I want this

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I would like to stipulate that I believe under any system women would likely take more leave then men, because part of the leave women take for parental leave is medical leave to recover from pregnancy. I have no desire to try and eradicate that difference with legislation.

Ah, good point. Okay, I didn't know that's where you were and appreciate the clarification.

It does bother me that men appear to not want to take leave at all, and not becuase they inherently don't want to all things being equal, but because they are afraid of disproportionate consequences to their careers.

I'm really interested in what you mean by "disproportinate" consequences. Are you saying that a man who takes of 10 weeks for a childbirth will be penalized more than a woman who takes of 10 weeks?

ETA: I'd also like to stipulate that in matters of goals for my government, I do hope for a little more than the equivalent of Al Pacino shouting "I STILL STANDIN" seeing as we all know what happens shortly thereafter.

Fair enough -- I should have said "without any clear adverse consequences" rather than the Republic still standing.

Iskarul:

Couples could choose to share this opportunity cost equally in order to contribute equally to child care, but they mostly find that there is a bigger combined economic impairment if both of them take a partial career/pay loss than if just one of them takes the whole career/pay loss. Without being too mathematical about it, the productivity/experience function is curved rather than linear and, most likely, the couple's utility function is also curved rather than linear. This isn't a surprise at all, most functions of this ilk are curved rather than straight lines. No need to dip into calculus, suffice to say that marginal benefits and costs are not uniform.

I think that may be true in an abstract sense, but I don't think it works out that way in practice. I counsel employers a lot on family leave issues, and these kind of things crop up with some frequency. Employers are used to dealing with employees going on vacation, and working around that. If a man or woman is gone for less than six weeks or so, I generally don't think there really are any long-term consequences to that at all. In that regard, I'd point out that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act came about in the U.S. because employers were "carving out" pregnancy from the list of conditions covered by health care and leave policies on the basis that it was a "voluntary" condition. The law basically holds that women who are absent from work due to childbirth or childbirth related reasons must be treated the same under the employer's policies as individuals who are other conditions but are similarly-situated in their ability or inability to work. But that points out that both women and men sometimes miss significant periods of work due to illnesses or events unrelated to pregnancy, and employers generally live with and work around that. The biggest concern employers always have is "is she going to come back". THAT is really the issue that concerns them when a woman goes on maternity leave.

So the bottom line is that I don't think men really do suffer disproportionate consequences as long as their leave is FMLA protected, nor do I think there really is that much of a marginal benefit from one person taking 12 weeks versus two people taking 6 each. A couple can divvy it up now if they want to. I think the reason many men don't take much leave beyond vacation time is that the first six weeks or so are generally the most critical. The mother is still recovering, the baby is getting on a schedule, etc. A lot of mothers don't want to come back to work unless things are going okay, and if they are, then you have the question of whether it makes sense for the father to now take off six weeks as well. And I think what happens is that a lot of couples decide that they'd rather have the dad working than sitting home for six weeks, given that the baby is going to be cared for during the day by someone else anyway after that point.

So I still think Iskarul is right in pointing out that it really just comes down to a decision between the couple as to what they'd prefer. And most couples would prefer not to lose the additional 6 weeks of income, so the guy stays at work. And I guess the bottom line is that I don't see anything inherently wrong with a couple making that decision, because to the extent it results in her making less than him for that year, that is the decision they decided was best for them, and dictated largely by biology for that first 6 weeks or so.

[Guest Raidne]

Isk, I don't really have a response, seeing as I'm not going to persaude you, and for me, all you've done are restate a lot of the same conclusions as though they are premises.

I will say, however, that I can't just take your word on this:

...but they mostly find that there is a bigger combined economic impairment if both of them take a partial career/pay loss than if just one of them takes the whole career/pay loss

We're talking about weeks, here. Not months. I don't believe there would be any such effect absent stigma effects due to weeks off.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Isk, I don't really have a response, seeing as I'm not going to persaude you, and for me, all you've done are restate a lot of the same conclusions as though they are premises.

I will say, however, that I can't just take your word on this:

We're talking about weeks, here. Not months. I don't believe there would be any such effect absent stigma effects due to weeks off.

As I said above, I agree with you on that, Raidne, though I don't believe there really is a "stigma" effect on the guy apart from the direct effect of missing that time.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm really interested in what you mean by "disproportinate" consequences. Are you saying that a man who takes of 10 weeks for a childbirth will be penalized more than a woman who takes of 10 weeks?

It's interesting how the effects work. Women in general will be seen as being under-invested in their careers without significant personal efforts to negate that viewpoint because of the amount of women who leave or take time off. Therefore, an individual woman will not be penalized so much as a woman, compared to other women, for taking time off.

And, honestly, there is probably hardly any penalty for taking 6 weeks for women. Most women who only take 6 weeks are seen as freaking paratroopers who live and die for the company.

A man who takes 6 weeks will suffer much, much more than other men, as opposed to women compared to other women, and, I think, more than the individual woman compared to all men and women.

I have been really, really busy lately, but I will try to dig up some research on this when I have time at home - maybe this weekend? I have only seen the resulting conclusory statements in the media, not the studies themselves, or citations to them. I doubt there is anything good on Google. If anyone else has access to silverplatter's Psych Info through their university or something, I'd be thrilled to see what they come up with.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A man who takes 6 weeks will suffer much, much more than other men, as opposed to women compared to other women, and, I think, more than the individual woman compared to all men and women.

Interesting, because that really explains a lot about where you're coming from on this. I'd be interested in seeing that research myself. I actually don't think that is true, but I suspect a lot of people may believe it to be true, including some men, which may pop up in some surveys. I do think that men aren't expected to do that, but I don't really think there generally are any significant consequences if they do.

The answer to this question may have been different 20 or more years ago, though. The FMLA really has changed that, I think.

[Iskaral Pust]

We're talking about weeks, here. Not months. I don't believe there would be any such effect absent stigma effects due to weeks off.

(and responding to FLOW)

I was referring to the longer period of child-care up to pre-k age or even school age. I mentioned before that the initial FMLA-type leave isn't a big deal: it doesn't cost a lot, nor does it benefit parents a whole lot in the long run. The real impact on earnings is felt when one or both parents has a prolonged absence (part-time for full-time) as the kids go through the labor-intensive period of 2 months to 5 years.

The disproportionate burden of child rearing doesn't end after 10 or 12 weeks. It's just starting. Even if you use day-care, someone has to be available for dropping off and picking up, and for minding the child every time they have a fever above 99F and the day-care won't take them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

(and responding to FLOW)

I was referring to the longer period of child-care up to pre-k age or even school age. I mentioned before that the initial FMLA-type leave isn't a big deal: it doesn't cost a lot, nor does it benefit parents a whole lot in the long run. The real impact on earnings is felt when one or both parents has a prolonged absence (part-time for full-time) as the kids go through the labor-intensive period of 2 months to 5 years.

The disproportionate burden of child rearing doesn't end after 10 or 12 weeks. It's just starting. Even if you use day-care, someone has to be available for dropping off and picking up, and for minding the child every time they have a fever above 99F and the day-care won't take them.

Ah, got it. In that case, I agree completely. But I really can't think of how paid parental leave really fixes that at all, or how that really can be addressed at all other than between the two parents involved.

[Galactus]

Ah, got it. In that case, I agree completely. But I really can't think of how paid parental leave really fixes that at all, or how that really can be addressed at all other than between the two parents involved.

18 months is more or less when kindergartens start accepting kids here. So it pretty much synchs up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

18 months is more or less when kindergartens start accepting kids here. So it pretty much synchs up.

Wow, it's pretty much 5 here.

[Galactus]

More seriously, I'm somewhat amused at all this talk of it being an unworkable fantasy when, well, it ALREADY EXISTS.

You may argue whether or not it is worth the costs, but it exists, it works, and it can be studied. Parental leave isn't some pie-in-the-sky utopia but something that's been paid out in various forms for almost 50 years. It's not a "middle-class fantasy", it's settled reality.

[Alexia]

Wow, it's pretty much 5 here.

Actually, you can get children into pre-school (like Head Start programs) at 3 years old. I assume that is the equivalent of Galactus' kindergartens.

[TrackerNeil]

It never ceases to amaze me when putatively pro-family conservatives oppose nearly everything that might actually help families. Paid parental leave, government-subsidized child care...none of that matters as long as we are restricting abortion and preventing the gays from marrying. They're pro-family all right...but probably not pro-your-family.

[Blaine]

Actually, you can get children into pre-school (like Head Start programs) at 3 years old. I assume that is the equivalent of Galactus' kindergartens.

Yep. My kid just started pre-pre-Kindergarten at a combination Montessori/Reggio school here. Most of the parents are dual-career families and they have several different "aftercare" programs you can enroll in (for music, art, etc) that will keep the child until 5:30 PM.

So, it's basically early schooling instead of daycare.

[Shryke]

Yep. My kid just started pre-pre-Kindergarten at a combination Montessori/Reggio school here. Most of the parents are dual-career families and they have several different "aftercare" programs you can enroll in (for music, art, etc) that will keep the child until 5:30 PM.

So, it's basically early schooling instead of daycare.

Not trying to make a dig at you here Blaine, just confirming what I think is true:

Is that costing you alot?

[Blaine]

Not trying to make a dig at you here Blaine, just confirming what I think is true:

Is that costing you alot?

Plenty. You could easily rent a one bedroom apartment for what it costs per month, $650 (before school supplies and a one time entrance fee).

I take no offense at all at the question.

But to be fair, there are cheaper options - but not many. Actually most of the accredited ones were significantly more expensive.

[Alexia]

But to be fair, there are cheaper options - but not many. Actually most of the accredited ones were significantly more expensive.

Montessori tends to be expensive, but there are other options out there for the fiscally-impaired (like me). :) I took advantage of charter school programs when I was living in DC which were free (since they are considered public) and very good.

[Galactus]

In the US, most daycare centers (which is what I imagine you are referring to, from comments up-thread) start infants at 6 weeks old.

When my son was an infant (1997), fees were around $150 per week at an mid-range daycare center. I paid a friend of mine that amount per week, as that was the market rate.

There's a cap for daycare costs here, 1260 SEK (roughly 200 USD/month) for the first child, and then it decrases for subsequent children. (840 SEK for the second child, 420 for the third, etc.) That's the max costs, but the actual costs depends on your salary.