
Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm - kevinconaway
https://hbr.org/2020/03/two-new-moms-return-to-work-one-in-seattle-one-in-stockholm
======
jdmoreira
I'm a dad in Stockholm and currently in the first month of my parental leave
which is expected to last at least more 6 months. My girlfriend just went back
to work. Our daughter is 11 months old. I worked 75% from the time she was 6
months old until a month ago when I went for a 100% parental. My employer pays
me a bonus on top of the state money as a perk.

As far as I am concerned I can’t even imagine it being any other way. I
understand how fortunate I am to be in Sweden. It truly is an amazing system.

~~~
vidarh
I'm Norwegian, and the Norwegian system is similar to the Swedish. I live in
the UK, though, and so I've seen how expensive and inflexible UK policy, which
is much closer to US is Vs. for my brother in Norway.

I don't understand how people on more normal incomes do it in places like the
UK and US.

~~~
mattlondon
Not sure it is so bad in the UK now that we have shared parental leave: I am a
father of a recent newborn and I get to share 12 months off (well, 50 weeks
since my wife _must_ take at least the first 2 weeks after birth herself) with
my wife for our newborn son.

We're getting approx £600 a month (so I guess 800-900USD depending on exchange
rates today) of free money during the first year from the government
(maternity allowance), before any payments from employers. Not amazing amounts
of free money, but helps pay for some essentials and considering we are both
earning fairly huge salaries I was surprised we were entitled to anything at
all.

My employer is actually pretty generous and I as a partner I am getting
several months off at full pay - most partners will get only 2 weeks off
unless they make use of the shared parental leave, but the "major" employers
all have similar generous parental leave perks from what I know.

Both my wife and I are legally gauranteed our jobs back when we return as far
as I understand it, and from what I know we can request 80% time etc, or some
other flexible arrangement and it must be considered fairly and allowed if
feasible.

I have been really impressed with the NHS. Obviously everything ante-natal and
post-partum was 100% free (including parenting classes in addition to the
clinical stuff). What has really impressed me has been the free home visits by
the midwives and nurses in the days and weeks after birth - an amazing service
to just have midwives turn up 2 days afterwards and check that mother baby
(and father!!!!!) are doing ok, then to continue getting home visits in the
following weeks. Really impressed. We paid to get some extra private scans
done earlier in the pregnancy for peace of mind etc, but otherwise the NHS has
been excellent for this (and I don't usually sing it any praise for normal
services)

As for childcare I don't know yet - from what I gather childcare is a cluster-
fuck in the UK with oversubscription and fairly high costs (e.g. £100/day in
London for 8am-8pm) outside of the public nurseries. There are some things
available for this I think (childcare vouchers for 30hours a week of free
childcare?) but I don't know anything about it.

So tl;Dr: 365 Vs 480 days off, 800USD+100% salary Vs 3700USD, potentially
oversubscribed public or expensive private daycare Vs cheap public daycare.

~~~
vidarh
What you describe (generous employer payments etc.) is far from the norm in
the UK, though. Yes, it's possible to be in a decent situation in the UK too,
but usually when you're already in a professional privileged position.

------
martin_bech
As a Scandinavian, the US seems like a third world country. I am genuinely sad
for you.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Americans sometimes joke that we live in a third world country. Many people
here are dissatisfied with our family and healthcare policies, but no one
seems to know how to actually fix it.

Obamacare wasn't really a good solution. It was just the most politically
viable.

So you need more than a good plan for what works better. You also need to
somehow get it accepted politically and that ends up being a sticking point.

~~~
Pfhreak
How to fix it? Get involved with your local DSA chapter. Work on putting
socialists on your local ballot and getting initiatives passed locally.
Educate your friends and neighbors that 'socialist' policies are much broader
than what has been demonized in the US since the red scare.

Edit: Also, consider unionizing and bargaining for parental leave, healthcare,
living wages, employee board representation, etc.

~~~
senderista
Scandinavian countries are not socialist and using the word "socialist" (as
Bernie does) to advocate for social-democratic policies is both inaccurate and
unnecessarily polarizing.

~~~
Pfhreak
Democratic socialists and social democrats agree on many policies, and both
are largely absent from the political stage in the US.

------
badrabbit
The article talks about federal gov not doing things better. Maybe it
should,but the way america works is that these sorts of laws are left for
individual states. America has a lot of problems like this,states should do
better but voters don't really care much about state politics. I can tell you
a majority of americans probably don't even know who their governor is(I think
I do but not really sure). On top of that,it's not very hard to move a
business between states or for people in general to move around so states have
to compete with one another on being friendly to economic contributors.

I am sure it is much more complex, but I do think the root cause lies in the
american constitution and the role played by federal and state governments.
The federal gov should either be a whole lot more capable(or overreaching for
some) or a whole lot less significant,forcing popular politics to be centered
at the state level.

------
stanski
It always amazes me that even poor European countries have better maternity
leave provisions than the richest country in the world.

~~~
martin_bech
The US is the riches country in the world. The US cannot afford basic
healthcare for all. One of these sentences most be wrong.

~~~
ratboy666
No. You have to define how a country can be rich. And what "basic healthcare"
is. And what "for all" means.

A country cannot be rich. Its people can be. If you have a definition that
differs, we can discuss. I am going to avoid "basic healthcare" for now. We
can discuss "for all". Does that mean for people born in the country? Or does
it really mean "for all people"?

FredW

~~~
Pfhreak
Wealth per person, healthcare that covers all medical needs (preventative
care, illness, injury, end of life care dental, vision) but not all elective
needs (some cosmetic surgeries, etc), and for all means all humans within the
borders.

------
kasperni
And did you know there are actually more billionaires-per-capita in Sweden
than in the USA [1]? Norway as well. So it's actually possible to have both an
amazing welfare system and loads of billionaires at the same time.

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-
billiona...](https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-
in-proportion-to-population-2015-7?r=US&IR=T)

~~~
alltakendamned
Though the background of billionaires tends to be different. Lots of business
owner in the US, lots of old money in SE.

I'd say there's less opportunities for social mobility in Sweden than in the
US, hard to get beyond the "middle class"

~~~
kasperni
Actually, the 5 Nordic countries are identical to the top 5 countries for
social mobility in the World Economic Forum's Global Social Mobility Index
[1].

[1] [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/these-are-
the-10-coun...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/these-are-
the-10-countries-with-the-best-social-mobility/)

------
dmd149
The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in
order to pay for these benefits.

Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs
the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for
example)?

My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in
net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of course, but
that’s my best guess.

~~~
kasperni
If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently
ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so
much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes
might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita)

~~~
dmd149
Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly
different.

Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So
that + higher salaries my guess is American’s still come out ahead.

~~~
lotsofpulp
If coming out ahead means having to put a 3 month old in daycare. And worrying
about losing your job as you would also lose access to healthcare for the 3
month old.

And coming out ahead means pumping breastmilk, when it’s vastly inferior for
the mother and much likelier to cause her to lose her milk supply.

Edit: the top 10% do very well in the US. The next 10% are hoping to become
part of the top 10%. The bottom 80% don’t have a better option.

~~~
dmd149
Evidence please.

~~~
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.

------
quietthrow
This thread is quite timely in that I just watched a great documentary about
the differences between America and Sweden. If you have amazon prime it’s free
to watch on prime video.

[https://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Lessons-America-Johan-
Norberg/...](https://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Lessons-America-Johan-
Norberg/dp/B07HNDHL6H)

------
cryptica
That's the result of having a country with a smaller population. This gives
citizens more even access to quality education and more even access to all
kinds of opportunities.

~~~
polotics
That is super weird logic, very interesting. How do you think can a smaller
population change anything?

~~~
cryptica
It's supply and demand. A higher supply of people means that each person has
lower value. You get a similar effect if you move to a big city after having
lived in a small or medium sized town. People who move to big cities
voluntarily turn themselves into commodities; they end up renting tiny
apartments which cost a lot and can barely afford to save anything and they
can be quickly fired from their jobs due to high competition.

As population size increases, the baseline value of a human being goes down.
The baseline value of a human being is the value of the person after the value
of their skills and capital have been factored out.

