Author Topic: Article - Why are parents in the U.S. so unhappy compared to the rest of the wor  (Read 37935 times)

MrsCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 2019
http://fusion.net/story/315345/parents-happiness-paid-family-leave/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=theme_top_mobile

Thoughts & opinions. Go. I understand nothing is perfect but what do you think? More wasted tax dollars or will doing someth similar to other developed countries help Americans in regards to starting a family? Or do we not give two "Fs" bc we're Mustachian & got our sh!t together? Just saying... 😊
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 08:36:50 AM by MrsCoolCat »

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
All of those perks cost money... I'm not a big fan of paying more in taxes, or increasing the national debt to pay for them. Maybe that makes me an asshole.

I think people in the US are unhappier in general than other places because of the rampant anti-mustachism and keeping up with the Joneses. If your lifestyle (or car, or handbag) isn't Kardashian level then your life is a failure. Ah fuck it that's what debt is for!
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 07:57:39 AM by armueller2001 »

ltt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
I read the article---and didn't really get much out of it.  I think it has more to do with the almost absolute individualism in the U.S. versus leaning on and having family around in other countries.  Just my 2 cents.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
All of those perks cost money... I'm not a big fan of paying more in taxes, or increasing the national debt to pay for them. Maybe that makes me an asshole.

No, it makes you shortsighted for failing to consider that you also get benefits in return.

Quote from: article
Even better news, the social policies that helped parents the most also helped non-parents, because they included things like more time of[sic] from work for everyone and minimum paid sick days.

(Also note that the social policies mentioned in that quote are unfunded mandates to employers, not tax increases.)

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40

No, it makes you shortsighted for failing to consider that you also get benefits in return.

Quote from: article
Even better news, the social policies that helped parents the most also helped non-parents, because they included things like more time of[sic] from work for everyone and minimum paid sick days.

(Also note that the social policies mentioned in that quote are unfunded mandates to employers, not tax increases.)

Ah, got it, employer mandates. So companies will cut pay accordingly or just have lower profits and lower shareholder return.

 How about we all just keep more of our money and choose what perks to spend it on instead of the government choosing for us?

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Americans are ALWAYS less happy, it's our culture to want to do more/better and never be content.
One of the biggest take-aways from MMM is to learn to be satisfied and content.

In America,
Satisfaction = counter-culture

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
I'll bite:)

I think there is something to social safety nets. I don't know if we need ALL the safety nets but a few would be nice. For instance, I had no maternity leave, have no sick days, FMLA does not apply because I work at a small company, and our daycare bill is our largest expenditure every month and our health insurance is our second largest expenditure every month. We do not live near any family because we have moved for our jobs.

If I had had any maternity leave (let alone paid) or subsidized daycare or cheap health insurance my life would be easier and I might feel less stressed in my day to day life.

That being said - our life is very carefully planned and we have made all of our choices knowing that they may make our life more difficult but we've planned for most contingencies. Honestly, having children has always been very important to me.

But if the question is do we think social support actually make parents happier (I'm guessing happiness levels have something to do with stress levels  in these studies) then I would guess the answer is a resounding YES! If the question is should America develop policy for happy, healthier families? I'd say that depends on how we want to maintain our population and we have all sorts of options, immigration vs birthrate, vs a combination, etc.

I have plenty of super conservative family members who will say they want population maintained by working (ie.middle class) Americans having children (as opposed to H1-B Visas or non-working (ie poor) Americans having children, or straight-up immigration, etc). If that is the case then I think we'll have to entertain safety nets at some point.





« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 11:00:46 PM by StarBright »

MMMarbleheader

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
My family is from Western Europe originally (Portugal).

Everyone from my family here in the USA were the high strung workaholics that were fed up with how things were run in the old country. They go back and complain about how lazy everyone is.

Those who stayed are rather content in their ways and give the immigrants a hard time for being such high strung Americans.

Basically, we are a country of immigrants, many of which took a huge ass risk for the pursuit of happiness. Key word there is pursuit.

That being said, many Americans suck at knowing what enough is. In Europe when woman entered the workforce, the hours worked on average went down. In America it stayed the same. So your workforce increased and everyone kept working more to consume, consume, consume.

But I still choose freedom of the individual over mandates

MrsCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 2019

I have plenty of super conservative family members who will say they want population maintained by working (ie.middle class) Americans having children (as opposed to H1-B Visas or non-working (ie poor) Americans having children, or straight-up immigration, etc). If that is the case then I think we'll have to entertain safety nets at some point.

I was just thinking someth similar. It'll be the Mustachians left to populate the future with fair-minded non-consumerists minimalists whatever money & FIRE suave offspring! Because meanwhile the people that already get everyth handed to them by the gvt can now benefit from this, too, so let's just not have any help concerning daycare, maternity leave, flexible hours, etc. for EVERYONE... idk as a Mustachian I already realize I likewise have to plan more bc we're not getting any breaks (daycare, maternity leave, etc.), but I really wonder about the rest of middle class non-Mustachians. I guess there will just be more 40 yo parents which imo is not ideal but to each their own. That & of course just more or less the same usual "unhappy Americans" as mentioned in the article since this is apparently not a big enough issue atm to generate any change or even be on the radar...
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 09:54:43 AM by MrsCoolCat »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
I have plenty of super conservative family members who will say they want population maintained by working (ie.middle class) Americans having children (as opposed to H1-B Visas or non-working (ie poor) Americans having children, or straight-up immigration, etc). If that is the case then I think we'll have to entertain safety nets at some point.

Ha! They'll entertain expanded safety nets when pigs fly.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
To me, this is a pretty tough sell.  What is a person who's out on maternity/paternity leave producing for their employer?  And if the government is going to step in and pay for this leave, then I want some, too ;).

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
To me, this is a pretty tough sell.  What is a person who's out on maternity/paternity leave producing for their employer?

Future employees?

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
To me, this is a pretty tough sell.  What is a person who's out on maternity/paternity leave producing for their employer?

Future employees?
And tax payers, social security contributors, future doctors/lawyers/teachers.

Looking at it as "how does this benefit me today?" is very short sighted.  Much of the American culture is "all about me....RIGHT NOW"  very little of what happens in congress/senate is forward thinking.  Having paid maternity/paternity leave is only one small thing that can happen now and will pay off for decades to come. 

TrMama

  • Guest
Has anyone been able to find the actual report online? As a Canadian, I'm interested in where we fall, but all I can find online are articles talking about how unhappy American parents are.

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Having paid maternity/paternity leave ... will pay off for decades to come.

...will it? Is there a quantifiable and definite benefit that can be proven through data? Because the cost is certainly quantifiable and definite. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 12:13:07 PM by armueller2001 »

jzb11

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 137
How is happiness measured? How were parents more or less happy? How do we define parental happiness to begin with?

How is it that Americans as a whole score higher than those in France, yet parents in France score higher than those in the USA?

Overall the article is lacking specifics and jumps to the conclusion that we need more government spending for families.

May I ask, are single poeple in the USA more happy than those in other countries? If so why?  Furthermore why do parents need to be more happy than non parents? What if the policies to make families "happier" make singles less happy?

Is the author implying we need to make families a priority? If so, then why such a push for careerism, consumption,  and dual income homes? Why do we pump up careers to young men and women as if they were some fountain of joy and fulfillment when they're anything but?

Anyway again the article is a bit shallow and comes to a dubious conclusion at best.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 11:53:57 AM by jzb11 »

MrsCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 2019

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Having paid maternity/paternity leave ... will pay off for decades to come.

...will it? Is there a quantifiable and definite benefit that can be proven through data? Because the cost is certainly quantifiable and definite.

Did you read the article? I ask 'cause that's exactly its main claim.

Has anyone been able to find the actual report online? As a Canadian, I'm interested in where we fall, but all I can find online are articles talking about how unhappy American parents are.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

Jennifer Glass
Barbara Bush Regents Professor of Liberal Arts
Executive Director, Council on Contemporary Families
Department of Sociology & Population Research Center
University of Texas – Austin
319-621-6304

Robin Simon
Professor of Sociology
Wake Forest University
robinwsimon54@gmail.com

Matthew Andersson
Center for Research on Inequalities and the Life Course
Yale University
*Starting this summer, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Baylor University
matthew.andersson@yale.edu

I tried looking at http://liberalarts.utexas.edu/centers/prc/, but the entire liberal arts department website server is misconfigured.

WGH

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Houston, TX

 How about we all just keep more of our money and choose what perks to spend it on instead of the government choosing for us?

This about sums up the attitude difference between America and other countries.

If the US were to raise taxes to pay for a national college or child care fund those that didn't plan to attend or have no children would raise hell. In other countries there is an acceptance that this is a worthwhile benefit for society as a whole.

But the problem runs deeper as already mentioned it's our rampant consumerism and never ending desire for more and more. As a mustachian forum one would think members would be more inclined to support this type of idea. After all we believe debt is slavery, consumerism is for suckas and being a workaholic is death to the soul. It seems most people's goal on this forum is not to amass $10 million dollars and live like a Kardashian but instead to figure out how to exit the workforce ASAP with a stache of $500k or so and live simply and happily. So why not support a system that aligns with those ideals and eliminates debts such as medical and education and promotes less time at work, less rampant consumerism and more time with simple enriching activities with friends and family?

Even in the US we have accepted certain wealth transfers such as the EITC. Really the entire safety net system in the US needs an overhaul beginning with our godawful healthcare system that punishes employers by bearing the burden of the cost of enriching the insurance middleman. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:44:13 PM by WGH »

StockBeard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 42
All of those perks cost money... I'm not a big fan of paying more in taxes, or increasing the national debt to pay for them. Maybe that makes me an asshole.

No, it makes you shortsighted for failing to consider that you also get benefits in return.
+1

I grew up in France, married in Japan, and now live in the US. I have experience as a parent both in Japan and the US, and have seen my parents' happiness in France. I can say the US is where I'm the least happy as a parent, and I think my parents were happier than I am from the parenting perspective.
Here are some of the things that stress me out as a parent in the US:

1) Everything is super expensive for kids, in particular healthcare and school. School is practically free, so is healthcare, in France. Yes, it's indirectly paid with taxes, but it hurts less. I don't want to constantly have to worry about money or college education for my children.
2) Too much choice. My wife had me go through 5 different school choices for our son's Kindergarten. For f#ing kindergarten, people! Some of these options include things like "a la carte" classes such as guitar, swimming pool, or spanish lessons. The rule of thumb in France is you are sent to the public school of your district, end of story (and yup, I know it's the same in the US, except for some reason everyone tries to question or game that rule). Why make things so complicated? I hate having the choice, I hate being led to believe it will make a difference in my child's future (hint: it won't), and I hate that my wife believes it more than I do. Sometimes, choice is bad and leads to conflict. Remember, if you live in the US, you are pretty much guaranteed to end up in the top 1% of income worldwide. Why would you make things painful on kids and parents from such a young age? Let them be kids.
3) There is so much crap to organize. Schools here have "teacher appreciation day"and other random events that the parents are supposed to organize. Give me a break! In Japan and France, school is that place that you send your kids from 9am to 6pm so that you can live your adult life for a few hours.
4) Too much attention for the kids well being in general, while I don't think kids care that much. When I was a kid, my parents would bring me to parties with *their* friends and I played with the kids of *my parents' friends*. Here I feel I have a social obligation to be centered on my children and their friends, having to become friends with the other kids parents. The result is I have to socialize with people with whom I have nothing in common.

In general, the "French" approach to parenting is "the kid is coming as an addition to the family's life, and will have to adapt to the parents habits". I feel some pressure here in the US to the opposite: "parents have to adapt to their child's universe". In my experience, both work ok for the child, but the second one is much more taxing on the parents.

Note: I'm intentionally exaggerating some aspects here, don't take everything I wrote 100% seriously!

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
WGH, please fix your quote tags.

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40

Did you read the article? I ask 'cause that's exactly its main claim.


Yes, I did read the article. Can you quantify the benefit in dollars relative to the cost in dollars? If not, then it's not quantifiable and definite.

Vanguards and Lentils

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Age: 33
In general, the "French" approach to parenting is "the kid is coming as an addition to the family's life, and will have to adapt to the parents habits". I feel some pressure here in the US to the opposite: "parents have to adapt to their child's universe". In my experience, both work ok for the child, but the second one is much more taxing on the parents.

Note: I'm intentionally exaggerating some aspects here, don't take everything I wrote 100% seriously!

Your post was so interesting to me.- I had heard of this attitude with regard to food, but I can see how it extends to other things. What I heard was that French babies and kids just eat small portions of what the adults eat. Whereas if you walk through a grocery store there are all kinds of"fun" kids versions of food - as if they need their own prepackaged versions of sugary yogurt. And the options when eating at restaurants- chicken nuggets and fries for the kids. Why??

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Having paid maternity/paternity leave ... will pay off for decades to come.

...will it? Is there a quantifiable and definite benefit that can be proven through data? Because the cost is certainly quantifiable and definite.
According to a report last year from the President's Council of Economic Advisers, more than 90% of employers affected by California's paid family-leave initiative reported either positive or no noticeable effect on profitability, turnover, and morale.

Another study, from the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University, found that women who had taken advantage of New Jersey's paid-family-leave policy were far more likely than mothers who hadn't to be working nine to 12 months after the birth of their child.

The study also found these women to be 39% less likely to receive public assistance and 40% less likely to receive food stamps in the year following a child's birth compared to those who didn't take any leave.

A study of European leave policies by the University of North Carolina found that paid-leave programs can substantially reduce infant mortality rates and better a child's overall health.

And research out of The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn indicates higher education, IQ, and income levels in adulthood for children of mothers who used maternity leave — the biggest effect comes for children from lower-educated households. The researchers cited this as a significant discussion for policymakers to have, as it could reduce the existing gap in education and income in the US.
Research out of Israel shows the more leave men take to care for children when they're young, the more the fathers undergo changes in the brain that make them better suited to parenting. And a study by two Columbia University Social Work professors found that fathers who take two or more weeks off after their child is born are more involved in their child's care nine months later. Simply put, paid paternity leave can help foster better father-child relationships.

And the more leave fathers take, the more mothers' incomes increase. In Sweden, where fathers must take at least two months off before the child is 8 years old to receive the government benefits, researchers saw mothers' incomes increase almost 7% for every month of paternity leave their husbands took.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833

4) Too much attention for the kids well being in general, while I don't think kids care that much. When I was a kid, my parents would bring me to parties with *their* friends and I played with the kids of *my parents' friends*. Here I feel I have a social obligation to be centered on my children and their friends, having to become friends with the other kids parents. The result is I have to socialize with people with whom I have nothing in common.

In general, the "French" approach to parenting is "the kid is coming as an addition to the family's life, and will have to adapt to the parents habits". I feel some pressure here in the US to the opposite: "parents have to adapt to their child's universe". In my experience, both work ok for the child, but the second one is much more taxing on the parents.

Note: I'm intentionally exaggerating some aspects here, don't take everything I wrote 100% seriously!

I think this is a bigger part of the problem - and even with the exaggeration there is more ridiculousness than that.  Its like keeping up with the mini-jones.  In the US there is immense social pressure to spend endlessly so that little-Jones are in all kinds of activities and classes to make them better people with said activities costing enormous sums of time and money, set play-dates instead of just go out and play, they must be entertained endlessly. 

I have read that about the French and have spoken to a few people from France - it does seem to be that children are add ons. 

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
As a mustachian forum one would think members would be more inclined to support this type of idea. After all we believe debt is slavery, consumerism is for suckas and being a workaholic is death to the soul. It seems most people's goal on this forum is not to amass $10 million dollars and live like a Kardashian but instead to figure out how to exit the workforce ASAP with a stache of $500k or so and live simply and happily. So why not support a system that aligns with those ideals and eliminates debts such as medical and education and promotes less time at work, less rampant consumerism and more time with simple enriching activities with friends and family?

Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

Sure about that? In the many threads we've had on these issues, it seems like a majority support things like universal healthcare and SS.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

Sure about that? In the many threads we've had on these issues, it seems like a majority support things like universal healthcare and SS.

Yep......Mustichians are social darwinists provided that survival of the financialist is equally afforded to all.....except in the case of the mustachian themselves as they will accumulate their resources to FIRE and pay little to no tax thereby making it someone elses problem to pay for.  Works for Buffet, so can't be a bad way to go.

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Yep......Mustichians are social darwinists provided that survival of the financialist is equally afforded to all.....except in the case of the mustachian themselves as they will accumulate their resources to FIRE and pay little to no tax thereby making it someone elses problem to pay for.  Works for Buffet, so can't be a bad way to go.

"little to no tax"... except that tax on income every year while working, and tax on dividends/capital gains when not working, and property tax (directly or indirectly), and sales tax, and fuel tax, and inflation (which is really a hidden tax), and...

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

Sure about that? In the many threads we've had on these issues, it seems like a majority support things like universal healthcare and SS.

It varies, but in any given social thread I've read, typically between 1/3 and 2/3 of the posters are actively opposed to the kinds of social services you mention. I'd count this thread as better than the average, but am actually pretty surprised at how many people have come out in support of guaranteed leaves. It comes out a lot in threads on charity (where lots line up to declare their refusal to donate due to charity being a waste of money, etc), or the "taxes are theft!" crowd (where people argue that we shouldn't be paying any taxes, ever). And it's definitely the rule in the shaming subforum (e.g., on threads on student loan repayments, foreclosures due to subprime lending, car loans, etc). The general vibe that if you're struggling in the US, it's primarily because you're a buffoon, and not related to any socially engineered inequalities, is the dominant theme here.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
So.. as a single working guy in addition to paying taxes to provide you child tax credits, deductions, paying property taxes to support your child's schooling and a thousand other things you're telling me that'd it'd make you happier if people like me paid for your maternity leave too? Because of some bullcrap 'unhappiness' metric by liberal arts professors?

No, go find someone else to exploit to work on your happiness.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

Sure about that? In the many threads we've had on these issues, it seems like a majority support things like universal healthcare and SS.

It varies, but in any given social thread I've read, typically between 1/3 and 2/3 of the posters are actively opposed to the kinds of social services you mention.

I think the anti-public anything crowd is a minority, they're just extremely loud. The shaming threads are more targeted towards high income people complaining they can't save for retirement while at the same time buying a new Prada bag every month, IMO.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
My family is from Western Europe originally (Portugal).

Everyone from my family here in the USA were the high strung workaholics that were fed up with how things were run in the old country. They go back and complain about how lazy everyone is.

Those who stayed are rather content in their ways and give the immigrants a hard time for being such high strung Americans.

Basically, we are a country of immigrants, many of which took a huge ass risk for the pursuit of happiness. Key word there is pursuit.

That being said, many Americans suck at knowing what enough is. In Europe when woman entered the workforce, the hours worked on average went down. In America it stayed the same. So your workforce increased and everyone kept working more to consume, consume, consume.

But I still choose freedom of the individual over mandates

Great post.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
I don't think that government-intervention is the answer, BUT I am sometimes bothered by the disparity.

Say you work for an American company. You work 40+ hour weeks. You get 2 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick time, no paternity leave, limited maternity leave.

Your company has offices in, Norway or France or some such place. They work 35 hour weeks, have 6 weeks of vacation, 3 weeks of sick time, 6 months paternity leave and 12 months maternity leave.

I don't think the US government should step in, but I think ethically the company should either provide US workers with the same or similar benefits, OR, forego maintaining offices in such countries.

tipster350

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
I don't think that government-intervention is the answer, BUT I am sometimes bothered by the disparity.

Say you work for an American company. You work 40+ hour weeks. You get 2 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick time, no paternity leave, limited maternity leave.

Your company has offices in, Norway or France or some such place. They work 35 hour weeks, have 6 weeks of vacation, 3 weeks of sick time, 6 months paternity leave and 12 months maternity leave.

I don't think the US government should step in, but I think ethically the company should either provide US workers with the same or similar benefits, OR, forego maintaining offices in such countries.

All that, and many of those countries are highly productive, too. They are able to get more done with less stress in their lives.

gggggg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
All of those perks cost money... I'm not a big fan of paying more in taxes, or increasing the national debt to pay for them. Maybe that makes me an asshole.

No, it makes you shortsighted for failing to consider that you also get benefits in return.
+1

I grew up in France, married in Japan, and now live in the US. I have experience as a parent both in Japan and the US, and have seen my parents' happiness in France. I can say the US is where I'm the least happy as a parent, and I think my parents were happier than I am from the parenting perspective.
Here are some of the things that stress me out as a parent in the US:

1) Everything is super expensive for kids, in particular healthcare and school. School is practically free, so is healthcare, in France. Yes, it's indirectly paid with taxes, but it hurts less. I don't want to constantly have to worry about money or college education for my children.
2) Too much choice. My wife had me go through 5 different school choices for our son's Kindergarten. For f#ing kindergarten, people! Some of these options include things like "a la carte" classes such as guitar, swimming pool, or spanish lessons. The rule of thumb in France is you are sent to the public school of your district, end of story (and yup, I know it's the same in the US, except for some reason everyone tries to question or game that rule). Why make things so complicated? I hate having the choice, I hate being led to believe it will make a difference in my child's future (hint: it won't), and I hate that my wife believes it more than I do. Sometimes, choice is bad and leads to conflict. Remember, if you live in the US, you are pretty much guaranteed to end up in the top 1% of income worldwide. Why would you make things painful on kids and parents from such a young age? Let them be kids.
3) There is so much crap to organize. Schools here have "teacher appreciation day"and other random events that the parents are supposed to organize. Give me a break! In Japan and France, school is that place that you send your kids from 9am to 6pm so that you can live your adult life for a few hours.
4) Too much attention for the kids well being in general, while I don't think kids care that much. When I was a kid, my parents would bring me to parties with *their* friends and I played with the kids of *my parents' friends*. Here I feel I have a social obligation to be centered on my children and their friends, having to become friends with the other kids parents. The result is I have to socialize with people with whom I have nothing in common.

In general, the "French" approach to parenting is "the kid is coming as an addition to the family's life, and will have to adapt to the parents habits". I feel some pressure here in the US to the opposite: "parents have to adapt to their child's universe". In my experience, both work ok for the child, but the second one is much more taxing on the parents.

Note: I'm intentionally exaggerating some aspects here, don't take everything I wrote 100% seriously!

I agree with this, but I also think it's a modern day approach to raising kids. I grew up in the us, in the 70's and early 80's; I had to adapt to my parents, they certainly didn't (and still don't) revolve around my sister and I. Parents nowadays seem to do anything for their kids at the drop of a hat. Back in the day, my parents would tell me "tough" if I whined about or wanted something. 

MrsCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 2019

 How about we all just keep more of our money and choose what perks to spend it on instead of the government choosing for us?

This about sums up the attitude difference between America and other countries.

If the US were to raise taxes to pay for a national college or child care fund those that didn't plan to attend or have no children would raise hell. In other countries there is an acceptance that this is a worthwhile benefit for society as a whole.

But the problem runs deeper as already mentioned it's our rampant consumerism and never ending desire for more and more. As a mustachian forum one would think members would be more inclined to support this type of idea. After all we believe debt is slavery, consumerism is for suckas and being a workaholic is death to the soul. It seems most people's goal on this forum is not to amass $10 million dollars and live like a Kardashian but instead to figure out how to exit the workforce ASAP with a stache of $500k or so and live simply and happily. So why not support a system that aligns with those ideals and eliminates debts such as medical and education and promotes less time at work, less rampant consumerism and more time with simple enriching activities with friends and family?

Even in the US we have accepted certain wealth transfers such as the EITC. Really the entire safety net system in the US needs an overhaul beginning with our godawful healthcare system that punishes employers by bearing the burden of the cost of enriching the insurance middleman.

Bravo. Unfortunately, if anyth really did change most of us would already be FIRE! But on ur note I'm accepting of it's impact to our future generations & would like to see some change in this area.

tipster350

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Because many to most Mustachians are social Darwinists.

Sure about that? In the many threads we've had on these issues, it seems like a majority support things like universal healthcare and SS.

It varies, but in any given social thread I've read, typically between 1/3 and 2/3 of the posters are actively opposed to the kinds of social services you mention.

I think the anti-public anything crowd is a minority, they're just extremely loud. The shaming threads are more targeted towards high income people complaining they can't save for retirement while at the same time buying a new Prada bag every month, IMO.

Loud to the point that almost every thread lately is infested with the same logic-challenged rhetoric. No matter what the topic, the same agenda screamed loudly derails interesting dialogue about the thread topic. It's to the point that I am enjoying this site a lot less lately.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
All that, and many of those countries are highly productive, too. They are able to get more done with less stress in their lives.

Inncorrect
US is #3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked
#1 and #2 spots occupied by Norway and Luxembourg. Impossible to compare them directly to US: tiny homogeneous population, non-diverse economies.

Among diverse, large countries:
US is 13% more efficient than France, 17% more efficient than Germany(!) and a whopping 31% more efficient than UK

MMMarbleheader said it well. Americans know how to 'pursue' but not when to stop.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Loud to the point that almost every thread lately is infested with the same logic-challenged rhetoric. No matter what the topic, the same agenda screamed loudly derails interesting dialogue about the thread topic. It's to the point that I am enjoying this site a lot less lately.

Interesting...
The precept of MMM is 'Financial Freedom via Badassity', implying some rather rugged self-reliance. The entire blog is about life/choice optimization. And yet the popular answer to many issues on the forums seems to be 'there oughtta be a law to regulate such things so we don't have to worry'. dcamnc went so far as to say 'Why make things so complicated? I hate having the choice'.
The 2 views seem diametrically opposed.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
I don't understand why the article doesn't talk about this at an individual level, it rather seems to be focuses on public policy and political change. It's also surprising that a site that focuses on individualism is so adamant about pushing out and forcing others to financially support their lifestyle choices. You're not forced into having children, the information is out there, the choice and decision is yours to make.

"Expecting the free market to support early child care or paid time off has proven to be a losing strategy for American parents." Only liberal arts professors come out with tripe like this. If you look at more broad historical data you'll see a decline in parental happiness over time that has nothing to do with 'free market' childcare or leave policies. Rather, the decline in happiness must be associate with other things, probably things like education and healthcare that are being controlled by government more than by the free-market over the last decades.

Single motherhood rates skyrocketed after 1965 in the U.S. after the introduction of the Great Society social programs. At the same time parental happiness started a steep decline, which makes sense as single motherhood correlates highly with economic poverty. There hasn't been any policy as damaging to families in U.S. history and yet we're going to claim that social programs are somehow needed to heal the damage done by other social programs? If anything, I'd agree with some of the people on this thread is that we need more individual freedom and choice in regards to your family.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:49:31 PM by Yaeger »

screwit

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Location: Germany
I don't think that government-intervention is the answer, BUT I am sometimes bothered by the disparity.

Say you work for an American company. You work 40+ hour weeks. You get 2 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick time, no paternity leave, limited maternity leave.

Your company has offices in, Norway or France or some such place. They work 35 hour weeks, have 6 weeks of vacation, 3 weeks of sick time, 6 months paternity leave and 12 months maternity leave.

I don't think the US government should step in, but I think ethically the company should either provide US workers with the same or similar benefits, OR, forego maintaining offices in such countries.

But workers in those countries are also paying the higher taxes that the Americans refuse to. At the very least then, if the US company provides the US workers with the perks on grounds of "ethics" then surely the US company should be providing the foreign employees in foreign countries an appropriate pay rise to make up for that (which then results in more tax being paid into that country, further bolstering the social services - hey, they still win!).

I live in one of those countries and I've worked for companies with headquarters in the US. Personally we all think you guys are kind of weird to be so gung-ho about refusing to pay for these kinds of benefits.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
All that, and many of those countries are highly productive, too. They are able to get more done with less stress in their lives.

Inncorrect
US is #3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked
#1 and #2 spots occupied by Norway and Luxembourg. Impossible to compare them directly to US: tiny homogeneous population, non-diverse economies.

Among diverse, large countries:
US is 13% more efficient than France, 17% more efficient than Germany(!) and a whopping 31% more efficient than UK

MMMarbleheader said it well. Americans know how to 'pursue' but not when to stop.

It would be incorrect to dismiss Norway as a "homogenous" population compared to the US. Their minority population is 14%, which is larger than that of the 3 countries you compared the US to. The US is significantly more diverse than Norway, but the other 3 countries aren't. They're less. So out with that excuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

Besides that, it's also self-serving to compare the US to France, Germany, and the UK while excluding Norway, because quite frankly, none of those countries come anywhere close to the US in population. California and Texas have about the same population when combined as France or the UK, and Germany is matched just by adding Florida. And that's leaving aside the issue of geography, where the US dwarfs all of the countries you mentioned put together. It also leaves aside the huge element in the room of income inequality. There's a ton of money in the US hoarded by individuals and corporations that pushes our GDP and every metric tied to it upward; it doesn't mean the average individual is super-productive or, far more importantly, actually seeing any of those economic benefits.

The original poster was correct; the other countries are basically as "efficient" as the US while managing to have a lot more benefits for the individual, including a greater quality of life at the expense of greater access to materialistic goods.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
I don't think that government-intervention is the answer, BUT I am sometimes bothered by the disparity.

Say you work for an American company. You work 40+ hour weeks. You get 2 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick time, no paternity leave, limited maternity leave.

Your company has offices in, Norway or France or some such place. They work 35 hour weeks, have 6 weeks of vacation, 3 weeks of sick time, 6 months paternity leave and 12 months maternity leave.

I don't think the US government should step in, but I think ethically the company should either provide US workers with the same or similar benefits, OR, forego maintaining offices in such countries.
That is not accurate.  Legally both have crappy leave, male or female.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Loud to the point that almost every thread lately is infested with the same logic-challenged rhetoric. No matter what the topic, the same agenda screamed loudly derails interesting dialogue about the thread topic. It's to the point that I am enjoying this site a lot less lately.

Interesting...
The precept of MMM is 'Financial Freedom via Badassity', implying some rather rugged self-reliance. The entire blog is about life/choice optimization. And yet the popular answer to many issues on the forums seems to be 'there oughtta be a law to regulate such things so we don't have to worry'. dcamnc went so far as to say 'Why make things so complicated? I hate having the choice'.
The 2 views seem diametrically opposed.

Self reliance is one thing. But some of these people possess what can only be described as complete disdain for any public service. I don't see why the US can't have robust safety nets & public services while also maintaining a sense of individuality. Americans put the individual above basically everything and it's insane to pretend that there aren't a few negatives to that. It's ironic for a culture that's so religious and claims to value family.

The MMM philosophy to me is of course about working hard and controlling your own future. But it's also about the good of society and improving the world. I don't view something like paid family leave as an evil regulation law. I view it as a society saying we value families and life; that work is not the purpose of existence.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
Loud to the point that almost every thread lately is infested with the same logic-challenged rhetoric. No matter what the topic, the same agenda screamed loudly derails interesting dialogue about the thread topic. It's to the point that I am enjoying this site a lot less lately.

Interesting...
The precept of MMM is 'Financial Freedom via Badassity', implying some rather rugged self-reliance. The entire blog is about life/choice optimization. And yet the popular answer to many issues on the forums seems to be 'there oughtta be a law to regulate such things so we don't have to worry'. dcamnc went so far as to say 'Why make things so complicated? I hate having the choice'.
The 2 views seem diametrically opposed.

It's a failure of the blog as well. MMM focuses on life choice / optimization because it's easier to tackle than social inequalities, but it also leads to cultivating a following of selfish and small-minded people who hoard money with the goal of dropping out of society while watching it burn.

And again, it's a self-serving element of the blog, because even though MMM acknowledges the advantages bestowed upon us by being residents of the US, he spends very little time talking about our social responsibility to the less informed and truly less fortunate in our society (besides insisting the masses just need a good face-punchin'), which leads to a great number of his followers believing such responsibilities don't exist.

It's part of what has led to such a large percentage of libertarians and anti-government, anti-social types on the forum. They're just following the natural extension of MMM's views, with the focus on income acquisition without the need to reduce income and social inequality. Because even though MMM also preaches consumption reduction, that part of his message is easy to ignore, as it only reaches people who care about other people to begin with. The rest of his readers just see the parts about making $$$ unlike the "consuma sukkas" of society. Why support public schools if your kids don't use them? Why support universal healthcare if you've got great benefits from your tech job? Why support higher taxes if you can just move to a low tax state? Why support anything that doesn't immediately obviously benefit you, especially if it (gasp!) reduces your hoarding abilities?

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
I don't see why the US can't have robust safety nets & public services while also maintaining a sense of individuality.

The rub is that all that shit costs money, and less money invested = more time that I have to work before hitting FIRE.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 03:21:58 PM by armueller2001 »

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
I don't think that government-intervention is the answer, BUT I am sometimes bothered by the disparity.

Say you work for an American company. You work 40+ hour weeks. You get 2 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick time, no paternity leave, limited maternity leave.

Your company has offices in, Norway or France or some such place. They work 35 hour weeks, have 6 weeks of vacation, 3 weeks of sick time, 6 months paternity leave and 12 months maternity leave.

I don't think the US government should step in, but I think ethically the company should either provide US workers with the same or similar benefits, OR, forego maintaining offices in such countries.
That is not accurate.  Legally both have crappy leave, male or female.

What does that even mean? Legally they're forbidden from offering paternity or maternity leave? That's incorrect. Legally they can negotiate or choose to offer whatever leave policy they want as part of a comprehensive benefits package. Guess what, even in these countries you pay a price for that leave. There is no free lunch.

I'd rather enjoy my higher pay and individual freedoms rather than shackle myself to a draconian, collapsing social system like what's going on in Europe.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Single motherhood rates skyrocketed after 1965 in the U.S. after the introduction of the Great Society social programs.

Are you seriously suggesting government programs are responsible for that and not the relaxation of sexual attitudes?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
And again, it's a self-serving element of the blog, because even though MMM acknowledges the advantages bestowed upon us by being residents of the US, he spends very little time talking about our social responsibility to the less informed and truly less fortunate in our society (besides insisting the masses just need a good face-punchin'), which leads to a great number of his followers believing such responsibilities don't exist.

It's part of what has led to such a large percentage of libertarians and anti-government, anti-social types on the forum. They're just following the natural extension of MMM's views, with the focus on income acquisition without the need to reduce income and social inequality. Because even though MMM also preaches consumption reduction, that part of his message is easy to ignore, as it only reaches people who care about other people to begin with. The rest of his readers just see the parts about making $$$ unlike the "consuma sukkas" of society. Why support public schools if your kids don't use them? Why support universal healthcare if you've got great benefits from your tech job? Why support higher taxes if you can just move to a low tax state? Why support anything that doesn't immediately obviously benefit you, especially if it (gasp!) reduces your hoarding abilities?

No offense, but it's incorrect and little insulting to think that we're not actively working to reduce income inequality, help the poor, and help society. Our methods are different than yours and we don't see the value in pursuing the same path and following the failing method of just throwing more money at the problem until they're fixed. We tend to combat these problems with free-market policies, less government interventionism, and more capitalism which have been proven to work over and over again throughout history.

The U.S. economy and the American dream weren't built on the principles of sharing everything, they were built on the idea that unlocking the people's creative power and productivity is best achieved by giving them the freedom to succeed and fail, by encouraging them and not holding them down.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!