Apparently, the US is one of only EIGHT countries in the world that does not give a paid maternity leave. What a disgrace.
I've argued with a lot of people on this blog (most recently on this post) who feel that having kids is a choice and ask why our country should do anything to support women who make this "choice". But I think a better question is:
Why is our country the only one who DOESN'T support women who have kids?
Well, except Liberia.
Well I didn't get a lot of time but I got 2 months (given 6 weeks, had 2 weeks banked) when I had my first child. The military gives you the 6 weeks and from what I understand that is very generous. So, yay for the military.
ReplyDeleteI want more paternity leave! I make more than my husband, and he WANTS to be the one who stays home, yet he gets one measly week of paternity leave and I get 6.
ReplyDeleteIt's due to greed (or economics because I don't want to be prejudicial)--not to choice. Compare the generosity of benefits (# paid weeks off in this case) to tax rates and you'll see. Take Sweden: Individual personal max rate is 50% because they have, among other benefits, generous new-parent leave for both genders. We in the USA reason differently: I might have a kid or two, but I'll be working for >40 years. I'd rather pay lower taxes EVERY year I work and absorb the cost of unpaid maternity leave once or twice.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it sometimes comes down to relevance/empathy. During your child-bearing years, you notice how meager the available support is. But as you age, your tolerance for money spent to subsidize kids wanes. Seriously wanes. I get apoplectic at school budgets that include olympic-sized swimming pools, lighted soccer fields, etc., because I don't have kids using those things.
Can I make a quick rant about people wanting lower taxes? Actually forget the question, I'm going to make it anyway.
DeleteI get that you'd rather spend money on things that you want to, but it's not like you're not getting anything back for your taxes. We scoff at the tax rates in Europe and Canada, but the statistical metrics indicate that people in those countries are happier, have more free time, and live healthier. Those sorts of things are priceless, wouldn't you agree?
Same deal with children support. Who wants to live in a place filled with crime? Nobody. Yet there's pretty conclusive data to indicate that you can keep children out of gangs and other criminal activities by providing them with positive things to do. In other words, sports and other after-school activities. So what if your own children aren't making use of it - it's your neighborhood, isn't it? And aren't those children going to be playing integral roles in the future?
Yeah, sport totally keep kids from committing crimes. Thank goodness Steubenville Ohio has a football team, otherwise those boys might go off and get into trouble.
Delete...oh, wait...
Anon: Remember that BU med student who was the craigslist killer? By your logic, people shouldn't go to med school b/c it will turn them into murderers.
DeleteI really think it is a matter of people in this country being both greedy and short-sighted.
In our country it really depends on who you work for. But those are called "benefits". Not, something we should just expect to be given. I am fortunate to work for my state and that gives very good benefits. I don't get a separate "maternity" leave exactly but I can use all the leave I have accrued (sick, vacation etc.) and that is my "maternity" leave. Sort of sucks still, it only will ever account for 1 month of leave.
ReplyDeleteOr we could give 26 and be just like Iran. Great company, too.
ReplyDelete6 weeks in minimal required by women to recover from childbirth, look after a newborn and start to get a schedule. Before 6 months, most babies have no clock and are awake randomly 24/7. For women recovering from a C-section, 6 weeks is minimal just for her to recover. I don't know why we don't prioritize families with newborns. Most countries who have policies are actually making them more generous, not shrinking them. Usually they are doing it for the health of the kids, not because it's better for the adults.
ReplyDeleteCould be more than eight countries. Notice how some have no data?
ReplyDeleteThe same reason we're the only first world country that doesn't have "free" government healthcare? Because we're a country of people who think of themselves first and others later. And doing what's best for now and not thinking of what happens later.
ReplyDeleteBecause in this country the thinking goes that if you're not rich enough to afford it, it's because you're a lazy-butt who didn't pull yourself up by your bootstraps to make some money or form your own company.
I don't know how women go back to work at 6 weeks. I had two hard c sections after 17 hours of un-medicated labor with my most recent baby. It took me 7 months to recover. Of course my husband works 90 hours a week and we are far from family but still. The problem with our country is what others have mentioned: we don't value family. I saw with my own eyes with my own mother what potential there is for a mother and child when you have a supportive work environment (my mom took a year off to be with me back in the early 80's and her principal kept her job open so she could have it back) v. when my brother was born in mid-80's her principal was an a-hole and told her if she didn't return in september (brother born in may) that she would lose her job. Her milk dried up, she was overworked and constantly living for "in just a few more years things will get better and I can make up for lost time." That time never came and I'll just say my brother has taken too many walks on skid row. Clearly there are other factors but his mom not being bonded and/or attached to him is where it all started imo....he was a failure to thrive kid as well. sad all around.
ReplyDeleteHow is it a disgrace that people aren't paid for time that they are *not working*? Why is it a companies responsibility to pay for someone who is, during that time, not actually contributing anything to the company? Sorry, I don't see this as an issue at all.
ReplyDeleteWell, Anon, in Canada, parental leave benefits are part of Employment Insurance (EI) which is usually automatically deducted and submitted to the government by your employer every time they do payroll. Since it's mandatory to pay into EI, you are entitled to claim those benefits when you become a parent... Seems almost silly to me not to try and at least get get some of that money back while you are adjusting to parenthood.
DeleteWhy support them? Well, maybe because at some point you're going to need those kids to support YOU?
ReplyDeleteYou can't look at this issue through a narrow lens. There are many, many variables (not to mention tradition) playing into the decision not to subsidize childbirth. Look at some of the assumptions you are trying to overcome: As Anon 6:46 says so eloquently, if you aren't rich, you're a loser and the hell with you. It's the rugged individualism we like to believe still exists among our citizens, when the truth is that pretty much none of us could survive without a lot of the "help" we receive. We sort of believe that an educated populace benefits us all, so we support free public schools at least through HS. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to also support care for children prior to nursery school/kindergarten if we wanted to. So why don't we? One answer might be the absurd cost of mandatory insurance. We'd have to convince a lot of people that the courts and huge awards are not the go-to method for redressing grievances. (Good luck with that one.) Why don't we provide a subsidy to new mothers? Doesn't have to be huge. Maybe around the same amount as unemployment would pay? We could afford it. Why don't we want to afford it? Partly because the attitude is Why should I pay you to not work? (Yeah? Do you know how many people with dubious problems are on disability forever? We regularly pay tons of people to not work. Why discriminate against new mothers?) How about the fact that some places go overboard in providing child-related facilities. No one argues that giving older kids something to do is a bad idea, but do they need lighted soccer fields? How about just a soccer field and they use it during the day because they should be spending their evenings doing homework? How about the fact that schools complain that they are expected to parent everyone's children because parents can't/don't do it themselves? Is that a valid description of a prevalent problem? How do we turn that around so that schools can limit themselves to teaching children, not babysitting, socializing, disciplining and entertaining them? The dollars saved might allow the school to add aftercare or baby case if parents took back some of their responsibilities. (But, of course, working parents barely have time to see their children with the current corporate tendency to squeeze every last drop of energy from the few employees they are still willing to employ.) I'm just saying that there are a lot of factors that go into what we elect to spend general monies on. As for the notion that people in socialized countries are happier, bear in mind that they have lower expectations than we do. They are willing to live in very small houses, to do without a lot of discretionary items that Americans apparently can't, and so forth. They live much simpler lives than we do because they aren't driven by the need to consume, which requires money, which requires working all the hours God sends. Would the average American be willing (or even able) to adjust his thinking? Would the corporate world be willing to dial back the "you need the latest and greatest or you're a loser" advertising? We're talking a sea change in attitudes.
ReplyDeleteWell when you put it like that, it really does seem hopeless. Good points, though...
DeleteThere's no way to justify it except by invoking 'MURICA FUCK YEA FREEDOM.
ReplyDelete