Author Topic: Article - Why are parents in the U.S. so unhappy compared to the rest of the wor  (Read 37937 times)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

Because having children is a personal decision about personal happiness and fulfillment. Nobody is completely altruistic and is having children to expressly benefit society, you hope your personal decisions as a parent promote your child becoming a benefit to society. It's a broad generalization to say that I should subsidize your children because they're the future of society. Your children might be scientists and poets, but they might be losers too. If I'm going to subsidize and share in the burden, then as a non-parent I want a greater say as to how you raise your child.

Don't ask me to support parents as my 'duty to society', to share in the burdens and the risk, when their decision to have children is a selfish one and I have no authority in influencing their parenting.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

Because having children is a personal decision about personal happiness and fulfillment. Nobody is completely altruistic and is having children to expressly benefit society, you hope your personal decisions as a parent promote your child becoming a benefit to society. It's a broad generalization to say that I should subsidize your children because they're the future of society. Your children might be scientists and poets, but they might be losers too. If I'm going to subsidize and share in the burden, then as a non-parent I want a greater say as to how you raise your child.

Don't ask me to support parents as my 'duty to society', to share in the burdens and the risk, when their decision to have children is a selfish one and I have no authority in influencing their parenting.

As much as I occasionally want to punch other peoples' children at the grocery store for being little jerks, I think we actually have a lot of say over the next generation's life.  We are expanding the draft to cover 100% of them (rather than just the men), we choose legislators to draft criminal codes, we determine what legislation, if any, there will be for childrens' medical care, etc.

It also seems like the 30-50 dollars a year pales in comparison to the dependent tax deduction in terms of effects on non-parents, but no one seems up in arms over that.  Is it just a visibility point?  I'd rather have all my subsidization be direct and open and traceable, and not strangely hidden in the tax code, although I understand the political difficulty around that.  I'd much rather directly subsidize childcare than trust that some of the money that parents aren't paying in taxes will help them with childcare, or have a lower corporate tax rate than allow 20 years of NOL carryforwards that it took me a semester in federal income tax to understand.  It also seems like a better way to stop taxation creep, when you can more clearly put a price tag on programs.

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

Because having children is a personal decision about personal happiness and fulfillment. Nobody is completely altruistic and is having children to expressly benefit society, you hope your personal decisions as a parent promote your child becoming a benefit to society. It's a broad generalization to say that I should subsidize your children because they're the future of society. Your children might be scientists and poets, but they might be losers too. If I'm going to subsidize and share in the burden, then as a non-parent I want a greater say as to how you raise your child.

Don't ask me to support parents as my 'duty to society', to share in the burdens and the risk, when their decision to have children is a selfish one and I have no authority in influencing their parenting.

If you are paying federal or state income tax you already are paying for things that are for the overall benefit of society.  Some you might never in your life need.

Federal and state income taxes pay for a large part of benefits for people.  Roads, high ways, grant money, WIC, medicare, medicaid, wars, social security, anything the government votes on to provide funding for they are funding it from tax money.


onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

Because having children is a personal decision about personal happiness and fulfillment. Nobody is completely altruistic and is having children to expressly benefit society, you hope your personal decisions as a parent promote your child becoming a benefit to society. It's a broad generalization to say that I should subsidize your children because they're the future of society. Your children might be scientists and poets, but they might be losers too. If I'm going to subsidize and share in the burden, then as a non-parent I want a greater say as to how you raise your child.

Don't ask me to support parents as my 'duty to society', to share in the burdens and the risk, when their decision to have children is a selfish one and I have no authority in influencing their parenting.

If you are paying federal or state income tax you already are paying for things that are for the overall benefit of society.  Some you might never in your life need.

Federal and state income taxes pay for a large part of benefits for people.  Roads, high ways, grant money, WIC, medicare, medicaid, wars, social security, anything the government votes on to provide funding for they are funding it from tax money.

In my industry, a lot of the push for parental leave has come from the clients, rather than from the firms, at least in the last five years.  I imagine if you run the numbers, clients would rather pay 100.05% of their normal costs in order to ensure that the service providers they trust and know will come back in a few months, than save that .05% and have constant turnover in people doing work for them.  It reminds me of how my VC and PE clients look for women on boards, not for optics reasons, but because they've found it correlates with higher earnings for them (presumably because a diversity of viewpoints is a good idea, and women control most households' pursestrings).

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
If you are paying federal or state income tax you already are paying for things that are for the overall benefit of society.  Some you might never in your life need.

Federal and state income taxes pay for a large part of benefits for people.  Roads, high ways, grant money, WIC, medicare, medicaid, wars, social security, anything the government votes on to provide funding for they are funding it from tax money.

Yeah, and I disagree with a lot of that spending. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Social spending needs to be tied to measurable results, not vague assurances and assumptions that more money will yield a better society. Someone's happiness shouldn't dictate the level of effort in regards to taxation or increased burdens on employers.

Edit: I suppose you could link that happiness with actual factors based on surveys and statistics. However, when comparing the U.S. with other countries please be aware that the U.S. has a different cultural identify, different structures, different mindsets so it may not react in precisely the same way. In addition, when you propose these policies there needs to be an analysis done on the trade-offs. If you can provide a measurable good (long-term benefit to society) you need to talk about the long-term negative effects of society if introducing new taxes or burdens on employers. Will it incur additional costs? Will it encourage a change in behavior that yields unanticipated effects? Will it reduce long-term economic growth by moving capital out of growth-type investments into promoting safe social investments?

My point of view is that it's not worth it, and I think the majority of Americans agree with me. However, I think it's important to consider all these factors when proposing broad changes to our society.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 02:43:12 PM by Yaeger »

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Depends on how much the extra taxes would be. The government benefits from economies of scale which means that in a lot of cases it can get things done cheaper then you can ever dream of.
You're arguing that the government uses our money efficiently?  I can't agree. 

Teachers have been saying this pretty much since the start of public education in the United States. Historically the solution was to just flunk them and throw them out of school, but that isn't socially acceptable any more. The problem of student motivation is literally nothing new except that the low-skill jobs that used to be there to support under performing students as adults aren't there any more.
I hear what you're saying, but it has changed radically in the years I've been teaching -- low motivation is so much worse than it used to be.  It's not about social acceptability; it's about lowering standards.  This year our state lowered the minimum passing grade by 10 points and increased the allowable absences by 50%. 

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
I can't even imagine having children in the United States in 2016. First, there's the financial aspect. Then, there's the complete time suck they represent. Next, the US is a mess right now, especially in schools where now you have to worry about the very real possibility that your children will be shot to death by crazed madmen at any moment. My hat is off to you parents out there. I simply can't bring myself to have children.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
If you are paying federal or state income tax you already are paying for things that are for the overall benefit of society.  Some you might never in your life need.
Yes, we pay for all too many things already.  I can't buy into the We're already down the rabbit hole, so what's a few more dollars? argument. 

calimom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
  • Location: Northern California
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.
I agree.  Which makes more sense?  Work hard and pay for your own kids for a handful of years ... or pay extra taxes for your entire life?  It would make more sense to encourage people not to rush into parenthood:  to take time to be sure of their right partner, to save some money, to prepare physically and emotionally.

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.
Yeah, people are working in numerous ways to try to reduce inequality, but I think it's going to increase to a greater and greater extent. 

As a teacher, I see more and more students who simply WON'T do what's necessary to learn (and more and more parents who do not support education).  They don't seem to connect learning today with jobs tomorrow -- and, at the same time, low-skill jobs are drying up.  The general public seems only to care about the graduation rate; they don't pay attention to how standards are being lowered to make this happen. 

Second of all, I have read that the welfare formula changed in the 1960's and the result is that marriage was de-incentivezed. But that's not the only reason for marriage decrease. Women started to be able to make more money and not rely on marriage as their sole means of income. This is a good thing.
Yes, that was Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, and it was not a positive thing for America.  However, you're also correct that no incident in history stands alone; yes, it was a little later that working mothers really found acceptance in the workplace, but, yes, the ability for women to earn their own money made marriage less important.

There's been numerous studies done about how welfare has harmed marriage. I think the below graph (births to single mothers) explains a lot why parental happiness has declined in the U.S.
I was going to make a similar comment.  It's a whole lot harder to be a single parent, and single parenthood has been increasing steadily in the last few decades. 

On a personal note, when my children were small, our lives worked very well -- when both parents were home.  When my husband traveled for work and I was responsible for doing everything, it was tougher -- and often things went undone.  If I had lived that way every day, yes, my happiness level would've been lower.

Mrs. Pete: Are you a public school teacher? If so, who pays your salary? Would that be the taxpayers? And yes, it's so nice your life worked so well when your children were small. How lucky you were not to have low skilled jobs and a husband who measured up to his standards.

mxt0133

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
  • Location: San Francisco
I can't even imagine having children in the United States in 2016. First, there's the financial aspect. Then, there's the complete time suck they represent. Next, the US is a mess right now, especially in schools where now you have to worry about the very real possibility that your children will be shot to death by crazed madmen at any moment. My hat is off to you parents out there. I simply can't bring myself to have children.

You need to watch/read less news and read more of MMM's articles on how much children really cost and low information diet.  They should help to take some of the edge of.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/26/what-is-the-real-cost-of-raising-children/

If you are really worried about the possibility/probability of kids being shot in school, then you must be petrified every time you get in the car and drive somewhere.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
It appears to me that some of what has been said here is somewhat incorrect.

The German Economic Miracle happened partly as a result of the Marshall Plan. Nor was welfare as little as was claimed in this thread - indeed, Germany had one of the most advanced  parent friendly programs in the world at that time.

People who are talking about the changes in the 60s seem to have completely forgotten the major factor in what they are talking about - the pill. This made an incredible change at that time, and was responsible for more than any of the other suggestions that have been made here.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
It appears to me that some of what has been said here is somewhat incorrect.

The German Economic Miracle happened partly as a result of the Marshall Plan. Nor was welfare as little as was claimed in this thread - indeed, Germany had one of the most advanced  parent friendly programs in the world at that time.

People who are talking about the changes in the 60s seem to have completely forgotten the major factor in what they are talking about - the pill. This made an incredible change at that time, and was responsible for more than any of the other suggestions that have been made here.

Germany received less than half of what the U.K. received under the Marshall Plan, outperformed the UK postwar, and they received it after their economy was in full swing during the post-war recovery. The Marshall Plan had very little effect on the Wirtschaftswunder, especially considering that Germany was still paying war reparations and providing for the occupation forces well into the 1950s. Germany adopting more free market policies doesn't mean they eliminated social programs. They were a social market economy going into the 1950's due to economic reforms in the late 1940s away from price controls, tight production control, and rationing policies.

The pill was responsible for an explosion in the rates of single motherhood in the 1960s? If anything, I'd think you'd argue the opposite.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
A lot of the parent friendly policies started with Hitler - I suppose there has to be some good in even the most abominable regime.

As a result of the pill there was a lot more freedom. Girls were less likely to disappear for a few months and come back without a child, or to give up their child to their parents... It became more socially acceptable to actually have a child. As a result, the number of children in orphanages, or available for adoption dropped significantly, so we changed from having vastly too many children available for adoption to having almost none in about 10 years. My mother was involved in the changes that happened at this time including the deinstitutionalisation of child care as a result of the lack of illegitimate children available. I had thought that the availability of penicillin, which significantly reduced the number of young adults dying was what had caused the drop in the orphan population (look at deaths by TB for example, which almost completely disappeared at this time), but she was adamant that it was the pill.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

One interesting question is to consider whether non-parents are actually subsidizing parents in the long term. It is fairly easy to get this belief from a single year basis, but what about long term?

If we could hypothetically isolate all economic growth to children born since 1980 in the USA, what percentage of the USA GDP would be directly influenced by people who were born after that year? Or, perhaps a more morbid way to think about it - if everyone under the age of 36... disappeared suddenly, what would the long term effect on the economy be (particularly if they were not ever replaced with either children or immigrants)? Or what if the entire populations stopped having kids and there was no immigration for 50 years?

It is easy to lament subsidizing children for non-parents, but the reality is the long term financial successes a non-parent can have are fairly directly the result of continued or supported economic growth from other parent's kids and immigration.


MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Mrs. Pete: Are you a public school teacher? If so, who pays your salary? Would that be the taxpayers? And yes, it's so nice your life worked so well when your children were small. How lucky you were not to have low skilled jobs and a husband who measured up to his standards.
Yes, I am a public school teacher.  Yes, the taxpayers pay my salary; however, if you're implying that it's a handout, I'll remind you that I provide 40+ hours of work per week in exchange. 

Yes, our lives have worked out well; however, the fact that we're not in low skill jobs isn't luck.  We both worked our way through college and have worked hard in our careers.  We have had no luck that isn't available to the vast majority of Americans.   

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
If you are really worried about the possibility/probability of kids being shot in school, then you must be petrified every time you get in the car and drive somewhere.
This is a reaction to today's media.  With so much coverage, it's easy to get the idea that horrible events like school shootings are commonplace. While even one shooting is too many, the vast majority of students will never experience such an event.  Yes, it's scary.  Yes, every school has protocols in place now. 

But this fear isn't a realistic reason not to choose to have children. 

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
People who are talking about the changes in the 60s seem to have completely forgotten the major factor in what they are talking about - the pill. This made an incredible change at that time, and was responsible for more than any of the other suggestions that have been made here.
That's a very good point.  Far superior to previous forms of birth control, the pill made motherhood a choice rather than a fact of life ... and it probably changed American life more than any other invention in the 1900s.  Those of us who have never not known a world that contains reliable birth control tend to forget its impact.

calimom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
  • Location: Northern California
Mrs. Pete: Are you a public school teacher? If so, who pays your salary? Would that be the taxpayers? And yes, it's so nice your life worked so well when your children were small. How lucky you were not to have low skilled jobs and a husband who measured up to his standards.
Yes, I am a public school teacher.  Yes, the taxpayers pay my salary; however, if you're implying that it's a handout, I'll remind you that I provide 40+ hours of work per week in exchange. 

Yes, our lives have worked out well; however, the fact that we're not in low skill jobs isn't luck.  We both worked our way through college and have worked hard in our careers.  We have had no luck that isn't available to the vast majority of Americans.

I have enormous respect for public school teachers. They deserve their salaries as well as the early pensions most are entitled to. What isdisingenuous, however, is when people who make their living from the government distainthat same source that feeds them.

My own husband and I were from humble beginnings and educated ourselves through college, through public universities. We didn't fool ourselves that taxpayers didn't play a role in our success. What we didn't plan on (foolish us) was the fact that he'd be dead at the age of 37, leaving me with 3 young children to raise. Your head would probably explode, Mrs. Pete, if you realize the amount of Social Security (that my chidden are entitled to) receive. Yes, I am one of those single parents you feel so superior to.

You don't think you have had luck in your life, but you have. You're healthy; your husband is healthy and your children are alive and healthy. It's easy to feel smug, I know. But it is luck to be born well, however poor, in the US in the twentieth century, and have nice things happen throughout your life. I don't wish ill on you, just wish that you had some level of gratitude and compassion. Both of which are sorely lacking in your posts.

As far as the unhappiness survey in the link by the OP, all things considered, in my own life raising children, I feel VERY fortunate and satisfied. So many people struggle. I love my kids, I love being a parent,albeit a single one (to the dismay of Mrs. Pete); it was very much a choice, the biological kids I had and and the one I adopted. We are a very happy family with lots to be grateful for. I enjoy the present time I live in and look ahead to the future.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6747
  • Location: London, UK
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

One interesting question is to consider whether non-parents are actually subsidizing parents in the long term. It is fairly easy to get this belief from a single year basis, but what about long term?

If we could hypothetically isolate all economic growth to children born since 1980 in the USA, what percentage of the USA GDP would be directly influenced by people who were born after that year? Or, perhaps a more morbid way to think about it - if everyone under the age of 36... disappeared suddenly, what would the long term effect on the economy be (particularly if they were not ever replaced with either children or immigrants)? Or what if the entire populations stopped having kids and there was no immigration for 50 years?

It is easy to lament subsidizing children for non-parents, but the reality is the long term financial successes a non-parent can have are fairly directly the result of continued or supported economic growth from other parent's kids and immigration.

There's a dystopian film about that: Children of Men. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/] I haven't actually watched it yet so I'm not sure how pertinent it is to your thought, but I saw a trailer recently and it intrigued me.

goatmom

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
I think there are also different attitudes toward children in other countries.  When I go somewhere with my kids in the U.S. - I often get dirty looks and pained expressions.  When I am in Europe, people make positive comments and smile.  We are not a very "child friendly" culture and this does not have much to do with government programs.  Going into a restaurant or a plane in this country with a few small children is opening yourself to criticism.  I also see young parents out with their children - with all focus on the smart phone.  American parents are also over scheduled.  Kids are rushed from one activity to another. Not just one sport - but two sports and then a travel team.  Yeah!  Parents overwork to afford SUVs, bigger homes, dance classes, and summer camps.  If they can't afford these things, I think they feel as if they are failing.  I see elementary school kids at our school (in a poor area of town) with new iphones.  I don't think it is as simple as saying all the parents here would be happier if they had better family leave.  Although I am a big supporter of family leave and lowering the tax burden on young parents so they can afford to choose to have someone stay home with the babies and toddlers.  When I chose to stay home with my little ones - we made huge sacrifices but it was so worth it for the peace of mind. 

MrsCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 2019
I think there are also different attitudes toward children in other countries.  When I go somewhere with my kids in the U.S. - I often get dirty looks and pained expressions.  When I am in Europe, people make positive comments and smile.  We are not a very "child friendly" culture and this does not have much to do with government programs.  Going into a restaurant or a plane in this country with a few small children is opening yourself to criticism.  I also see young parents out with their children - with all focus on the smart phone.  American parents are also over scheduled.  Kids are rushed from one activity to another. Not just one sport - but two sports and then a travel team.  Yeah!  Parents overwork to afford SUVs, bigger homes, dance classes, and summer camps.  If they can't afford these things, I think they feel as if they are failing.  I see elementary school kids at our school (in a poor area of town) with new iphones.  I don't think it is as simple as saying all the parents here would be happier if they had better family leave.  Although I am a big supporter of family leave and lowering the tax burden on young parents so they can afford to choose to have someone stay home with the babies and toddlers.  When I chose to stay home with my little ones - we made huge sacrifices but it was so worth it for the peace of mind.

Yea, one enemy worse than the news with all the craziness happening is that damn cell phone & social media. I'm not entirely sure how I can make my kids have a balance bc I'm probably a bit more obsessed with mine than DH & mine is not even as bad as others...

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

One interesting question is to consider whether non-parents are actually subsidizing parents in the long term. It is fairly easy to get this belief from a single year basis, but what about long term?

If we could hypothetically isolate all economic growth to children born since 1980 in the USA, what percentage of the USA GDP would be directly influenced by people who were born after that year? Or, perhaps a more morbid way to think about it - if everyone under the age of 36... disappeared suddenly, what would the long term effect on the economy be (particularly if they were not ever replaced with either children or immigrants)? Or what if the entire populations stopped having kids and there was no immigration for 50 years?

It is easy to lament subsidizing children for non-parents, but the reality is the long term financial successes a non-parent can have are fairly directly the result of continued or supported economic growth from other parent's kids and immigration.

No one is arguing that investing in children isn't a good thing, but it's only a good thing to a point. The point is that you should invest in children up until the return on the investment becomes lower than investing into other areas of society, with either private or public funds. Essentially, we need to balance the potential of our children vs the benefits from other social alternatives (healthcare, defense, public health, the elderly, the MYRIAD of competing interests). The opportunity cost. Parents do this all the time. They could send their children to an expensive private school, but is the education worth the investment.. maybe. It depends on the value you place on that capital and what else you'd spend that tuition on.

If you feel that the parents should be better compensated for shouldering the burden of childcare via mandated and paid baby leave, then choose a public spending area to pull that money from and argue for why you see it as being a higher priority. Just don't expect me to essentially support a tax on single people, that's really what it is, because it'd benefit you and yours.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
Why place the burden upon employers at all? They're not responsible for your personal family decisions and they don't 'reap rewards' based on those decisions. I feel that this is the common go-to solution for your problems because it achieves the affect without a direct impact to the person that would vote for these policies, but it's incredibly deceptive and manipulative.

The burden needs to be placed on the demographic of people wanting the benefit, any attempt to move it onto more people to spread out the burden is just looking to use the government to subsidize their decisions off the backs of those that make different choices in life. Those on the right have always been family-centric, that's one of the key qualities of the right, but that doesn't involve taking someone else's money by force in order to justify improving our parental happiness.

But how do you separate the benefits of having children (and then students and then workers/inventors/investors) in the society you're a member of from the benefits to the particular parents?  Agreed that non-parents are subsidizing parents, but children are also (expected to) subsidize the generation above them (via payment of taxes, employment, service in war, etc).

One interesting question is to consider whether non-parents are actually subsidizing parents in the long term. It is fairly easy to get this belief from a single year basis, but what about long term?

If we could hypothetically isolate all economic growth to children born since 1980 in the USA, what percentage of the USA GDP would be directly influenced by people who were born after that year? Or, perhaps a more morbid way to think about it - if everyone under the age of 36... disappeared suddenly, what would the long term effect on the economy be (particularly if they were not ever replaced with either children or immigrants)? Or what if the entire populations stopped having kids and there was no immigration for 50 years?

It is easy to lament subsidizing children for non-parents, but the reality is the long term financial successes a non-parent can have are fairly directly the result of continued or supported economic growth from other parent's kids and immigration.

No one is arguing that investing in children isn't a good thing, but it's only a good thing to a point. The point is that you should invest in children up until the return on the investment becomes lower than investing into other areas of society, with either private or public funds. Essentially, we need to balance the potential of our children vs the benefits from other social alternatives (healthcare, defense, public health, the elderly, the MYRIAD of competing interests). The opportunity cost. Parents do this all the time. They could send their children to an expensive private school, but is the education worth the investment.. maybe. It depends on the value you place on that capital and what else you'd spend that tuition on.

If you feel that the parents should be better compensated for shouldering the burden of childcare via mandated and paid baby leave, then choose a public spending area to pull that money from and argue for why you see it as being a higher priority. Just don't expect me to essentially support a tax on single people, that's really what it is, because it'd benefit you and yours.
Your no tax increase part isn't really your choice. That's a choice that society as a whole makes.  Yaeger, do you think that changing demographics, I.e a higher percentage of traditionally democrat voting minorities that's happening in this country dooms the things you advocate for or do you think that more minorities will become conservatives?  I think that current conservatism is doomed and that we're seeing it's death throws right now in Donald Trump and 8 years of obstructionism.  The Republican Party will come back as one about traditional family values and policies that benefit hard work compared to the Republican Party of today that's about obstructionism and policies that benefit the rich.  In my opinion it's long overdue that we start discussing a social free for all versus traditional nuclear family and money for being alive vs offering a real helping hand for the working poor.  I think that this hypothetical new Republican Party could really turn America on the right path.  I've been wrong before, however.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Your no tax increase part isn't really your choice. That's a choice that society as a whole makes.  Yaeger, do you think that changing demographics, I.e a higher percentage of traditionally democrat voting minorities that's happening in this country dooms the things you advocate for or do you think that more minorities will become conservatives?  I think that current conservatism is doomed and that we're seeing it's death throws right now in Donald Trump and 8 years of obstructionism.  The Republican Party will come back as one about traditional family values and policies that benefit hard work compared to the Republican Party of today that's about obstructionism and policies that benefit the rich.  In my opinion it's long overdue that we start discussing a social free for all versus traditional nuclear family and money for being alive vs offering a real helping hand for the working poor.  I think that this hypothetical new Republican Party could really turn America on the right path.  I've been wrong before, however.

I'm not a conservative, I never have been. Also, it IS my choice because I'll oppose and prevent it to the best of my ability and I'll continue to do so to those that'll listen. I'll continue to do so even if I'm forced to provide it. I don't give up on my values because the majority starts considering exploiting my labor to benefit themselves. The left is exploding just like the right, with Hillary, the Bernie movement, violence by extreme leftists all over the country (not by the 'racist' and 'bigoted' right), and people abandoning the Democrat party in favor of Johnson. I'd hope that minorities would stop voting for the party that panders to them with free-sh*t and no change, and maybe start realizing that the right represents their interests far more.

I respect ALL Americans equally and I don't believe in subjectively equitable government distributions. I protect the rich as much as the poor, or vice versa, because I believe in equal treatment under the law. I'll oppose anything that aims to benefit one party at the expense of another, the government (or the popular majority) shouldn't be the arbitrator of what's 'fair'.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Depends on how much the extra taxes would be. The government benefits from economies of scale which means that in a lot of cases it can get things done cheaper then you can ever dream of.
You're arguing that the government uses our money efficiently?  I can't agree.
I didn't say that the government uses money efficiently. I said that they benefit from an economy of scale. There is a significant difference between the two and most people can't really appreciate what it is. Quite simply, if you can benefit from an economy of scale, you can afford to operate inefficiently. Manufactures know all about this and exploit it in their efforts to make a profit as well.

You could say that about any organization, especially in regards to monopolizing a market. However, that usually that comes with severe economic problems of its own in regards to things like limitations on the bargaining power of the consumer, inability to promote competition, loss of surplus to the consumer, and other detrimental effects. It's no different with government.

Letj

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
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.
+1000, especially for people of limited means.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6747
  • Location: London, UK
I do find it very interesting that when people are contrasting themselves with other people in this thread they are thinking about themselves as either parents or non-parents, and thinking about whether parent-focused social programmes (whether subsidies or mandates) would benefit or disadvantage themselves in their role as parent or non-parent. Of course it is true that non-parents will not benefit directly from these, but why has no one mentioned the fact that we have all been (and indeed still are) children? No arguments on this thread have talked about how these laws would benefit children as well as parents.

No law can change the past so whenever we make a good law, we will miss out on having had that good law for the part of our lives up until now. This is true whether it is to deregulate markets, to provide free schools meals, to raise or lower taxes... We don't decide that we won't pass good laws about college tuition just because we've finished college and it won't benefit us now, or about small businesses just because our business is now successful enough to be a large one. Just because we are no longer children ourselves doesn't mean that we should ignore the benefit to future children. I'm sure we can all identify with, for example, wishing our parents could stay home from work with us when we were sick without feeling bad that we were sick because it would cause problems at Mummy or Daddy's work and maybe they wouldn't get paid for that day. Or Mummy and Daddy not arguing about money because our daycare is subsidised enough that Mummy does actually make a net income of more than $0 over choosing to stay home.

As much as the examples do benefit parents and apparently make them happier, they would also make children happier. Isn't that important too, even if it's too late for us to benefit personally, and can't we all identify with that (parents and non-parents)?

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Okay, haven't read more than the first 3 comments.  Just got back from vacation, so I'll add a few thoughts and then go back and read.

I think there are a lot of things going on, and as the first few commenters noted -

- American individualism is at play.  There's a tendency to be that way, and also a heavy tendency to give ourselves credit for hard work (rightfully so), but ignore privilege and outside factors that helped.

- There's a lack of "movement" in the US, for many people.  Part of my vacation was a last-minute trip to my home town.  It is very hard to *get" to my home town.  The detour cost $1000 ($500 to change my flight and $500 for the rental car.  There is literally no other way to get to middle of nowhere PA without a car.)  Aside from the occasional trip to Disney World that my SIL and nieces take, they don't *go* anywhere.  Their experiences are pretty narrow.

So much of the very short conversations that I had with my 13 year old niece involved statements like "my mom says she's tired of paying for other people's food".  I would counter with "well you know most people on food stamps have full time jobs".  The response was "well, I'm only a kid, I don't know politics".

Some of this attitude comes because my home town is rural and there aren't many jobs. Everyone knows "someone" who sits at home and draws welfare, and has kids to get more money (but only up to 3 kids).  Nobody knows anyone who gets food stamps or welfare and has a job.  (Because, you know, people don't talk about that part.)

- Some people never have or see bad things happen to others. Why would I want national health care or Obama care?  I have health insurance at work.  I don't have cancer.  My parents worked at a job where they have a pension and health care along with it.  If someone gets cancer, we have a pancake breakfast at the church.

- There's an inability to see the "gray" in anything.  "I worked hard and other people are lazy".  Some people have the inability to put themselves in other people's shoes.  If you are on welfare, you are lazy.  If you need food stamps, you should not have had kids.  You should pay for your own health insurance or health care.  There's no thought to the nuances. The people who lost their jobs when their kids were teenagers (but were able to pay for their kids up until then).  The people who lost their jobs and *then* got cancer at age 50, after 30 years of continuous employment.  The people who were "uninsurable" due to pre-existing condition, even though all they did is move to a different state.  The children whose parents work 2 jobs but go hungry.

Absolutes are easy.  Looking at the middle ground is TOO HARD.  (yes, many people have kids when they shouldn't.  Yes, some people are lazy.  Most people are not.  Many kids who are awaiting adoption have emotional and physical challenges - fetal alcohol syndrome, etc.)  Both "sides" have good points, but there is a middle ground.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
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 ;).
Who cares? 

What was my director boss producing for the two months that he was out with: back surgery, shoulder surgery, and a nasty chest infection?  Nothing.
But he more than made up for it all of the other years (now it's 5 years).

When you allow people to be "out" when they need to be "out" you end up with loyal employees.  And if someone is otherwise productive, don't you want that?

Full disclosure, I live in CA.  Those surgeries were covered by state disability.  As is pregnancy disability leave.  Parental leave (6 weeks) is covered by unemployment taxes.

Also, paid family leave covers leave to bond with a new child or care for a sick/ injured family member.  So you are more than welcome to take the leave to go care for your sick wife, brother, mother.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
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.
Maybe not though.  I mean, I could probably FIRE today, except for the unknowns: health care, and college costs for my still-young kids.

If we had national health care, and more reasonable college costs, then I could FIRE today and let someone else have my engineering job.

Then maybe it would be up to the individual families - two incomes or one?  Two full time incomes or two 30-hour a week incomes?  Live a middle class life and work until retirement, or be badass and retire at 45?  Not that we don't have those choices right now, but they seem to be much much harder for the typical family.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 03:16:39 PM by mm1970 »

Helvegen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Location: PNW
I have to say, I hate working 5 days a week. I wish my workplace would adopt a 4/10 schedule because we don't really do anything on Fridays anyway. My husband and I would be first to say that instead of a raise, we'd rather have more PTO. But you might as well be talking about conjuring up the devil to 16th century inquisitors.

We had a lot less money in the past, but we were very rich in time. Now we suffer from time poverty and some days, I don't know which is worse.

I don't think children were ever meant to be raised in the context of only one or two parents doing all of the work. You raised them in extended family/community groups, for better or worse. I don't have that option available to me for many reasons. Everyone either is working full-time themselves, might as well live on the moon, or is too old or disabled and simply can't even if they would otherwise be willing. You never get a break, childcare is expensive, and raising children in general is time/money intensive and exhausting. As a result, my whole extended family is taking the short road to extinction. No one wants to have more than one child and no one has. Several have decided to just forgo the whole thing all together. It is just too daunting of a task to go alone.

Paid parental leave is really only the tip of the iceberg. To even consider having more children, I would need more time, money, know that my job/husband's job was rock solid stable for an indefinite period (lolololol), know that I won't go bankrupt if I happen to have a child with some terrible condition, preferably, I would have some additional hands to help out. It is the whole picture for me, not just one or two token items.


mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Just levy a flat tax on all parents and fund the leave from that, that way the childless folks can opt out until they decide to have a child.

It's a win for both groups and it seems to be the fairest option.
Sounds like a winner to me.  Except that if I do have kids, I don't want my taxes to go up.  Maybe I'd want to opt out of my leave to keep my taxes low.

At what point would the taxes begin?  During the pregnancy or birth?  At what point would the taxes stop?  When the child goes to school full time?  Turns 18? Never?  What happens if the child does not survive infancy, do the taxes stop?  What about people whose incomes are so low they don't pay taxes?
A few months ago I had a convo with a woman who attended the elementary school in my neighborhood.

I'm paraphrasing: "I don't think my property taxes should be so high.  I should get a break because I did not have children going to the schools."

Um, you attended public school.  Your taxes are paying for the fact that *you* went to public school.  (Nevermind that we are in CA, she's owned her house for decades, and Prop 13 means her taxes are pennies on the dollar compared to mine).

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
I think there are also different attitudes toward children in other countries.  When I go somewhere with my kids in the U.S. - I often get dirty looks and pained expressions.  When I am in Europe, people make positive comments and smile.  We are not a very "child friendly" culture and this does not have much to do with government programs.  Going into a restaurant or a plane in this country with a few small children is opening yourself to criticism.  I also see young parents out with their children - with all focus on the smart phone.  American parents are also over scheduled.  Kids are rushed from one activity to another. Not just one sport - but two sports and then a travel team.  Yeah!  Parents overwork to afford SUVs, bigger homes, dance classes, and summer camps.  If they can't afford these things, I think they feel as if they are failing.  I see elementary school kids at our school (in a poor area of town) with new iphones.  I don't think it is as simple as saying all the parents here would be happier if they had better family leave.  Although I am a big supporter of family leave and lowering the tax burden on young parents so they can afford to choose to have someone stay home with the babies and toddlers.  When I chose to stay home with my little ones - we made huge sacrifices but it was so worth it for the peace of mind.
Also a good point.  We recently visited family in NY.  My SIL had guests in town from Denmark.  I worried a bit about my crazy 3 year old (very active).  The two Danes (20-something man and woman) were both SOOO good with him. They LOVE kids.  When I was 20, I avoided kids.

TrMama

  • Guest
I think there are also different attitudes toward children in other countries.  When I go somewhere with my kids in the U.S. - I often get dirty looks and pained expressions.  When I am in Europe, people make positive comments and smile.  We are not a very "child friendly" culture and this does not have much to do with government programs.  Going into a restaurant or a plane in this country with a few small children is opening yourself to criticism.  I also see young parents out with their children - with all focus on the smart phone.  American parents are also over scheduled.  Kids are rushed from one activity to another. Not just one sport - but two sports and then a travel team.  Yeah!  Parents overwork to afford SUVs, bigger homes, dance classes, and summer camps.  If they can't afford these things, I think they feel as if they are failing.  I see elementary school kids at our school (in a poor area of town) with new iphones.  I don't think it is as simple as saying all the parents here would be happier if they had better family leave.  Although I am a big supporter of family leave and lowering the tax burden on young parents so they can afford to choose to have someone stay home with the babies and toddlers.  When I chose to stay home with my little ones - we made huge sacrifices but it was so worth it for the peace of mind.
Also a good point.  We recently visited family in NY.  My SIL had guests in town from Denmark.  I worried a bit about my crazy 3 year old (very active).  The two Danes (20-something man and woman) were both SOOO good with him. They LOVE kids.  When I was 20, I avoided kids.

This. I was pregnant in BC (which has US-style attitudes towards kids and pregnancy). I'm a small person and seem to carry huge babies, so when I'm pregnant it's very, very obvious. People here would stop me on the street to rudely tell me how huge I was (really, wow, I hadn't noticed!). They always acted as if I was some sort of circus freak. If I had my toddler with me, they would sympathize about how hard my life was about to become.

When I was 8 months pregnant with my 2nd child, we moved to Quebec which has very different attitudes towards children and reproduction. There, strangers would stop me to tell me how beautiful I looked, how they were genuinely very happy for me and how wonderful children are. At first, this freaked me out since I was used to being treated badly and kept waiting for the punchline. But, no, they were sincere. I thought this was a huge improvement and got used to it very quickly.

On my due date there was still no sign of labour. My dad was in town and wanted to walk around the old city, so he and I went to trek around the touristy part of town.  On a quiet street a group of morbidly obese US tourists walking on the opposite side of the street stopped to point and laugh at me. I turned around to see what funny thing was happening behind me, but no, they were laughing at my giant pregnant belly. It was a graphic reminder of how greatly attitudes vary by culture.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If parents get a paid year off then I want one, too.

Has anyone in this country pushed for a year? I've heard things like 2/3 average weekly pay over previous year for 6-8 weeks for a new mother but have yet to hear the paid to take a year off proposition in the U.S.
I have no idea what (if anything) has been proposed in the US.  But whatever it is, I want the same thing.

That's the beauty of parental time off.  You would get exactly the same treatment.  Once you have kids, you get the time off.  If you choose to have a significantly better life without kids, you don't get the time off.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
If parents get a paid year off then I want one, too.

Has anyone in this country pushed for a year? I've heard things like 2/3 average weekly pay over previous year for 6-8 weeks for a new mother but have yet to hear the paid to take a year off proposition in the U.S.
I have no idea what (if anything) has been proposed in the US.  But whatever it is, I want the same thing.

That's the beauty of parental time off.  You would get exactly the same treatment.  Once you have kids, you get the time off.  If you choose to have a significantly better life without kids, you don't get the time off.

Translated version: "have kids or go screw yourself." Am I missing something here? Why is this acceptable to treat your fellow citizens this way when it's self-serving statements like this responsible for the growing divide within our country.

We bemoan the role culture plays in distancing itself from the family in the US, and then we distance ourselves even further by pushing away community and increasing our reliance on government force to more 'equitably' distribute earnings from single people to families. We're doing the very thing responsible for the widening cultural gap, we need more voluntary involvement between families and communities, not more taxes and mandates.

ArcadeStache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63

If parents get a paid year off then I want one, too.

Has anyone in this country pushed for a year? I've heard things like 2/3 average weekly pay over previous year for 6-8 weeks for a new mother but have yet to hear the paid to take a year off proposition in the U.S.
I have no idea what (if anything) has been proposed in the US.  But whatever it is, I want the same thing.

That's the beauty of parental time off.  You would get exactly the same treatment.  Once you have kids, you get the time off.  If you choose to have a significantly better life without kids, you don't get the time off.

Not taking a position on parental leave, but time off with newborns or toddlers isn't really time off...if anything it is more work that's pretty draining. So I don't see it as a freebie vacation for new parents.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If parents get a paid year off then I want one, too.

Has anyone in this country pushed for a year? I've heard things like 2/3 average weekly pay over previous year for 6-8 weeks for a new mother but have yet to hear the paid to take a year off proposition in the U.S.
I have no idea what (if anything) has been proposed in the US.  But whatever it is, I want the same thing.

That's the beauty of parental time off.  You would get exactly the same treatment.  Once you have kids, you get the time off.  If you choose to have a significantly better life without kids, you don't get the time off.

Translated version: "have kids or go screw yourself." Am I missing something here? Why is this acceptable to treat your fellow citizens this way when it's self-serving statements like this responsible for the growing divide within our country.

We bemoan the role culture plays in distancing itself from the family in the US, and then we distance ourselves even further by pushing away community and increasing our reliance on government force to more 'equitably' distribute earnings from single people to families. We're doing the very thing responsible for the widening cultural gap, we need more voluntary involvement between families and communities, not more taxes and mandates.

Children are a net benefit to society.  You don't want the headache of having a kid . . . fine.  Nobody's forcing you to have them and go through the ordeals required to benefit society.

If you're volunteering to look after a colicky newborn for a year so mom/dad can keep working, I'm totally on board with your proposal.  If you're not willing to voluntarily do that though, then you're demonstrating the reason that government intervention is necessary.

Looking after a newborn is a full time job.  Doing it wrong can damage the child for life . . . which means that the kid is a drain on society for 80+ years.  Parental time off is just a cost effective way of maximizing benefits for society from those who choose to breed.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 01:42:47 PM by GuitarStv »

azure975

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129

If parents get a paid year off then I want one, too.

Has anyone in this country pushed for a year? I've heard things like 2/3 average weekly pay over previous year for 6-8 weeks for a new mother but have yet to hear the paid to take a year off proposition in the U.S.
I have no idea what (if anything) has been proposed in the US.  But whatever it is, I want the same thing.

That's the beauty of parental time off.  You would get exactly the same treatment.  Once you have kids, you get the time off.  If you choose to have a significantly better life without kids, you don't get the time off.

Not taking a position on parental leave, but time off with newborns or toddlers isn't really time off...if anything it is more work that's pretty draining. So I don't see it as a freebie vacation for new parents.

But it's their choice. What if a person wanted 12 weeks off to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity or some other social welfare organization? That would be a net benefit to society as well. Imo time off is time off.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Children is a net benefit to society.  You don't want the headache of having a kid . . . fine.  Nobody's forcing you to have them and go through the ordeals required to benefit society.

If you're volunteering to look after a colicky newborn for a year so mom/dad can keep working, I'm totally on board with your proposal.  If you're not willing to voluntarily do that though, then you're demonstrating the reason that government intervention is necessary.

Looking after a newborn is a full time job.  Doing it wrong can damage the child for life . . . which means that the kid is a drain on society for 80+ years.  Parental time off is just a cost effective way of maximizing benefits for society from those who choose to breed.

No, you're saying that your investment to society via children is more important than the investment that I'd make to society as a single person, thus you need to divert some of my resources (earnings) to support parents. You're not giving parents or children anything, you're transferring it from other more desired areas of the economy and basing that flawed decision solely upon the good that'd it do is irresponsible and not representative of the true cost of the proposal.

For example, society could choose that other areas of social investment yield a greater social benefit than parental leave, like: healthcare, police, infrastructure, military. It's choosing the social investment that yields the BEST benefit to society, including the positives from private spending, enterprise, and investment. Personally, I think legislating paid parental leave is self-serving.

Frs1661

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 115
...

For example, society could choose that other areas of social investment yield a greater social benefit than parental leave, like: healthcare, police, infrastructure, military. It's choosing the social investment that yields the BEST benefit to society, including the positives from private spending, enterprise, and investment. Personally, I think legislating paid parental leave is self-serving.


Demographics play a large role in economic growth. (for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-demographics-rule-the-global-economy-1448203724, see also: Japan). It is in the interest of society to encourage people to have children at a slightly greater than replacement rate, which is about 2-2.3 children per woman in developed countries. The current US birth rate is 1.88. Therefore, further incentivizing child rearing and/or immigration of young folks to make up the difference is indicated. Economic growth is the engine driving the stock market and our safe withdrawal rates, whether you have children or not; your argument that policies that encourage families to have children (such as this one) is self-serving falls flat to me. 

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
I have enormous respect for public school teachers. They deserve their salaries as well as the early pensions most are entitled to. What isdisingenuous, however, is when people who make their living from the government distainthat same source that feeds them.
I don't question that we need to pay taxes to cover things that are necessary for society:  Military, roads ... and schools, plus other things.  And, yes, my salary comes from taxes.  However, I don't believe the things necessary to society require the amount of taxes extorted from the American people. 

Yes, I am one of those single parents you feel so superior to
You've definitely read something into my posts that wasn't there. 

You don't think you have had luck in your life, but you have.
Yes, I've definitely had luck -- but, as addressed above, it's been the luck that most Americans have.  The luck of good health and a good brain. 

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167

Looking after a newborn is a full time job.  Doing it wrong can damage the child for life . . . which means that the kid is a drain on society for 80+ years.  Parental time off is just a cost effective way of maximizing benefits for society from those who choose to breed.

I think this is really important to remember.  There are some very clear (and some less clear) causal outcomes of not being able to bond (and breastfeed, if desired/possible) with infants to those infants' future health and earnings.  The rest of us will be paying for them in decades.  I don't think a Nordic-style 1-2 year leave is necessary, but the first 12 weeks, at a minimum, are so important.  I'm hoping to be home for 16 or 18, for what it's worth, although not thanks to any government program.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
...

For example, society could choose that other areas of social investment yield a greater social benefit than parental leave, like: healthcare, police, infrastructure, military. It's choosing the social investment that yields the BEST benefit to society, including the positives from private spending, enterprise, and investment. Personally, I think legislating paid parental leave is self-serving.


Demographics play a large role in economic growth. (for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-demographics-rule-the-global-economy-1448203724, see also: Japan). It is in the interest of society to encourage people to have children at a slightly greater than replacement rate, which is about 2-2.3 children per woman in developed countries. The current US birth rate is 1.88. Therefore, further incentivizing child rearing and/or immigration of young folks to make up the difference is indicated. Economic growth is the engine driving the stock market and our safe withdrawal rates, whether you have children or not; your argument that policies that encourage families to have children (such as this one) is self-serving falls flat to me.

Yaeger's is not the voice of reason.  I like reading what he says but he makes it plainly obvious.  Yaeger is out for Yaeger and nothing and no one else.  His opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

TheOfficeLady

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
I still babysit to make extra cash here and there. A lot of parents don't require their kids to do ANY chores. It drives me crazy. I feel bad for their future D-I-Ls and S-I-Ls.

Richie Poor

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Texas
This. I was pregnant in BC (which has US-style attitudes towards kids and pregnancy). I'm a small person and seem to carry huge babies, so when I'm pregnant it's very, very obvious. People here would stop me on the street to rudely tell me how huge I was (really, wow, I hadn't noticed!). They always acted as if I was some sort of circus freak. If I had my toddler with me, they would sympathize about how hard my life was about to become.

When I was 8 months pregnant with my 2nd child, we moved to Quebec which has very different attitudes towards children and reproduction. There, strangers would stop me to tell me how beautiful I looked, how they were genuinely very happy for me and how wonderful children are. At first, this freaked me out since I was used to being treated badly and kept waiting for the punchline. But, no, they were sincere. I thought this was a huge improvement and got used to it very quickly.

On my due date there was still no sign of labour. My dad was in town and wanted to walk around the old city, so he and I went to trek around the touristy part of town.  On a quiet street a group of morbidly obese US tourists walking on the opposite side of the street stopped to point and laugh at me. I turned around to see what funny thing was happening behind me, but no, they were laughing at my giant pregnant belly. It was a graphic reminder of how greatly attitudes vary by culture.

I was expecting negative attitudes towards children but my own experiences have made me more optimistic. I have a 16 month old daughter and since birth people have gone out of their way to help in public places if there were any signs of needing assistance. People stop me at the store so they can play with her. I thought New York subways riders had a bad reputation but my pregnant wife was always offered a seat on a recent vacation. On the flight back from NY there were 3 babies and a good portion of the flight was filled with crying. Strangers helped hold the babies and offer distractions. No dirty looks or annoyed sighs. There are a lot of good people in our very own culture.

Maybe all that positivity goes out the window a year from now if my child becomes a tantrum thrower in public.

MishMash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Did anyone read the Scary Mommy facebook post a few days ago about living paycheck to paycheck?  I think the attitude in the comments 100% sums up and vindicates EXACTLY what Yaeger is saying.  I was positively disgusted in reading the comments, and I have kids.   

Some comments were helpful but the majority were woe is me, I'm broke, but when people suggested things like getting even a part time job at nights etc it was FILLED with Oh Heavens to betsy, that would be detrimental to my child, or it wouldn't be worth it, etc etc.  Several of the posts talked about how they turned down promotions or jobs because they would phase out of government funded programs like subsidized child care, education benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.  Others talked about how they were able to "game the system" and bankrupt their student loans by never seeking employment etc.  It was a non stop bitch fest of people expecting others to pay for THEIR choices in life.  Most of the ones complaining could have been much better off if they had just been more rational and say, not had kids while jobless, on government assistance and having huge student loans in deferment.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility people?

It's these attitudes, and things like these comments that make people like Yaeger, and myself, NOT want to expand government programs to provide MORE benefits to people who chose to procreate, especially when the non procreators aren't afforded anywhere CLOSE to the same benefits.   What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, if parents want more paid paternity leave, then the childless should be offered paid leave at least once every X years to pursue something that THEY deem to be a worthwhile contribution to society.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Did anyone read the Scary Mommy facebook post a few days ago about living paycheck to paycheck?  I think the attitude in the comments 100% sums up and vindicates EXACTLY what Yaeger is saying.  I was positively disgusted in reading the comments, and I have kids.   

Some comments were helpful but the majority were woe is me, I'm broke, but when people suggested things like getting even a part time job at nights etc it was FILLED with Oh Heavens to betsy, that would be detrimental to my child, or it wouldn't be worth it, etc etc.  Several of the posts talked about how they turned down promotions or jobs because they would phase out of government funded programs like subsidized child care, education benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.  Others talked about how they were able to "game the system" and bankrupt their student loans by never seeking employment etc.  It was a non stop bitch fest of people expecting others to pay for THEIR choices in life.  Most of the ones complaining could have been much better off if they had just been more rational and say, not had kids while jobless, on government assistance and having huge student loans in deferment.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility people?

I don't think we should be using Facebook comments *shudder* to determine public policy. I seriously doubt any large % of these people were able to bankrupt their student loans because that's extremely difficult to do and judges aren't a fan of people who aren't looking for work. Most people don't even try to include SLs in their filing. They might have gone on an income based repayment plan and while you may not agree with that, they are fulfilling the terms of the loan.


MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
I've been away from my laptop for a while and my mobile is inadequate for me to write anything longer than a few sentences.

I think part of the problem (someone else mentioned it) is individualism is very much ingrained in our American culture.  There are a lot of good points about this, however it means we are very short sighted when thinking about our future.

While some can make the argument that the people having the kids should bear a greater burden of the societal costs the other side could make the argument that the people who are choosing to not have children are the ones who are making a deliberate attempt to ensure the end of our country as we know it.

One disservice this article makes is using the word "happiness".  Yes I think happiness is important.  There is a reason "the pursuit of happiness" is part of our Declaration of Independence, but expanding paid parental leave has so many more benefits than just happiness (as it is defined in this forum).

Right now parents are facing several challenges.
1) High daycare costs.  If you look at several threads on this forum there are a lot of people talking about how expensive it is for childcare.  Some people are paying twice their mortgage just for child care alone.  My personal feelings is that childcare should be free for everyone regardless of income. 

2) Promotes breastfeeding.  Even though I was unable to breastfeed and my baby is 100% healthy and has been on formula since Day 2, I do believe that America can do more to encourage mothers to breastfeed and breastfeed longer.  Right now, even though, we push the "breast is best" (no I don't think formula is evil) the reality is we are really pushing "breast milk pumping is best" point of view. 

Any woman who has tried to breast feed knows it can take weeks to settle into any sort of feeding schedule, for the nipple soreness to subside, and making sure the baby is getting what they need out of each feeding.  By the time they get into a routine, it is time to go back to work and out comes the breast pump.  Asking within my own circle the breast pump is why a lot of my friends didn't make it to the 6 month timeframe, even though they were breastfeeding successfully while on maternity leave.

The benefits of breastfeeding are many.  Health wise it gives the babies the nutrients but it also releases Oxytocin which is beneficial to the mother as well as the baby.  With many women not able to take more than a couple of weeks off they end up formula feeding because they are unable to breastfeed because they have to return to work, sometimes working multiple jobs.  Again there is nothing wrong with formula, but these are women who can and want to breastfeed it is just not possible for them to continue.  Add the cost of formula to already stretched budgets and already the financial lives of so many just became harder.

3.  Paid parental leave has been linked to a lower mortality rate.  Less babies dying after birth, how is that not a good thing?

4.  More pediatrician appointments and a higher immunization rate.  When parents have the ability to stay at home with their babies and not worry about being homeless or having the lights turned out, they tend to take their babies to more well-baby appointments and actually follow the recommended immunization schedule.  This is a good thing.  What is bad is when parents have to choose between working their hourly job and going to the doctor.  Working their hourly job is more important because 1) it pays for their house/apartment, 2)it pays for the daycare 3) it pays for the formula and diapers. 

If we think about the amount of stress that new parents can be relieved from during an already stressful time, then yes I think it will increase the over happiness of parents.  However happiness is really just a by product of providing the support necessary to ensure the next generation has the best start as a possible.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 01:03:47 PM by MrsDinero »

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Did anyone read the Scary Mommy facebook post a few days ago about living paycheck to paycheck?  I think the attitude in the comments 100% sums up and vindicates EXACTLY what Yaeger is saying.  I was positively disgusted in reading the comments, and I have kids.   

Some comments were helpful but the majority were woe is me, I'm broke, but when people suggested things like getting even a part time job at nights etc it was FILLED with Oh Heavens to betsy, that would be detrimental to my child, or it wouldn't be worth it, etc etc.  Several of the posts talked about how they turned down promotions or jobs because they would phase out of government funded programs like subsidized child care, education benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.  Others talked about how they were able to "game the system" and bankrupt their student loans by never seeking employment etc.  It was a non stop bitch fest of people expecting others to pay for THEIR choices in life.  Most of the ones complaining could have been much better off if they had just been more rational and say, not had kids while jobless, on government assistance and having huge student loans in deferment.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility people?

It's these attitudes, and things like these comments that make people like Yaeger, and myself, NOT want to expand government programs to provide MORE benefits to people who chose to procreate, especially when the non procreators aren't afforded anywhere CLOSE to the same benefits.   What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, if parents want more paid paternity leave, then the childless should be offered paid leave at least once every X years to pursue something that THEY deem to be a worthwhile contribution to society.

I guess I saw the woe is me comments, but they didn't seem that bad.  Sure, "don't have kids while jobless", but that ship has sailed, you know?

As far as getting a night job goes, in some cases it makes no financial sense.  If you have to pay for a babysitter, or would lose assistance.  Or would just tire yourself out.  I mean, maybe a 20-something can do it, but I'm 46.