12 ms·

We already suffer from declining birthrates in the west. Your solution would make not having a child the best choice for "go-getters."

by mrrrgn 11y ago

iends 11y ago
Isn't that already the case?
RodericDay 11y ago
My solution may not be optimal, but the status quo is "male go-getter with supportive female companion" as standard model of coupling. If we have to deal with declining birthrates while we figure out a more fair and sane arrangement, that doesn't pit family building against professional success, I'm down.
- tomp 11y ago
  > male go-getter with supportive female companion Do you have any objective reasons why this is suboptimal? Maybe we should go the other way; for example in the Netherlands, many women (with children) choose to work part-time (because they can). So maybe the "status quo" is by choice.
  - RodericDay 11y ago
    Maybe it's a biological choice, maybe it's cultural and social momentum from hundreds of years of forcing gender roles legally and violently. Impossible to tell with our current experimental setup. I lean towards the latter though.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - thescribe 11y ago
      The precautionary principle would say not to do your experiment until you can be assured it won't damage your research subjects.
    - tomp 11y ago
      I lean towards the former. There are multiple reasons for this being a biological choice. One, women's childbearing period is more limited than men's, so it's rational for them to prioritize "taking care for the children" over "having a great career". Another is that because they give birth, they pretty much have to be absent from work (for a few days at least), whereas men don't, so again it's rational for a woman to take additional leave for childcare, so that only one parent gets penalized (by lower pay and less experience and future promotions) by taking time off. Of course, the latter only applies given everything else is equal; if the mother earns significantly more than the (step-)father, then it would be rational for her to take off only as many days an necessary for health reasons, with her partner providing the rest of childcare.
- dalke 11y ago
  The Swedish way is to have 480 days of parental leave per child, which can be split between either parent. "For 390 of the days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 per cent of their normal pay up to a maximum monthly income of 37,000 kroner ($4,500)." - http://www.thelocal.se/20151229/one-in-four-swedish-fathers-takes-no-baby-leave http://www.thelocal.se/20151229/one-in-four-swedish-fathers-... . Also, "From January 1st 2016, the number of use-it-or-lose-it 'pappamånad' or 'daddy months' will increase from two to three, in an bid to push couples to share early years childcare more equally." because currently "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave". Mandatory parental leave is tricky. Is that a month in a row? As a self-employed person, am I prohibited from filings taxes, sending out invoices, and support questions? Or can I work one day a week?
  - RodericDay 11y ago
    > which can be split between either parent That's the issue right there. Not surprised "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave". I know things are tricky to roll out, there's tons of quirks here and there. User chongli is on like three leaves of the discussion trying to take the idea down based on implementation details. That comes later. The whole point is that right now it's a "woman's issue". Forcing men to deal with it would make it a "parent issue", and more resources would be devoted to ironing out the details. It's like that pithy line I heard once- "If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be controversial". edit: Can't reply, but I got your reply just fine dalke. What I'm saying is that making it use-it-or-lose-it is still not good enough. Rather, if you don't get why I suggest it needs to be mandatory, it is you who is not getting me. edit2: Fanning threads on HN are just no good for discussing stuff. Sorry!
    - dalke 11y ago
      "That's the issue right there" I ... don't think you understood my response. Three months of it can only be taken by the father. The "split between either parent" has limits. What's wrong with the non-mandatory Swedish system? It's most assuredly called "parental leave here", and isn't a "woman's issue" but a feminist issue. As a male feminist, I agree with that. Edit regarding "it is you who is not getting me". You are right. But I fail to understand why I should get you as you haven't made any statement about what "mandatory" means. Do you mean one week of mandatory leave, or one month, or one year? Will it be paid leave, and structured similar to what it is in Sweden (percentage of salary, with cap)? What is the penalty for not complying? If I am an unpaid board member of a Fortune 100, am I prohibited from attending meetings? What about going to shareholder meetings? Going to professional society meetings? You complain that these questions are "trying to take the idea down based on implementation details", but they are not. They are aspects of trying to understand what you mean by mandatory parental leave, and do a cost/benefit analysis If Sweden were to require on week of mandatory parental leave, for each parent, how would that improve things?
kaitai 11y ago
It already is for female go-getters.
- Spivak 11y ago
  Which is why the person you replied to would most likely advocate for eliminating parental leave entirely, and I agree. No matter how you slice it, government mandated leave that doesn't apply to every single person equally will lead to discrimination. If you mandate maternity leave then companies will prefer young men to young women, and if you mandate paternity leave then companies will prefer the old to the young. Parental leave is detrimental for every person that has it, but doesn't want it. If you're of child bearing age you're a huge risk to your employer if your resume doesn't come with a sterility test stapled to it.
nsxwolf 11y ago
Similarly it would lead to discrimination against large families (large these days being anything more than 2 kids). Employers likely won't tolerate someone having 5 kids over a 5-10 year period and taking all that disruptive and expensive leave.
- rosser 11y ago
  Because people should totally be making major life decisions on the basis of what employers will "tolerate". FFS. We've already ceded enough control over our lives to these companies whose only agenda is to suck people dry, and then find new ways to wring even more out of them. Businesses exist to serve people's needs and interests. People do not exist to serve businesses.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    There's not a whole lot you can do about discrimination. Unless the employers are dumb enough talk openly about what they're doing. They can find any subjective reason they like and claim that's the reason for letting you go. You can try to sue, and sometimes you'll even win, but there's no Job Police SWAT Team that will beat down the door and force them to give you your job back in time for your next mortgage payment. In light of this reality it's good to avoid policies that incentivize even more discrimination.
    - rosser 11y ago
      They can find any subjective reason they like and claim that's the reason for letting you go. Oh, believe me, I know. I was dismissed from my last job for having the temerity to take a leave of absence — negotiated in advance with the company, with C-staff level approval — to travel for a few months. When I returned, they presented me with a materially altered performance review (fact-checked with the manager who actually wrote the review), filled with straight-up lies, and said that was why they were firing me. If you dare to decide the life your job pays for is more important than the job itself, well, there's the door...
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
emidln 11y ago
Or hiding it.
vacri 11y ago
> We already suffer from declining birthrates in the west. Which is fantastic! There are too many people on this earth for the resources available, and population growth in wealthy countries can be fuelled by immigration. That's what's happening here in Australia - low birthrate (~1.8) has been aided by immigration, and we've had a 25% increase in population in the last 17 years. Having kiddliwinks is not the only solution to growth in the west.

We already suffer from declining birthrates in the west. Your solution would make not having a child the best choice for "go-getters."

by mrrrgn 11y ago

We already suffer from declining birthrates in the west. Your solution would make not having a child the best choice for "go-getters."

iends 11y ago

Isn't that already the case?

RodericDay 11y ago

My solution may not be optimal, but the status quo is "male go-getter with supportive female companion" as standard model of coupling. If we have to deal with declining birthrates while we figure out a more fair and sane arrangement, that doesn't pit family building against professional success, I'm down.

tomp 11y ago
> male go-getter with supportive female companion Do you have any objective reasons why this is suboptimal? Maybe we should go the other way; for example in the Netherlands, many women (with children) choose to work part-time (because they can). So maybe the "status quo" is by choice.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  Maybe it's a biological choice, maybe it's cultural and social momentum from hundreds of years of forcing gender roles legally and violently. Impossible to tell with our current experimental setup. I lean towards the latter though.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - thescribe 11y ago
    The precautionary principle would say not to do your experiment until you can be assured it won't damage your research subjects.
  - tomp 11y ago
    I lean towards the former. There are multiple reasons for this being a biological choice. One, women's childbearing period is more limited than men's, so it's rational for them to prioritize "taking care for the children" over "having a great career". Another is that because they give birth, they pretty much have to be absent from work (for a few days at least), whereas men don't, so again it's rational for a woman to take additional leave for childcare, so that only one parent gets penalized (by lower pay and less experience and future promotions) by taking time off. Of course, the latter only applies given everything else is equal; if the mother earns significantly more than the (step-)father, then it would be rational for her to take off only as many days an necessary for health reasons, with her partner providing the rest of childcare.
dalke 11y ago
The Swedish way is to have 480 days of parental leave per child, which can be split between either parent. "For 390 of the days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 per cent of their normal pay up to a maximum monthly income of 37,000 kroner ($4,500)." - http://www.thelocal.se/20151229/one-in-four-swedish-fathers-takes-no-baby-leave http://www.thelocal.se/20151229/one-in-four-swedish-fathers-... . Also, "From January 1st 2016, the number of use-it-or-lose-it 'pappamånad' or 'daddy months' will increase from two to three, in an bid to push couples to share early years childcare more equally." because currently "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave". Mandatory parental leave is tricky. Is that a month in a row? As a self-employed person, am I prohibited from filings taxes, sending out invoices, and support questions? Or can I work one day a week?
- RodericDay 11y ago
  > which can be split between either parent That's the issue right there. Not surprised "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave". I know things are tricky to roll out, there's tons of quirks here and there. User chongli is on like three leaves of the discussion trying to take the idea down based on implementation details. That comes later. The whole point is that right now it's a "woman's issue". Forcing men to deal with it would make it a "parent issue", and more resources would be devoted to ironing out the details. It's like that pithy line I heard once- "If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be controversial". edit: Can't reply, but I got your reply just fine dalke. What I'm saying is that making it use-it-or-lose-it is still not good enough. Rather, if you don't get why I suggest it needs to be mandatory, it is you who is not getting me. edit2: Fanning threads on HN are just no good for discussing stuff. Sorry!
  - dalke 11y ago
    "That's the issue right there" I ... don't think you understood my response. Three months of it can only be taken by the father. The "split between either parent" has limits. What's wrong with the non-mandatory Swedish system? It's most assuredly called "parental leave here", and isn't a "woman's issue" but a feminist issue. As a male feminist, I agree with that. Edit regarding "it is you who is not getting me". You are right. But I fail to understand why I should get you as you haven't made any statement about what "mandatory" means. Do you mean one week of mandatory leave, or one month, or one year? Will it be paid leave, and structured similar to what it is in Sweden (percentage of salary, with cap)? What is the penalty for not complying? If I am an unpaid board member of a Fortune 100, am I prohibited from attending meetings? What about going to shareholder meetings? Going to professional society meetings? You complain that these questions are "trying to take the idea down based on implementation details", but they are not. They are aspects of trying to understand what you mean by mandatory parental leave, and do a cost/benefit analysis If Sweden were to require on week of mandatory parental leave, for each parent, how would that improve things?

kaitai 11y ago

It already is for female go-getters.

Spivak 11y ago
Which is why the person you replied to would most likely advocate for eliminating parental leave entirely, and I agree. No matter how you slice it, government mandated leave that doesn't apply to every single person equally will lead to discrimination. If you mandate maternity leave then companies will prefer young men to young women, and if you mandate paternity leave then companies will prefer the old to the young. Parental leave is detrimental for every person that has it, but doesn't want it. If you're of child bearing age you're a huge risk to your employer if your resume doesn't come with a sterility test stapled to it.

nsxwolf 11y ago

Similarly it would lead to discrimination against large families (large these days being anything more than 2 kids). Employers likely won't tolerate someone having 5 kids over a 5-10 year period and taking all that disruptive and expensive leave.

rosser 11y ago
Because people should totally be making major life decisions on the basis of what employers will "tolerate". FFS. We've already ceded enough control over our lives to these companies whose only agenda is to suck people dry, and then find new ways to wring even more out of them. Businesses exist to serve people's needs and interests. People do not exist to serve businesses.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  There's not a whole lot you can do about discrimination. Unless the employers are dumb enough talk openly about what they're doing. They can find any subjective reason they like and claim that's the reason for letting you go. You can try to sue, and sometimes you'll even win, but there's no Job Police SWAT Team that will beat down the door and force them to give you your job back in time for your next mortgage payment. In light of this reality it's good to avoid policies that incentivize even more discrimination.
  - rosser 11y ago
    They can find any subjective reason they like and claim that's the reason for letting you go. Oh, believe me, I know. I was dismissed from my last job for having the temerity to take a leave of absence — negotiated in advance with the company, with C-staff level approval — to travel for a few months. When I returned, they presented me with a materially altered performance review (fact-checked with the manager who actually wrote the review), filled with straight-up lies, and said that was why they were firing me. If you dare to decide the life your job pays for is more important than the job itself, well, there's the door...
- CWuestefeld 11y ago

emidln 11y ago

Or hiding it.

vacri 11y ago

> We already suffer from declining birthrates in the west. Which is fantastic! There are too many people on this earth for the resources available, and population growth in wealthy countries can be fuelled by immigration. That's what's happening here in Australia - low birthrate (~1.8) has been aided by immigration, and we've had a 25% increase in population in the last 17 years. Having kiddliwinks is not the only solution to growth in the west.