
Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums - SJSque
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51384614
======
petercooper
I'm a dad (of three) and I am not convinced that time spent _at the very
start_ of their lives is _as_ significant as that later in their lives (note
the "as", I am not saying it has no value!) when you can really nurture their
passions, knowledge, etc.

I did spend a lot of time with my children in their earliest days because it
was the right thing to do, but I don't feel either they or I _particularly_
gained from it (than if I'd spent a bit less, say). Do I feel the time I spend
with them now they're _older_ pays serious dividend for their futures?
Absolutely.

I own a company and can spend an above average amount of time with my
children.. but are companies or the government going to support the majority
of parents spending prolonged periods of times with older children? Sadly I
can't see it happening, but I think that's a more important task than having
two parents on tap for a newborn. All purely IMHO, of course.

~~~
sudders
I think you miss the biggest point. This will have a significant impact on the
wages of women. As suddenly women are not longer at a disadvantage when
companies need to decide who to hire for a certain position.

~~~
legostormtroopr
I don't understand this argument.

A man and a woman can decide that whats best for them is that he not take
leave, but for the benefit other people he should take parental leave.

Even if he enjoys working, even if the mother has decided she wants to stay
home, even if they need opportunity that work brings (such as the opportunity
to get promotions). Even if there are a hundred reasons for a man to not want
to take leave, even if taking leave is worse for him, his partner and child,
he must take leave so that other people who he may never meet have an
advantage.

Yes, encouraging a few weeks off work is good for the family, but forcing
someone to take 7 months off of work is massively disruptive. Not even to
speak of the disruption on small businesses, that may not be able to
accommodate a person leaving for that period of time. If you run a business of
10 people, a single person is 10% of your workforce, and just due to the size
you may not have staff to cover the missing expertise.

Forced long-term paternity leave is a system, that explicitly harms the
outcomes of one group (working fathers) to provide benefits to others (working
mothers, and non-working people in general).

~~~
jschwartzi
Frankly I would rather you be forced to take the 2 months off so that I can
safely take it without people like you sneering at me the entire time.

~~~
legostormtroopr
Who is sneering? You can take 2 months off, you can take 2 years off. Take
time off for children, sickness, holidays. Its none of my business.

What I am against is the government enforcing someone who must take time off
from work, that may not be in their best interests.

I support your right to chose to take time off, and I support your right to
not take time off too. I don't support the government telling you, you must
take 7 months off at the cost of your career, because you taking time off
helps others.

------
gylterud
When we had our first child (in Sweden), we could divide the time (13 months
total) freely between the two of us. Then we got some extra money if each of
us took more than 30% of that time. I think they stopped with the money bonus,
but it was really great for us.

We are now having our second child (now in Norway), and while the father quota
is great, they now require the mother to be "in activity" (i.e. working) if
the father is to have anything more than his quota. This feels like an
unnecessary restriction, which we didn't have in Sweden.

~~~
radicalbyte
This should be the norm in all of the developed world! As a freelancer I took
a self-funded three-month break (it just finished) when our third child was
born and it has been amazing. I wish that I'd been in a position to do the
same for my other two children too.

Firstly, we're trying hard to close the gender pay gap. Giving fathers the
same amount of free time as the mothers goes a long way here.

Secondly, it's fantastic for the father-baby bond and it makes both life and
work as a young parent so much easier.

Thirdly, the cost is not large. Businesses are already absorbing the lost
productivity caused by the fathers being exhausted. This formalizes it.

~~~
Lev1a
> Thirdly, the cost is not large. Businesses are already absorbing the lost
> productivity caused by the fathers being exhausted. This formalizes it.

In our project management course we learned a rule of thumb that for new
parents you have ~25-30% less FTE available during the first year of the
child's life (due to care for sick children, getting sick themselves, being
exhausted from lack of sleep etc.)

~~~
sneak
This seems like a sound argument for avoiding hiring people who might become
parents soon. 30% less output for the same amount of pay seems like a bad deal
for an employer.

~~~
raydev
The employer will be fine with 30% reduced output.

------
aetimmes
I'm a US male who's 1 month into my 6 months fully-paid paternity leave with
our first child.

My wife has roughly 4.5 months between banked PTO and FMLA/disability leave.

I'm sitting at home right now watching/changing/feeding our baby while my wife
is out at doctor's appointments taking care of her health. Having the
flexibility to practice a modicum of self-care without neglecting the health
and happiness of our child has been such a huge boon to our family.

If anyone has any questions about the experience, feel free to ask.

~~~
0xcafecafe
What happens to your responsibilities at work while you are out? And are you
totally cut off from work while you are out or are you occasionally responding
to mails? Also are you more of an individual contributor or have a leadership
role?

~~~
aetimmes
I was/am an IC on a medium-sized team. I had a project I was the primary
contributor for within that team that I've handed off to my teammates to
continue (after writing up documentation and doing some knowledge transfer).

I occasionally log in to read my email to keep up-to-date with happenings
among the team, but I haven't needed to respond to anything since I went out.

Our team made an effort in the last year to reduce some of the silo-ization of
knowledge and increase our 'lottery factor', and I think those efforts have
helped make sure that the team was prepared for one of us going out on leave.
At the very least, nobody has called me up saying "hey, your systems are on
fire!", so that's been nice.

~~~
scruple
First time I'd seen it called the "lottery factor." I like that much more than
the "hit by a bus factor."

------
weinzierl
In Germany it is the _parents_ who get the leave and they can freely decide
who takes the 12 months of it. Even better yet: If they decide to split they
get an extra of two months, so 14 in total.

~~~
kaybe
And it usually ends with the mother taking 12 and the dad taking 2, and these
2 being spent on a longer vacation somewhere.

There are many reasons, it seems to me that external circumstances are shaping
a lot of them.

~~~
rtkwe
Yeah that's a pattern you see in most places with any kind of shared pool. The
father takes a small, frequently the legal minimum time, and the mother takes
the rest. Ultimately it kind of makes the most sense because it is the woman
that's gone through the most work of giving birth and is a natural food source
for the kid but it does perpetuate the issue of women's careers being set back
by having a kid.

~~~
lopmotr
When they have that much freedom, can you really call it "perpetuating the
issue" instead of "doing what they want"? It's not an issue for the women who
prefer to do it, or they wouldn't be doing it.

~~~
rtkwe
It's not entirely a choice it's socially usually seen as weird for the guy to
take more than the minimum or some small portion above that in many of these
places. And even if it is a completely free choice (when do those ever exist?)
the impact to women's careers extend beyond the setback from leaving the
workforce for several months because they're still expected to do more of the
labor of child rearing.

edit: To expand ultimately societies and governments need women to have kids,
as of now they're the only ones who can after all so I think eliminating as
many downsides as possible to that is something that should be done.

------
jredwards
In the tech worker's paradise that is California, I'm preparing for my
generous two weeks of paternity leave. My co-worker, having not been employed
at the company for a year yet, is preparing to burn all four days of his
vacation time because he's not entitled to paternity leave yet.

This is broken.

~~~
systemtest
As a tech worker in California, your income is triple to that of a Finnish
tech worker. You can easily take unpaid time off for your paternity leave,
perhaps even quit your job for a year, and still get out ahead.

~~~
ve7cxz
...and his living costs are probably way higher too, so it's not a fair
comparison.

~~~
yellowarchangel
I think it's fair to say even if we adjusted for lower US taxes, higher
livings costs, that the Californian worker would be far better ahead still.

There is a reason the entire Silicon Valley doesn't pack up and move to
Finland. The money is in California right now.

------
santialbo
Spain is progressively doing this. Starting 2021, men and women will have the
paid same parental leave of 16 + 2 weeks (non-transferable).

The main reason is fight against the discrimination from employers who think
hiring women is inconvenient because they can go on parental leave for very
long.

~~~
wrdalex
I believe men have 4 months of parental leave in Spain already, starting 2020.

~~~
santialbo
It was 8 weeks on 2019, 12 on 2020 and 16 on 2021. Plus now men can also
request "Lactancia" which adds an extra couple weeks.

------
socialdemocrat
Good job Finland! Fellow Nordic here (Norwegian) and a dad. The father quota
here in Norway made a huge social change. It really helped make it socially
acceptable for dads to spend more time with their children.

I noticed for my two sons how much of a difference it makes being around your
kids when they are young. You cannot cannot substitute short time with
"quality time." The amount of time you are there matters a lot to small kids.

I think it is healthy for children to have both a mother and father who is
actively present in their lives. You need a gender equality oriented society
for that. If women are offered poor pay and opportunities it encourages women
to stay home the whole time while men do all the work. That is bad for both
parties. Men see little of their kids and kids don't get the experience with
dad that they benefit from.

Meanwhile the mother may get a lot more time with the kids but she also
suffers from having no career or independence. The relationship also suffers
as one does not have a work life experience and child caring experience to
share and talk about.

~~~
jimmaswell
> I think it is healthy for children to have both a mother and father who is
> actively present in their lives.

Not sure how literally this was meant (and a lot of the rest of the thread
assuming a mother/father) but studies show kids do just as well with two
parents of any gender.

~~~
blub
Please cite the studies. It seems at least impossible that babies of a male-
male couple could do as well as those where the baby is raised by its
biological mother even only because of the advantages of breastfeeding.

~~~
satyrnein
Please cite the studies on breastfeeding. Most show very little long term
benefit (meaning, excluding upset stomachs in the first year of life and
similar).

Example article:

[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-
brea...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-breast-
really-best-i-looked-at-all-the-data-to-find-out)

~~~
blub
Such newspaper articles are of limited use because they don't cite the studies
they refer to. No one's gonna buy the author's book to verify her statements.

You also have to consider that women are sometimes bullied into breastfeeding
even when it's very hard for them and that is the author's main message.
Otherwise she still thinks that "breast is best": "Breastfeeding seems to
improve digestion in the first year, lowers rashes for infants and is
especially important for preterm babies. It also seems likely that it has some
impact on reducing ear infections in young children and lowers the risk of
breast cancer for the mother."

"Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong
effect" \-
[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(15\)01024-7/fulltext)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
None of the above appear to confirm that breastfeeding creates a long term
benefit?

------
chriselles
New Zealand is currently at 22, but moving to 26 weeks paid parental leave for
babies born from July 1, 2020.

The paid parental leave is up to the parents to decide the split between them.

I think it is a great idea for fathers to be encouraged more to take a share
of the paid parental leave.

This could go some small way in helping remedy income disparity between
genders.

I was deployed and/or travelling a lot when our boys were young.

Another poster questioned the value of time with infants as opposed to when
they are older.

I do think bonding with infants and toddlers is super important for both
parent and child.

But it can also feel like a robotic and laborious grind.

As my boys enter high school, I most enjoy our ritualised time together during
daily school drop offs and pick ups.

Engaging with them, guiding them on their own journey, and observing how far
they have come.

I have few regrets, but one of them is not spending more time wth my kids when
they were younger, which probably feeds the extra effort in recent years to
spend more time with them as they grow into young men.

You can’t get time back. Make the most of every minute.

------
dragonwriter
The US, federally, already gives dads he same parental leave as moms.

(It's crap, but it's the same crap.)

~~~
ipnon
Do you mean employees of the federal government? How long is the leave? Is it
paid?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you mean employees of the federal government?

No, I mean most workers, under FMLA.

> How long is the leave?

12 weeks.

> Is it paid?

No.

------
danilocesar
Another step towards equality pay (so the risk of moms and dads leaving on
parental is the same). This is not obvious, but after you think about it it
makes a lot of sense.

Congrats Finland.

------
jve
> Neighbouring Sweden has Europe's most generous system of parental leave with
> 240 days each after a baby's birth

That's working days or what? In Latvia (Estonia neighbour) you may get 12
months (60% of money calculated from amount BEFORE taxes) or 18 months
(43,75%). And dad can leave, too.

[https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/38051-on-maternity-and-
sicknes...](https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/38051-on-maternity-and-sickness-
insurance) Section 10.6. Amount of Parental Benefit

~~~
sandos
Also Sweden gives ~80% of normal income. If you mean 60% of [income before
tax] without taxes, thats pretty good.

~~~
jve
> If you mean 60% of [income before tax] without taxes

Yes. And +171 Eur no matter what.

------
sputknick
I'm glad this exists. When I had my kids I worked white collar jobs for large
wealthy corporations, and I got exactly zero days each time. This attitude
change is a step in the right direction. The problem is the people who in my
opinion who need this the most (the working classes) are the ones least likely
to get it (at least here in America).

~~~
bnjms
That’s why these things should be national as far as we can support them.
Healthcare being a perk of employment was a mistake from taxing only profit.

------
dadarepublic
This is great news!

With the current direction of US politics, as a US citizen, I find myself
increasingly entertaining the thought of becoming an ex-pat.

Top countries I've thought about have been the Nordic countries - Finland,
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Greenland, Iceland and have considered the
Netherlands as well.

They seem to have reasonable blended economies with social policies that make
(more) sense.

No country/systems is perfect and I'm always willing to try something new for
a time.

~~~
ipnon
I am in the same boat (pun intended). Just the cost of delivery without
complications (>$10,000 on average in the US [0]) makes the prospect of having
a child in a country with socialized healthcare economically sensible. Think
of how much that $10,000 could be worth if invested in the stock market
instead of in a healthcare plan's yearly revenue.

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-
hav...](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-have-a-
baby-2018-4)

~~~
SJSque
Submitter here. I'm a British chap living in the Netherlands. You might want
to read my comment [1] about what happens after you have a baby over here; it
triggered quite a lot of discussion...

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20884787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20884787)

------
sudoaza
Germany has this and is awesome. 14 months paid leave to distribute among the
two parents.

~~~
wincy
I’m curious what what happen if someone wanted to have ten kids and abused
this system, and the mother didn’t work.

At a gut I feel like I’d be less likely to have kids, not more, if I felt like
I was burdening other people by accepting benefits like this. I have no
worries as an American having as many kids as I want because I make a good
salary, can afford them, and won’t take more than a weeks, maybe two weeks
time off, as my wife, despite being just as qualified for software engineering
as me, wants to stay at home and raise children. Heck, I won’t even be
“overburdening” the school system as my wife is home schooling them, despite
living in a “good” school district.

Being charitable I’d hazard the point of this is to encourage population
growth, but I suspect it’s playing out more like “have two kids and that’s as
many as you should have”, and any more would introduce strong social pressure
to stop.

Maybe it’ll work out that lots more Finns will be born, I’m curious to see how
it goes in twenty years.

~~~
dudul
The goal is probably more to reach equal pay/opportunity as opposed to any
population growth agenda.

When I was in the EU, I knew a woman who had 4 kids, each ~1/1.5 year appart.
So she would have a kid, be out 6 month, go back to work for 6 month, have
another kid, rinse and repeat 4 times :) .

It was a total nightmare for her employer because they couldn't let her go,
and they couldn't hire anyone permanently to do her job. They could only use
short term contractors who would stay 6 months (barely enough time to get up
to speed) and then leave. I don't know if she was "abusing" the system, I
mean, it was her right by law to do that, but after popping the 4th one she
left work to be a stay at home mom. I don't know how well her employer took it
:)

~~~
blub
A smart employer would have hired someone full time to have slack. Especially
after the 2nd kid.

~~~
zozbot234
Makes sense. Having kids is one thing, but what if she got hit by a bus. You
should never be _that_ dependent on any one person. And there are many lines
of work where having the employee take some time off helps with making sure
that they're doing their work properly and not hiding something. You just have
to plan for it.

------
sgt
Seems a bit bizarre seeing that mothers in most cases will need to spend more
time with their babies. After all, there are certain things like breastfeeding
that only a mother can do.

~~~
wutwutwutwut
Hmm, a quick search tells me that roughly half of all babies are breastfed
after 6 months in the US. Seems acceptable to cater for potential needs of
half the population (assuming numbers are the same obviously).

I was home with my kid when he turned 1 until he was 1.5 using this system in
Sweden. Being a guy, I didn't breastfeed him. Kid still appear functional.

~~~
oblio
> Kid still appears functional.

It's ok, you have more than enough time to traumatize his childhood and early
adulthood :-p

~~~
wutwutwutwut
Clearly. I tried to explain binary to him this morning. It will go downhill
from here.

------
Waterluvian
Wow impressive. In Canada as a Dad I can get, I think, 6 months of paid leave.
Although the pay is covered by Employment Insurance and it only covers so much
(like 55% of your salary up to $600/wk)

I ended up just taking four weeks vacation for my first kid and it made all
the difference. I strongly believe that giving flexible and generous vacation
time to all parents/guardians will have a positive impact on society. The
challenge is that these impacts are hard to measure with a spreadsheet.

~~~
jkaplowitz
Quebec goes beyond the Canadian norm in this area, though still nowhere near
some European countries: [https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/maternity-
paternity-a...](https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/maternity-paternity-
and-parental-leave) (EI premiums are lower here, because a separate QPIP
payroll deduction funds the more generous paid leave benefits described at
this link in lieu of the corresponding federal ones.)

We also have $8.25/child/day government-subsidized daycare.

------
duxup
I worked for a company based in the valley a while back.

They announced their paid parental leave policy one year to much fanfare.

That was handy as we were having my second child.

I filled out the paperwork for the parental leave and .... they told me I
didn't qualify because I didn't live in California... so unpaid leave for me
it was.

Government policy is the only way to go with this stuff. Otherwise it will be
a benefit only available to a few.

------
627467
I'm among the ones who think that the most efficient way to lower gender pay
gap is to promote longer leaves (parental or not) among men. 'favouring' one
gender with 'benefits' for things like caring for family is only reinforcing
established roles.

------
JackFr
Where does the money come from? I'm an American and so I'm less familiar with
other countries policies. I get that mandating a very generous family leave
policy is wonderful for parents and good for society. To me it seems it's
gotta be tough for small business owners though. A business of lets say 8
employees simply cannot afford a paid six month leave without it impacting its
performance. How is that handled in those countries?

That being said, I'm inclined to proposals here which fund it through Social
Security or a Social Security like system, which would level the playing field
between small and large businesses.

~~~
zackmorris
Without knowing anything about it, I'm inclined to think that it's a
combination of Finland's offshore oil drilling income of at least $5.23
billion and their tax rate of 51.6%:

[https://oec.world/en/profile/country/fin/](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/fin/)

[https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-
rat...](https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rate)

The US has a lower top income tax rate of 37%:

[https://www.debt.org/tax/brackets/](https://www.debt.org/tax/brackets/)

Other more democratic socialism leaning countries redistribute income tax from
the wealthy to fund the needs of the general population, but the US just gives
that money to people who are already rich. Supposedly this raises all incomes,
but incomes have not risen appreciably since the mid 1970s:

[https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/producti...](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/productivity-
vs-real-earnings-in-the-us-what-happened-ca-1974)

~~~
Ndymium
> Finland's offshore oil drilling income of at least $5.23 billion

Huh? We don't have any sources of oil. We do have oil refineries but not any
wells or drilling. You may be thinking of Norway.

~~~
zackmorris
Ah thank you, sorry I thought that all Nordic countries had oil drilling. I
stand by my statements on tax policy though.

------
systemtest
The discussion surrounding parental leave is one of the reasons I like
contracting. I get paid hourly and get to set my own working conditions and
benefits. If I ever get a baby, I can take as much leave as I want to make
sure my wife and baby are taken care of. I don't have to lobby the government
or beg my employer in order to get time off.

And to answer the question that is going to be asked: "But then you don't get
paid?". Correct, but when I _do_ work my pay is around double to triple, so I
can take a whole lot of parental leave before it becomes financially
irresponsible.

~~~
standardUser
You're projecting your personal situation on to hundreds of millions of people
with dramatically different situations. Government policies should be designed
to work as well as possible for as many people as possible, not for the
minority who stand out because of their high incomes or high demand skills.

------
hwillis
Excellent- maternity leave isn't just about physically recovering, it's about
the child and parent as well. It only makes sense that both parents should get
the same time with their kid.

------
tartoran
Great job Finland! This is very important for strengthening the family.

As a dad, if I were to choose, I'd rather spend a larger chunk of time with my
kid from 2 and up. That is a very good period of time when the kid forms
important habits and through games lots of things can be taught. This is
actually a goal of mine, I want to save enough and take a few years off from
work (or maybe find a part-time gig) and spend some good quality time with my
kid.

------
jupp0r
That’s really cool. It sets strong incentives for men to spend those 6 months
with their children, but still leaves the the freedom to not take the leave
(and basically forfeit 6 months of free “vacation”).

I’m incredibly grateful for the combined 4 months I got to spend full time
with my two children and can only recommend taking the time if you can.

------
nickbauman
I don't know what it's like in the Nordic countries but here in the US I walk
down the street with a 4 year old on my shoulders to work every day to drop
her off at school. The women I pass on the street and in the halls beam at her
when she greets them and sometimes they exchange a few words. The men? They
don't notice her: she's edited out of their minds eye like she doesn't exist,
even if she cries "HULLOOO! My name is ___ what's yours?" to them except on
rare occasions.

Men who don't have the experience of caring for a child even for a short while
cannot make good decisions about what's normative of a civilization. Good
policies will not be enacted if men do not "see" children.

~~~
jawns
I'm a dad of 3, and I do acknowledge other people's children with a wave or
hello. But prior to becoming a father, I felt very nervous about doing so,
because so few men do give children attention (outside of family members) that
I worried that parents would wonder if I had bad intentions.

But hey, fellow men, guess how we break down that stigma? It's by having a lot
of normal, everyday guys acknowledge children's existence in friendly,
wholesome ways -- even if it's just a wave or a quick greeting.

If a greater percentage of men would do this, then there would be far less
nervousness about undeserved, incorrect assumptions.

------
mto
Well, in Austria you can get up to three years paid leave and freely choose
between parents, so not sure if the article is correct. Question is how much
the payment is, we get less the longer we take it. Alternatively you can also
take a year (also with +2 months if both parents use it) and get 80% of your
previous salary.

------
nisuni
Thanks but no thanks.

When I’ll have a baby I‘ll have to breastfeed, after having carried him for
nine months, and having him exit through my private parts.

Give me my extended, non trasferrable maternal leave!

Edit: since some people are misunderstanding my point: extending the paternal
leave costs money. I would rather prefer those money being spent on more
maternal leave.

~~~
gambiting
Mothers already have a year of maternal leave, this is about fathers getting
decent amount of leave as well. No one is taking anything away from you.

~~~
nisuni
The government is putting some money in it. I would prefer that money was used
to extend the mother’s leave.

~~~
gambiting
Again, no one is taking anything away from you as is. You can prefer that the
money was given to mothers instead, that's fine.

~~~
nisuni
Money is limited and the government decides how to distribute it. The
difference between spending it on B and taking it away from A is, to me,
absolutely unsubstantial.

~~~
gambiting
By that logic, by giving the money to you, the government is taking it away
from starving children. It simply doesn't work this way.

~~~
nisuni
That’s quite a stretch. And it shows how limited your comprehension of the
topic is.

Clearly, the money that goes to starving children comes from a different
Department, and they are on different budgets. You just cannot move money like
that.

And I still think that rather than giving a silly paternal leave, a longer
maternal leave would be much more desirable.

------
ryanmercer
I know I'm going to be downvoted and already regret deciding to share this
but...

I've never understood parental leave. If I want to go on a vacation, I have to
plan for that and save time to use for it. If you want to have a child, you
should have to plan to save your time to take and spend with the child or be
in a financial place where one parent can quit their job to stay with the
child. It's not like you go to sleep one night and wake up to find a baby next
to you that was delivered by a stork. My fiance and I plan to try to have a
child once we're married in May but it's something we will save our time off
for during the early days of its life because we are choosing to try and have
a child.

If a company wants to offer this as a benefit, that's awesome, but I don't
understand why governments need to create law to make it a mandatory thing.
Having a child is a choice.

~~~
bluGill
Governments have an interest in how the children grow up. Now there is some
"whatever that means" encoded in the above. However it is generally noted that
children with a good relationship with both parents tend to do better in life
than those with only one parent. Thus there is an interest in ensuring that
relationship exists if possible.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I would rephrase that as "society has an interest in how the children grow up"
so that the reader is clear that it's not a third party, but themselves that
is benefited by having fellow citizens that grow up in stable families.

~~~
danans
> it's not a third party, but themselves that is benefited by having fellow
> citizens that grow up in stable families.

This is something that I think can help to build common ground between working
people, whether they are family oriented conservatives or economic
progressives in the US.

By reducing the economic stress our current system places on working families
through guaranteed benefits (parental leave, education, healthcare), we can
actually promote the well-being of families in general, which is a goal shared
by people across the political spectrum.

Everyone benefits from the reduction of crime and other social ills that often
have their origin in unstable families.

------
netcan
Who pays? Employer/Government? Can anyone chime in on the basic setup...
eligibility, amounts, etc?

------
tonyga
France: both parents can be on paternity/maternity leave up to the age of 3
for the child.

------
baby_wipe
I strongly dislike the idea of any government-mandated paternal leave. Staying
home from work is not free, and the cost of it comes out of my salary.

I personally want _some_ paternal leave even with its costs, but I'd prefer
that negotiation to stay between me and my employer. I don't want some bottom
threshold set by a third party.

~~~
kraigie
How do you feel about the US' government mandated overtime laws?

The government mandated exempt employees? Just curious.

~~~
baby_wipe
You mean like 1.5x pay? If so, I don't like that either.

Not sure what exempt employees are (my own ignorance).

------
tunnuz
Dad living in Austria. Here parents share the parental leave, and it's
amazing.

------
alexnewman
What are the negative impacts?

~~~
Ndymium
Cost. It costs a lot of money.

------
Grue3
Laughable. None of the suffering, equal benefits. Being a man is a cheat code.

------
DocEasyE
so is this implying they deserve the same time off? let's be honest the Mums
did all the heavy lifting here, i'm ok with them having more time off their
body did go through a massive change.

------
hervature
> Finland says it wants to "promote wellbeing and gender equality"

Finally, a country that understands that one of the driving forces of gender
inequality is the asymmetry of experience caused by maternal leave.

~~~
toasterlovin
> Finally, a country that understands that one of the driving forces of gender
> inequality _is the asymmetry of experience caused by maternal leave._

The asymmetry of experience is actually caused by child bearing, which can
only be done by women. Maternal leave is downstream from that.

~~~
the_af
Disagreed. Child bearing is only an initial factor; after the baby is out it
goes away. The problem is breastfeeding, but there are ways around that (and
some mothers, for a variety of reasons or impediments, don't breastfeed; in
that case it's completely moot).

So _minus_ breastfeeding, the asymmetry has a large component of "it was
always done like this", plus the mistaken idea some employers have that the
leave is some sort of "vacation".

As a new father: quality time with my baby is a huge deal and it's unfair that
society expects the mom to do all the work (and spend all that time). I think
this should be a concern for all fathers; I find my friends who don't
prioritize this and dump it on the mother are behaving in an insensitive way.
They get to work on "real stuff" and interact with other adults -- even
commuting to work can feel like a respite from caring for a newborn -- and
when they get home they don't understand why the mother is burned out and
grumpy: "but you stayed at home while I worked, why are you so tired and
upset?"

~~~
Nimitz14
A counterpoint: A friend of mine had a kid a year ago and he found it
impossible to take care of the baby when he tried being the caretaker while
the mom was away (can't breastfeed, milk in a bottle is not the same). The
experience has convinced him equal parental leave is a terrible idea.

~~~
myle
Counter counter point: I am a father. Took 5 months off. Baby was breastfed.
How? Mom was pumping milk at work, after her lunch break. We put it in the
freezer. I was waking it up and giving it with a bottle to my daughter.
Diapers/food and so on can be taken care by both genders. It is not easy.
Actually, at the end, I was looking forward to going back to work and sending
my daughter to daycare, once she was 1 year old. It is possible though, and
helped me grow up in a sense that I wouldn't have it I didn't go through it.

It also helped us as a couple because I could understand what mom was going
through in earlier months and also mom could understand that I am not useless
at home and I can take care of our daughter.

~~~
seneca
> Baby was breastfed. How? Mom was pumping milk at work, after her lunch
> break. We put it in the freezer. I was waking it up and giving it with a
> bottle to my daughter.

This isn't breastfeeding, unfortunately. Your baby was fed breast-milk, but
not breastfed. Not a value judgement, but a father feeding a baby from a
bottle isn't exactly the same thing developmentally.

~~~
brewdad
Mothers breastfeed when they can and can pump milk for the times when they
can't. Baby still gets the nutritional benefits of breast milk and bonding
time with each parent.

Your argument is the same as saying I didn't eat a nourishing home-cooked meal
because I heated up last night's leftovers for lunch today. It's still way
better than fast food.

~~~
seneca
> Your argument is the same as saying I didn't eat a nourishing home-cooked
> meal because I heated up last night's leftovers for lunch today.

Not exactly. My argument is more akin to saying that leftovers aren't the same
thing as having a home cooked meal at the dinner table with your family. There
is much more going on at a family table than simply nourishing your body.

> It's still way better than fast food.

Agreed!

------
kmlx
an interesting story from japan: they have 1 year parental leave for men and
women. but just 8% of men actually took it compared with 82% for women. the
reason is the same across the planet: they would be left behind at work.

compare this with the former communist country of Romania, today an EU
country: 126 days for women, 5 days for men. income during those times is
payed for by the state (80%).

societal discrimination against women is deep, and the law can certainly help,
but it's only part of the problem. in some places a huge overhaul of society
needs to happen. my fear is that the forces that want to keep society as-is
are usually much stronger than the ones that want change.

~~~
europe-romania
> compare this with the former communist country of Romania, today an EU
> country: 126 days for women, 5 days for men. income during those times is
> payed for by the state (80%).

Not true

~~~
kmlx
sorry, that was "maternity leave", not "raising a child leave". for "raising a
child" it's a maximum of 2 years, granted you've worked for 12 full months
before, right?

------
europe-romania
2 years in Romania. Can be either mom or dad

------
DaniFong
we did this at LightSail Energy and while it was a little awkward sometimes it
was an overall beloved policy.

------
nautilus12
USA will never do this :( Plus my kids are already born. I got two weeks and
it wasn't nearly enough.

~~~
Phillips126
When my 1st daughter was born, I got exactly 2 days off using my own vacation
days. We were a small team at a printing company and each person had a
"specialization". If I wasn't there, it was a large part of the company
effectively shut down until I returned (it was a lot of pressure and I am glad
to not be there anymore).

At a different company (much much larger) I was able to take 2 weeks (out of 3
the company provides) of vacation when my son was born and I am two months
away from my third and final child where I expect to do the same. I wish I was
able to spend more time with them (and my recovering Wife from the caesarean)
but as the primary income for our household we wouldn't be able to survive on
things like FMLA. It is very disappointing seeing how modern the rest of the
world is in terms of healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, education, etc...

------
ykevinator
Men can love their kids without becoming co-moms. You cannot will biology.

------
astannard
Finland Finland Finland, the place I want to be...

------
lotsofpulp
As an American, I find it hard to be patriotic about my country when my fellow
citizens can’t muster up the political will to ensure any paid parental leave
for most people.

Edit: changed parental leave to paid parental leave

~~~
dfxm12
Well, there is a big election coming up. You can find out who is on the
ballot, where they stand on this issue and pass the info along to the people
in your area.

If someone isn't planning on having kids, they might not think it affects
them, so be prepared to convince them otherwise, too.

~~~
leetcrew
when you say "increased parental leave", childfree people tend to hear "more
money out of my pocket". I'm not sure how you would go about convincing them
this is a good thing.

~~~
ahoy
I think you vastly overestimate the power of the r/childfree subreddit as a
voting bloc

~~~
leetcrew
why would you say that? I'm directly responding to a comment that suggests
persuading childfree people that they should care about parental leave.

------
codingmess
"to get fathers to spend time with their children"

I'm all for fathers spending time with their children, but this kind of
framing annoys me.

The feminist narrative, which governments seem to swallow, is that fathers
don't want to spend time with their children, and force mothers out of their
careers.

The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers
spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in
most cases. Not only is the compensation usually lower than the salary, many
dads also fear disadvantages in the job when they stay away for too long,
which would also result in less money for the family.

And yes, there are also reasons why it is expected primarily of fathers to
provide for the family. It is not just an arbitrary social construct.

~~~
socialdemocrat
> The feminist narrative, which governments seem to swallow, is that fathers
> don't want to spend time with their children, and force mothers out of their
> careers.

I think that is all in your head because you are so anti feminism.

Look we have been through this in Norway for years now. Reality is that many
men felt uncomfortable making that choice because there was an expectation in
society that staying home with your child was a mothers job and a silly
indulgence for men.

Once we made part of the leave reserved for men, they suddenly had a simply
argument for the boss "sorry man, we got to take it or we loose it."

It reduced the stigma for men to stay home with the child. It also changed how
bosses viewed it. You could say it was a bit of clever social engineering.

> The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers
> spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in
> most cases.

When you get full pay during leave as in most Nordic countries, that is not
the issue. The issue was the stigma attached to men being home.

~~~
codingmess
There are not many countries where you get full pay. Full pay makes it a
different matter.

And again, I am all for fathers taking time off to spend with their kids. I
just think the narrative is harmful.

Harmful to women, actually, who tend to be forced out of their motherhood
privileges by well-meaning laws.

As for "fathers feeling uncomfortable", I am not buying it. That is just in
people's head and could be remedied with a little propaganda (some TV shows
telling people it's fine to take time off as a father). Finances on the other
hand are a real world issue.

Seriously, you would forego spending time with your children because it makes
you uncomfortable that society might frown upon it? There are no real
repercussions, just a mild feeling of uneasiness?

~~~
socialdemocrat
Think whatever you want but the statistics is very clear on this. When time
got reserved just for men it significantly increased the number of dads taking
parental leave and who extended it.

For countries who have tried this it is very popular and it has been
considered a success.

Parents really like it.

It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career
repercussions to prioritize family. I know many Nordics who while living in
the US who experience that they are not taken serious by their boss if they
priority family.

You can even find plenty of Americans living in Nordics who can attest to
this. If you prioritize family you are considered as not taking your career
serious.

I mean American bosses freak out when people are away for more than 1-2 weeks.

~~~
codingmess
"It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career
repercussions to prioritize family."

Yeah, that is exactly the worry about "finances" that I mentioned. Why are you
hellbent on disagreeing with me?

I also get the notion that the repercussions may now be less for women because
when you hire men, you will now also risk losing them to parenthood. But
parental leave is just a small dent. The bigger impact is that women will tend
to work only part time or not at all once they have children.

Also, as for the alleged "frowning": doesn't it contradict your theory that
fathers actually did take parental leave when they were given time allotted
especially for them? Imo it rather confirms my theory, that the reason fathers
rarely do it is because it is a female privilege that mothers would have to
give up (or would be forced to give up by such new laws). The frowning by
society must have still been in place, but the mother privilege was not,
because she had no claim on that period of parental leave (it was only for
fathers).

------
keanzu
> noticed about Norway when we were in Oslo

A lot can be achieved when your country floats on oil. The Government Pension
Fund Global, aka the Oil Fund, was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen
in 2018.

If others had this kind of safety net they might behave in a similar manner.

Petrostates can afford a lot of leisure time for their citizens.

~~~
_jal
> Petrostates can afford a lot of leisure time for their citizens

So what's the United State's excuse?

(A lot of US citizens are somehow unaware of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production))

~~~
rileymat2
I think for this sort of discussion you need to look at per capita production
in the linked chart.

~~~
keanzu
Production only tells half the story. To figure out how much surplus you have
for social engineering you need:

    
    
      surplus = production - consumption
    

The US was a net importer of oil up until September 2019. There's almost no
surplus.

~~~
robocat
That’s equivalent of someone saying they can’t afford time off for kids
because they already spend all their money... when it turns out they just
don’t want to give up some luxuries: it’s just setting priorities.

Here’s some economic comparisons:
[https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/usa](https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/usa)

GDP per capita Finland 49,738$ US 65,462$

Average Wage Finland 52,890$ US 54,951$

Debt Per Capita Finland 29,624$ US 65,545$

Annual Vehicles / 1,000 p. Finland 23.68 US 53.85

CO2 Tons per capita Finland 8.80 US 16.14

Also Finland has a similar population to Oregon - although it would be more
fun to compare it against say Texas for purposes of oil production and the
point being made!

------
toomuchtodo
But will they force Dads to take it? As a Dad who had two kids, I would much
rather pay for childcare than take paternity leave. Would someone like me be
held back artificially to promote equality?

EDIT: Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they
start to turn into people.

~~~
socialdemocrat
It is just that the days get wasted if you don't take them. So you would be
stupid not to do it.

> Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start
> to turn into people.

That is kind of a selfish attitude. The early stage is a lot of work, but why
should you skip the work while your wife has to do it all?

I remember back in that time. I was quite happy to go back to work the first
weeks, because I found it quite exhausting with the first child. Work was
super relaxing in comparison.

I think it is only fair and square that one shares the load. I had my parental
leave when my kids were 8 months or so. I actually forget exactly the time.
But it was quit manageable by then and while a fair amount of work it was also
a rewarding experience.

> Would someone like me be held back artificially to promote equality?

What about your wife's career. Isn't she held back if she had to spend all the
time taking care of the kids? Why should she not be given similar
opportunities as you?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent.
They have no career, do not want a career, and only want to be a full time
parent (which I fully support). I use my resources to enable that, and make
their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).

~~~
zozbot234
You can still enable them in ways that _don 't_ involve working at a formal
job. Doing chores, dealing with household issues, that kind of thing. Having a
kid generally means that there's a lot of stressful work to do around the
house, and you would be in the right position to deal with that.

~~~
toomuchtodo
All of that has been hired out, because my job enables me to. I do work I
enjoy so I don’t have to do work I don’t enjoy.

~~~
isodude
The kids build their connection to you in weird ways, smell, touch etc.
Avoiding that 100% until they speak could have weird effects in their
attachment (said without any actual proof).

It's of course your choice, but just saying that that choice could end up
biting you or the kid in the end.

No it's not fun hanging around kids all the time, but it takes a lot of not
fun moments to get to the good parts.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Read my comments. I didn’t avoid it 100 percent. I make time to spend with my
children every evening.

------
KillerRAK
I love a good, "X Nordic Country provides Y for FREE -- so should the United
States!" Where Y is some socialized benefit.

Let's put this in perspective: Finland's population is around 5.5 million
people. That's somewhere between the populations of South Carolina and
Minnesota.

Get a grip people -- The United States is not even remotely equivalent to
Finland in terms of demographics and population. Find a nice U.S. State that
doles out great Parental benefits, and move.

~~~
stevekemp
Yes, Finland is small. Yes the cost of covering these benefits is smaller than
it would be in America, but the people who pay taxes are also fewer.

If all of America paid the same %-taxes as Finnish people do the system would
absolutely work. It isn't magic. It's just that your country has decided, over
a number of years, that health-care should be covered by insurance, and
employment, rather than taxes.

If your politicians want to make a change, and get the appropriate votes, you
absolutely could do the same thing as is done here.

------
conanbatt
> while fathers are given 2.2 months until the child turns two. However, on
> average only one in four of them take what they are given. The current plans
> now talk only of parental leave.

Is it conceivable that fathers actually don't want to spend that much time at
home and that the Finland Government is strong-handing them into doing it?

One frustration I have in this topic is that it is seldom mentioned that any
parent with any savings and a decent job has the option of taking unpaid leave
and take as much as they want with their kids, but choose not to. That is a
very strong case for revealed preferences.

~~~
luch
this is paid leave (it's only an allowance, not usually a full salary though).
Where I live it's up to a year for a father, but most of them do not take it
since we are still entrenched in the "father at work/mother at home" society

~~~
lotsofpulp
If it provides a competitive advantage for fathers to sell their labor to not
take parental leave, then they won’t. In that case, if the government wanted
to incentivize fathers to take parental leave, they would have to mandate it,
but of course that would conflict with goals of providing freedoms.

It’s the age old conundrum of what is good for society versus the individual,
and how an immeasurable benefit (fathers spending time with children) can lose
out to measurable benefits (fathers being able to sell their labor for a
higher price due to having more experience/getting promoted since they didn’t
take parental leave).

The other benefit of forcing fathers to take parental leave, would be to help
equalize the playing field for men and women. But then the country may lose a
competitive advantage to other countries since their products might be cheaper
since they have a greater supply of labor, but in the long term it would be
beneficial for the world to have mothers and fathers both spend time rearing
children, however it unquantifiable unlike their cheaper products resulting in
higher exports.

------
willis936
Many comments laud this as a step towards gender equality, which is a noble
goal. However, I do wonder about the unforeseen consequences. All mammals
(afaik) are raised by mothers. Humans are mammals. Humans do a good job of
making changes to our nature, and for the most part those changes have
resulted in better lives. However we still have things like nuclear families.
Children aren't taken away from parents and raised by communities instead. So
we don't throw everything out from nature, because some of it works well and
reliably. Is there any science to suggest that there are no adverse effects on
an infant from having an absent mother?

To move back up: I'm saying there might be a good reason mothers should be
given maternal leave and that there might not be as good of a reason for men
to be given paternal leave. Gender equality doesn't mean both genders are the
same.

~~~
blub
Under Finland's system mother are still given maternal leave, but the fathers
now get mandatory leave too. That's how I understood it, no country would
forbid the mother maternal leave, except maybe the US.

~~~
willis936
So then why would men be entitled to paternal leave? Because another sex is
given leave?

~~~
socialdemocrat
If would be say the first 6 months the mother takes leave while the next 6
months the father takes leave, for a total of 12 months.

It just means they share the burden and benefits. What exactly is wrong with
that?

I cannot say I understand your "entitled" question. Is anyone in principle
entitled to anything? Does it matter? Why not simply do what works great? Does
doing something need to have any other reason than that it works great and
everybody is happy about the result?

