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

Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 617 posts

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#591

Post by Broken_Hippo »

systemtest wrote: post #461
jredwards wrote: post #312

In the tech worker's paradise that is California, I'm preparing for my generous two weeks of paternity leave. My co-worker, having not been employed at the company for a year yet, is preparing to burn all four days of his vacation time because he's not entitled to paternity leave yet. This is broken.

As a tech worker in California, your income is triple to that of a Finnish tech worker. You can easily take unpaid time off for your paternity leave, perhaps even quit your job for a year, and still get out ahead.

There are a lot of workplaces that will simply not allow someone to take months of unpaid time off work. A woman will be eligible for some medical time off (generally unpaid) - but the father (or non-birthing parent) generally cannot take time. The main exception I see to this in most employee handbooks is time off for adoption.

Now, this is talking in general and not about tech per se, so if someone is really lucky they work at somewhere that doesn't expect them to do work every week to keep their job.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#592

Post by codingmess »

rglullis wrote: post #585
codingmess wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your logic. You would have paid those high taxes regardless of Elterngeld. You didn't pay those high taxes because you received Elterngeld. Therefore, if you receive Elterngeld, you receive it from other people. Yes, the government doesn't "give" money, it redistributes it. Some other people are paying for your Elterngeld. Even if in your head you assume that it is paid from the taxes you paid, the…

I think we are in agreement for most of the things. I am glad to see we agree that the money from the Govt is not "given" to the people. This was the point of my first comment. I just want to disabuse you from this idea you seem to hold that the money I received is from "other people". It is not. It is from the Government. Sure it was taken from all of society via taxes, but once it is taken it is no longer yours or…

I think you can certainly say that some people benefit more than others from the "redistribution", even if you don't account for every single spending. There are certainly people who pay more than they receive.

In the case of family support, it is clear the non-parents receive less than parents. If there are no things (or fewer) things that non-parents benefit from that parents don't benefit from, then it is a net loss for non-parents. (Non-parents could for example benefit more from government sponsored care of the elderly, which might in part be taken care off by children of parents).

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#593

Post by HBKXNCUO »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #588
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should your spouse leave you or die, and you are totally dependent on him, that would suck. A) Don't have children with someone that is going to leave you, B) life insurance. >But that was not really what I was thinking of but rather the ability to be financially independent later in life because you actually had a career. Why is that desirable? Would society not be a better place if many more people were dedicated…

A society where fathers are used to and expected to participate more actively in child raring will also care more about their children IMHO. Such a society is hard to build without gender equality and independence for women. I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal. I view happy families as the goal. Lower divorce numbers will follow from that. If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to…

>A society where fathers are used to and expected to participate more actively in child raring will also care more about their children IMHO. Such a society is hard to build without gender equality and independence for women.

I don't see why that should be so. Men need to think that it's important for their children's growth for them to be heavily involved in raising them, but I don't see why that should necessitate women being financially independent or achieving "gender equality", whatever that means. For example, if men believe that there are some critical aspects of child raising that simply cannot be done correctly by women, I think men would take a more active role in order to make sure they're able to provide their needed input, but I would guess those sorts of beliefs are contrary to "gender equality". I could actually see it making things worse to tell men that women are as capable of all aspects of child rearing as are men, because then why can't the woman just do it all?

>I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal.

I don't either. The goal is a stable and happy society full of adults who were raised in stable and happy homes. Low divorce numbers are an essential element of achieving that.

>If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to stay in unhappy marriages.

That depends on how you try to lower the divorce rate, I suppose. If you make divorce a crime punishable by death and change nothing else, ya that's what you're going to end up with. If on the other hand you encourage people to avoid lifestyle choices that are associated with divorce, you will end up with fewer divorces and happier marriages.

>You seem to advocate a sort of 1950s style family life. I don’t think that is good for anyone.

Women reported being happier back then, so it seems like it was good for them at least. Who do you think that wasn't good for, and why?

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#594

Post by rglullis »

codingmess wrote: post #592
rglullis wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are in agreement for most of the things. I am glad to see we agree that the money from the Govt is not "given" to the people. This was the point of my first comment. I just want to disabuse you from this idea you seem to hold that the money I received is from "other people". It is not. It is from the Government. Sure it was taken from all of society via taxes, but once it is taken it is no longer yours or…

I think you can certainly say that some people benefit more than others from the "redistribution", even if you don't account for every single spending. There are certainly people who pay more than they receive. In the case of family support, it is clear the non-parents receive less than parents. If there are no things (or fewer) things that non-parents benefit from that parents don't benefit from, then it is a net lo…

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it seems you are either venting your frustration for feeling like you are not getting back what you put in (you probably aren't) or completely missing the point of what I was saying up-thread.

So, let me try different words: of course this redistribution is uneven. The point of socio-political programs is never to be "fair", no matter how much they say it is. So stop worrying about it.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#595

Post by conanbatt »

jschwartzi wrote: post #567
conanbatt wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you dont have the money to take 6 times off, who is giving you the money to do so? The basic economic question of giving someone money is that you are taking it from someone else. Is it childless employees? Is it taxes? Is it the unemployed?

Your question makes it sound like he's stealing from someone by taking paid time off to be with his child. In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Moreover money is not zero-sum. The way you talk about it, there's only a finite number of dollars in the US and he's stealing some from someone else. This is not even remotely how our econ…

> In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it.

Then his salary, and the salary of all the employees have been lowered to provide the benefit. That means employees without kids pay for the parents.

> Moreover money is not zero-sum.

A handout is definitely zero-sum. But even if it isn't, the entire benefit of that handout is captured by the receiver, not by the giver. So its an even worse reason for an employer to give parental leave.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#596

Post by the_af »

nailer wrote: post #557
the_af wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you selectively quote me to exclude the part where I mentioned breastfeeding? Besides, some women don't produce milk either, or not enough of it. Bonding with a parent is not exclusive to breastfeeding, either (though of course it helps!).

Being perfectly honest, that sentence was so wrong I didn't feel the need to read anything further.

As long as we're being perfectly honest, it seems if you had bothered to read at least the next sentence it would have better qualified you for answering the post and spared you from making a snarky but wrong reply.

All this besides the obviously wrong equivalence you make between child bearing and breast feeding.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#597

Post by toomuchtodo »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #583
toomuchtodo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent. They have no career, do not want a career, and only want to be a full time parent (which I fully support). I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).

> Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent. Of course everybody's situation is different. My wife is actually currently at home as well. But you cannot advocate a system that just works for you. You got to have a system that benefits the population at large. Many women want a career and independence and many men would enjoy spending more time with their children. They should be giv…

Do you think women will ever be able to compete on a level footing with men in the labor market/workplace if enough men prioritize status, wealth, and their career above being primarily a father? Honest question, not intended to be incendiary. You propose in this thread about culture changing, but what if it doesn't because of the drive for status? To seek status and wealth are core human values. You can’t squeeze the humanity out of people with policy.

Valuing those who value their career above all else isn't gender inequality; that's valuing a work ethic, not a specific gender (women also make the choice to prioritize a career above being a mother at all). You as an individual have a choice not to prioritize your work above all else, but you should not then be penalizing those with public policy who don't in the name of equality.

Equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#598

Post by kickling »

conanbatt wrote: post #595
jschwartzi wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question makes it sound like he's stealing from someone by taking paid time off to be with his child. In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Moreover money is not zero-sum. The way you talk about it, there's only a finite number of dollars in the US and he's stealing some from someone else. This is not even remotely how our econ…

> In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Then his salary, and the salary of all the employees have been lowered to provide the benefit. That means employees without kids pay for the parents. > Moreover money is not zero-sum. A handout is definitely zero-sum. But even if it isn't, the entire benefit of that handout is captured by the…

Or perhaps they use the benefit to attract better competence? Higher pay vs a more secure work life balance is of course the decision to make here, and seems like op of this thread made a decision. What are you trying to proove?

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#599

Post by aetimmes »

conanbatt wrote: post #595
jschwartzi wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question makes it sound like he's stealing from someone by taking paid time off to be with his child. In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Moreover money is not zero-sum. The way you talk about it, there's only a finite number of dollars in the US and he's stealing some from someone else. This is not even remotely how our econ…

> In reality, the money is coming from a corporation, who presumably has already costed the risk and is willing to accept it. Then his salary, and the salary of all the employees have been lowered to provide the benefit. That means employees without kids pay for the parents. > Moreover money is not zero-sum. A handout is definitely zero-sum. But even if it isn't, the entire benefit of that handout is captured by the…

Making the claim that parental leave is zero-sum assumes that I'd be working at full productivity for those 6 months, which based on my current sleep schedule even without work obligations, I definitely wouldn't be.

My employer can either pay me for 6 months of work and get a substandard work product while I suffer sleep deprivation, or they can pay me for 6 months of leave and get me back recharged and ready to work at the end of that leave, when my child is sleeping through the night.

Re: Finland to give dads same parental leave as mums

#600

Post by nailer »

the_af wrote: post #596
nailer wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being perfectly honest, that sentence was so wrong I didn't feel the need to read anything further.

As long as we're being perfectly honest, it seems if you had bothered to read at least the next sentence it would have better qualified you for answering the post and spared you from making a snarky but wrong reply. All this besides the obviously wrong equivalence you make between child bearing and breast feeding .

The ability to bear children is pretty closely linked with the ability to feed them. It's interesting you find that (and my pointing out your terrible opening statement) 'obviously wrong'.
Post reply on HN