[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]

> have a parent stay at home with the child

Assumes there are two parents in the household. For two-parent households, assumes it can cover its expenses from the labor of only one of them. This option also doesn't address the fact that taking an extended break from working often has a long-term effect on one's income and career; this could change if doing so was more normalized, particularly for men.

> Extended families can pitch in

Assumes parents have extended family, that its members live close enough to do the work of child care, assumes the extended family members (including grandparents) are not also working and therefore unavailable, assumes they are capable and willing to provide free child care.

[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.

[dmd149]

Note: Responding to your post addressing my response to the claims I was curious about. For some reason I can’t respond to that comment directly.

I’m not making the claim that all parents can have 1 parent stay home or that there is no risk to a career for doing so, or that everyone has extended family that can help.

I was only trying to counter the claim by the other commenter that daycare at 3 months was the only option.

Overall, there is not going to be a perfect situation where you can mitigate the risk of losing your job, still get paid a high percentage of your salary, and be at home.

But, there are high costs associated with the Swedish model as well as risk. Some are explicit, like the higher tax rates. Others costs and risks might be less so. For example, maybe there are less higher paying career opportunities in Sweden because of the high risk to employers that they have to guarantee employment for new parents for a significantly long period of time. Or consider that people that don’t want to be parents will have to subsidize parents, both directly though taxes and most likely through picking up the slack of the parent on leave.

I asked my original question about any studies or models about net income in the US vs Sweden after childcare costs because I want to know to what extent a US household could replicate the benefits of the Swedish system with their extra income, if any. If you have an extra 100k after 10 years of working life when compared to Sweden, you can “pay yourself” 50k for a year while you don’t work and have at least a few years of daycare expenses saved up.

Now, I genuinely don’t know whether that is close to reality, which is why I want the data.