is hardly a secret worth keeping. and when your employer offers childcare benefits you would also share that information. you would not forgo the benefits just to keep that private.
and that's the same in europe if you don't tell your employer then you can't benefit from the additional job protection. your choice.
I guess some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do. I would think that European countries, where they like privacy so much that they invented cookie banners, wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
And this is before getting into the efficiency arguments of retaining employees based on productivity, not family structure. I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
We love the idea of it. Want to boycott, divest or sanction a specific state? That's illegal because you're using speech for the wrong purposes.
As an American, I think you're huffing farts to win an unwinnable debate.
As for sanctioning specific states, we do this plenty. There aren't many voices raised when it's done against countries that are our enemies. Sanctioning allies would obviously be a weird move, and countries in between, are in between.
I'll end by saying that you characterize this as a debate, when it isn't one. You're free to think it's grand to terminate employees based on their home life. I think it's terrible and am glad I don't work at a company that would ever do such a thing. But I don't think it's something that should be illegal, as long as everyone who went to work for the company knew what they were getting into.
really? it has been a widespread policy in many companies across the US until the laws changed.
some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do.
why though? what's the big deal with someone knowing how many children you have?
European countries, where they like privacy [...] wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
there are a few things you need to consider: for one earnings are much more average. there are not many high or low earners. if i know what your job is i can pretty much guess how much you make because most people in the same job get the same pay, and that is already public knowledge. unlike the US (you do have a point with the base salaries and the range there) the pay ranges in europe are much narrower. likewise costs are irrelevant because almost everyone has health insurance which covers anything worth of note. medical bills are not a thing for the average person in europe. i said it before: there is nothing to disclose that isn't already public.
I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
also not relevant because these laws don't apply to small companies. the minimum is 50 people i think.
i just came across an article that stated that the law applies to companies with 10 or more people. so maybe it is relevant for startups.
There might be a misunderstanding. The employer usually does not know about your family structure; the only place that really has to know about that is the wage department to calculate your taxes etc. (even though in some countries you can do that yourself if you are a very private person, but in that case you are more likely to be self-employed anyway). Of course if you want to claim days out of work, paid or not, to care for the children or a parent, the employer might want to know if the children are real.
> costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?)
Medical bills?
when i need to let go people from my company because i need to downsize for whatever reason i need to choose those who would be least affected. that means i need to know who is single, married, or has children. because if i let go the one who is a parent instead of someone who is single, they might sue me because it would cause them undue hardship, if say finding a new job would force them to move which would affect the other parents job and also the kids school. and their whole social life.
sometimes this can't be avoided. if all my employees have families and children then i am stuck. but if there is a choice, then the choice must be the person who is more likely to recover, or who has less dependents. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
long story short, i have to know the family structure to make that choice.
And when you say "I need to know" do you mean you want to know, or you are legally compelled to make decisions based on these criteria?
Why do you fear lawsuits from parents as opposed to single people? Are there grounds for a lawsuit that involve whether someone is a parent?
basically i need to consider three factors: how long they already worked in my company, how old they are, and their family situation, whether they have dependents.
failure to consider these risks a lawsuit making the dismissal invalid.
this of course does not apply to dismissals that are related to bad behavior or lack of qualification.
on the other side: unique qualifications that i need to keep my business running are also exempt even if that person otherwise would be the one facing the least hardship from a dismissal.
The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket.
So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position.
> This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.
It's long term second-order thinking that people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to lack in my experience.
I pay taxes so other people can afford to have kids, they can stay home and give the kids a stable childhood. Then the kids will go to subsidised childcare (0-250€/month depending on income) and later to school where they have free school lunches and well-paid teachers.
Why? Because I'm getting old and when I retire we need people working and paying taxes so there's money to pay for MY healthcare and pension.
But if you want to discuss second order effects, what basic economic theory and empirical evidence both show is that the second order effect is less incentive for people to work, and higher rates of children born out of wedlock. The implications of that is higher incarceration rates and other socioeconomic problems as a consequence of the negative effects of being raised in a single parent household.
This is the kind of multi-generational impact that I've found social democracy advocates rarely weigh in their analysis.
In terms of the economic impact, the higher taxes dampens growth, which is exactly why median income is so much lower in the EU than the U.S:
EU Europe average ≈ $30,500
United States ≈ $68,000
A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24982
This shows up in company creation. The United States has vastly more large young companies than the European Union. Looking only at companies started from scratch, and now worth at least $10 billion on the stock market, the EU has about 14 companies worth a combined ~$430 billion, while the US has dozens whose total value is close to $30 trillion — roughly 70 times larger. In fact, the entire EU total is less than half the value of Tesla alone.
You might point to the Nordic countries as examples of welfare success stories, but the Nordics are only proof that a rich, high-trust society can stay rich while paying high taxes. Not proof that high taxes made them rich, or that the model doesn’t slow growth or scale badly elsewhere.
Keep in mind that it was during the Nordics' 100 year free-market era that they got rich. That's when they experienced the massive gains per capita income and average qualify life. On the eve of their experiment with social democratic authoritarianism in the mid 1960s, they were at the very top of global rankings in per capita income and quality life metrics. It wad the preceding 100 years of free market economics that got them there, not social democracy.
Not only has their rate of economic growth slowed since they raised their taxes, there is evidence that they’re losing the high-trust culture that made this model possible in the first place. They’re also losing the work ethic that was built over hundreds of years of hard labor in a cold climate.
More and more people are comfortable lying about being on sick leave, for example. That’s a measurable decline in work ethic. And you simply cannot sustain a high-tax welfare state without an unusually strong work ethic and high trust.
Cheaper, or more heavily subsidized? It's an important difference.
For the record: I'm not opposed to subsidies, and think the US need them in a lot more areas (and a lot more government involvement in the economy, in general).
Given the cost of health and life insurance, unemployment insurance, paid vacation (4-6 weeks generally), healthcare (I once paid $32 for 5 weeks hospital care), paid parental leave, childcare, school and university, I am confident this more than makes up for the higher taxes. I believe people are calmer when the risk of living is low. No broken leg or depression will set us back financially, and if we have a few too many kids they can all go to college even if we don't earn much. And both parents can work (70% at least) while their kids go to daycare. This is at least an extra 5 years of salary compared to supporting a stay-at-home parent.
It might not be charming to brag about all our advantages, but as a European I really want e.g. Americans to know that there is another way. Life doesn't have to be about chasing money until you can afford to live.
The rest of the world collects taxes and spends it on their future, education, health, child care...