A baby died in daycare. "Culture demanded" mum go back to work.

[arebelspy]

Are you telling me the average family generally makes NO progress towards increasing their assets in a 5 year period? If so I'm lost for words...

Pretty much, yes.

Definitely not enough progress in 5 years to drop from two incomes to one.

People spend what they make.  All of it.  And often a little more (going into debt).  If they have a kid, they'll cut back in other areas to pay the kid expenses.  But they won't, just because they don't have one yet, drastically save so that they can have one.

[obstinate]

Jupiter, get with the program. There's this group of people called "the poor". They are barely making it. They are certainly not saving.

[tooqk4u22]

I wanted so bad to stay out of this thread but the bleeding heart nature of it is terrible...why do we praise dependency and desire to enable it as opposed to responsibility and accountability.  FMLA provides 12 weeks of protected but unpaid coverage, if your company doesn't pay for it then sign up for disability insurance for $3/month.  Pregnancies whether they are planned or unplanned still have some lead time to prepare (nature of time of being pregnant and all) so during that time cut back and save a few dollars to cover the month or to of unpaid leave.

The woman in this article complains about the money and healthcare and says her husband can't do it...the can get insurance...shit she could have milked the paid time off then quit and he would be able to get insurance do to a qualified life event and with ACA should be fine financially especially since it is a wash for her income relative to daycare....that is not including the likely many savings that come from not working (clothes, eating out, commute, likely lower taxes....)

Whine whine whine.....WTF....its tragic that this happened but it can just as easily happen at home...the previously posted link said that 20% of SIDS happened in childcare facilities....that still leaves 80% not there. 

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....especially the person who is out for that time. The better solution under the guise of good for society (i.e. those that have pay for those that don't) is to have government run/sponsored child care facilities with trained and licensed individuals...that way the costs are shared more efficiently, quality is improved (that is if you actually think the government can do it better), and people remain employed, productive and current in the skills. 

[arebelspy]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....

I disagree.  The benefits for mothers and their babies is good for society as a whole.

[charis]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....especially the person who is out for that time. 

No.  It's been shown that skilled/professional female workers are much more likely to stay in the workforce instead of dropping out completely if they have access to maternity of a reasonable duration.  Companies are actually better at retaining talented employees if they offer this.

[tooqk4u22]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....especially the person who is out for that time. 

No.  It's been shown that skilled/professional female workers are much more likely to stay in the workforce instead of dropping out completely if they have access to maternity of a reasonable duration.  Companies are actually better at retaining talented employees if they offer this.

The key words are "skilled" and "talented" or otherwise known as highly valuable.  And if it were that clear cut then companies would provide extended leave/pay as it would be good for the bottom line...recruiting, hiring, training new employees is the most expensive thing that companies do and retaining them has a significant impact on this as well especially for "talented" employees.  This is why you see companies that depend on higher skill offer some degree of this beyond what is minimally required by the government or more often make special accommodations.   Not to mention that if they are skilled and talented they are likely intelligent enough to be able to plan and make prudent choices...I/We shouldn't have to pay for bad choices. 

So if you ignore this set, then this becomes a discussion about non-skilled people and transfer of wealth once again. 

[charis]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....

I disagree.  The benefits for mothers and their babies is good for society as a whole.

+1

[Le Poisson]

With our first son, Momma took a full 12 months leave (Canada - you can do that here) with our second, it didn't make sense for her to go back to work if we had 2 kids in daycare. So she didn't. She took her 12 months paid maternity leave, then a 6 month unpaid leave of absence.

Our employer didn't like it, but it is an option here - although not publicised, and rarely exploited. Most Mom's can't afford it. Luckily we had enough savings to float it. On mat leave here, you get a reduced income, but in our case, enough that no noticeable change of lifestyle was felt. For the unpaid leave, we did some belt tightening, and we did dip into lines of credit a few times at month end.

The only issue I had in her doing it was that our manager (we work together) made some comments at the time about my wife's 'extended vacation' and other things along the lines of  women taking a holiday every time they have a kid. Not acceptable. He has now retired and the environment has changed somewhat here. The perceptions of an extended mat leave as a vacation are pretty strong though - to that I challenge folks to keeping a 3 yr old and an infant in good care and add in some housekeeping and other projects - I don't think it would feel like a vacation for long.

[Gin1984]

I wanted so bad to stay out of this thread but the bleeding heart nature of it is terrible...why do we praise dependency and desire to enable it as opposed to responsibility and accountability.  FMLA provides 12 weeks of protected but unpaid coverage, if your company doesn't pay for it then sign up for disability insurance for $3/month.  Pregnancies whether they are planned or unplanned still have some lead time to prepare (nature of time of being pregnant and all) so during that time cut back and save a few dollars to cover the month or to of unpaid leave.

The woman in this article complains about the money and healthcare and says her husband can't do it...the can get insurance...shit she could have milked the paid time off then quit and he would be able to get insurance do to a qualified life event and with ACA should be fine financially especially since it is a wash for her income relative to daycare....that is not including the likely many savings that come from not working (clothes, eating out, commute, likely lower taxes....)

Whine whine whine.....WTF....its tragic that this happened but it can just as easily happen at home...the previously posted link said that 20% of SIDS happened in childcare facilities....that still leaves 80% not there. 

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....especially the person who is out for that time. The better solution under the guise of good for society (i.e. those that have pay for those that don't) is to have government run/sponsored child care facilities with trained and licensed individuals...that way the costs are shared more efficiently, quality is improved (that is if you actually think the government can do it better), and people remain employed, productive and current in the skills.

My husband's disability insurance was $400/year not $36 when he was earning $2000/month.  Your employer's benefits are making you have a skewed view.

[tooqk4u22]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....

I disagree.  The benefits for mothers and their babies is good for society as a whole.

+1

For those that feel this way they can have one of the parents stay home (doesn't have to be the mom BTW) and do their part to make society better....but society shouldn't have to pay for it. 

I have 3 kids...and we have had both scenarios baby in day care to a parent staying home....there were differing reasons for each scenario and  both have benefits and costs (financial and emotional) but both are valid options. Each time we thought about, planned, and made conscious decisions....why is that such a high bar for everyone, I would think that would be the low bar on this forum.

[KCM5]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....

I disagree.  The benefits for mothers and their babies is good for society as a whole.

+1

For those that feel this way they can have one of the parents stay home (doesn't have to be the mom BTW) and do their part to make society better....but society shouldn't have to pay for it. 

I have 3 kids...and we have had both scenarios baby in day care to a parent staying home....there were differing reasons for each scenario and  both have benefits and costs (financial and emotional) but both are valid options. Each time we thought about, planned, and made conscious decisions....why is that such a high bar for everyone, I would think that would be the low bar on this forum.

Well, the concern is not just for the people on this forum, but for everyone that has children. Sure, I managed with my well paid job, optional 6 months unpaid leave, and flexible work schedule, but the difference between me and a high school drop out working minimum wage are pretty big. And that high school drop out may still have kids, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea. And that kid is going to have to be a functioning member of society one day, so it's in our best interest that the child and the child's mother are supported during the stressful early years. And one of those supports should be paid family leave.

[arebelspy]

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....

I disagree.  The benefits for mothers and their babies is good for society as a whole.

+1

For those that feel this way they can have one of the parents stay home (doesn't have to be the mom BTW) and do their part to make society better....but society shouldn't have to pay for it. 

We'll agree to disagree then.

I think things that make society better as a whole are worth paying for.  Individuals should, if they can, but there are things that we can encourage and pay for societally to make our society better.

Libraries, for example.  Society pays for them, and I support that.  One could easily say "people should pay for their own books and their own personal library."  Sure, true, they should.  But I think the benefits to society are enough that society should pay for them, and I am willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it.

Ditto schooling.  We could just have for-profit schools, people should pay for them, and if the parents don't think ahead, plan, and save, well, their kid works, rather than goes to school.  But I think the benefits of public schooling for all citizens are worth paying taxes for.

I choose the above two examples because they're mostly non-controversial. Most people think libraries and public schools are worth society paying for.

More controversial:
I would support higher taxes for universal healthcare.  I think that makes for a better society.  I would support higher taxes for paid maternity leave.  I think that makes for a better society.

You may disagree on those ones, and that's fine, but I'm pointing out that there IS reasonable disagreement here, and it's not as black and white as your last two posts make it.

[arebelspy]

Well, the concern is not just for the people on this forum, but for everyone that has children. Sure, I managed with my well paid job, optional 6 months unpaid leave, and flexible work schedule, but the difference between me and a high school drop out working minimum wage are pretty big. And that high school drop out may still have kids, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea. And that kid is going to have to be a functioning member of society one day, so it's in our best interest that the child and the child's mother are supported during the stressful early years. And one of those supports should be paid family leave.

Well said.

The wife and I waited until we were FIRE'd to have our first kid.  But I wouldn't expect that of everyone.  And I do want the society my kid grows up in to be the best it can (and would want that even if I had no kids, for everyone else living in it).  So even though we'd get no benefits from paid maternal leave being implemented, I'd still be willing to do my part in paying for it, because I think it's beneficial for society.  It's worth looking to Europe as an example, IMO.

[charis]

I wanted so bad to stay out of this thread but the bleeding heart nature of it is terrible...why do we praise dependency and desire to enable it as opposed to responsibility and accountability.  FMLA provides 12 weeks of protected but unpaid coverage, if your company doesn't pay for it then sign up for disability insurance for $3/month.  Pregnancies whether they are planned or unplanned still have some lead time to prepare (nature of time of being pregnant and all) so during that time cut back and save a few dollars to cover the month or to of unpaid leave.

The woman in this article complains about the money and healthcare and says her husband can't do it...the can get insurance...shit she could have milked the paid time off then quit and he would be able to get insurance do to a qualified life event and with ACA should be fine financially especially since it is a wash for her income relative to daycare....that is not including the likely many savings that come from not working (clothes, eating out, commute, likely lower taxes....)

Whine whine whine.....WTF....its tragic that this happened but it can just as easily happen at home...the previously posted link said that 20% of SIDS happened in childcare facilities....that still leaves 80% not there. 

As for the allowing more paid time off for society that is 100% BS...it does no one any good for someone to be out of the workforce for an extended period of time....especially the person who is out for that time. The better solution under the guise of good for society (i.e. those that have pay for those that don't) is to have government run/sponsored child care facilities with trained and licensed individuals...that way the costs are shared more efficiently, quality is improved (that is if you actually think the government can do it better), and people remain employed, productive and current in the skills.

My husband's disability insurance was $400/year not $36 when he was earning $2000/month.  Your employers benefits are making you have a skewed view.

Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have. 

The key words are "skilled" and "talented" or otherwise known as highly valuable.  And if it were that clear cut then companies would provide extended leave/pay as it would be good for the bottom line...recruiting, hiring, training new employees is the most expensive thing that companies do and retaining them has a significant impact on this as well especially for "talented" employees.  This is why you see companies that depend on higher skill offer some degree of this beyond what is minimally required by the government or more often make special accommodations.   Not to mention that if they are skilled and talented they are likely intelligent enough to be able to plan and make prudent choices...I/We shouldn't have to pay for bad choices. 

So if you ignore this set, then this becomes a discussion about non-skilled people and transfer of wealth once again. 

First, this happens a lot less (make accommodations for talented employees) than you think it does, almost never where skilled employees are needed the most, in public service/sector.  Second, this was a response to your point about it being problematic when people leave the workforce for an extended period of time (not planned/prudent choices) when the opposite is actually true.

[tooqk4u22]

Well, the concern is not just for the people on this forum, but for everyone that has children. Sure, I managed with my well paid job, optional 6 months unpaid leave, and flexible work schedule, but the difference between me and a high school drop out working minimum wage are pretty big. And that high school drop out may still have kids, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea. And that kid is going to have to be a functioning member of society one day, so it's in our best interest that the child and the child's mother are supported during the stressful early years. And one of those supports should be paid family leave.

Even if I agree with that argument...then where does it stop?  There will still be a baby at 6 or 12 moths that needs to be cared for or is the baby at that point old enough to fend for themselves? After that point as well at least until school aged, which still doesn't cover all working hours typically.  And why are the early years anymore stressful than the later years...there is plenty of stress, worry, joy all throughout having children.  That point alone where you think it ends in 6-12 months invalidates your argument.

And yes it is not a good idea for a high school dropout to have kids and this really won't help them anyway...at least not anymore than the multitude of social services that are already at their fingertips via welfare, SNAP, free healthcare for mom and baby, subsidized housing, etc.  So this class is already well protected and would fall under being a "safety net" but why do we have to "Support" people.

If anything the extended paid leave really only benefits the higher skilled/talented/salaried people because it affords them the flexibility to keep their position...so that applies to maybe 10% of the populous.  For the rest its not really a benefit and maybe even a harm because dropping out of the workforce for a year when one is supposed to be adding to the skills to transition from low-wage/skill to higher-wage/skill doesn't make much sense. 

And once again, why does the argument simply apply to mothers?

[arebelspy]

And once again, why does the argument simply apply to mothers?

It doesn't.  Many country's maternity leave programs apply to fathers, or can be split between parents.  I support that.

[KCM5]

Well, the concern is not just for the people on this forum, but for everyone that has children. Sure, I managed with my well paid job, optional 6 months unpaid leave, and flexible work schedule, but the difference between me and a high school drop out working minimum wage are pretty big. And that high school drop out may still have kids, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea. And that kid is going to have to be a functioning member of society one day, so it's in our best interest that the child and the child's mother are supported during the stressful early years. And one of those supports should be paid family leave.

Even if I agree with that argument...then where does it stop?  There will still be a baby at 6 or 12 moths that needs to be cared for or is the baby at that point old enough to fend for themselves? After that point as well at least until school aged, which still doesn't cover all working hours typically.  And why are the early years anymore stressful than the later years...there is plenty of stress, worry, joy all throughout having children.  That point alone where you think it ends in 6-12 months invalidates your argument.

And yes it is not a good idea for a high school dropout to have kids and this really won't help them anyway...at least not anymore than the multitude of social services that are already at their fingertips via welfare, SNAP, free healthcare for mom and baby, subsidized housing, etc.  So this class is already well protected and would fall under being a "safety net" but why do we have to "Support" people.

If anything the extended paid leave really only benefits the higher skilled/talented/salaried people because it affords them the flexibility to keep their position...so that applies to maybe 10% of the populous.  For the rest its not really a benefit and maybe even a harm because dropping out of the workforce for a year when one is supposed to be adding to the skills to transition from low-wage/skill to higher-wage/skill doesn't make much sense. 

And once again, why does the argument simply apply to mothers?

It doesn't just apply to mothers - I was thinking of a single mother having a child, but paid family leave would be able to be used all by one parent or split between parents (I personally like the method where each parent is required to use a certain amount and the rest can be split as they wish).

And you're right that we do currently have supports for low income parents, so perhaps the minimum wage worker was a poor example. I don't think it's adequate and I think that lower income workers would also benefit from being able to take leave from their jobs with a guaranteed return. Also, FMLA only applies to companies with more than 50 employees within a certain geographical radius, so not everyone is even covered by that paltry 12 weeks unpaid leave with a guaranteed job to come back to. But that doesn't change my opinion that the US would benefit from all working parents being able to remain in the workforce. And obviously the need to care for a child doesn't end at 6 months. No one said it did. However, a child's infancy has very different and demanding requirements from an 8 year old. I'm sure as a parent you're aware of that.

[RFAAOATB]

Jupiter, get with the program. There's this group of people called "the poor". They are barely making it. They are certainly not saving.

Which is why we need subsidized birth control to the point of mandatory for TANF/SNAP benefits.  And while I wouldn't mind expanding TANF/SNAP benefits, we just can't keep having poor people make more poor people.  Poor people need babies about as much as they need a Rolex.

Babies.  The best luxury item.

[MandalayVA]

I see the issue as two-fold:

1.  The "babies are blessings" mindset.  Living in the south as I do I hear this one a lot.  No matter how dire the financial circumstances, no matter how tenuous (or nonexistent) the relationship that created the child is, someone always pipes up with "babies are blessings!" or its relative "babies are a precious gift from God!"  Also see its higher class cousin "oops, we're pregnant!"

2.  The mindset that life will go on as before after the arrival of the blessing/God's gift.  No, a baby poses absolutely no obstacle to education, finances, or social lives.  And it's always going to be a healthy baby who arrives when he/she is due.  Whenever someone burbles "I don't care if it's a boy or a girl as long as it's healthy!" I have to bite my tongue not to reply "but what if it isn't?"

If people put one tenth as much thought into the realities of child-rearing as they do into trendily misspelled names or baby shower themes, the world--the first world at least--would be a better place.

[Blonde Lawyer]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

[Gin1984]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month. 

[tooqk4u22]

I think things that make society better as a whole are worth paying for.  Individuals should, if they can, but there are things that we can encourage and pay for societally to make our society better.

That's the crux of it right there...whether it's you or me I guess we at least have government that somewhat allows the populous to decide.

Libraries, for example.  Society pays for them, and I support that.  One could easily say "people should pay for their own books and their own personal library."  Sure, true, they should.  But I think the benefits to society are enough that society should pay for them, and I am willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it.

Ditto schooling.  We could just have for-profit schools, people should pay for them, and if the parents don't think ahead, plan, and save, well, their kid works, rather than goes to school.  But I think the benefits of public schooling for all citizens are worth paying taxes for.

While I appreciate how you are trying to connect the dots here I think they are different...it is irrefutable that knowledge is power and does benefit individuals and society long term.  Although to some extent libraries because of the web are becoming less relevant and enormously expensive to operate, at some point the cost vs. the societal benefits may come into play - I don't think we are there yet. 

More controversial:
I would support higher taxes for universal healthcare.  I think that makes for a better society.  I would support higher taxes for paid maternity leave.  I think that makes for a better society.

Absolutely more controversial and there are other threads for that, I will only add that the current f#@d up system we have that is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism with most of the worst attributes (high cost, marginal quality, high taxes) and little of the good (transparency, ease of access, lower costs, efficiencies,...) sucks....lets go with one or the other.

You may disagree on those ones, and that's fine, but I'm pointing out that there IS reasonable disagreement here, and it's not as black and white as your last two posts make it.

I agree that there is reasonable disagreement, your comments were also fairly black and white.   But really where does it end with government support...you know the whole socialism thing doesn't work except in low population/high resource countries (although even that is coming into question temporarily with the low commodity prices). 

[arebelspy]

Okay, I think we're on the same page. :)

[tooqk4u22]

And you're right

Thank you, I think that ends it.......just kidding, couldn't help myself ;)

And you're right that we do currently have supports for low income parents, so perhaps the minimum wage worker was a poor example. I don't think it's adequate and I think that lower income workers would also benefit from being able to take leave from their jobs with a guaranteed return. Also, FMLA only applies to companies with more than 50 employees within a certain geographical radius, so not everyone is even covered by that paltry 12 weeks unpaid leave with a guaranteed job to come back to. But that doesn't change my opinion that the US would benefit from all working parents being able to remain in the workforce. And obviously the need to care for a child doesn't end at 6 months. No one said it did. However, a child's infancy has very different and demanding requirements from an 8 year old. I'm sure as a parent you're aware of that.

Yeah the FMLA employer count is a problem and honestly 50 seems like to high a number, but I also get that small business could be crippled if a key employee was out for 12 weeks - not sure what the right balance is. Also if it didn't work out there is unemployment in that case.

And yes there is a difference between an 8 year old and a 6 month old, but not that much difference between a 6 month old and a 1 year old or even a two year old. Besides the point is that even with an 8 year old and working parents child care before and/or after school is still needed usually so it still doesn't float......you know boss I can only work 6 hours a day because my kid gets on the bus at 8:30 and home at 3:30 so make that happen, oh yeah but you have to pay more for 8 hours....afterall its good for society for me to get my kid off the bus so I can be with him and get him in activities and so on.

The problem is you are conflating an individual benefit with a societal benefit at worse and at best trying to argue for a benefit for a small group when there is a much larger group that has as much claim to it as well.

[Gin1984]

I'm not saying, "don't have kids". I'm simply saying wait until you are truly ready. Do you want to be a parent that never spends a second with your child because you are constantly at work struggling to keep the family going or do you want to wait 5 years and spend more quality time with your child?

Mr MMM himself WAITED to have his child and look at what a great father he is now who has time to spend quality time with his son without worrying about a full time job that he relys on to pay the bills.

I've been through a life without seeing much of my parents and without quality time for this very reason. It was wrong of my mother to get pregnant with me while she was still a teenager, struggling with work ECT. Not only does working take a mother away from her child it causes toxic stress that negatively effects the mood of the mother in the little time she does spend with her child (it also flows into the child causing many problems later in life). I was taken away from my mother by child services when I was very little due to her stress that almost lead to my death. Sure, after she was interviewed and closely watched with me I was reunited with her but all that could have been avoided it she had WAITED!

Is having a child when you aren't ready financially really worth it? Unless the mother is closely approaching the age of 40 I say hold back, it's best for both the mother and the child.

So the fact that one has to work to pay for bills means the person is not ready to have a kid?  What about fathers?  Should they wait?  And are you aware of the research that girls are more successful if their mother works?  You are equivocating two very different things, a child having a child and a grown woman who works for a living (but not FI) having a child.

[Cassie]

The US is lacking in many things including universal health care and extended maternity leave. Giving parents paid leave for 6 months would be beneficial to society as a whole. Some people will always need to work-especially people that are poor. Also having 2 incomes is not a necessity unless you are very poor. When we had our 3 kids I stayed home for a number of years and my hubby was not making the big bucks either. We bought a very old run down home that we could afford. we slowly fixed it ourselves as we could afford it. We had two very old cars and sometimes neither was running. If that was the case I used the bus to take the kids places. We lived within our means and saved a little. Through the years his income increased and eventually I went back to work when all the kids were in school f.t. Everyone I knew did this. Yes it was in the 70's and early 80's.  Times are not that different but expectations certainly are. Everyone wants all the latest devices, fads, etc and are not willing to wait for anything. Yes my parents had nice things when I was having kids but it took them their whole lives to get them. People can't seem to wait. BTW: to the poster that said it takes 2 people f.t. to take care of a baby is ridiculous. One person is sufficient and yes parenting is a 24-7 job.

[shelivesthedream]

I don't think we will get anywhere on this issue until parenting is viewed as being as much that father's responsibility as the mother's. Typically, if two parents work then the father will work and the mother will work AND do the childcare. This is not fair. Until paternity leave is on a equal footing with maternity leave, people will be blaming parents for working and for staying home, and will not want to extend parental leave benefits. Working mothers are often judged harshly in the UK, partially because of our guidance on statutory maternity leave:

https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/leave

Statutory Maternity Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:

Ordinary Maternity Leave - first 26 weeks
Additional Maternity Leave - last 26 weeks
You don’t have to take 52 weeks but you must take 2 weeks’ leave after your baby is born (or 4 weeks if you work in a factory).

I would very much support mandatory paternity leave. Fathers being proud of never changing a nappy is a joke of the worst kind. I think it would substantially change the workplace's view of parental leave and childcare in general if every father had to spend two weeks at home with the baby, with or without the mother there.

There is abundant evidence that having a single primary caregiver in the first few months or years of a child's life improves their life prospects immensely. Some people are not in a position to do this financially and some people find that caring for a young baby is detrimental to their mental health, but overall I think that lacking any specific negative factors we should do everything we can to encourage one parent to stay at home with a baby. There is a saying in the homeschooling community: "No one cares about your child more than you do."

Also, we need to recognise that people do not always plan their children to have them at the optimum time in life. Accidents happen, and so does stupidity. However, while I support the right to abortion, I don't think that means that we should pressure women to have an abortion when pregnancy seems inconvenient. A teenage mother should not have to have an abortion just because she can. A foetus is a potential life and we cannot take that away lightly.

[Blonde Lawyer]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month.

Gin, sorry if I am being dense.  Was your husband's plan offered through his employer or was it one he privately purchased on the marketplace? Is it short term or long term? I already have long term and I'm looking for short term.  If it was on the private market, please tell me which company.  Thanks!

[tooqk4u22]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month.

Gin, sorry if I am being dense.  Was your husband's plan offered through his employer or was it one he privately purchased on the marketplace? Is it short term or long term? I already have long term and I'm looking for short term.  If it was on the private market, please tell me which company.  Thanks!

Long term is most important, just have an emergency fund to cover the short term - for maternity most STD only covers 6 weeks for normal delivery and 8 weeks otherwise so saving up two months of expense solves the problem. 

[Gin1984]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month.

Gin, sorry if I am being dense.  Was your husband's plan offered through his employer or was it one he privately purchased on the marketplace? Is it short term or long term? I already have long term and I'm looking for short term.  If it was on the private market, please tell me which company.  Thanks!

It privately purchased it. And it is long term.  Sorry I can't be more help.

[domo]

It does take two people to raise a kid at minimum. It's a 24/7 job and everyone needs sleep, showers, and food. Either it's Mom+Dad, Mom+Grandma, Dad+Childcare, or some combination of people. You can split it 75/25, but someone's got to be the backup, especially right after it's born. I don't know why I'm getting pushback here of all places for saying that we're going to wait until FIRE to have kids. We don't have backup outside of ourselves. There's no way I'm going to waste my money on paying a stranger to look after my newborn. I have disability insurance that I pay for, but it's only 16 weeks.
Half of you are saying people shouldn't reproduce unless you can afford it and when I say that some people will choose to forgo kids entirely, you act like that's ludicrous. Not everyone will reach FI before they're 40.

[obstinate]

24/7 job

I've done it, and this trope is nonsense. Especially with an infant, there is often three to four hours of downtime for every two of up-time. (This is because infants spend the majority of their lives asleep -- my son would basically wake up to eat and then go back to sleep most of the time. One grain that is true is that someone must be around the child at all times, and sleep suffers during the first few months.

[Goldielocks]

With our first son, Momma took a full 12 months leave (Canada - you can do that here) with our second, it didn't make sense for her to go back to work if we had 2 kids in daycare. So she didn't. She took her 12 months paid maternity leave, then a 6 month unpaid leave of absence.

Our employer didn't like it, but it is an option here - although not publicised, and rarely exploited. Most Mom's can't afford it. Luckily we had enough savings to float it. On mat leave here, you get a reduced income, but in our case, enough that no noticeable change of lifestyle was felt. For the unpaid leave, we did some belt tightening, and we did dip into lines of credit a few times at month end.

The only issue I had in her doing it was that our manager (we work together) made some comments at the time about my wife's 'extended vacation' and other things along the lines of  women taking a holiday every time they have a kid. Not acceptable. He has now retired and the environment has changed somewhat here. The perceptions of an extended mat leave as a vacation are pretty strong though - to that I challenge folks to keeping a 3 yr old and an infant in good care and add in some housekeeping and other projects - I don't think it would feel like a vacation for long.

To be fair, your extra 6 months as stated would have been described legitimately as a "sabbatical" or "vacation" or "extended leave of absence" by most..... I don't think anyone thought she was having it "fun and easy".

And the parental leave pay from EI Canada maxes out at the equivalent of 55% of your salary, or about $26k per year, whichever is more.... and you need enough EI credits to have it payout....  This is not a lot for the typical family, but certainly enough to scrape by with planning ahead.

To the other poster that indicated professional women tend to return more to work if there is paid mat leave... this may be true, but I wonder if it is skewed by all those friends of mine who only returned for a year to earn enough credits for a full second paid mat leave....  Duh!

[Goldielocks]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

In the US -- is there EI coverage for people who lose income through no fault of their own, like for sickness?  Our system works that way - you wait 2 weeks and then 15 weeks of EI payments. (max).   This works if you, say, break your back skiing.   You need to have EI credits in the system, and... now that I think of it, doesn't cover maternity time after birth of a normal delivery, but would cover unexpected bed rest before your due date.

[domo]

It's a 24/7 job in that you can't set your infant down and leave the house. There must always be a caregiver "on duty".

[charis]

Half of you are saying people shouldn't reproduce unless you can afford it and when I say that some people will choose to forgo kids entirely, you act like that's ludicrous. Not everyone will reach FI before they're 40.

Being able to afford it doesn't mean FI.  Any very few people will reach FI before 40.  That's not an appropriate barometer for readiness to reproduce.  In fact, there are many reasons why waiting to have children is a bad idea.   I hate throwing this term around but privilege is oozing out of this post.

That said, I don't equate daycare with death so I think this entire debate is essentially useless.

[GuitarStv]

24/7 job

I've done it, and this trope is nonsense. Especially with an infant, there is often three to four hours of downtime for every two of up-time. (This is because infants spend the majority of their lives asleep -- my son would basically wake up to eat and then go back to sleep most of the time. One grain that is true is that someone must be around the child at all times, and sleep suffers during the first few months.

It's nice that you had such a fantastically easy time in becoming a parent.  Some of us did not.  Please do not base your opinion entirely on your luck.  It's like listening to a lottery winner complain about how everyone she knows is wasting so much time working when they could be out enjoying a vacation in Tahiti.

[Blonde Lawyer]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month.

Gin, sorry if I am being dense.  Was your husband's plan offered through his employer or was it one he privately purchased on the marketplace? Is it short term or long term? I already have long term and I'm looking for short term.  If it was on the private market, please tell me which company.  Thanks!

Long term is most important, just have an emergency fund to cover the short term - for maternity most STD only covers 6 weeks for normal delivery and 8 weeks otherwise so saving up two months of expense solves the problem.

Right.  We have that.  But if such a plan is available, and I know I am going to use it, it would make sense to buy it (so long as premium is less than payout) and not have to use my savings.  I kept hearing "just buy Aflak before you are pregnant" but I can't find that magical policy.  If everyone used it that way (just buying it before TTC) there is no way they could stay in business anyway.

[Gin1984]

"Also, not all employees have access to disability insurance.  I never have." 

This.  I would love to find a short term disability policy that will cover me if I need a maternity leave.  I heard AFLAK used to offer one.  When I go to their site now, all I see is that they offer group policies through employers.  My employer won't offer one.  Has anyone found a private non employer based one?

My husband has a disability policy.  It costs as I said $400/year when he was working for $2000/month.  We have not increase it so it covers $1200/month.

Gin, sorry if I am being dense.  Was your husband's plan offered through his employer or was it one he privately purchased on the marketplace? Is it short term or long term? I already have long term and I'm looking for short term.  If it was on the private market, please tell me which company.  Thanks!

Long term is most important, just have an emergency fund to cover the short term - for maternity most STD only covers 6 weeks for normal delivery and 8 weeks otherwise so saving up two months of expense solves the problem.

Right.  We have that.  But if such a plan is available, and I know I am going to use it, it would make sense to buy it (so long as premium is less than payout) and not have to use my savings.  I kept hearing "just buy Aflak before you are pregnant" but I can't find that magical policy.  If everyone used it that way (just buying it before TTC) there is no way they could stay in business anyway.

That is why aflak got out of the private market and now is only through employers. 

[obstinate]

It's nice that you had such a fantastically easy time in becoming a parent.  Some of us did not.  Please do not base your opinion entirely on your luck.  It's like listening to a lottery winner complain about how everyone she knows is wasting so much time working when they could be out enjoying a vacation in Tahiti.

It's not luck that a baby sleeps a lot. Almost all of them do. The idea that parenting a newborn is a 24/7 job is simply false in the vast majority of cases. It is nothing like winning the lottery, otherwise I could not know at least a half dozen other couples who had the same early experience in my small circle of friends.

Now, there are some people that have a tough time. That I will give you. My sibling's child was a bit of a nightmare until they got the milk allergy figured out. But that kind of thing does not happen to most people.

[justajane]

It's nice that you had such a fantastically easy time in becoming a parent.  Some of us did not.  Please do not base your opinion entirely on your luck.  It's like listening to a lottery winner complain about how everyone she knows is wasting so much time working when they could be out enjoying a vacation in Tahiti.

It's not luck that a baby sleeps a lot. Almost all of them do. The idea that parenting a newborn is a 24/7 job is simply false in the vast majority of cases. It is nothing like winning the lottery, otherwise I could not know at least a half dozen other couples who had the same early experience in my small circle of friends.

Now, there are some people that have a tough time. That I will give you. My sibling's child was a bit of a nightmare until they got the milk allergy figured out. But that kind of thing does not happen to most people.

But, more often than not, they don't sleep and wake when you want them to. That's the 24/7 bit of it, knowing that at any moment, you are going to have to either stop sleeping or stop what you are doing and attend to them. That your life as you knew it is irrevocably different and that you have a tiny human whose needs should almost always come first. Obviously some people respond to that reality better than others.

Or maybe you and your close knit group of friends are just superior people who don't react to extreme life changes and the reality of hormone changes (and not just for women --http://www.medicaldaily.com/testosterone-estradiol-levels-drop-new-dads-during-partners-pregnancies-hormonal-315148). But most of the rest of us do.

[Goldielocks]

It's nice that you had such a fantastically easy time in becoming a parent.  Some of us did not.  Please do not base your opinion entirely on your luck.  It's like listening to a lottery winner complain about how everyone she knows is wasting so much time working when they could be out enjoying a vacation in Tahiti.

It's not luck that a baby sleeps a lot. Almost all of them do. The idea that parenting a newborn is a 24/7 job is simply false in the vast majority of cases. It is nothing like winning the lottery, otherwise I could not know at least a half dozen other couples who had the same early experience in my small circle of friends.

Now, there are some people that have a tough time. That I will give you. My sibling's child was a bit of a nightmare until they got the milk allergy figured out. But that kind of thing does not happen to most people.

Even if you get a "very easy baby".... what about the need to take care of the other child(ren)?  No way a 2 year old is going to let you stop between the hours of 6 am and 7pm!

[obstinate]

But, more often than not, they don't sleep and wake when you want them to. That's the 24/7 bit of it, knowing that at any moment, you are going to have to either stop sleeping or stop what you are doing and attend to them.

Maybe we just define 24/7 differently. Being on-call 24 hours a day is different than working 24 hours a day. Calling it a 24 hour a day job exaggerates the challenge. It's a 24/7 on-call duty.

don't react to extreme life changes and the reality of hormone changes

Uh. What? How is this at all relevant to my claim that it's not a 24h per day job? I said nothing at all about hormone changes, nor claimed that these did not affect me at some point. I also never said it wasn't a big change. I only said that 24h per day is an exaggeration. Don't put words in my mouth.

[obstinate]

Even if you get a "very easy baby".... what about the need to take care of the other child(ren)?  No way a 2 year old is going to let you stop between the hours of 6 am and 7pm!

And yet somehow there are SAHMs and SAHDs that manage three or four at once. That alone is proof that an infant is not a 24 hour a day job.

[arebelspy]

Well at least your screen name is accurate.  ;)

(Just teasin'. :) )

[obstinate]

Well at least your screen name is accurate.  ;)

(Just teasin'. :) )

Ha, it's OK. It's a weakness. :) Realistically I should just brush dirt, as they say, but something in me loves internet arguments. Thanks for the reminder to come back down to earth.

Alright, I'm done with this thread. My final position is that raising a kid is hard, but some parents like to exaggerate the difficulty. Also, if you hold a position whose logical conclusion is that poor people can't have children, your position is wrong. :)

[arebelspy]

Alright, I'm done with this thread. My final position is that raising a kid is hard, but some parents like to exaggerate the difficulty. Also, if you hold a position whose logical conclusion is that poor people can't have children, your position is wrong. :)

I agree with all of this!

I'd also add that everyone has their own experiences, and they're all valid.  I have no judgement around any of it.

[Goldielocks]

Even if you get a "very easy baby".... what about the need to take care of the other child(ren)?  No way a 2 year old is going to let you stop between the hours of 6 am and 7pm!

And yet somehow there are SAHMs and SAHDs that manage three or four at once. That alone is proof that an infant is not a 24 hour a day job.

Obstinate,  I was actually replying to this statement (below):  Which I think is false for most babies beyond the first few weeks (when mom is also so torn up she can't move either).   And of course, the tone that projected that taking care of infants is easy most of the time.   There is a LOT that has to be done during that downtime.


Especially with an infant, there is often three to four hours of downtime for every two of up-time. (This is because infants spend the majority of their lives asleep