My solution may not be optimal, but the status quo is "male go-getter with supportive female companion" as standard model of coupling.
If we have to deal with declining birthrates while we figure out a more fair and sane arrangement, that doesn't pit family building against professional success, I'm down.
Do you have any objective reasons why this is suboptimal? Maybe we should go the other way; for example in the Netherlands, many women (with children) choose to work part-time (because they can). So maybe the "status quo" is by choice.
I lean towards the former. There are multiple reasons for this being a biological choice. One, women's childbearing period is more limited than men's, so it's rational for them to prioritize "taking care for the children" over "having a great career". Another is that because they give birth, they pretty much have to be absent from work (for a few days at least), whereas men don't, so again it's rational for a woman to take additional leave for childcare, so that only one parent gets penalized (by lower pay and less experience and future promotions) by taking time off. Of course, the latter only applies given everything else is equal; if the mother earns significantly more than the (step-)father, then it would be rational for her to take off only as many days an necessary for health reasons, with her partner providing the rest of childcare.
The Swedish way is to have 480 days of parental leave per child, which can be split between either parent. "For 390 of the days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 per cent of their normal pay up to a maximum monthly income of 37,000 kroner ($4,500)." - http://www.thelocal.se/20151229/one-in-four-swedish-fathers-... .
Also, "From January 1st 2016, the number of use-it-or-lose-it 'pappamånad' or 'daddy months' will increase from two to three, in an bid to push couples to share early years childcare more equally." because currently "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave".
Mandatory parental leave is tricky. Is that a month in a row? As a self-employed person, am I prohibited from filings taxes, sending out invoices, and support questions? Or can I work one day a week?
That's the issue right there. Not surprised "One in four Swedish dads take no baby leave".
I know things are tricky to roll out, there's tons of quirks here and there. User chongli is on like three leaves of the discussion trying to take the idea down based on implementation details. That comes later.
The whole point is that right now it's a "woman's issue". Forcing men to deal with it would make it a "parent issue", and more resources would be devoted to ironing out the details.
It's like that pithy line I heard once- "If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be controversial".
edit: Can't reply, but I got your reply just fine dalke. What I'm saying is that making it use-it-or-lose-it is still not good enough. Rather, if you don't get why I suggest it needs to be mandatory, it is you who is not getting me.
edit2: Fanning threads on HN are just no good for discussing stuff. Sorry!
I ... don't think you understood my response. Three months of it can only be taken by the father. The "split between either parent" has limits.
What's wrong with the non-mandatory Swedish system? It's most assuredly called "parental leave here", and isn't a "woman's issue" but a feminist issue. As a male feminist, I agree with that.
Edit regarding "it is you who is not getting me".
You are right. But I fail to understand why I should get you as you haven't made any statement about what "mandatory" means. Do you mean one week of mandatory leave, or one month, or one year? Will it be paid leave, and structured similar to what it is in Sweden (percentage of salary, with cap)? What is the penalty for not complying? If I am an unpaid board member of a Fortune 100, am I prohibited from attending meetings? What about going to shareholder meetings? Going to professional society meetings?
You complain that these questions are "trying to take the idea down based on implementation details", but they are not. They are aspects of trying to understand what you mean by mandatory parental leave, and do a cost/benefit analysis
If Sweden were to require on week of mandatory parental leave, for each parent, how would that improve things?
I don't know whether a week a month or a year is suitable, or percentages, or damages. This is not my field.
The fundamental idea I'm advancing is that men get to do calculus with their choice ("hmm do I want to stay? or do I better by my kid by working hard now and sending them to prep school?"). It's cool that Sweden makes it attractive for them to pick parenthood, but it's not enough, it's not really in the same ballpark.
I am suggesting that men shouldn't really have a choice. Women have little/no choice (biologically, because of labor, and socially, because of expectations), so only by forcing an approximation of time lost, do we really make people reconsider whether the situation we put them in and the choices we offer them are fair.
In case this sounds incredibly sinister to people, like capping runners so they're not fast, don't get me wrong. I think the outcome here would be an increased amount of resources put into the "work-life balance" question that everyone pays lip-service to, so that we wouldn't be really forced to choose one over the other.
Okay, I see your point. I don't believe it's a useful one.
What you are saying is that you want the government to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish a woman who, as CEO, signs a business deal three days after she gives birth, yes?
Because that's what "mandatory" means. Unless "mandatory" only applies to the father? In which case, why is the father prohibited from signing a business deal three days after the mother gives birth, when the mother would be capable of doing so?
Then there are all the tricky questions, like if the father and mother have broken up and are no longer on speaking terms, or the father is overseas. They are the same issues as for parental leave, only backed by the force of government punishment for not complying.
This is ridiculous. The policy could be something like "take a month off within a year of your kid being born".
> What you are saying is that you want the government to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish a woman who, as CEO, signs a business deal three days after she gives birth, yes?
I sincerely think that the benefits are not worthwhile.
Every mandatory requirement must be backed by penalty, otherwise it's merely optional. Such penalties can include fines, jail, lack of access to social services, and forced removal of one's child.
We know already that 1/4 of Swedish fathers prefer to take no leave, even when there's an 80% salary support. (I don't know how many Swedish mothers take less than a month of leave.)
Any fines must therefore be more than 20% of three months' salary, and even higher for those making over $100K/year.
Any system must also have a way to identify lawbreakers, and allow appeals and special circumstances.
The Swedish experience shows that the father tends to put the extra time into the summer, Christmas, and New Year holidays. If the goal is increased co-parenting - which I believe is your goal - then 1 month spread over a year, especially in a vacation-poor country like the US, is very likely not enough.
>It's like that pithy line I heard once- "If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be controversial".
An interesting line which seems to ignore evidence as to which gender is more expected to care for their child and treated harsher when they don't.
The underlying ideal is that men would favor men and they would all vote to legalize abortion, but this ignores both how there are many women who are against abortion (while few are against all forms, most are against some forms). It also ignores how men often hold other men accountable for caring for their children, including supporting laws that put dead beat fathers into prison.
I prefer the line "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal."
If we have to deal with declining birthrates while we figure out a more fair and sane arrangement, that doesn't pit family building against professional success, I'm down.