USA Today article about lack of affordable child care

[charis]

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/education/2019/12/02/why-america-doesnt-have-affordable-daycare-maternity-leave-paid-family/2136595001

I almost posted this in the anti-mustachian section when I got to the data about the family's spending and income.  Lack of affordable and flexible child care is obviously a problem for struggling families, but I'm not sure this is a great example.  They have a stay at home parent, but preschool is their third largest monthly expense, after food and a too-high-for-their-income mortgage payment.

[DadJokes]

I'm confused about the debate for paid maternity leave. My wife's employer didn't offer that either, so we picked up a short-term disability policy when we started trying for a child, which replaced 60% of her income, not to mention the fact that she had a couple months of sick leave saved up. She ended up not working for nearly 4 months. It seems like the free market has that problem covered.

Childcare is a definite issue, though I don't like the idea of taxing everyone to pay for childcare for those who have children (unless that tax starts at people who make more than us- bazinga). We have friends with two kids, and they've come to realize that if they had another, it would make more financial sense for the wife to stay home. The mustachian answer is that people should try to live on half of their income because of things like this, but that's not a solution that's going to happen. And it's not like daycares are price-gouging. They're not very profitable ventures.

[martyconlonontherun]

I'm confused on why it would jump from $500 to $2,400 if he got a job if they already have a few 1/2 days. Math doesn't seem right.

Also, this is more about living off 1 salary and underemployment than cost of day care. Mortgage also seems high, but i guess that is for suburbs of Denver.

But overall, as a soon to be parent, it is crazy how high day care is.

[Sibley]

I'm confused about the debate for paid maternity leave. My wife's employer didn't offer that either, so we picked up a short-term disability policy when we started trying for a child, which replaced 60% of her income, not to mention the fact that she had a couple months of sick leave saved up. She ended up not working for nearly 4 months. It seems like the free market has that problem covered.

Childcare is a definite issue, though I don't like the idea of taxing everyone to pay for childcare for those who have children (unless that tax starts at people who make more than us- bazinga). We have friends with two kids, and they've come to realize that if they had another, it would make more financial sense for the wife to stay home. The mustachian answer is that people should try to live on half of their income because of things like this, but that's not a solution that's going to happen. And it's not like daycares are price-gouging. They're not very profitable ventures.

The free market has the lack of paid maternity leave covered for the select few. You were lucky. But even for those with the resources to work around it, it takes a toll. You had to think ahead and plan for it. She saved several months of sick leave. I'm a professional. I make good money. I don't have any sick leave - I get a single bucket of PTO to use for everything. And I get slightly more than average PTO.

Overall, your sentiment about the lack of paid maternity leave reflects a lack of knowledge of exactly what that means to the majority of families in the US, and a significant helping of privilege.  You were LUCKY. And even then, I don't think it's best practice for a 4 month old baby to be handed off to day care for 8+ hours a day, 5 days a week. Can it work? Absolutely. But it has a cost, and that cost is largely to the mother's mental and emotional wellbeing.

[formerlydivorcedmom]

Can it work? Absolutely. But it has a cost, and that cost is largely to the mother's mental and emotional wellbeing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I will never forget the lady who worked in the cafeteria at my first job.  She came back to work 2 weeks after her son was born.  She couldn't afford not to work.  Even 60% of her salary wouldn't have been enough to feed her family.  I felt so very sorry for her.  (She told me she was lucky that a family member was able to care for her baby, because you can't take a 2-week-old to daycare.)

I have lot of privilege.  When I started my family, I had enough PTO and sick leave to cover 12 weeks off work.  It was so hard going back to work, though.  I was exhausted.

Where I live, day care is relatively affordable, at about $240/week for an infant.  In Chicago, my friends pay almost twice that, at a chain.  It's a huge chunk of their budget, and it has definitely had an impact on their choice of whether to have another child.

[DadJokes]

I'm confused about the debate for paid maternity leave. My wife's employer didn't offer that either, so we picked up a short-term disability policy when we started trying for a child, which replaced 60% of her income, not to mention the fact that she had a couple months of sick leave saved up. She ended up not working for nearly 4 months. It seems like the free market has that problem covered.

Childcare is a definite issue, though I don't like the idea of taxing everyone to pay for childcare for those who have children (unless that tax starts at people who make more than us- bazinga). We have friends with two kids, and they've come to realize that if they had another, it would make more financial sense for the wife to stay home. The mustachian answer is that people should try to live on half of their income because of things like this, but that's not a solution that's going to happen. And it's not like daycares are price-gouging. They're not very profitable ventures.

The free market has the lack of paid maternity leave covered for the select few. You were lucky. But even for those with the resources to work around it, it takes a toll. You had to think ahead and plan for it. She saved several months of sick leave. I'm a professional. I make good money. I don't have any sick leave - I get a single bucket of PTO to use for everything. And I get slightly more than average PTO.

Overall, your sentiment about the lack of paid maternity leave reflects a lack of knowledge of exactly what that means to the majority of families in the US, and a significant helping of privilege.  You were LUCKY. And even then, I don't think it's best practice for a 4 month old baby to be handed off to day care for 8+ hours a day, 5 days a week. Can it work? Absolutely. But it has a cost, and that cost is largely to the mother's mental and emotional wellbeing.

Everyone is so angry lately.

Yes, we were lucky that things went according to plan. That said...

Short-term disability is available to most people. We chose to buy it for a short period rather than dip into our emergency fund, but people without an emergency fund should probably have it all the time. If they can't afford to pay the deductibles, then they definitely can't afford to pay for a child. You can call that being unsentimental, but it's just a reality.

I don't know about the mental and psychological effects on women who put their children in childcare. I know it was difficult for my wife to go back to work, but we knew that was what was best for our child. He needed social interaction, and we didn't want to foster a situation where he became too clingy, as we've seen that in plenty of other children. That didn't mean that it was any easier for her (or me) to go back to work. In fact, the main factor driving our move toward financial independence is the desire to spend more time with our child while we can.

Whether or not I think there should be laws regarding maternity/paternity leave and childcare is irrelevant, because I don't have any control over that, and neither do most people. I think people should try to improve their own situations without counting on government assistance that they can't control.

[charis]

I'm confused on why it would jump from $500 to $2,400 if he got a job if they already have a few 1/2 days. Math doesn't seem right.

Also, this is more about living off 1 salary and underemployment than cost of day care. Mortgage also seems high, but i guess that is for suburbs of Denver.

But overall, as a soon to be parent, it is crazy how high day care is.

That math lines up with my experience.  Half day (actually 2-3 hrs) preschool 2 to 3 days a week can be found for a relatively low cost (YMCA programs or co-op, for example).  Full time day care (typically 8-6) for 2 kids will be much more expensive.

But if the father is struggling as a SAHP and they are already paying for care that they can't afford, the obvious is answer is that he return to work and they accept the extra cost.  People get weird about day care, but are the kids are better off staying home with a stressed and/or depressed parent with unstable finances than they would be in a quality day care and financially stable household?  I highly doubt it.

As to paid maternity leave, I've never had access to short-term disability.  I was also not covered by FMLA for my first child and was not allowed more than six weeks of leave.  I was very luck to have been able to save up sick leave for that time, otherwise it would have been unpaid.

Everyone is so angry lately.

Who is angry?  I haven't noticed any anger in this thread.

[dandarc]

But if the father is struggling as a SAHP and they are already paying for care that they can't afford, the obvious is answer is that he return to work and they accept the extra cost.  People get weird about day care, but are the kids are better off staying home with a stressed and/or depressed parent with unstable finances than they would be in a quality day care and financially stable household?  I highly doubt it.

The dad possibly struggling with mental health jumped out at me as well. Very hard if one of the adults is going through that to make financial progress. The budget as presented needs around $100 / week or less to balance. Dad works about 10 hours per week at just about any job and suddenly the numbers work, at least as that budget was presented. Seems like it should be easy - a couple of nights per week or one weekend day of work, but if you're dealing with depression or other mental health problems, it can be very difficult.

[robartsd]

The article show an example family struggling with preschool costs, but largely discusses political debate around family leave. I think family leave is mostly taken care of for people who plan for it. We do have FMLA which provides a guarantee of being able to take off 12 weeks and keep your job (unless the business is small enough to be excluded or you haven't worked enough hours in the previous 12 months). If your employer provides any paid leave benefit and lets you bank 12+ weeks worth, you can have 12 weeks of paid family leave: the employer cannot deny your request to use the paid leave. As @DadJokes pointed out a privately available short-term disability insurance policy can also be used to help cover the gap even if the employer has no paid leave - of course you have to shop for this before becoming pregnant. I would like to see a ban on "use it or lose it" leave policy and require employers provide a way for employees to bank enough leave to use the full 12 weeks of FMLA and still take their annual vacation allotment. The bigger question issue: should employers be required to provide any paid leave? I think this should be addressed as part of the larger compensation picture. I dislike the push for the minimum wage to be a living wage, but I do agree that employers with long time employees should be forced to pay them a living wage. I would propose that the push for increased minimum wages should be replaced with a push for a minimum raise that would provide experienced workers with a living wage while still allowing employers to hire inexperienced workers at today's minimum wages. Perhaps providing certain benefits (such as paid leave and health insurance) would factor in to the maximum wage to which the minimum raise would apply, encouraging more employers to provide these benefits.

[tyrannostache]

We do have FMLA which provides a guarantee of being able to take off 12 weeks and keep your job (unless the business is small enough to be excluded or you haven't worked enough hours in the previous 12 months).

More than 40% of the US workforce is not covered by FMLA. That's a pretty big gap!

[Sanitary Stache]

We have relatively inexpensive childcare at $150 per week per child, but for three kids in daycare, it consumes about 25% of our after tax income. 
It is a pretty hard reality that for both of us to be able to work, we need give the kids to people we don't know after less than 2 hours in the morning, then pick them up from different people we don't know 2 and half hours before bed time.  I am sad just thinking about it.  8 AM to 5:30 PM someone I don't know is taking care of my children.

For me the childcare discussion is more about how our working environment is organized to support industrial era consumption and less about someone paying for it.

I wish I could work 25% of the time and take care of the kids the rest of the time.

[martyconlonontherun]

But if the father is struggling as a SAHP and they are already paying for care that they can't afford, the obvious is answer is that he return to work and they accept the extra cost.  People get weird about day care, but are the kids are better off staying home with a stressed and/or depressed parent with unstable finances than they would be in a quality day care and financially stable household?  I highly doubt it.

Yeah, kind of off-topic, but I was touring a day care facility with my wife and she was going over their audit report with the woman. They were dinged because there was expired milk in the fridge that was for the church they shared the kitchen with. I laughed to myself thinking what the report would look like if they audited my parents house when they would watch the kid in the future. The kid is 1000x safer and better off at the day care than my parents who love them but are easily distracted by the TV and telephone.

[Scandium]

Childcare is a definite issue, though I don't like the idea of taxing everyone to pay for childcare for those who have children (unless that tax starts at people who make more than us- bazinga).

Of course not, that's the standard US sentiment. Except it's a tax to improve society for everyone, even those not directly affected (but when did that ever work). Parental leave and child care increase the chance of (typically) women returning to better paid jobs, thus increasing the tax take. It provides more stability for families thus increasing consumer spending (like it or not that drive the economy), and not least quality early education leads to smarter, better educated, higher earning workforce. In fact the return is something 2:1 or better on dollars spent on pre-k! It's actively stupid not to pay for it!

[robartsd]

We do have FMLA which provides a guarantee of being able to take off 12 weeks and keep your job (unless the business is small enough to be excluded or you haven't worked enough hours in the previous 12 months).

More than 40% of the US workforce is not covered by FMLA. That's a pretty big gap!

I understand that seasonal and part time employees often aren't covered (1250 hours with employer in last year). Generally seasonal workers don't have job security anyway, so a promise of getting the job back after FMLA leave isn't as important. I do think adding a provision to protect part-time employees could make a significant difference for some families. Do you know how much of the workforce works for exempt employers (fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles)?

[StarBright]

We do have FMLA which provides a guarantee of being able to take off 12 weeks and keep your job (unless the business is small enough to be excluded or you haven't worked enough hours in the previous 12 months).

More than 40% of the US workforce is not covered by FMLA. That's a pretty big gap!

I understand that seasonal and part time employees often aren't covered (1250 hours with employer in last year). Generally seasonal workers don't have job security anyway, so a promise of getting the job back after FMLA leave isn't as important. I do think adding a provision to protect part-time employees could make a significant difference for some families. Do you know how much of the workforce works for exempt employers (fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles)?

This was the best data I could find:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/establishments-with-fewer-than-50-workers-employed-60-percent-of-construction-workers-in-march-2016.htm

but it doesn't break down part vs full time - just percent employed/size of company/by industry.

I'm confused about the debate for paid maternity leave. My wife's employer didn't offer that either, so we picked up a short-term disability policy when we started trying for a child, which replaced 60% of her income, not to mention the fact that she had a couple months of sick leave saved up. She ended up not working for nearly 4 months. It seems like the free market has that problem covered.

Short term disability is pretty prickly though. I was denied private coverage because I had been prescribed migraine medication in college. One scrip, a decade before I applied for short term was enough to make me uncoverable. I also work in an industry where business size standard is small so had no FMLA and a company policy that you can't take more than 5 days of vacation at a time.

I managed to make it through my first pregnancy with no issues except horrific exhaustion. Getting back to work 7 days after my second birth resulted in major medical complications that still affect me years later (and would make me uninsurable on the private market if pre-existing coverage gets thrown out the window).

I am not a total outlier - There are so many of us women/families that have gone through similar situations when it comes to birth/jobs/corresponding medical emergencies and we just "boot strap" through it. Not having approximately 40% of the population covered by at least FMLA has major consequences for a lot of families (and arguably on a macro scale as well).

[Cassie]

Sadly they can’t afford preschool. When I was younger I traded child care with a few friends in order to get some time off. I don’t know if old fashioned nursery schools even exist anymore but you could take your kids for 3 hours in the morning a few days a week and they were reasonable.

[kei te pai]

I feel sad and angry reading about US healthcare/employment/parental leave and childcare provision. Why does such a rich country not provide in a better way for its citizens?

When someone says ' I dont want to pay for someone elses child'  it as though there is no recognition that we live in communities. That child will one day be your doctor, or lawyer, banker or burglar. Like it or not your futures will be intertwined.

[robartsd]

More than 40% of the US workforce is not covered by FMLA. That's a pretty big gap!

I understand that seasonal and part time employees often aren't covered (1250 hours with employer in last year). Generally seasonal workers don't have job security anyway, so a promise of getting the job back after FMLA leave isn't as important. I do think adding a provision to protect part-time employees could make a significant difference for some families. Do you know how much of the workforce works for exempt employers (fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles)?

This was the best data I could find:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/establishments-with-fewer-than-50-workers-employed-60-percent-of-construction-workers-in-march-2016.htm

but it doesn't break down part vs full time - just percent employed/size of company/by industry.

Thanks for the reply. It does indeed look like most of the people not covered by FMLA are employeed by exempt employers. It's hard to tell how many of them would be covered if their employer was not exempt, since small employers may be more likely to hire part-time help.

[LaineyAZ]

I feel sad and angry reading about US healthcare/employment/parental leave and childcare provision. Why does such a rich country not provide in a better way for its citizens?

When someone says ' I dont want to pay for someone elses child'  it as though there is no recognition that we live in communities. That child will one day be your doctor, or lawyer, banker or burglar. Like it or not your futures will be intertwined.

+1000.   I worked with some guys who were married but did not have children of their own.  They complained about having to pay taxes for schools for  "other people's kids."  I asked them Who paid for your education from 1st grade through high school?  And secondly, isn't it a good idea to live in a country of educated people?  When did we forget this?

Also, pre-school is free in France and Germany from age 3 on. 

Finally, I've been reading "Maid" about a single mother who is working cleaning jobs to support herself and her child.  She gets help with food stamps and subsidized day care, but it's a delicate dance with earning too much to be eligible for the subsidy, or earning too little which means you get the subsidy but have no money for anything else. 
Earning just a few dollars over the limit pushes you into the No Subsidy zone again.  It's a bureaucratic mess designed to punish, despite how much we say our culture loves children/is pro-life.

[RFAAOATB]

I feel sad and angry reading about US healthcare/employment/parental leave and childcare provision. Why does such a rich country not provide in a better way for its citizens?

When someone says ' I dont want to pay for someone elses child'  it as though there is no recognition that we live in communities. That child will one day be your doctor, or lawyer, banker or burglar. Like it or not your futures will be intertwined.

We have to take care of the children that exist, but we shouldn’t encourage population growth focused on the lower income side with these subsidies.

Why should people have more children than they can afford?  How many subsidized daycare vouchers should a family have?  If you can’t self finance your FMLA leave maybe you should focus on getting your finances in order first.  Unless you’re high income you probably should be one and done with having kids.

Things aren’t getting cheaper after daycare.  Restaurants, aviation, and theme parks were a noticeable increase in our spending.  How are you going to pay for all the fun extras if you can’t afford the basics?

[Sanitary Stache]

I feel sad and angry reading about US healthcare/employment/parental leave and childcare provision. Why does such a rich country not provide in a better way for its citizens?

When someone says ' I dont want to pay for someone elses child'  it as though there is no recognition that we live in communities. That child will one day be your doctor, or lawyer, banker or burglar. Like it or not your futures will be intertwined.

We have to take care of the children that exist, but we shouldn’t encourage population growth focused on the lower income side with these subsidies.

Why should people have more children than they can afford?  How many subsidized daycare vouchers should a family have?  If you can’t self finance your FMLA leave maybe you should focus on getting your finances in order first.  Unless you’re high income you probably should be one and done with having kids.

Things aren’t getting cheaper after daycare.  Restaurants, aviation, and theme parks were a noticeable increase in our spending.  How are you going to pay for all the fun extras if you can’t afford the basics?

Kids of families that have access to quality daycare have better life outcomes.  The kind of life outcomes that increase the standard of living for all of society, less crime, more productivity, more wealth, less blight, higher education, more innovation, better quality work, etc.  Not helping low income and poor people leads to more poor people, more crime, more negative repercussions.  Accessible high quality daycare is a productivity improvement like transportation infrastructure has been. Like internet access and electricity.

[charis]

I feel sad and angry reading about US healthcare/employment/parental leave and childcare provision. Why does such a rich country not provide in a better way for its citizens?

When someone says ' I dont want to pay for someone elses child'  it as though there is no recognition that we live in communities. That child will one day be your doctor, or lawyer, banker or burglar. Like it or not your futures will be intertwined.

We have to take care of the children that exist, but we shouldn’t encourage population growth focused on the lower income side with these subsidies.

Why should people have more children than they can afford?  How many subsidized daycare vouchers should a family have?  If you can’t self finance your FMLA leave maybe you should focus on getting your finances in order first.  Unless you’re high income you probably should be one and done with having kids.

Things aren’t getting cheaper after daycare.  Restaurants, aviation, and theme parks were a noticeable increase in our spending.  How are you going to pay for all the fun extras if you can’t afford the basics?

Kids of families that have access to quality daycare have better life outcomes.  The kind of life outcomes that increase the standard of living for all of society, less crime, more productivity, more wealth, less blight, higher education, more innovation, better quality work, etc.  Not helping low income and poor people leads to more poor people, more crime, more negative repercussions.  Accessible high quality daycare is a productivity improvement like transportation infrastructure has been. Like internet access and electricity.

Not to mention the fact that people with more education more frequently delay child bearing and generally have less children.  What evidence do you have that affordable child care leads increases or encourages the birth of more poor children when it appears to be the opposite?

[formerlydivorcedmom]

Why should people have more children than they can afford?

I sincerely hope that was a sarcastic post.  But just in case...

Because birth control fails (That's why I'm here!) or is not easily accessible for some.
Because a woman is impregnated against her will (e.g., rape, partner who refuse to use birth control)
Because abortion is inaccessible in many places and not covered by insurance for most  people and/or people have religious objects to abortion.  so if you get pregnant, you have a baby.

Because they could afford the child(ren) when the pregnancy started, but some major life event happened -
*Death of a spouse
*Job loss
*Illness
*Tragedy (flood/fire/earthquake/etc)
*Divorce
*TRIPLETS
*mental health challenges appeared

Because the child has special needs and needs expensive interventions

---
I know 3 people who have used the daycare assistance available in our state for low-income people. 

In one case, her third pregnancy was an oops baby.  She developed complications and couldn't work for several months (she was a contractor - so she didn't get paid during that time).  Two days after the baby was born, her husband announced he was having an affair and wanted a divorce. He couldn't keep a steady just for the next several years, so she didn't get a lot of child support.

In the other case, she had a full-time job that didn't pay well but had decent benefits. When her kid (she only had 1) was about 2, her husband became addicted to painkillers after a car accident.  She finally kicked him out.  He eventually went to jail for not paying child support.  She was stuck with much of the debt he'd accumulated during their marriage.  It took her years to get fully back on her feet.

A divorced mom who struggled with mental health issues and couldn't hold a job for long.  Her ex eventually got custody when the mom's mental health struggles got too bad.

[Cassie]

Formerly, I love your post. Yes shit happens to people that they cannot control. As a former social worker I have seen it all. I am also here because of BC failure.  Back then their wasn’t a BC pill.

[DadJokes]

In RFAAOATB's defense, birth rates are much higher for low income people than it is for high income people. Birth control is not magically more effective for you if you have more money. So while there are plenty of exceptions (at all income levels), the trend is that low income couples don't put as much thought into the impact children have on finances. That said...

Would we even want low income people to stop having children? Countries with low birth rates aren't doing great economically, so we kind of need to "replenish the cupboard" with more children as a society, so to speak. It would be pretty beneficial if a declining birth rate were offset with increased immigration, but those immigrants would likely be at the same income level as the poor Americans, so that does nothing about the initial problem.

Also, take none of what I said above as actual beliefs or suggestions, policy-wise. It was just stream of consciousness.

[robartsd]

Birth control is not magically more effective for you if you have more money.

True enough, but I imagine that many forms of birth control are more easily accessible if you have more money.

[RFAAOATB]

Birth control is not magically more effective for you if you have more money.

True enough, but I imagine that many forms of birth control are more easily accessible if you have more money.

Definitely we should subsidize and encourage birth control for those with less money, to the point where it’s required for TANF and SNAP benefits.  If you can’t afford your birth control or even your own lifestyle, then you really need it to avoid making more poor people.

I’m not sure if we should encourage the rich to have more kids though.  It’s a more fair way to break up a fortune than the estate tax, but more rich lifestyles leave a bigger carbon footprint.

[Sibley]

Birth control is not magically more effective for you if you have more money.

True enough, but I imagine that many forms of birth control are more easily accessible if you have more money.

Definitely we should subsidize and encourage birth control for those with less money, to the point where it’s required for TANF and SNAP benefits.  If you can’t afford your birth control or even your own lifestyle, then you really need it to avoid making more poor people.

I’m not sure if we should encourage the rich to have more kids though.  It’s a more fair way to break up a fortune than the estate tax, but more rich lifestyles leave a bigger carbon footprint.

Ok, you've firmly crossed the line into eugenics for me. Which to me is a pretty reprehensible thing, and the people who espouse it always seem to be among the worst of the human race. So please think about that.

The solution is NOT to control people. The solution is to address the economic inequality, lack of education, and lack of reproductive control/choice by WOMEN (not men) which contribute to higher birth rates. Which incidentally would make the world a better place, and wouldn't that be a good thing?

[mm1970]

The solution is NOT to control people. The solution is to address the economic inequality, lack of education, and lack of reproductive control/choice by WOMEN (not men) which contribute to higher birth rates. Which incidentally would make the world a better place, and wouldn't that be a good thing?

Yep.  I'm sorry,  but while I get where RFAAOATB was going with "don't have more kids if you are poor" - makes sense on an intellectual level, yes...there are a multitude of reasons why poor people have a lot of children, and you just cannot break it down and tell them to stop.  You just can't.

I can't imagine what my life would be like (I'm kidding, of course I can, I would not be here!) if my parents had opted to not have a total of 9 children (I'm number 8), or my great great grandparents had not had 18 children (my grandfathers were #15 or thereabouts).

[minimustache1985]

FMLA doesn’t apply to SO many people.  When I had DS I was working for a Fortune 500 company and had it not been purchased by a Fortune 100 company a few years earlier FMLA would not have applied to me because there were only 10-15 of us in the metro area, even though the company employed thousands and thousands nationwide if you weren’t within 75 miles of headquarters or a distribution center they could have claimed the exemption.  Many nationally branded franchise stores are individually owned, and if the franchise owner only owns one or two locations they are easily below the employee threshold.

Also, not all pregnancies are planned, I can tell you my niece was not.  Her dad took no time off and my sister returned to work within 2 weeks after delivery after being induced the day of her 39 week appointment due to high blood pressure (which her on-her-feet job likely didn’t help with) and promptly ripped her stitches thanks to that insufficient recovery time- to say nothing of the mental/emotional toll.  And while she made a conscious choice to keep the pregnancy, half the country is working to make what she went through a mandated consequence while simultaneously cutting funds to the programs that support children who are born to lower class parents.  And she was fortunate enough to have family to watch my niece during that time- you can’t bring a baby that young to daycare.

And while I understand the sentiment that people “should” have the number of kids they can afford, the reality is that for lower class workers- which our society needs- is that without some level of assistance that number is zero.   Excluding those people from the human experience of parenthood because they work at a grocery store or in a restaurant or wherever else that the broader we depend on but turn around and pay poorly is not a solution.

[wellactually]

Here is something people don't think about with FMLA. You have to be employed for 12 months with your employer before taking it. I was at a job I hated and stayed there years after hating it for the good benefits. I kept saying I'd leave after having a baby. But the baby didn't come and didn't come and didn't come. But I was getting more and more miserable. But if I found a different job, I'd have to put the trying on hold for 3-4 months if I wanted to be eligible. Meanwhile my husband could look for switch jobs a million times while we were trying (he didn't) and the expectations would not be that he'd require 12 weeks off.

Eventually, I decided to just apply for jobs within my pension system. I got one, didn't stop trying even though I'd have been ineligible for FMLA if we'd gotten pregnant, and was at the job for 1 year and 10 months before getting pregnant via frozen embryo transfer after IVF.

If I'd wanted to do short term disability coverage, I'd have been paying for over 3 years before actually using the policy.

So I don't really appreciate it when people act like it's simple. Considering the fact that we also paid 25k out of pocket because our health insurance doesn't cover infertility treatments, a week or two of guaranteed paid leave would be super nice.

My employer also limits how much sick leave I'm allowed to use during my FMLA to 6 weeks for vag birth and 8 for c-section. We are of course still required to use vacation pay after that concurrently with the FMLA-protected leave.

The 12 month requirement is seriously limited for people attempting to become pregnant or who are already pregnant. If some amount of protected leave was covered through payroll taxes, women could have that assurance after giving birth without putting an undue burden on a new employer.