Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Politics of Maternity Leave
It's no secret that the US has the worst maternity leave policy of any developed nation. I'm always shocked and saddened that politicians don't address this issue. The first year is pretty much the single most important year of life - and I think it's sad that more babies don't get to spend it with their mothers. Especially when you consider the impact on breastfeeding, post-partum depression, development, etc..
Would you support a candidate that wanted to expand maternity leave benefits to be more in line with a country like Canada? Why, why not?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Politics of Maternity Leave
my read shelf:
Nope, probably not.
It's a great idea in theory, and I do wish that American women had something better than what we have now.
But an extended, paid maternity leave needs to be funded somehow, and at this point I don't see how our country could possibly do it. With trillions of dollars in debt and continuing to hemorrhage money like we are, I couldn't support the creation of and funding for another program that isn't absolutely essential.
Maybe once we have all of the other essential programs (health care, education, public infrastructure, law enforcement and fire protection, public health, etc) figured out and fully funded, I'd be willing to support such a program.
Yes, parental leave (for both parents), should be more generous. But, unfortunately, it would take a massive social shift to allow for such generosity. I know most other systems are publicly funded, so that sounds like "Socialism" to American ears. I would totally love for a candidate to make a change here. Zero weeks is ridiculous. Every single country in the world pays something.
This link makes me want to cry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
It's pretty ironic that a society that touts "family values" doesn't even care about the single most important part of a family's life.
I'm all for socialism, though.
What is the Canadian policy on this subject? If anyone would care to share.
I'm nowhere near ready to be thinking about kids but I'm interested in this topic. I could go google it I guess...
Edit: I found this link comparing the two. Some of you who are more educated on the subject might be able to chime in on how accurate this is.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/maternity-leave-basics-canada-vs.-the-u.s..aspx#axzz29PiYPTJS
The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth, by a long shot. So I don't want to hear "but we can't afffoooooooord it!" bullshiiit. We can. We just don't want to. If f'ing Romania, Pakistan and Venezuela can figure out how to ensure paid leave to all mothers, then the United States, which spends billions on totally unnecessary wars, can certainly figure out how to do it.
We care more about the profits of business than about the health of women and babies (and men for that matter). That's the bottom line.
That's a prett good summary. The only other thing i would note is that adopyive parents are also entitled to the 35 week parental portion but not the 15 week maternity portion, and there are opt-outs (you don't have to take the leave if you don't want to).
I had my first DS while working in Canada and I cannot tell you how grateful I am. DS had a few health problems in the first year, and he truly benefitted from being with his mom. Meanwhile, I didn't have to endanger my career.
If we have another child it will be n the US and I'm terrified of what will happen.
I wish a politician would take this up. It's truly an investment in the future not to mention a quality of life issue. The only group I've seen actively working in it is focusing on paid 6-12 weeks because so many Americans are so poor that even if they had a year leave they coukdn't afford it and would have to go back to work anyway.
You're right, we spend billions on stupid unnecessary wars. And right, the US is way too concerned with corporate profits and not enough about our citizens.
But still - how do we afford it? Do we drastically scale back military spending tomorrow? How big of a backlash will that cause? Raise taxes? Yeah, that will go over well. Deep cuts are already being made to those essential services, what gets cut further to pay for extended paid maternity leaves?
And sure, Romania and Pakistan are doing it. How many true dual income families do they have in those countries? They have a fraction of the amount that the US does, so it's not going to cost as much for them. And Europe? Sure, looks like things are going wonderfully for Greece, Spain, and Ireland.
Until the US gets its bank account balanced and it's current bills paid, it can't take on more expensive programs.
Things actually are going pretty well for Germany, Denmark and Sweden, all of which have lower unemployment than the U.S.
I'm fine with cutting the defense budget by 1%, which would free up over $6 billion for a national maternity leave program. And that's just the base budget - it doesn't include war spending. So it would actually be less than one percent of the military budget.
Kelly Mom ran some figures: http://kellymom.com/blog-post/cost-maternity-leave/
It's not cheap, but it's certainly doable. Plus you could see a return in health care costs from increased breast feeding rates and it frees up jobs for people that are looking for work, even if it's just a temporary one-year position (the woman that covered my mat leave was happy to have the position).
Eta: Canada funds it through employment insurance (unemployment), so a small amount is taken out of each paycheck, it's pretty simple.
they don't get paid for a year right? or do they get a tiny amount of what they normally make? I know if I had a year off I wouldn't want to come back. 6 weeks seems like nothing at all, I had a c/section and still wasn't feeling myself at that time. I know people that take 12 weeks off and I'm guessing that they save up their time to add on to that. I left the corporate world almost 3 years ago so I don't know much about these things. we planned for me to stay home and work my own business part time. I would never go back full time in an office.....it just seems like you barely get any benefits
No, I wouldn't support a candidate that wanted to do such a thing. The decision to have a child is a personal decision. And, therefore (IMO), something that you should be financially responsible for as well. You want extended maternity leave? Plan for it. Save for it. You want a child? Plan for it. Save for it. We're becoming much too dependent on the government. Think about it, we have programs to provide assistance with feeding infants, clothing the infants (there are diaper banks nowadays), feeding school aged children...breakfast, lunch and dinner in some locations, free childcare...and the list goes on and on. What's happened to personal responsibility? If you can afford to take an extended maternity leave...I think it's a wonderful thing but I don't believe it should be on someone else's dime.
ETA - Also wondering...what do you do with those (and it happens all too often) who abuse the system? Extended maternity leave to not being able to afford the child (therefore, requiring additional government assistance) and then a second and or third pregnancy and a cycle that continues to repeat itself. And, I do speak of a distant relative in Canada (23 yo) who is pregnant with #3 and who's fallen into this cycle and has no plans to remove herself anytime soon...or, so she says.
Is it really a personal decision? The 35 weeks aren't for the parents, they're for the child. Spoiler alert: infants are not self-sufficient, they need someone to take care of them, they pretty much by definition lack personal responsibility. Yet they're also growing into the kids who aren't doing very well on national test scores, have inexcusably high achievement gaps along socioeconomic lines (which we then blame public teachers for), and will one day be the same people that wipe your ass in the nursing home and set the policies that make or break your golden years. How is the next generation not a public issue?
Other countries have healthier and smarter kids because they take care of them. Yes it should be the parent's responsibility, but most parents don't have the resources to do the best for the kids because their tax dollars are being tied up in oil subsidies instead of early childhood education.
Lol at having a child simply to get a maximum of $485/week pre-taxes. I highly doubt your distant relative is actually having additional children simply to get a few hundred bucks. Do you have kids? It would be much, much, much easier to work at a job for money than raise children for money.
And for the record, the vast majority of employers don't offer extended leaves that people can even save up for. It's return or quit. Which means that mothers disproportionately lose their status in the workplace, even though they are equally qualified. Awesome, what women need is more workplace discrimination.
I'm sure this happens though. just as women in the US keep having babies to stay on welfare. you and i wouldn't do it, but some people do
I'm not sure where I stand on the government provided maternity leave. I'd love to look at the numbers more and am interested to check out that kellymom link. But I do think it's a stretch to say that the first year is the most important year of a child's life. Or that you could link being in daycare as an infant to low testing scores.
Of course infants aren't self sufficient. They need *someone* to take care of them. But I could just as easily argue that whether that is a parent, a nanny, or a daycare worker for 8 hours a day isn't that big of a difference. And that having an active parent is more important as the child gets older and their needs and care taking becomes more complex.
And I'm sure this isn't what you mean, but by saying "Other countries have healthier and smarter kids because they take care of them. Yes it should be the parent's responsibility, but most parents don't have the resources to do the best for the kids..." it sounds like you are implying that parents who return to work with an infant don't take care of their kids or do best by their kids.
Again, I'm not saying I'm against government covered maternity leave, I just don't think your reasons really support the argument.
I agree you should do some research. Quality of childcare (daycare or at-home) is linked to high school test scores. Breastfeeding rates are linked to higher test scores. Achievement gaps are measurable at 9-months of age. And work life balance plays a role - the National Bureau of Economic research found that children of women who take longer leaves have lower mortality rates and higher test scores. The first years of life are fundamental. You will never again see that much growth and development in a person.
And please be careful not to put words in my mouth, I'm most certainly not saying that parents who return to work don't take care of their kids. I'm saying that women deserve more options so that they can make the best decision for them and their kids - whatever that may be. If they have the resources to happily return to work at 4 weeks, then go for it. What's best for many is not best for all.
However, most women don't have options to choose from. Their floor is 0 weeks and past that they're at the mercy of their employer. We should give them a realistic floor and they can determine when and if it's best to return to work.
I agree that the *quality* of child care definitely makes a difference on a child's cognitive abilities and achievement scores, but studies by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development have shown whether this care is parental or non-parental does not necessarily have detrimental (or beneficial) effects.
I also wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - which is why I said "I'm sure this isn't what you mean". I was merely stating how it came across to me.
Agreed that it's totally possible that a non-parent can care for a child just as well, my point about quality of childcare and test scores was in response to your statement that you can't link daycare to test scores. There's the lingering question about whether lower socioeconomic brackets can afford high quality childcare. Childcare is *expensive*, especially infant care. Like with many problems, if you have enough money you can buy a good outcome. But not everyone does.
We also haven't even begun to discuss the problems that the mother faces with a non-existent leave included increased depression scores and a long-term loss of earnings should she decide to leave the workforce on even a short-term basis - not to mention the physical healing that goes into having a baby.
It's a really serious problem that's being completely ignored by policy makers.
Do any of you think there is any sort of conflict between equal pay for women and paid maternity leave? In my mind they seem to contradict each other. Does that make sense? Like, we are equal and deserve equal pay (which i 100% agree with). But also we aren't equal so we deserve to be paid when we have babies.
I'm sure someone else could explain it better, but hopefully you get the basic idea. Any thoughts?
Not sure what happened to that last post of mine. Anyway, I get what's being said here and I agree. Having a child in the first place is a personal decision. Thus, poster is asking why have them if you cannot afford them. And, if you want time at home with your newborn, plan for it. Ahead of time. It is true, there are too many women having children who are not prepared; especially financially. Why should the financial burden fall to taxpayers for these people?
That said, I also understand the benefits of staying home with your children. And, that crazy part of me wonders how mothers of yesterday raised their children (most often, on one income) and survived. They planned, they were fiscally responsible, they used cloth diapers, breastfed when they could and many of them found jobs (on off shifts) so that income continued to come in and so someone was always home with the baby. Things are much different today and not in a good way.
IMO, yes, having a child is a personal decision - that's what I was getting at. I'm sorry, but I can't jump on the bus of thinking that children are doing poorly on national tests simply because parents aren't taking an extended maternity leave. That's stretching. In my professional life, I work with plenty of men and women who have utilized FLMA to assist with maternity and family leave...what a wonderful thing. Lucky we have it. But, none of this takes away from my belief that the decision to have a child, care for it, provide for it is a personal decision...one that should not be made lightly and one that should be carefully thought out with the financial burden up front. If we do this (and many, many people do), we're setting ourselves up for self sufficiency...a great thing.
I do see the children of today as somewhat of a public issue - and, frankly that frightens me. We cannot have these children thinking that life is not about any personal responsibility and all about handouts. And, sadly, I see that all too often. We simply cannot continue to give away the house as, before we know it, they'll be nothing left of that house to give away.
To answer your question...my children are 20, 17 & 13.
I thought the Canadian ladies got 60% of their pay for the year-long maternity leave thing.
Hold up.
So extending maternity leave would create entitled kids?
Millions of people don't have FMLA, actually. I didn't have it because my company was too small. Some people don't have it because they haven't worked there long enough. Some people don't really have it because they can't afford to take off any time unpaid.
FMLA is hardly a "wonderful thing." It's pathetic, compared to literally every other country in the world (except Lesotho and Papua New Guinea...yay).
I see what you're saying, but I don't think there's really a conflict, any more so than saying that people who get cancer shouldn't ask for equal pay to people who don't have cancer. Maternity leave isn't a super special reward for women to enjoy fun times when they have babies. It's time to recover physically and mentally from a highly demanding medical experience, and it's time for the benefit of babies who are born who need their primary caregiver, which, if the mother is breastfeeding, is necessarily going to be mom.
The most equal countries in the world for women also offer generous paternity leave, so there's that too.
I'm entirely in favor of paid leave for people with serious medical issues.
But maternity leave is unique in that it's not just about the worker, it's about the baby. Maternity leaves are good for babies too - there are all kinds of studies showing how they benefit infants both in the short term and in the long term. One of these is that women with maternity leave are more likely to breastfeed, which has a host of positive health effects, some of which last into adulthood. Bonding is another one - babies who fail to bond with their primary caretakers have more health and emotional problems later in life (and if we're looking at this from solely a "how does it affect me" perspective, adolescents with emotional problems are more likely to become criminals).
And yes, people who adopt should get paid maternity leave too, for the reasons above.
On the topic of equality, paid maternity leave actually levels the playing field to make things more equal for women, so that they aren't forced out of the workplace simply for the biological fact that they are the ones who give birth. No one is saying women aren't biologically different. "Equality" means that men and women are capable of equal contributions in the workforce. That a woman is equally capable of being a manager or air traffic controller or whathaveyou as a man, and therefore should be paid equally for doing the same work and have the same opportunities to join those professions as men. That's what people mean when they talk about equality in the workforce.
And none of this is getting into just the fact that maybe making it possible for mothers to be with their infants, recover from childbirth, and not be forced back to work two weeks after giving birth is simply the right thing to do. Family values and all that.