I can see why the common public would believe this is a good thing (a good thing meaning the Canadian system, almost everywhere in Europe, what Obama wants for the USA). What could be better than no child ever goes hungry, every family gets a lot of time to spend with their infant, everyone gets "free" money to put toward the cost of bringing up a child (among a host of other lofty social guarantees). Seriously, what could be wrong with the common public having this kind of humane, guaranteed security?

Many will answer "of course we want those things! What kind of person are you to be against this?". And that is where the questions/conversation/thinking stops for much of the common public. They don't want to hear the conversation when it turns to logic/math. They don't want to hear (or maybe even attempt to understand) that it is an unsustainable system. That today's guarantees and comforts will be paid on the backs and on the likely suffering of future generations. They tune out when Margaret Thatcher sums it up so accurately "you eventually run out of other people's money" (verbatim?).

Common sense says Greece is simply an expedited example of what is coming for every society that is making unsustainable financial promises. Common sense says social safety nets must be and are most humane when they are based on sustainability (not 'feel good' math-less idealism). Common sense says that it is critical that everyone who can work must work to keep the safety nets sustainable. However, as noted above, too much of the common public wants (and votes this way) the feel good ideals and/or their "free" stuff....and the conversation stops there. I am pessimistic that the road to Athens will be derailed by what common sense so clearly says. And this means the only math that matters now is which generation gets the bar tab for our drinking binge.

If the govt encourages people to have kids, there just might be a next generation around to perpetuate society, pay down the national debt, take care of the aging population
etc.

The funniest part of the whole article is that she has the nerve to call herself a "die-hard conservative Republican."

Still, she did speak of this in the past tense: "I was a die-hard conservative Republican." The operative word being "was."

We have more or less the same system here. 1 years paid leave. Not fully paid, though. And not paid for by the employer, but by taxes. Parents get a benefit as well; slightly higher for single parents, such as myself.

Generally, we all want this, so there really isn't much of a debate about it. Sometimes the size of the benefit comes up, but no one seems to want to get rid of it altogether.

It's not at all stealing - it's democracy and we all vote for it. I did, before I had kids and I will, once my kids move away.

Having children is really, really expensive and most of us seem to agree that we want to help out to make sure families keep having kids. Well, at least make it more affordable for them to have their kids. Unless of course people without kids pay their own pensions once they get old.

Sweden has even longer leave than we do. A friend of mine living there has three years fully paid, since he has two kids.

I know this sounds totally upsetting to Americans, but we just have different priorities, I guess. The most right wing party in Denmark wants 40% taxes. That's the absolute lowest you'll find here. They go as high as 58% now, I believe. Used to be 78%, in the 1980's. I find it upsetting that one of the richest countries in the world has so many people that are really, really poor, but that's how you guys like it. I find it upsetting that poor people can't go to the doctor or the hospital, where that's paid for by taxes here.

And yet, Jesper, despite all that, Denmark's birth rate is below that of the U.S. Replacement rate is about 2.1 births per woman, which is about where the U.S. is, despite our lack of generous state-funded maternity leave. Denmark's birth rate was 1.76 in 2011, according to the Copenhagen Post (sorry, am on an iPad and thus cannot easily provide a link) and has declined so far in 2012. You are living in a system that, even more than the U.S., relies on having a high percentage of working taxpayers to keep things going, but your country is falling steadily behind in producing new potential taxpayers even as the average lifespan is increasing. It's nice you have so much energy to worry about the sad state of the U.S., but you might want to save some of that for your own country's prospects.

I will throw out there that the increasing advocacy of high-intensity mothering that we've seen over the last decade or so -- most noticeably with the greater and greater push toward breastfeeding -- is not terribly compatible with moms returning to full-time work after 12 weeks. Now, I think breastfeeding is great (and am putting my money where my mouth is at this point in my life), but anyone who seriously thinks that raising breastfeeding rates is a major priority had better be in support of longer maternity leave. This is not directed to anyone on this blog -- certainly not Amy -- but it's some context to keep in mind if you hear someone wondering why U.S. breastfeeding rates lag those in, say, Canada or Denmark.

“If a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly in America, she has to worry about how she will get her own prenatal care, medical care for her child...”

That’s not true. If you get pregnant and you're poor in America you automatically qualify for Medicaid. Yes those benefits sound like they may be overly generous: “I made more money being a stay at home mom in Canada than I do in the States working a close to a minimum wage job.”; and will probably have unintended consequences, wasn’t there a story about an alcoholic mom with 5 kids getting beat up in Canada posted here pretty recently?

But that being said I’d rather see more money being spent on social safety net programs, then watch it being poured into the enormous black hole that is our military welfare state.

Marion: Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't worry much about the state of maternity leave in the US. I just read Amys blog and stumple upon this. The birth rate is rather low here right now (it was higher a few years back, but not at 2.1 where it should be, ideally). Never the less, the tax benefits probably do help in making it higher (technically we get our benefits as a reduced tax and not as a social service). Lots of people simply wouldn't be able to afford having kids without it.

I'm not saying that the American way is wrong - I'm saying it's probably a question of history and culture and taste and americans just abide using taxes to help each other out in a sense that we don't. It doesn't really offend me, I just don't see any reason to call it "stealing". It isn't. Just like those here who get benefits while studying don't steal from me. I pay my taxes and don't mind them getting benefits. I vote for parties that keep this going. You may find that way of life objectionable, as I would expect Amy to do, but stealing? It's not even harsh, it's just plain wrong.

Jesper: I believe the problem is more the birthrate, which has to stay above a certain point to ensure that there will be enough younger people paying in to the system to balance what is coming out of the system in benefits. A good case in point is Japan, where the marriage rate is dropping fast, and the birth rate is dropping even faster. A country where the majority of the population is old is guaranteed to have financial problems, which will only get worse if the overall population continues to age.

Also, how enterpreneurial are the Scandinavian countries? Can one start a small business that must run on a shoestring, possibly for years, in an environment like that?

Anyone ask a Canadian small business OWNER about HER maternity leave? How long do you think she (especially a sole proprietor) is likely to be out of work?

The forgotten people in all of this - your local tax guy/gal, the lawyer that was at your house closing, your doctor, the bodega folks, etc. Even with benefits, who holds their jobs for them while they must hold a job for an employee?

It is stealing, plain and simple. I'm betting plenty of people in your country DON'T vote to keep that going, yet their money is taken anyway. Taking someone else's money isn't "not stealing" just because you voted yourself that money instead of taking it from their purse at gunpoint.

I have 4 kids. We made choices in our lifestyle so that I could stay home. Why should it be your business to make sure that I can? And if you feel so strongly about helping out families, I am happy to accept checks or money orders. You can send them care of Amy. No government needed!

Not to mention the highly practical issue of canada and Denmark and Sweden having very strict laws against illegal citizens. So they don't have millions a year coming in to suck off the system yet not pay. The US simply doesn't have enough workers to pay the benefits for all who are and will continue to sneak in.

It's not at all stealing - it's democracy and we all vote for it. I did, before I had kids and I will, once my kids move away.

If I vote against it, I don't get to opt out. So yes, it is stealing.

Marion,

Considering that the lack of breastfeeding may be related to more expensive health issues later, it could turn out to be more cost effective to give moms better leave for breast feeding. Alas, we only have correlation and that is not enough for good policy decisions.

I find it upsetting that one of the richest countries in the world has so many people that are really, really poor, but that's how you guys like it.

Define "really, really poor". Most people in the USofA don't live in shacks with dirt floors. Maybe in Appalachia, or the Mississippi Delta you can find dirt floors. A lot of these poor own their own homes, have cars (and maybe more than one), cell phones and flat screen TVs.

The truly poor in the world would give their eye teeth to be a poor person in the USofA.

Hmm a simple solution to two problems. Instead of sending illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico we should send them to Canada and Denmark.
Jesper, Denmarks system can handle 20 million exra people on it who don't contribute to the system. Lets see Denmark has a pop of what 6 million, they should easily be able to handle that number. Remember we are told by those who believe in the socialist utopia, that diversity is strength, well Denmark is not diverse at all, this will help with that.

I find it upsetting that poor people can't go to the doctor or the hospital, where that's paid for by taxes here.

THIS! This is bullshit, completely and utterly.
Our "health insurance" issues aside, hospitals are not allowed to turn any patient away, regardless of whether they can pay. They may get billed, if they provided an accurate name and address. But since they can't be turned away, if they don't pay the bill, the taxpayers pick up the tab. If they lie, and give a false name or address, the taxpayers pick up the tab.
As someone pointed out a few days ago, even McDonald's offers insurance. If the "poor" choose to be without any kind of insurance (they would likely qualify for medicaid, or the state version), they get a steep discount on visiting the doctor, and often are set up with payment plans that are unavailable to those who do have insurance.
Don't ever believe that the poor in America cannot get healthcare.

Jesper has a point.

Taxes will be collected, and they'll be used. If most people want to spend on something, then that's fair.

The problem is when you have most people against that spending, but due to various systemic and procedural issues, the money is collected and spent.

The most right wing party in Denmark wants 40% taxes. That's the absolute lowest you'll find here. They go as high as 58% now, I believe. Used to be 78%, in the 1980's.

Total tax rate or income tax?

There's a big difference, and most people don't sit down and calculate the total tax rate - it's hard on purpose.

If you do that, you find that the US is collecting about as much in taxes as the other countries.

I find it upsetting that one of the richest countries in the world has so many people that are really, really poor, but that's how you guys like it.

Depends how you define "poor". The "Poor" in Mississippi have better standards of living than the average Swede.

When you look at wealth, and standard of living, the US is still an amazing place. Most of the "gap" is statistical games.

I find it upsetting that poor people can't go to the doctor or the hospital, where that's paid for by taxes here.

Well, then let me reassure you. That's not the case in the US. Poor people can get great medical care, and go to the hospital if needed, and many do.

Most of the negative health outcomes of the "poor" in this country are the result of addiction and/or failure to follow medical direction, combined with failure to take prophylactic measures. (Largely because there's little downside to not, because they can go to the ER if needed.)

Nah, Jesper, the people in a crunch are people who aren't "poor". More like the middle class. They get stuck on all ends.

Did anyone think to check the "facts" here, or did we all just jump in with both feet because it looked so cool? All I've seen is a blog entry that quotes unverified declarations and a series of comments that chase after the imagined targets therein. Talk about preaching to the choir and singing by rote.

I've been reading this blog for a little while because I saw it recommended elsewhere. I'm not going to drop it because of this one bit of sloppiness, but it had better not be an indication of its overall quality.

Reality check ended. Please return to your normal activities.

rjb

Where in those links does it imply that the employer pays, as was implied in the post?

quote: "Why should it be any business owner's obligation to pay for your decision to have a baby?"

All I ask is that you clear your vision of the fog of ideology.

If I vote against it, I don't get to opt out. So yes, it is stealing.

What magical land is this where an individual's vote dictates whether that individual pays tax for a particular project?

Depends how you define "poor". The "Poor" in Mississippi have better standards of living than the average Swede.

Please tell us more about this, because it seems counterintuitive. Not saying it's not true, just wanting to know the basis of such a statement.

> Where in those links does it imply that the
> employer pays, as was implied in the post?

Your employer has to keep your job open for you. So, they need to find a replacement for you, train them, then let the replacement go at the end even if the replacement is a better employee.

And if there are layoffs at the company, they can't layoff people on maternity leave.

Sounds expensive to me!

How do these quibbles address the bias in the slant of the original post?

The bias is yours, arjaybe. Amy didn't say that the business owner pays *your salary* when you choose to have a baby, only that he/she pays for your decision. And, yeah, that's true. Keeping a job open a year is freaking hard and expensive.

I understand. I'm going to drop this before I begin to sound like a troll. Sorry for roiling the placid pool.

rjb

Kevin:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/sweden-mississippi-if-sweden-joined-us.html

Granted, it's a bit of apples and orange comparison.

But also (non-htmlized to avoid Amy's Spam Trap)

townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer

"By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher."

Thanks, Unix-Jedi.

You're right; that essay is a bit apples-oranges, but there was a link in there to another essay by Johan Norberg that made some of the same points and set them within the context of history.

Very interesting posts - thanks for digging them up Unix-Jedi!

Jesper: I believe the problem is more the birthrate, which has to stay above a certain point to ensure that there will be enough younger people paying in to the system to balance what is coming out of the system in benefits. A good case in point is Japan, where the marriage rate is dropping fast, and the birth rate is dropping even faster. A country where the majority of the population is old is guaranteed to have financial problems, which will only get worse if the overall population continues to age.

Posted by: alittlesense at July 23, 2012 6:39 AM

Would someone explain how this can't be solved with immigration? (Leaving aside racism issues, of course....)

I mean, for those who don't know, even the 1930s AND the 1940s saw an INCREASE in the global population. (I trust I don't need to tell you why the birth rate went down for a lot of people in the 1930s - or why the death rate went up in the 1940s.) In short, EVERY decade, for the last two centuries(!) or more, has seen such an increase. Sure, people too old to work don't die off as fast as they used to, but very few couples in developed countries conceive unwanted children for economic reasons, and no one really wants to encourage the birth of more children who are unwanted by the parents!

So again, instead of acting as though adding billion after billion to the planet is no big deal, why don't we just work on the immigration laws a bit more? I'm guessing most immigrants aren't elderly or are about to retire soon, anyway.

I should have said:

I'm guessing most immigrants aren't elderly and aren't about to retire soon, anyway.

"most immigrants aren't elderly..."

True, but most immigrants have elderly relatives back in the old country, so it's very tempting for them to bring those old folks over to the West, where they can take advantage of health care and such without having paid anything for it. Immigration laws have to be very carefully laid out if immigration is to be a net benefit.

Problems with immigration. The loss of your distinct culture and identity. The culture identity that built the system and allows it to work. It forms an inherent us vs them attitude which rarely vanishes unless there is a greater threat of a different 'them'. Proponents of 'diversity is strength' need only to look at the progress that congress has made recently, they are diverse, half pushing one way half pushing the other way.
Racism is a part of human nature, everyone has it to some extent. To ignore that fact is to try to plan a trip but ignoring that people need to eat, so packing no food.

"I'm guessing most immigrants aren't elderly and aren't about to retire soon, anyway."

The more problematic, and largely intractable, issue immigrants bring is they are typically less productive workers than native workers. The reasons for this typically include lessened language skills, lower educational attainment and human capital, lack of social networks, etc.

The idea that you will support upper middle class retirees on the backs of lower middle class immigrants brought in for that purpose falls apart when you realize that you will need lots more immigrants than beneficiaries. Lowering levels of productivity in a workforce is a really, really bad thing. At least it is bad if you want *rising* levels of living standards....

What else do we call forcibly taking money from one's pocket to insert it into another's?

The assertion is correct. The practice is "harsh."

In that case, all taxes are stealing if you oppose to them. Which in turn would basically mean democracy is wrong. Which it actually is. Democracy really is horrible. I just have a hard time coming up with something that is better.

That being the case, I can't really claim you are wrong; just that I disagree. I personally prefer democracy to other kinds of government, and in a democracy, the voters rule must be accepted. I dislike many laws we have and our current government, but I acknowledge that I can't have things my way all the time.

Total tax rate or income tax?

There's a big difference, and most people don't sit down and calculate the total tax rate - it's hard on purpose.

If you do that, you find that the US is collecting about as much in taxes as the other countries.

Income. VAT is 25%. We do tax a LOT. You'll find Denmark and Sweden constantly battling it out for first place in the world in taxes. I think Sweden is #1 right now, but we'll get back on top eventually. And no, I'm not at all for it or proud of it, but no way are you even close.

Depends how you define "poor". The "Poor" in Mississippi have better standards of living than the average Swede.

When you look at wealth, and standard of living, the US is still an amazing place. Most of the "gap" is statistical games.

I'm not trying to bash America at all. I'm sure America is wonderful in many ways. My point is, we basically get things the way the population wants it, when we have democracy. And it doesn't make sense to bitch and moan that they do things differently in Canada. You might hate it and never want your country to be like that, but why should the Canadians care? Why should we? We don't. Just as you shouldn't really care how we want you guys to vote. If you should, you'd never have a republic president again.

Wanting a social security net is not stupid - even if you don't want it.

I find this discussion rather strange. The US, just as Canada and Scandinavia, are among the richest countries in the world. You guys are richer, we're happier and have less crime. Basically, we all get what we vote for.

Well, then let me reassure you. That's not the case in the US. Poor people can get great medical care, and go to the hospital if needed, and many do.

Most of the negative health outcomes of the "poor" in this country are the result of addiction and/or failure to follow medical direction, combined with failure to take prophylactic measures. (Largely because there's little downside to not, because they can go to the ER if needed.)

Nah, Jesper, the people in a crunch are people who aren't "poor". More like the middle class. They get stuck on all ends.

Ah, well, I stand corrected, then.

Someone asked if we can start a business and live on a shoestring - the short answer is yes. I've done it.

Thanks for all the explanations regarding immigration, but I suppose I should have asked, does anyone have any better ideas OTHER than reworking the immigration laws, when it comes to countries where more and more people just don't want more than two children - if ANY?

The pressure to have unwanted children reminds me of a old column in Newsweek, I think, by a veterinarian who said that it's ridiculous to keep nagging the public to take in homeless animals, because, he said, anyone in America's have-it-all society who doesn't already have a pet is usually someone who SHOULDN'T have a pet.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how you get pregnant "unexpectedly"? Is that like when you're so drunk you can't even remember you had sex?

does anyone have any better ideas OTHER than reworking the immigration laws, when it comes to countries where more and more people just don't want more than two children - if ANY?

Sure. People live within their means, save money, work as long as they have to, and rely upon their own savings during old age. Unless you already have the means to take care of yourself, you shouldn't be having children anyway.

Sure. People live within their means, save money, work as long as they have to, and rely upon their own savings during old age. Unless you already have the means to take care of yourself, you shouldn't be having children anyway.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at July 24, 2012 12:46 PM
_____________________________

I agree, but it seems that when conservative politicians have to choose between pushing unwanted parenthood and pushing frugality, the latter is anathema to them. (Not to mention that "living within your means," even when you have a million-a-year income, is considered self-degrading by many.)

Interestingly, in the 1990 book "The Decline of Thrift in America," author/historian David M. Tucker said that up until the 20th century, when Henry Ford came along with his slogan "don't try to save money and be a miser," individual thrift was, in fact, pretty much the basis for the American economy and society. If only we could return to that....

@lenona, the new term for "living within your means" is "austerity" - which is regarded as UNFAIR!

And as far as conservative politicians are concerned, how many of them even acknowledge the reality of unwanted parenthood. Babies are special miracles, and if you don't want a God-given miracle, there must be something wrong with YOU!

But take heart - We may not live long enough to see it, but believe me, if anything resembling a country emerges from the pile of ashes that is to come, thrift will be the new hotness.