[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?