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

51–60 of 73 posts

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

#51

Post by lsinger »

dmd149 wrote: post #46
Swizec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in USA is spiky unexpected cost of health care. Even with good insurance you never know when a random huge bill might come. Best avoid doctors unless you’re literally dying

I agree that paying for all health care with insurance leads to quite a bit of surprise billing and opaque pricing. That being said, I’m not sure how often the average person deals with a bill that they are on the hook for beyond their deductible. I’m still not sure what average medical costs per person over a lifetime are in the US compared to a Swedish person’s costs if you’re counting the proportion of their taxes…

Example from Germany:

I pay 860€ per month for health insurance, which covers me, my wife, and our two children. There’s no deductible. Everything is covered, except for tooth replacements that are covered only at between 20% and 50% I believe. You’ll never get a bill from a doctor or hospital in Germany, except for those tooth replacements.

The most I’ll pay is a small copay for drugs, usually about 5€, but only for adults — drugs for kids are covered 100%.

Probably a bit simplified, but the above has been my experience so far (I’m 40).

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

#52

Post by dmd149 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #50
dmd149 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence please.

Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making…

Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare.

My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples.

Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don’t have better options.

My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you’re referring to or what evidence you’re providing to support that the bottom 80% (by income?) have no better options.

Claim 3 (from your most recent comment): If you’re not making passive income, you’re worried.

My response to Claim 3: Most families make something work without having passive income. One or both parents may have a normal job or jobs.

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

#53

Post by extra88 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #50
dmd149 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence please.

Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making…

Federal law only guarantees you can't lose your job for taking that amount of leave, it does not require employers to pay you for that time off.

I suspect they were asking for evidence of your claims about the harm caused by pumping breast milk instead of an infant feeding directly from the breast.

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

#54

Post by dmd149 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #44
dmd149 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Yes, let’s sacrifice the best child bearing years of our lives so that we can outcompete someone else who didn’t sacrifice the best child bearing years of their lives, and then increase the probability of spending a good portion of those savings on fertility treatments. There can exist a balance between investing in one’s future versus enjoying the present. Nature doesn’t make each day equivalent to the next, and it’…

Okay.

What I gather from your comment is that you believe Sweden is superior to the US in the sense that culturally, they are not as enamored of the rat race and reinforce their preferences for a more balanced life with social policies funded by relatively high tax rates (when compared to the US).

Whereas in the US, we are more into “getting ahead” in our prime years and this is reinforced by our social and tax policy allowing Americans to keep more of their money and make decisions on their own that support the individual’s values.

My original comment was simply asking if anyone has as data that can show what the net income of an American vs a Swede after paying for the costs associated with raising a child. I made no value judgements there, simply wanted to source the data.

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

#55

Post by dmd149 »

lsinger wrote: post #51
dmd149 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that paying for all health care with insurance leads to quite a bit of surprise billing and opaque pricing. That being said, I’m not sure how often the average person deals with a bill that they are on the hook for beyond their deductible. I’m still not sure what average medical costs per person over a lifetime are in the US compared to a Swedish person’s costs if you’re counting the proportion of their taxes…

Example from Germany: I pay 860€ per month for health insurance, which covers me, my wife, and our two children. There’s no deductible. Everything is covered, except for tooth replacements that are covered only at between 20% and 50% I believe. You’ll never get a bill from a doctor or hospital in Germany, except for those tooth replacements. The most I’ll pay is a small copay for drugs, usually about 5€, but only for…

That is more or less what my US based health insurance plan is like, if a bit more expensive ($1200/month for me and my wife, $1500 if adding 1 child).

No deductible for in-network care, usually just some small copays of $20.

Is this supplemental insurance to national healthcare or the standard cost based on your income?

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

#56

Post by _qwfv »

matchbok wrote: post #42
_qwfv wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that isn't what we are talking about.

Not talking about universal healthcare, a policy position held by both democratic socialists and social democrats?

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

#57

Post by extra88 »

dmd149 wrote: post #52
lotsofpulp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making…

Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare. My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples. Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don’t have better options. My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you’re referring to or what evi…

> have a parent stay at home with the child

Assumes there are two parents in the household. For two-parent households, assumes it can cover its expenses from the labor of only one of them. This option also doesn't address the fact that taking an extended break from working often has a long-term effect on one's income and career; this could change if doing so was more normalized, particularly for men.

> Extended families can pitch in

Assumes parents have extended family, that its members live close enough to do the work of child care, assumes the extended family members (including grandparents) are not also working and therefore unavailable, assumes they are capable and willing to provide free child care.

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

#58

Post by _8j50 »

The article talks about federal gov not doing things better. Maybe it should,but the way america works is that these sorts of laws are left for individual states. America has a lot of problems like this,states should do better but voters don't really care much about state politics. I can tell you a majority of americans probably don't even know who their governor is(I think I do but not really sure). On top of that,it's not very hard to move a business between states or for people in general to move around so states have to compete with one another on being friendly to economic contributors.

I am sure it is much more complex, but I do think the root cause lies in the american constitution and the role played by federal and state governments. The federal gov should either be a whole lot more capable(or overreaching for some) or a whole lot less significant,forcing popular politics to be centered at the state level.

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

#59

Post by lsinger »

dmd149 wrote: post #55
lsinger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example from Germany: I pay 860€ per month for health insurance, which covers me, my wife, and our two children. There’s no deductible. Everything is covered, except for tooth replacements that are covered only at between 20% and 50% I believe. You’ll never get a bill from a doctor or hospital in Germany, except for those tooth replacements. The most I’ll pay is a small copay for drugs, usually about 5€, but only for…

That is more or less what my US based health insurance plan is like, if a bit more expensive ($1200/month for me and my wife, $1500 if adding 1 child). No deductible for in-network care, usually just some small copays of $20. Is this supplemental insurance to national healthcare or the standard cost based on your income?

The latter, it’s based on a percentage of your (taxable, I think) income, capped at what I’m paying (percentage-wise I’d be paying more if it wasn’t capped).

FWIW, there’s no notion of “in-network” or “out-network” here.

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

#60

Post by dmd149 »

extra88 wrote: post #53
lotsofpulp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making…

Federal law only guarantees you can't lose your job for taking that amount of leave, it does not require employers to pay you for that time off. I suspect they were asking for evidence of your claims about the harm caused by pumping breast milk instead of an infant feeding directly from the breast.

Note: Responding to your post addressing my response to the claims I was curious about. For some reason I can’t respond to that comment directly.

I’m not making the claim that all parents can have 1 parent stay home or that there is no risk to a career for doing so, or that everyone has extended family that can help.

I was only trying to counter the claim by the other commenter that daycare at 3 months was the only option.

Overall, there is not going to be a perfect situation where you can mitigate the risk of losing your job, still get paid a high percentage of your salary, and be at home.

But, there are high costs associated with the Swedish model as well as risk. Some are explicit, like the higher tax rates. Others costs and risks might be less so. For example, maybe there are less higher paying career opportunities in Sweden because of the high risk to employers that they have to guarantee employment for new parents for a significantly long period of time. Or consider that people that don’t want to be parents will have to subsidize parents, both directly though taxes and most likely through picking up the slack of the parent on leave.

I asked my original question about any studies or models about net income in the US vs Sweden after childcare costs because I want to know to what extent a US household could replicate the benefits of the Swedish system with their extra income, if any. If you have an extra 100k after 10 years of working life when compared to Sweden, you can “pay yourself” 50k for a year while you don’t work and have at least a few years of daycare expenses saved up.

Now, I genuinely don’t know whether that is close to reality, which is why I want the data.

Post reply on HN