

Parental benefits and paternity leave in Norway - gorm
http://www.norway.org.uk/aboutnorway/society/welfare/benefits/

======
m_eiman
For reference, in Sweden:

* Father gets 10 days of "just had a baby" paid leave, at ~80% of normal pay

* 480 days of paid leave. Of these,390 are at ~80% pay, and 90 are at a fixed (low) compensation.

* Of the 480 days, 60 are reserved for each parent, non-transferable.

* Each parent is allowed by law to work 75% of full time until child turns 7, employer cannot refuse.

* If you adopt, you have basically the same benefits as after a birth.

In all cases "paid" means paid by the government, i.e. taxes.

The ~80% has a maximum, so you get at most ~80% of ~35000 SEK per month.

~~~
dagw
Another difference in Sweden is that you don't have to take you leave in
blocks and you don't have to take whole days. For example my wife and I split
our leave so that I worked 3 days a week and she 2 days. Also I know several
people (and have done so myself) that take 2 hours of parental leave a day so
they can work a 6 hour day and pick up their kids from day care earlier.

------
draugadrotten
Sweden is up there with the other Scandinavian countries as well.

Sweden will even give the parental leave _RETROACTIVELY_ to immigrants that
are moving to Sweden after the child is born but is not yet 7 years old. So if
you move to Sweden with 3-4 kids, the mother (or father) can stay at home
several years - with pay. An immigrant to Sweden with 3 children will receive
20.000 SEK per month [~3000 USD] for staying at home, taking care of her kids.
[Source: [http://fmalm.blogspot.se/2012/09/vandringshistoria-pa-
natet-...](http://fmalm.blogspot.se/2012/09/vandringshistoria-pa-natet-och-
fakta-i.html)]

Now do you see why Sweden has the world's highest taxes?

~~~
jharsman
Sweden does have very high taxes, but they are not the highest in the world.
Belgium and Denmark have higher rates (measured as percentage of GDP).

See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP)

------
thomasfl
I live in Oslo, Norway. I became a father for the fourth time just two weeks
ago, and I am really looking forward to spend at least 3 months at home with
my new born son. But when my two kids from a previous marriage was born in the
mid 1994 and 1996, I did not have any paternity leave at all. I could have
stayed home with my small kids, but I didn't. Things have changed. My then
wife wanted to stay home with the kids longer. The number of weeks designated
for the father has increased since then. Also the culture has changed. Now
it's a lot more common to see fathers with strollers.

Besides all kids are guaranteed a place in child daycare from the age of 1.
The number of active women working in norway is just as important for the
economy as the huge oil reserves.

~~~
varjag
Guaranteed in the sense you are entitled to childcare. Depending on where you
live, a queue could be easily over a year though.

------
limmeau
Similar in Germany, although it was introduced only recently. We got 14 months
in total, which we split 12 months + 2months. It's also possible to stretch
the parental leave into a longer time of subsidized part-time. One of my
bosses is doing that right now.

However, the system is designed for salaried employees. If you're self-
employed, your parental leave benefits are based on whatever bills your
customers chose to pay in the 12 months before birth (but hearsay).

~~~
iSnow
The interesting thing is that introducing this 14 month of total parental
leave (at 67% of your net salary or net income for self-employed parents) in
2008 failed to improve Germany's abysmal fertility rate
([http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Total_fertility_rate,_1960-2011_%28live_births_per_woman%29.png&filetimestamp=20130129121040)).
We are still stuck at ~1.38 children/woman.

So while Norway is doing something right, it's not just parental leave.
Furthermore, they seem to be far from having a sustainable fertility rate at
1.88 children/woman.

Ireland and Iceland are doing better. France too, but most likely this is due
to a heavy influx of young Muslims from North Africa.

------
netcan
labour conditions are a tricky sort of a topic and I think the lens of liberal
economics vs socialist-labour economics hides some important perspectives.

Our politicians have a serious roles as leaders. It's intertwined but (IMO)
still distinct from their role as legislators

Most leaders in history and outside of the "western" liberal democracy
tradition place a huge emphasis on cultural leadership. The
King/shah/cesar/great leader represents the ideal citizen. They don't just
make laws, they make values. In Europe, you can still see this concept in the
vestigial monarchies. In The States, it's present in the idea of a first
family (sounds similar to "first citizen," the title of Roman Emperors.

To those of us that grow up in modern democracies, it seems hockey, cultish
and dangerous to think of political leaders as paternal figures. We make a
point of being critical of our leaders and react to attempts at deification as
paths to tyranny - a way of maintaining power. That's probably a good attitude
and keeps us safe from tyrants to an extent, but the role of political leader
as cultural leader is so embedded in human political structures everywhere
that I think it must have some fundamental role that's hard to do without.

Anyway, labour laws do seem to be capable of creating moral/social norms more
effectively than say drug laws or tax laws. Our attitudes to discrimination,
sexual harassment (or sexualization generally), bullying and other things are
distinctly different in a work environment. These cultural elements evolved
fast and I'm pretty sure legislation/ors have played a big role.

An employer paying under minimum wage, denying a woman maternity leave or only
hiring attractive young women is not just breaking the law, he's an arsehole.
He's abusing his role as employer.

Manufacturing, codifying and maintaining cultural norms in parliaments seems
to work exceptionally well in the labour laws space.

------
shared4you
Finland also offers 11 weeks of leave for fathers. I guess most Nordic
countries are liberal in giving leaves compared to other countries in the
world.

\--

<http://www.kela.fi/web/en/paternal-leave>

~~~
seszett
Same in France (plus three days of leave at childbirth) -
[http://www.ameli.fr/employeurs/vos-demarches/conges/le-
conge...](http://www.ameli.fr/employeurs/vos-demarches/conges/le-conge-
paternite/duree-du-conge-paternite.php)

I believe it's mostly just Anglo-Saxon countries, or even just North American
countries, that are reluctant to give leaves.

EDIT- wait wait, it's only 11 DAYS. Not even comparable. But I think there's
another type of longer leave with maybe other conditions, or something, congé
parental.

~~~
petercooper
The UK (as Anglo as it gets ;-)) is 2 weeks: <https://www.gov.uk/paternity-
pay-leave/overview> .. but up to 26 weeks if the mother goes back to work.

~~~
cdavid
With the small detail that you earn <= 136.78 pounds per week during this
leave: <https://www.gov.uk/paternity-pay-leave/pay>.

For women, it is the same after 6 weeks I believe. Paternity/Maternity leaves
in UK are truely horrible compared to most continental countries.

~~~
petercooper
True, but even as a British working parent, I think I'd vote to stick with it
though. It's expensive to offer those benefits and Norway and France, say, are
rocking 43.6% and 44.6% of GDP as tax revenues respectively versus our 39% and
we already feel hard done by as it is ;-) (Now if we could cull the military
to pay for more social benefits, fine, but that'll never happen..)

------
natte
In Estonia the leave is 100% salary for 1.5 years (78 weeks) for one parent
(either the mother or father). However there is a cap on the maximum salary
the government will pay, so if the parent is earning a lot they will be taking
a pay cut.

I actually think it's quite a good system, to encourage parents to have
children.

------
Kiro
It's funny how something as ancient as 8 weeks of paternity leave is
considered revolutionary. Are people that unaware?

~~~
gorm
It's another side of it, but actually most Norwegians think their system is
unique (at least to Nordic countries), and are not aware of the similar system
in countries like Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium and so on.

[http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/parent-
leave...](http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/parent-leave-
details1.pdf)

~~~
masklinn
France definitely isn't that good, the PDF you link notes 11 days + 3 days
"family leave", no shared parental leave (whereas Belgium has 15 weeks
maternity, 2 weeks paternity and 3 months parental leave for each parent)

~~~
jvanloov
With regards to Belgium: it's 4 months parental leave now (it changed last
year, apparently to comply to a European directive).

However, only the first three months you get paid (by social security, not
your employer). It is the same amount as unemployment benefits I think, so not
your full salary. In my case it was more like 1/3 to 1/2 of my regular salary.
The 4th month you get nothing. So whether you can actually benefit from this,
depends also on your savings and whether you want to spend them this way.

On the other hand, you can make use of your parental leave until your kids are
12 years old, so you can save it up for when your kid goes to school, or to
take them on a trip around world when they are old enough to actually remember
it :-)

------
dejv
In Czech Republic the mother have 28 weeks of paid leave (starting usually 6
weeks before the child is born. After this time one parent (no matter of
gender) can take parental leave, which can't be refused by employer and he
have to give your job back after the leave ends, until the youngest kid have
less than three years. This additional parental leave is paid by government.

------
rdl
I'm ok with one or more of: 1a) Minimal required parental benefits, people
make their own plans and decisions 1b) Companies competing based on offering
the right mix of parental benefits 2) Government provided subsidies for
childbearing or whatever to compensate for the costs (paid out of taxes)

The one thing I find unacceptable is 3) government mandates that employers
provide generous childcare/maternity/paternity benefits, paid by the company
(either cash costs, or costs like not being able to replace the worker or
job).

The problem with generous mandatory benefits paid by the employer is that some
employers, which attract a lot of childwanting workers, will be relatively
penalized, and some employers will be incented to discriminate in hiring. Then
you have to add all kinds of anti-discrimination laws too, which causes
deadweight losses.

California is borderline 3. The US as a whole is 1a/1b. Some of the states of
Europe are 2, some are 3, and I think some are 1a/1b.

Incentives matter.

~~~
digitalengineer
Exactly. This is basically just that: "employers forced to discriminate in
hiring:" I wouldn't hire a woman.

The reason is very simple: women give birth to children. I don't have the
right to ask if she still wanted to. If I had the right, and she would answer,
she could deceive me deliberately or she could change her mind.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with women giving birth to
children. That's how I was born and that's how my child was born. I wouldn't
hire a woman because when she gets pregnant, she goes for a 3 years maternity
leave, during which I can't fire her. If she wants two children, the vacation
is 6 years long.

[http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/this-is-why-i-
dont-g...](http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/this-is-why-i-dont-give-
you-a-job)

Edit: Just to clarify, this is not _my_ opinion, just a link to a blogpost
about why said author shows why (in Hungary) it is basically impossible to
hire a woman (or older people, or basically anyone) for that matter.

~~~
rdl
OTOH, Even in California, the costs of hiring women who might potentially have
children are far lower than the costs of either not hiring women (and missing
out on highly qualified candidates) or not hiring women (and getting a
reputation for gender discrimination which either exposes you to legal
liability or causes both men and women to not work with you).

Co-founders are IMO somewhat different; if a vesting agreement is set up
properly, it probably will not vest during an extended leave -- even for
protected reasons like maternity or military service. It's probably not worth
having someone as a cofounder who would seriously game that, anyway. (and
there are plenty of situations where issues other than pregnancy would cause
an extended absence; illness, disability, ...) I am not a lawyer, of course.

For a regular employee in tech, I'd still not care, since the market for top
talent is so tight. Where it might be an issue is in a job market oversupplied
with talent, and where the job has substantial on the job training or search
costs or whatever, and in small firms. A lot of these conditions don't apply
to companies under 5 or 50 employees, too.

------
meerita
Statutory maternity leave in Spain is currently 16 weeks’ paid leave from
work, of which six weeks must be taken after the birth. To qualify for this,
the woman must have been registered with the social security office and made
contributions for at least 180 days during the five years before the birth of
the child. The mother also has the right to take one year unpaid leave after
the maternity leave.

Fathers are entitled to 15 days’ paternity leave (depending on their job). In
2015 this will increase to 30 days. If there are complications for either the
baby or the mother, the father is entitled to a longer period of leave.

------
pinaceae
core reason for this is the aging population of course. most of western europe
is shrinking, so measures like this are meant to get people to procreate.

not needed in the US as it has population growth through a still massive
influx immigrants. also a lot of poorer people who traditionnally create more
children.

wealthy, educated, non-religious populations tend to stop having kids.
scandinavia being a prime example. if there is no need, kids are a pure hassle
if you don't _really_ want them. turns out a lot of people don't.

------
return0
So how does this work for entrepreneurs? Do they also get a free allowance for
their first year?

~~~
alan_cx
No, of course not.

When you chose to be an entrepreneur, you chose a different life style and set
of rules. You do so because you see a benefit to you, over and above, or
different, from an employed person.

Think it though, do you really want perfect equality between entrepreneurs and
employees? For example, the entrepreneur is entitled to the profits from the
venture. Should employees be entitled to the same? The entrepreneur can decide
not to go in to work when (s)he feels like it. Should employees have that
right? The entrepreneur gets to decide his or her salary. Should employees get
that right too?

Still envious of the employed?

Edited: Well, just read the other reply, and wow. Impressive. But I stand by
the above in a general sense.

~~~
return0
It's not about envy, there are many indie small scale entrepreneurs, hopefully
their social insurance can cover such costs.

------
saraid216
...it feels like this was submitted in response to something. Could someone
link that, if it exists?

~~~
notimetorelax
Sure, here are the discussions:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5633954>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5642705>

------
Tichy
Norway has lots of oil. Therefore I don't think "see, it works in Norway" is a
good argument. That said, if you can finance it, why not?

~~~
varjag
Sweden has no oil, but has a similar arrangement. Russia has plenty of oil,
but fathers get no jack there, and maternity leaves are employer-funded.
Strange how that works!

~~~
Tichy
Sweden probably isn't poor either. Why not have 3 years pasternity leave for
both parents at 100% wage compensation? Obviously how rich a country is plays
a part in this?

~~~
TheDag
> Obviously how rich a country is plays a part in this?

Of course it does. But not necessarily only in the direction you're hinting!
At the end of the day it's not the number of hours worked, but the value
created, that determines how wealthy a country gets. Having sufficient
vacation and generally taking into account that employees are human beings
might have an effect on how happy and productive they are.

I don't know if there are studies lending support to this, but to my mind it
seems a pretty plausible thesis. I regard spending some of my tax money on my
neighbour staying home with his kids as an investment. Social security is
fundamental to human health, crime, education, and ultimately productivity.

To me, that is not all though. GDP growth isn't a goal or an end in itself -
it is merely a (very important) means to worthy ends. It would be completely
meaningless to have GPD growth if it did nothing to promote "the pursuit of
happiness".

