I'm a dad in Stockholm and currently in the first month of my parental leave which is expected to last at least more 6 months. My girlfriend just went back to work. Our daughter is 11 months old.
I worked 75% from the time she was 6 months old until a month ago when I went for a 100% parental. My employer pays me a bonus on top of the state money as a perk.
As far as I am concerned I can’t even imagine it being any other way. I understand how fortunate I am to be in Sweden. It truly is an amazing system.
I'm Norwegian, and the Norwegian system is similar to the Swedish. I live in the UK, though, and so I've seen how expensive and inflexible UK policy, which is much closer to US is Vs. for my brother in Norway.
I don't understand how people on more normal incomes do it in places like the UK and US.
> I don't understand how people on more normal incomes do it in places like the UK and US.
They simply have a worse quality of life. Hand the baby off to older family members or daycare and spend 50 hours or more per week at work or commuting to work, and spend maybe 3 to 4 hours a day if that with their infant, with which they still need to cook, clean, excercise, etc.
And looking around at many people, clearly they’re sacrificing many of those life enhancing activities in exchange for a little bit of financial security and the hope they or their kids can make it out of the bottom 90%, so that maybe they can spend some time with their babies.
Not sure it is so bad in the UK now that we have shared parental leave: I am a father of a recent newborn and I get to share 12 months off (well, 50 weeks since my wife must take at least the first 2 weeks after birth herself) with my wife for our newborn son.
We're getting approx £600 a month (so I guess 800-900USD depending on exchange rates today) of free money during the first year from the government (maternity allowance), before any payments from employers. Not amazing amounts of free money, but helps pay for some essentials and considering we are both earning fairly huge salaries I was surprised we were entitled to anything at all.
My employer is actually pretty generous and I as a partner I am getting several months off at full pay - most partners will get only 2 weeks off unless they make use of the shared parental leave, but the "major" employers all have similar generous parental leave perks from what I know.
Both my wife and I are legally gauranteed our jobs back when we return as far as I understand it, and from what I know we can request 80% time etc, or some other flexible arrangement and it must be considered fairly and allowed if feasible.
I have been really impressed with the NHS. Obviously everything ante-natal and post-partum was 100% free (including parenting classes in addition to the clinical stuff). What has really impressed me has been the free home visits by the midwives and nurses in the days and weeks after birth - an amazing service to just have midwives turn up 2 days afterwards and check that mother baby (and father!!!!!) are doing ok, then to continue getting home visits in the following weeks. Really impressed. We paid to get some extra private scans done earlier in the pregnancy for peace of mind etc, but otherwise the NHS has been excellent for this (and I don't usually sing it any praise for normal services)
As for childcare I don't know yet - from what I gather childcare is a cluster-fuck in the UK with oversubscription and fairly high costs (e.g. £100/day in London for 8am-8pm) outside of the public nurseries. There are some things available for this I think (childcare vouchers for 30hours a week of free childcare?) but I don't know anything about it.
So tl;Dr: 365 Vs 480 days off, 800USD+100% salary Vs 3700USD, potentially oversubscribed public or expensive private daycare Vs cheap public daycare.
What you describe (generous employer payments etc.) is far from the norm in the UK, though. Yes, it's possible to be in a decent situation in the UK too, but usually when you're already in a professional privileged position.
Americans sometimes joke that we live in a third world country. Many people here are dissatisfied with our family and healthcare policies, but no one seems to know how to actually fix it.
Obamacare wasn't really a good solution. It was just the most politically viable.
So you need more than a good plan for what works better. You also need to somehow get it accepted politically and that ends up being a sticking point.
How to fix it? Get involved with your local DSA chapter. Work on putting socialists on your local ballot and getting initiatives passed locally. Educate your friends and neighbors that 'socialist' policies are much broader than what has been demonized in the US since the red scare.
Edit: Also, consider unionizing and bargaining for parental leave, healthcare, living wages, employee board representation, etc.
Scandinavian countries are not socialist and using the word "socialist" (as Bernie does) to advocate for social-democratic policies is both inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing.
I've been in the DSA for years now and would recommend it to anyone who is interested. But just to be clear: most of the organizing does not revolve around electoral politics. There are those like myself who don't want DSA to become "the left wing of the DNC" (RIP Refoundation).
I know HN trends techno-utopian libertarian but I'm sure there's some here who have socialist sympathies.
It’s really both... it does Trump, like no other self-respecting country would. But it also had Obama, who would arguably had had a more difficult time in Europe.
And that goes through everything: people dying from deceases of despair, yet medical research is still top of the field.
Obese people on these scooters everywhere, but also a far larger number of people that are incredibly fit.
A fast food culture that as hedonistic and short-sighted as a late Roman dictator, but also the most elaborate selection of fresh organic vegetables I’ve ever seen in supermarkets.
A tradition of values-based jurisprudence that is far ahead of anything Europe has, but suddenly deciding to try corruption for a bit—and then dominating that particular field again in no time flat.
It’s really quite impressive. I’m somewhat certain it causes Americans more pain than it is worth. But I’m not quite as firm on judging if the rest of the world isn’t sometimes getting a pretty good deal out it.
The article talks about federal gov not doing things better. Maybe it should,but the way america works is that these sorts of laws are left for individual states. America has a lot of problems like this,states should do better but voters don't really care much about state politics. I can tell you a majority of americans probably don't even know who their governor is(I think I do but not really sure). On top of that,it's not very hard to move a business between states or for people in general to move around so states have to compete with one another on being friendly to economic contributors.
I am sure it is much more complex, but I do think the root cause lies in the american constitution and the role played by federal and state governments. The federal gov should either be a whole lot more capable(or overreaching for some) or a whole lot less significant,forcing popular politics to be centered at the state level.
No. You have to define how a country can be rich. And what "basic healthcare" is. And what "for all" means.
A country cannot be rich. Its people can be. If you have a definition that differs, we can discuss. I am going to avoid "basic healthcare" for now. We can discuss "for all". Does that mean for people born in the country? Or does it really mean "for all people"?
Wealth per person, healthcare that covers all medical needs (preventative care, illness, injury, end of life care dental, vision) but not all elective needs (some cosmetic surgeries, etc), and for all means all humans within the borders.
And yet consistently polled as being far happier. Turns out, when you have your basic needs cared for, can afford a house, to travel, the latest gadget ... well, the rest is just pretty pointless and doesn't buy you any additional happiness.
Most European countries are not poor. Not at all. By any definition. However, European countries typically do not encourage regless forms of capitalism (consequently reducing the GDP) and also consider the social aspects of public spending more important than the military ones.
And did you know there are actually more billionaires-per-capita in Sweden than in the USA [1]? Norway as well. So it's actually possible to have both an amazing welfare system and loads of billionaires at the same time.
So again, each time you hear "high taxes and social welfare are bad because they hurt business" - its BS.
Tax is a country subscription fee. It can be high and worth it if the value provided is high (good work ethics and social trust, educated and healthy workforce, good infrastructure, clear law and business regulations).
Actually, the 5 Nordic countries are identical to the top 5 countries for social mobility in the World Economic Forum's Global Social Mobility Index [1].
I call bullshit on this one. I know and have seen many people become successful in Sweden growing out of lower/middle-class. It's much easier to do it when you have free access to quality education, regardless to your current social standing, where people have safety nets so they are able to take risks instead of having to cling to their job that also provides their health insurance.
The US seems to suffer of some kind of fetishisation of suffering, where you see those heart warming stories that look great on the surface (poor kids getting scholarships because of some sport, single parents making their way out of poverty juggling 2 jobs and getting an education and so on) but that shouldn't ever be a great story for the richest society in history...
Social mobility in the US is a fight against odds, not a possibility, people still have some social mobility DESPITE American society policies, not because of them.
Imagine how many people in the US could be contributing with an idea to a great product/company if they knew they could run out of their savings and still not be homeless, without health insurance and not starving? If the US allowed normal people to take risks when they see opportunities it'd be an even richer society, not even accounting for the overall happinness, lowest levels of stress and all of the ill side-effects of the current state of American society.
The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits.
Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)?
My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of course, but that’s my best guess.
If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels.
If coming out ahead means having to put a 3 month old in daycare. And worrying about losing your job as you would also lose access to healthcare for the 3 month old.
And coming out ahead means pumping breastmilk, when it’s vastly inferior for the mother and much likelier to cause her to lose her milk supply.
Edit: the top 10% do very well in the US. The next 10% are hoping to become part of the top 10%. The bottom 80% don’t have a better option.
Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size.
And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them.
You’re either part of the group making passive income so you’re not worried about losing your income source, or you’re not.
I come from Europe and moved to USA. After taxes and everything I get for my taxes back home, USA and EU are roughly the same in “things you have to pay for to have a normal life”
The problem in USA is spiky unexpected cost of health care. Even with good insurance you never know when a random huge bill might come. Best avoid doctors unless you’re literally dying
I agree that paying for all health care with insurance leads to quite a bit of surprise billing and opaque pricing.
That being said, I’m not sure how often the average person deals with a bill that they are on the hook for beyond their deductible.
I’m still not sure what average medical costs per person over a lifetime are in the US compared to a Swedish person’s costs if you’re counting the proportion of their taxes that go to paying for national healthcare.
I pay 860€ per month for health insurance, which covers me, my wife, and our two children. There’s no deductible. Everything is covered, except for tooth replacements that are covered only at between 20% and 50% I believe. You’ll never get a bill from a doctor or hospital in Germany, except for those tooth replacements.
The most I’ll pay is a small copay for drugs, usually about 5€, but only for adults — drugs for kids are covered 100%.
Probably a bit simplified, but the above has been my experience so far (I’m 40).
I'm happy to accept your hypothesis that US citizens will come out on top for lifetime net income, but this article was about the human costs, like having children or not.
What cost is forgoing having a family? Is that even calculated? My hypothesis is that it's not and all those people that simply weren't able to have a child because of work and healthcare costs are simply, and conveniently, ignored.
It's ok though, we can always import more fresh meat into the great American Dream.
It’s thinking like yours on the “uneducated” politicians part that leads to polices like the US has today. Income and money are not everything. But alas, untraveled and relatively speaking closed minded citizenry sees their way as righteous as they are honest and hard working people. It’s a pretty bad side effect of being honest, law abiding and hardworking that you feel your way is the right way and perhaps even justified because of ones struggles. It’s a cycle the promotes more of the same - status quo.
- Americans are uneducated and under-traveled
- There are other values other than money
- I think my opinions are correct and Americans are deluding themselves
Responding to quieththrow’s response to this comment:
1. My thinking was basically posing a question about take-home income of an American vs a Swede and to what extent a higher take-home pay can buy some of the same benefits.
2. Don’t know why choosing policies that do not force Americans to pay higher taxes in exchange for government-mandated benefits makes legislators “uneducated.” Seems like you simply disagree with the preference for lower taxes and less social benefits and are calling people who disagree with you “dumb.”
3. I’m not sure why you think traveling will make Americans think like you. Also not convinced that Americans travel less than others. Happy to look at any evidence you supply.
4. No one claimed anything about righteousness. Personally, I find left-leaning folks always speaking in moral terms “evil capitalists/rich, stealing form the poor, etc.” I’m trying to gather quantitative data (net income) to help further the discussion.
It’s thinking like yours: families come out ahead by 100k or so
on the “uneducated” politicians part: that persists in today’s legislators
that leads to polices like the US has today: laws that do not mandate parental benefits.
Income and money are not everything: pretty self explanatory.
But alas, untraveled and relatively speaking closed minded citizenry: it’s sad that Americans who have not seen diverse perspectives on what else is possible and how others live due to lack of travel (American geography plays a huge role here too)
sees their way as righteous: holding the belief that you don’t get parental benefits and yes it’s a hard life but it is what it is and people who don’t agree are lazy (Europeans) and/socialist.
as they are honest and hard working people: holds the above mentioned belief very strongly as they are fundamentally people who are had working and honest and hence consider their way makes sense (self confirmation bias)
It’s a pretty bad side effect of being honest, law abiding and hardworking that you feel your way is the right way and perhaps even justified because of ones struggles: when one is honest, hardworking , law abiding and plays by the rules a side effect of that is the strengthens of their belief and values whole sale. Which means seeing and accepting a different perspective is harder for them (look at our political divide today for example)
It’s a cycle the promotes more of the same - status quo: the cycle of hardworking, honesty, civil obedience that begets strengthening of believing that acceptance of way the things are and change is not needed which reinforce hardworking honesty civil obedience which begets .... you get the idea. This is precisely the reason why change in this country takes a very long time. Almost any big change dosnt happen till after a generation and half has passed.
If you have an hour to spare highly recommend watching a documentary about the differences between America and Sweden. If you have amazon prime it’s free to watch on prime video.
Yes, let’s sacrifice the best child bearing years of our lives so that we can outcompete someone else who didn’t sacrifice the best child bearing years of their lives, and then increase the probability of spending a good portion of those savings on fertility treatments.
There can exist a balance between investing in one’s future versus enjoying the present. Nature doesn’t make each day equivalent to the next, and it’s crazy to see so many in the rat race in 20s and 30s so that they can “relax” in their 50s and 60s, because they’re competing against others willing to sacrifice their 20s and 30s.
What I gather from your comment is that you believe Sweden is superior to the US in the sense that culturally, they are not as enamored of the rat race and reinforce their preferences for a more balanced life with social policies funded by relatively high tax rates (when compared to the US).
Whereas in the US, we are more into “getting ahead” in our prime years and this is reinforced by our social and tax policy allowing Americans to keep more of their money and make decisions on their own that support the individual’s values.
My original comment was simply asking if anyone has as data that can show what the net income of an American vs a Swede after paying for the costs associated with raising a child. I made no value judgements there, simply wanted to source the data.
Pretty sure that data is uncollectible, due to the amount of work it would take to normalize taxes across many decades and the difficulty in simply sourcing it in the first place.
But at the end of the day, what matters is how secure a new mother and father feel and how much time they get to spend with their child. Obviously, one can sacrifice this in the pursuit of income, but who would want their children to have to choose between future financial security and bonding with a newborn?
Some study indicated American parents are extremely stressed out in comparison to most parents in most developed countries and are less happy overall because of it.
I'm not sure I could find the study again. It was posted on Metafilter some years ago. I'm banned from Metafilter and have zero plans to spend my time trying to dig through Metafilter to find it.
This thread is quite timely in that I just watched a great documentary about the differences between America and Sweden. If you have amazon prime it’s free to watch on prime video.
That's the result of having a country with a smaller population. This gives citizens more even access to quality education and more even access to all kinds of opportunities.
It's supply and demand. A higher supply of people means that each person has lower value.
You get a similar effect if you move to a big city after having lived in a small or medium sized town.
People who move to big cities voluntarily turn themselves into commodities; they end up renting tiny apartments which cost a lot and can barely afford to save anything and they can be quickly fired from their jobs due to high competition.
As population size increases, the baseline value of a human being goes down. The baseline value of a human being is the value of the person after the value of their skills and capital have been factored out.
As far as I am concerned I can’t even imagine it being any other way. I understand how fortunate I am to be in Sweden. It truly is an amazing system.