What About Women Who Want To Pursue Painting Or Spend More Time Making Love To Their Husband?
A tweet about France's supposedly superior policies for moms -- which privilege people who make that choice over others and then send the bill to those mysterious folks called "other people."
No, you really cannot have it all, nor should you be able to.
Choices in life are tradeoffs. With each choice you make you are forgoing another choice. France makes "magical" things happen -- no forgoing. You can have two children and work 20 percent less at your job and still make the same money.
As Crid has pointed out here, there's a piper to pay. France does not pay the full cost of their defense, putting only 2.1 percent of their GDP into it and having us as a backstop. Ted Galen Carpenter and Marian L. Tupy at Cato:
America's already huge defense budget continues to grow. Counting the costs of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. This year, defense spending will be roughly five percent of America's almost $15 trillion GDP.
We also pay for France's rock-bottom drug costs with higher drug prices in our country. (Sure, big pharma is into big profits, but research does cost a few shekels, too.)
About the "Waah, mothers should have it all" argument, Claire Cain Miller and Liz Alderman write in The New York Times:
Since Kerry Devine, 32, and her friends began having children, she has noticed a stark difference between her female friends in Auburn, Wash., where she lives, and those in England and Cyprus, where she grew up. In the United States, they almost all stopped working outside the home, at least until their children were in school. Yet, she says, she can't think of a friend in Europe who left work after her children were born.Ms. Devine quit her job after she had her first child, a girl, four years ago, because she thought 12 weeks of maternity leave was too short. "I just didn't want to leave her in day care or pay for the expenses of it," she said. When she gave birth to twin boys this year, a return to work -- she had been a property manager for apartment buildings -- looked even less plausible.
...Like every mother in France, Delphine Dubost, a public-school teacher in Paris, was required to take a month and a half off before the births of her children. She was also able to take two and a half months of maternity leave afterward, all while receiving her full paycheck. After her second child, the law permitted her to work 80 percent of full time without a salary cut. She enrolled her children in France's state-run day care system where, for about $740 a month, children receive organic meals and even diapers. "It was great," she said. "You can keep working, but can also spend time with your children."
The employment decline in the United States is especially striking, because it has long preferred flexible labor markets -- rather than extensive benefits, like those in Europe -- in the name of job growth. Europe's long list of regulations and benefits, including family leave policies, still seem to be exacting a cost on the Continent's economies. But it's now clear the American approach has its costs, too: The free market leaves many families, particularly many women, struggling to find a solution that combines work and home life.
And here we see the socialist fantasy: Other people will pay for your choices, and the money will come from...oh, there's that money tree over there...just go pluck some dollars. They'll magically grow back!
From the NYT's comments:
Robert Daniels, West Palm Beach, FL
I fail to see how an individual's decision to have a child is the responsibility of the company's to grant them benefits that wouldn't be afforded to their single working counterpart. I'm sure 90% of the American work force would jump at a chance to take a year paid leave of absence or the right to work at home (even though statistics support lower productivity from work at home employees). If a family chooses to have a child then they should be prepared econmically for said decision, not the company.
Another sensible sort:
Jess, New York
This article neglects several key issues in the working/nonworking parent debate. First, is the long summer break and relatively short school day, put our children behind many children around the world in school as well as being extraordinarily burdensome to families with parents employed outside the home. Extending time in school would help parents at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder as well as improving education. Our summer break stems from our agrarian past and serves no useful purpose today. Children start each school year having to review much of what they learned in the prior year. Also, even for older children, summer jobs are very difficult to find and putting the time to productive use is challenging.A second critical issue for people to consider is that is is a long life. Even if one wanted to dedicate time to childrearing until the teenage years, this still leaves many years to fill economic, social and emotional needs through work. Active parenting is a relatively short part of a working life that spans from the twenties to the seventies. In our child centric society childrearing can be all consuming. I would suggest, however, given the duration of the time after children, it is worth preparing for the next stage. Stay current on industry trends, document volunteer experiences in terms of skills applied, take free classes, start a small business or nonprofit, do whatever you can to enhance your value to your next employer.
And here's a woman who understands and accepts the tradeoffs -- and doesn't expect other people to pay the price of hers:
kkm, Ithaca, NY
Interestingly, this article does not consider value apart from money. It's a lot of work to raise children well; our culture tells us this can be done on a part time basis, or even just an hour or two a day. To run a home, to make meals, to have time and focus for the people around you takes time. At a professional job, we are expected to work far over 40 hours per week, we are lucky to be able to take a vacation. I had expected to go back to work after my son was born, but the idea of putting my 10 week old in someone else's arms and walking away devastated me. I decided to stay home with him and later my other children were born.I changed from identifying myself as a research biologist to a mother. A full time mother; that is my job now. Financially things are tight. No exotic vacations for us-- not even disney world! Clothes are hand-me-downs, and Salvation Army, and yard sales. -- But I have time for camping with my family, birthday parties, making dinner, working in the garden, reading to my children. --I volunteer in the community in a number of ways.
I would resent being away from my children and family. My work at home is valuable, to me, to my family, and to society. I ask that such article such as this one would at least in a sentence or two, address that value.
"Our summer break stems from our agrarian past and serves no useful purpose today. Children start each school year having to review much of what they learned in the prior year. Also, even for older children, summer jobs are very difficult to find and putting the time to productive use is challenging"
A couple of bones to pick with this. Education is the constant review and practice of concepts to keep them fresh. Anything not used will be forgotten.
If your math text books, and math teachers are a lousy as most in the US, the summer break is probably a relief from becoming completely jaded by the structure of the typical US classroom.
Rather than have the gubmit mandate any kind of year round school, I prefer that education be removed from federal government control entirely and individualized as much as possible.
.
Isab at December 13, 2014 7:52 AM
But what if you don't want to plop your kid in state-run nursery ( and then go off to your government job?) I'd be happy for tax breaks, but I want to make my own choices about child care, time off, and everything else.
KateC at December 13, 2014 9:09 AM
I thought they do all this for their citizens cuz no one is fucking in order to have kids?
Ppen at December 13, 2014 9:43 AM
My wife doesn't currently work. She is a full time mother. But that was a personal choice. She may get a job at some point. Once again that will be a personal choice. Honestly she is better at raising our child than anyone we could pay to do the job and once you account for taxes and childcare costs it is not possible for us to make more money by her working. I suspect this is true of most families in the US but most people don't do the math. This is obviously not an option for single parents.
The real issues is when the government mandates all of these things everyone has to do the same. One size fits most for fairness. All of that uniformity has a cost. One part of that cost is slow economic growth. Even the poor obama economy in the US is better than the good days in Europe's economy. We complain about 2-3% annual growth while they are complaining about 0.5-1%.
And Ppen, it is a circular situation. They mandate these things since no one is fucking. And no one fucks since they mandate too much damn stuff.
Ben at December 13, 2014 10:15 AM
Not to be pedantic, but...
> You can have two children and
> work 20 percent less at your job
> and still make the same money.
...it's more that you can 'still bring home the same number of dollars.'
The one, one thing the french can't do is "create wealth": Their language doesn't even ask them to try. They're zero-sum thinkers.
The fact that "entrepreneur" is a French word has been called one of the great paradoxes of the human tongue.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 13, 2014 10:16 AM
KateC, France makes it basically impossible to be a SAHM.
NicoleK at December 13, 2014 11:56 AM
It was probably an insult Crid. Just like how the impressionists started out as an insult and became the name.
Ben at December 13, 2014 8:09 PM
A few years ago, French president Sarkozy had a very modest proposal to delay an entitlement trainwreck. He suggested that people who retired before 60 should be able to pay for it themselves. He was angrily denounced by 53 year old retirees... a demographic preciously unheard of in functioning societies.
It's where we're headed. Looking to the government for every want. It's how people like Obama buy elections. And it's how we'll land our children or grandchildren in a socialist nation.
Trust at December 14, 2014 6:09 AM
"First, is the long summer break and relatively short school day, put our children behind many children around the world in school as well as being extraordinarily burdensome to families with parents employed outside the home. Extending time in school would help parents at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder as well as improving education."
This is an assertion, not a given. American schools are now loaded with programs having nothing to do with teaching; the American economy has TOLD Americans that two incomes are mandatory to afford bare minimums; extending time in schools has no correlation to learning - at all. Military schools limit instruction to six hours a day, with several hours allotted to study and homework; it is called training because it has as much relevance to the job as possible.
I doubt any public school can beat a military one for practicality.
Radwaste at December 14, 2014 6:11 AM
For those of you which voted for Obama, 20% less work for the same pay is the equivalent of 52 paid vacation days a year. If you ask "so what's wrong with that?" then don't bother applying at my shop.
Trust at December 14, 2014 6:58 AM
"If a family chooses to have a child then they should be prepared economically for said decision, not the company."
I'd also add - other coworkers shouldn't be expected to pay for it either. Lord, I can't count the times I've been asked "to pitch in" because a coworker is out on maternity leave. One place I worked we had "spring work" as we called it. Our busiest time of the year; and one woman was out on maternity leave three times during our "spring work" crunch time. Coincidence, she claimed - planned I'd say.
And, now as a temp worker, I'm expected to do the work of a woman out on maternity leave; but, they can't offer me the job since they have to keep it open for her. So, I end up doing her job only to be booted out when she decides to come back.
charles at December 14, 2014 7:14 AM
I blame Disney. A grand-swath of American women see themselves as princesses entitled to live in a fairy tale. Of course, someone has to pay for their lavish fantasy of having it all. Presumably, that "someone" is the rest of us -- the peasants who toil in the fields and find ourselves impoverished by the "royal princesses" who claim to have a right to our hard-won labor and property. Narcissism abounds. Someone needs to plant a boot firmly in their bustles and remind them we don't have nobles in America. No one cares if they think they are special snowflakes -- and demanding others pay for their unreasonable "no compromises" fantasies is demanding charity. Which would make them beggars rather than princesses, no?
David at December 14, 2014 11:54 AM
My experience has been similar to Charles. The rest of the team is expected to cover extra duties for now extra pay or anything...it just part of being a team player.
The Former Banker at December 14, 2014 5:39 PM
Strong families are a natural check on government intrusion and control of the society. Therefore, they must be destroyed (the express goal of both communism and feminism, btw).
If a woman uses all of her considerable energy and talents to directly benefit her own family, she is not benefiting government: the benefit she produces cannot be taxed. Nor is she benefiting corporate America: no corporation is able to earn a profit by exploiting her labor -- all while she increases the labor supply and thus keeps wages lower than they would otherwise be for her working husband.
Ours is a weaker, less competitive society if all women aren't part of the "workforce"? Bullshit. Strong families => strong society.
What is inevitable is the reality of demographics. Women forced to work during their fertile years simply cannot have as many children as those who are able to stay home to care for their kids. All those "high-powered" women "getting the job done" are not having enough kids to allow their offspring to avoid eventual extinction.
And if having enough kids to perpetuate the species isn't "Job 1" for women, what is?
Not every women has to bear progeny, but those that don't should generally support the ability of other women to take up the slack, so to speak. In essence, they should take on the role men have played in fulfilling their own Job 1 -- providing the resources necessary for women to successfully gestate and rear children.
So let it be written, so let it be done...
Jay R at December 15, 2014 1:18 PM
France isn't forcing us to continually expand our military. They aren't forcing us to keep our more expensive capitalist healthcare system either. A system where we pay more money for the exact same treatments.
Maybe we should follow Frances lead, and cut back our military spending. Even cutting back our military spending so that we only spend as much as 50% of the worlds countries combined would be a vast improvement.
We could take that money we saved and invest it in healthcare, and extra benefits for american workers.
Mike Hunter at December 15, 2014 1:48 PM
"A system where we pay more money for the exact same treatments."
You can't just assert that and expect people here to take your word for it. Where is the evidence?
Cousin Dave at December 15, 2014 6:26 PM
Leave a comment