[dmd149]

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.

[kasperni]

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

[dmd149]

Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly different.

Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So that + higher salaries my guess is American’s still come out ahead.

[lotsofpulp]

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.

[dmd149]

Evidence please.

[lotsofpulp]

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.

[dmd149]

Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare.

My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples.

Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don’t have better options.

My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you’re referring to or what evidence you’re providing to support that the bottom 80% (by income?) have no better options.

Claim 3 (from your most recent comment): If you’re not making passive income, you’re worried.

My response to Claim 3: Most families make something work without having passive income. One or both parents may have a normal job or jobs.

[extra88]

Federal law only guarantees you can't lose your job for taking that amount of leave, it does not require employers to pay you for that time off.

I suspect they were asking for evidence of your claims about the harm caused by pumping breast milk instead of an infant feeding directly from the breast.

[rootusrootus]

Yeah we basically subsidize a huge amount of healthcare technology that gets deployed far cheaper in other places. I wish we'd stop.

[Swizec]

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”

Except in Europe I’m not scared of getting sick.

[dmd149]

If it’s the same then...it’s the same. One is not better than the other.

What country in Europe are you coming from and what makes you afraid of getting sick in the US?

[Swizec]

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

[dmd149]

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.

Edit: fixed a typo.

[lsinger]

Example from Germany:

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).

[dmd149]

That is more or less what my US based health insurance plan is like, if a bit more expensive ($1200/month for me and my wife, $1500 if adding 1 child).

No deductible for in-network care, usually just some small copays of $20.

Is this supplemental insurance to national healthcare or the standard cost based on your income?

[OzzyB]

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.

[dmd149]

The example was about the human costs sure, but very much closely tied to things related to income (job security, costs of child care, etc.).

But let’s keep it to the family. Say between the age of 25 and 35 an American will be able to take home an extra 10k per year compared to a Swede.

100k an extra savings goes a long way to being able to take care of a new child or start a family.

Not saying my hypothetical is accurate, but the question about take-home pay vs costs is relevant to the topic of this article.

[quietthrow]

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.

[dmd149]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

Sounds like:

- Americans are uneducated and under-traveled - There are other values other than money - I think my opinions are correct and Americans are deluding themselves

Is that correct?

[dmd149]

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.

[quietthrow]

Happy to elaborate

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.

https://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Lessons-America-Johan-Norberg/...

[lotsofpulp]

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.

[dmd149]

Okay.

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.

[lotsofpulp]

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?

[DoreenMichele]

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.