[coreymull]

It's not quite as simple as glibly saying that Americans can just lower their standards of living and walk away from stable employment to take paternity leave.

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?

[yummyfajitas]

You are confusing marginal cost and total cost.

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.

[coreymull]

I mean, fine, but this is the case with just about any form of social program. I'm not in danger of needing food stamps, so logic dictates I'd rather have the $20 a year or so I contribute to that program. I don't like bombs, but about 5-10% of my income goes to pay for them.

You're forced to pay for all kinds of stuff. Might as well get some social value out of it (like more cohesive families)

[yummyfajitas]

In basically all cases I can think of, forcing people to buy private goods (rivalrous and excludible) is harmful to the people who would not otherwise choose to purchase those goods.

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.

[parbo]

Eh, the cost is that you only get a maximum of 80% of your salary. It is also capped.

[kjetil]

In Norway, which has a similar arrangement, you can choose between

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).

[yummyfajitas]

In which case, Swedes find it at least as valuable as 20% of their salary.

The relevant question: do they consider paternity leave to be worth more than 100% of their salary? If not, this policy is harmful.

[parbo]

That's only a fair question if your basic needs (food and shelter) are met with 0% of your salary. Otherwise, there is not really a choice.

[yummyfajitas]

Thanks to my American salary and Swedish consumption level, my basic needs can be met for many months even if my salary drops to $0. (Not that I actually want paternity leave - it sounds boring.)

[parbo]

Exactly what do you mean by "Swedish consumption level"? Do you think we have 14" TV's and live on ramen here?