

The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave. - cwan
http://www.slate.com/id/2265563/?from=rss

======
yummyfajitas
You can do much the same thing in the US.

Most people (55%) in the US earn more than similarly situated people in Sweden
[1]. (If you focus only on Swedish Americans, 55% goes up to 85%.) If you want
to take paternity leave in the US, you can lower your spending/consumption to
that of a comparable Swede and put the money you save in the bank. You can
then withdraw it during your paternity leave.

The fact that most Americans _choose_ not to do this suggests that paternity
leave is not as blissful as the author suggests. The fact that the Swedish
govt had to offer an "equality bonus" and use it or lose it incentives to get
men to use more than 6% of the per-couple leave suggests that Swedes don't
find it as blissful as the alternatives either.

[1] Income distributions overall: [http://super-
economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distributio...](http://super-
economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distribution-in-us-and-sweden.html)

Swedes vs Swedish Americans: [http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-
economy-in-o...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-economy-in-
one-picture.html)

[edit: replaced the word "standard of living" with "consumption". "Standard of
living" is a poorly defined concept and arguing over definitions is
pointless.]

~~~
pragmatic
Speaking as a father, sitting home with my child for a year and half would
probably have driven the whole family crazy.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
For me the ideal would be part time. I'd love to spend more time with my
daughter (15 months old) but I'm not cut out for 7 days a week childcare.

~~~
parbo
In Sweden, the employer can not deny a request for part time work (75%) if the
child is 8 years or younger.

~~~
m_eiman
You've only compensated for the loss of income for a total of 480 days,
though. That'll let one parent work 75% for about five years, while earning
about 95% of their full time salary.

~~~
dagw
First of all only you're only fully compensated 360 of those 480 days, for the
other 120 days you only get the minimum level of compensation. Secondly it
depends on what their full time salary is. There is a hard upper limit on how
much you can get compensated, and most people with good jobs are quite a bit
over that limit. So someone with a higher paying job might only get 40-50% of
his salary.

~~~
m_eiman
The ceiling is about 58kUSD per year.

------
ramidarigaz
My friend just had a kid. He works in a grocery store, and doesn't make much.
They gave him 1 week of paternity leave, and he had 2 weeks of vacation saved
up.

I'm doing as much as I can to help, but it's a shitty situation.

EDIT: His wife quit her job so she can be with the baby. Technically my
friend's salary should cover everything they need, but if there are any
complications, well, they'll be bankrupt in an instant. Thankfully they've got
a good safety net (lots of good friends).

~~~
jdminhbg
Another shitty situation would be if all of your friends' coworkers had to
work more and earn less to pay for your friend's decision to have a kid.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Why? Every single one of those coworkers was born at some point. So they
benefited from their parents coworkers getting some time off. And almost all
of them will themselves eventually benefit when they decide to have a kid....

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's irrelevant that there are benefits from paid time off.

What is relevant is whether the benefits exceed the costs. Most people with
the freedom to choose believe the benefits of time off do not exceed the
costs.

~~~
thomas11
Your last statement is most likely not true for Europe.

So in the end it comes down to cultural preference. If the majority prefers a
certain way of doing things, it makes sense to back it up with legislation to
harmonize it and make it safe for the individual (in this case, for instance,
guaranteeing you to get your old job back after maternity leave).

~~~
yummyfajitas
The article explicitly notes that when Swedes were free to choose, they did
not choose paternity leave.

~~~
m_eiman
We're free to not take paternity leave, if we choose.

Maybe most people here enjoy spending time with their children more than
they'd enjoy earning 100% instead of ~80% of their normal pay.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You are free not to receive the benefits. You are not free to avoid most of
the costs. For anyone who values the benefits at less than the full costs,
this policy is harmful.

------
pragmatic
Don't forget Swedish fertility rates are less than the replacement rate:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Total_fe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Total_fertility_rate)

So the state arguably needs to encourage procreation in order to stave off the
Japanese style demographic crisis:
[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53050/milton-
ezrati/j...](http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53050/milton-
ezrati/japans-aging-economics)

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Encouraging procreation isn't a sustainable solution. The planet is over
populated and building economic models which depend on an ever growing
population (or even one sustained at it's current level) is asking for
trouble.

~~~
araneae
It's true that building an economic model that builds on a _growing_
population is a bad idea. And it it's arguable that building one based on a
population that stays the same size is bad, too.

That doesn't change the fact that Sweden has many such programs, and it's the
fifth most rapidly shrinking nation. A shrinking population makes any social
program where a bulk of the money is spent on the elderly i.e. health
insurance or social security is going to take a severe economic hit. The
Swedes think that by offering incentives like this one, they can help preserve
some of their other programs.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I don't dispute that, I just dispute that the solution is to encourage
procreation as the original post stated.

------
cnvogel
In Germany the regulation to get money for maternity/paternity leave is such
that the state pays 2/3 of the regular income for 12 months.

(12 months if only father or mother take the offer, or 14 months if both
parents choose to, so e.g. the mother gets 2/3 of her pay for 10 months,
father gets his 2/3 for 4 months. You also can double the time for half the
money.)

Your employer, on the other hand, has to let you take unpaid leave for up to 3
years (I think, not precisely sure on that one) with a guarantee to continue
your employment afterwards.

Chris - currently on paternity leave :-)

------
dmm
One of the best ways to achieve a flexible work/home-life balance is to run a
small business.

Can you imagine what it would mean to a small business with 3 employees if one
of those employees goes on a 18-month paid break?

Not every business is a 10,000 employee omnicorp made up of fungible cogs.

~~~
masklinn
> Can you imagine what it would mean to a small business with 3 employees if
> one of those employees goes on a 18-month paid break?

You do realize that the paid leave is 1. not 100% of salary and 2. not fully
paid by the employer, but funded in no small part by taxes on the general
population?

Furthermore, if it's a "small business with 3 employees" (or 6, or even a
dozen) chances are those people are at least somewhat close and _talk_ to one
another. And they know that it's not in their interest to bankrupt the
business. There are generally ways to reach an arrangement: try to push the
paternity itself further, correctly plan the pat' leave, use part-time
instead, etc...

~~~
m_eiman
_2\. not fully paid by the employer, but funded in no small part by taxes on
the general population?_

Actually it's all paid by taxes.

------
coreymull
I'd be interested in seeing if there's been any effect on Swedish
entrepreneurship resulting from generous family leave.

Obviously I'm not talking about high-powered startups here, but lifestyle
businesses, freelancers, that sort of thing. Probably hard to draw out
causation, but worth thinking about too.

~~~
gaius
From what I have seen: the risk of starting a company is very low. No matter
what happens, you're not going to starve or be homeless or be ill with no
health cover.

But on the other hand: it's difficult to start a company (in the sense that
there is a lot of bureacracy to negotiate) and the incentive to succeed is
also lower (partly because the risk is lower, and partly because the tax
system is punitive of anyone who breaks from the herd).

------
araneae
I wonder what happens if the family has multiple kids. Say, one every 1.5
years...

------
emilis_info
That's nothing. I was on 2 year paid paternity leave in Lithuania :-)

First year - 100%, second year - 85%.

Won't do that again :-)

------
igrekel
When my daughter was born, I took a six months paternity leave. It was great
fun and it allowed me to get a lot of things off the ground for the web app I
am now selling.

------
jdminhbg
Yes, I'm quite sure having a year and half of your life subsidized by people
who made different child-bearing choices than you is nice.

~~~
nagrom
Your tone is negative. You seem to believe that making parental leave a
positive economic choice is a bad thing for those with no children.

Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have
(pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? Do they benefit from
those children having the parents at home a lot when they are very young -
does it lead to better-adjusted adults in the long run? What are the
alternatives - subsidised child care so that the parents can work? No
subsidised child care so that parents are exhausted and do a bad job when they
are at work? Does it pay off in ancillary benefits even for those who choose
to have no children?

If _everyone_ benefits, then why is it a bad thing? In order to persuade
people that subsidising parental care is a bad thing, it's probably better to
show your working. It's not clear to many people that it is a bad thing, even
people like me who are single males who end up paying for it.

~~~
anamax
> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have
> (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)?

I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count.

Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you
can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than
18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.

~~~
nagrom
You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've
ignored the other benefits too.

You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of
children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I
wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave
relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this
scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board
and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people.

You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that
mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a
selfish thing.

~~~
anamax
> You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality
> of children?

Probably.

> would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so

You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to
subsidize. How about some evidence?

> Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to
> well-paid people?

I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to
the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
They're also less able to take any income hit.

As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how
almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.

> You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis

Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care
and it doesn't contain that "thesis".

It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details
right.

~~~
nagrom
> Probably.

You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you
not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of
parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in
adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on
average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of
life of a child then you have to show some evidence.

> You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to
> subsidize. How about some evidence?

I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave
because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a
practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and
many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing
articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these
indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce?

>Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford
to be seen as less reliable.

Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes
their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are
seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the
workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that
kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily.

> As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's
> how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.

Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your
aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less
free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to
fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of
scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first
comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".

You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your
thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a
poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your
aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent
point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your
viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a
cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and
evidence?

Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it,
therefore it must be bad thing.

~~~
anamax
> You wanted me to to provide details?

Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're
arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.

However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for
less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....

> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford
> to be seen as less reliable.

> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes
> their leave will be seen as unreliable?

My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is
ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count
on as much as folks who don't.

Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When
you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who
was on leave then.

> Again, a distinct lack of details

Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who
makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who
makes less money without being given "details".

> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article

Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going
with "any criticism implies ...."?

> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it,
> therefore it must be bad thing.

I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.

As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our
money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other
people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other
people.

For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned
with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit
and less with cost. With (4) ....

------
jbarham
When daddy eventually goes back to work he probably won't feel so blissful
about paying Swedish taxes: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden>

~~~
whyleyc
I guess you get what you pay for - higher taxes, great welfare state. Seems a
fair trade to me.

~~~
anamax
> I guess you get what you pay for - higher taxes, great welfare state. Seems
> a fair trade to me.

Actually, the taxes paid per person isn't significantly higher in sweden than
the US. The US just delivers fewer services, and no, the military isn't the
reason. At the same time, US income is higher.

Sweden can do certain things because it's dominated by Swedes. It does about
as well as US states with comparable demographics. Other US states aren't as
lucky.

~~~
rada
Having just moved from New York to Minneapolis, I second your 2nd point.

