Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#21

Post by Pfhreak »

ratboy666 wrote: post #12
martin_bech wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is the riches country in the world. The US cannot afford basic healthcare for all. One of these sentences most be wrong.

No. You have to define how a country can be rich. And what "basic healthcare" is. And what "for all" means. A country cannot be rich. Its people can be. If you have a definition that differs, we can discuss. I am going to avoid "basic healthcare" for now. We can discuss "for all". Does that mean for people born in the country? Or does it really mean "for all people"? FredW

Wealth per person, healthcare that covers all medical needs (preventative care, illness, injury, end of life care dental, vision) but not all elective needs (some cosmetic surgeries, etc), and for all means all humans within the borders.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#22

Post by stared »

kasperni wrote: post #4

And did you know there are actually more billionaires-per-capita in Sweden than in the USA [1]? Norway as well. So it's actually possible to have both an amazing welfare system and loads of billionaires at the same time. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-billiona...

Also, Sweden scores very high on Doing Business ranking: https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings

(US 6th, UK 8th, Sweden 10th... and Denmark 4th)

So again, each time you hear "high taxes and social welfare are bad because they hurt business" - its BS. Tax is a country subscription fee. It can be high and worth it if the value provided is high (good work ethics and social trust, educated and healthy workforce, good infrastructure, clear law and business regulations).

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#23

Post by dmd149 »

The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits.

Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)?

My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of course, but that’s my best guess.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#24

Post by senderista »

_qwfv wrote: post #17
DoreenMichele wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans sometimes joke that we live in a third world country. Many people here are dissatisfied with our family and healthcare policies, but no one seems to know how to actually fix it. Obamacare wasn't really a good solution. It was just the most politically viable. So you need more than a good plan for what works better. You also need to somehow get it accepted politically and that ends up being a sticking point.

How to fix it? Get involved with your local DSA chapter. Work on putting socialists on your local ballot and getting initiatives passed locally. Educate your friends and neighbors that 'socialist' policies are much broader than what has been demonized in the US since the red scare. Edit: Also, consider unionizing and bargaining for parental leave, healthcare, living wages, employee board representation, etc.

Scandinavian countries are not socialist and using the word "socialist" (as Bernie does) to advocate for social-democratic policies is both inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#25

Post by oaiey »

jsjddbbwj wrote: post #11
stanski wrote: post #5

It always amazes me that even poor European countries have better maternity leave provisions than the richest country in the world.

That's why they are poor.

Most European countries are not poor. Not at all. By any definition. However, European countries typically do not encourage regless forms of capitalism (consequently reducing the GDP) and also consider the social aspects of public spending more important than the military ones.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#26

Post by OzzyB »

dmd149 wrote: post #23

The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits. Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)? My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of…

I'm happy to accept your hypothesis that US citizens will come out on top for lifetime net income, but this article was about the human costs, like having children or not.

What cost is forgoing having a family? Is that even calculated? My hypothesis is that it's not and all those people that simply weren't able to have a child because of work and healthcare costs are simply, and conveniently, ignored.

It's ok though, we can always import more fresh meat into the great American Dream.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#27

Post by kasperni »

dmd149 wrote: post #23

The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits. Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)? My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of…

If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#28

Post by dmd149 »

OzzyB wrote: post #26
dmd149 wrote: post #23

The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits. Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)? My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of…

I'm happy to accept your hypothesis that US citizens will come out on top for lifetime net income, but this article was about the human costs, like having children or not. What cost is forgoing having a family? Is that even calculated? My hypothesis is that it's not and all those people that simply weren't able to have a child because of work and healthcare costs are simply, and conveniently, ignored. It's ok though,…

The example was about the human costs sure, but very much closely tied to things related to income (job security, costs of child care, etc.).

But let’s keep it to the family. Say between the age of 25 and 35 an American will be able to take home an extra 10k per year compared to a Swede.

100k an extra savings goes a long way to being able to take care of a new child or start a family.

Not saying my hypothetical is accurate, but the question about take-home pay vs costs is relevant to the topic of this article.

Re: Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm

#30

Post by dmd149 »

kasperni wrote: post #27
dmd149 wrote: post #23

The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits. Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)? My hypothesis would be that in the US, you’d probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of…

If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly different.

Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So that + higher salaries my guess is American’s still come out ahead.

Post reply on HN