Norway has > 800x the oil reserves per capita of France and has not gone through what you could call a political crisis over the past few years regarding aligning the spending level of its welfare state with the economic and budgetary realities, with years of protests and riots, some of which are still ongoing. In the face of this it's quite a bold move for France to go from zero to 28 days for the sake of benefiting gender norms and family relationships in the long-term.

Norway, a rich country of just 5 million people, cannot be used as a comparison without noting all some of the budgetary context. Not just in this discussion, but more broadly on HN. If you're talking about something relatively budget-neutral like say 'same-sex marriage should be able to adopt children, just look at XYZ (e.g. Norway), it works just fine', that's alright. But if you're saying or implying something which has a lot of costs involved like 'fathers should get at least 4.5 months of paid parental leave as a rule, not an exception, just look at Norway' then you can't just leave out cost from the discussion, it makes no sense.

Obviously all of us would prefer long-term paid parental leave, arguing it's nice to have adds nothing to the discussion because there is already universal agreement. Arguing it's worth having, is an entirely different and much more meaningful discussion, but it cannot be be had without weighing the pros against the cons, the biggest one is cost.

And I say this coming from the Netherlands, an also quite rich country that I'd love to see as a model for many other countries. But such discussions should include budgetary context, among others.

I also find your argument a bit weird. Why not start an discussion about if the cost is worth it (which is what you want to discuss) instead of picking on the details of the country in question?

That’s exactly what GP did. He pointed out that whether the cost is worth it depends on how much you can afford. In Poland it’s two weeks, by the way.

We didn't go from zero to 28 days of paternity leave. We doubled it, from 14 to 28.

But there are some inequalities in the system still. For instance, the father can only take the shared weeks if the mother is in "activity" (working or studying). While in Sweden there is no such requirements.

And I am not sure what happens with the father's share if the mother is out of work and ineligible for proper ompensation. In that case the mother gets a one-time, approx €10 000, compensation, but I think the father does not get anything except two weeks off in connection with birth.

Does the government subsidize this? That expense could sink a small company.

What happens if the workers leave the company after getting the benefit?

I'm really curious how European firms compete with American ones when workers can take so much time off and saddle their companies with so much responsibility. If every company in the world had to do this and the governments and taxes supported it, I'd be all for it.

I'm not passing judgment, just really curious how this works. I certainly favor parents getting plenty of time to adjust and spend time with their newborns. But I wonder if this is too much for companies to bear when they have to compete with companies that don't do this.

If it were companies having to pay, that would probably lead to some aversion about hiring people without children in the right age. But that's probably an aversion lots of companies in other countries have about women. "Will they have kids and leave the workforce soon?".

I strongly believe giving dads a lot of paternity leave is good for equality. Of course dads should have the same opportunity as moms, but males taking paternity leave has an indirect good effect on woman in the work force as well. No longer is it assumed that they will be gone for X months in their 20s/30s, compared to men. Some argue the rules should be "X days, split as the parents see fit". But that is what historically has put the pressure on the man to work and the woman to stay at home.

I know a couple that had two children. He wanted a third child. She wanted a PhD. The current Swedish system enabled them to have a child and let him take virtually all the leave while she finished her PhD. But some social engineers would rather not let them have that choice, because the aim is a perfect 50/50 split for all couples in a column of a report somewhere.

(Or even worse, they would be fine with this particular case, but would object if it was she that wanted the third kid and he that wanted a PhD, because a 50/50 split in aggregate also looks pretty good, and this would work towards that in the present situation...)

It's a difficult thing to balance. Ideally one should be able to split as wanted, based on one's life situation. But when one is free to choose, one often can find that the freedom is only imaginary. There will be pressure from society/employers/etc to do it a certain way. Lots of countries where it's expected that the father forego all paternity leave, or his career at the company will be done.

Household Income in US dollars (2018) [3]: Denmark - $34,712 Norway - $39,555 Finland - $34,497 Sweden - $34,301 Iceland - Not reported USA - $50,292

Household Debt as % of disposable income (2015-2018) [1]: Denmark - 281% Norway - 239% Finland - 145% Sweden - 189% Iceland - Not reported USA - 105%

Household Net worth as % of net income (2014) [2]: Denmark - 553% ($191,900) <-- The dollar amounts are my math, based on household income above. Norway - 318% ($125,700) Finland - 359% ($123,800) Sweden - 526% ($180,400) Iceland - Not reported USA - 601% ($301,700)

[1]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm [2]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-net-worth.htm#indicator-... [3]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm#in...

The OECD definition of disposable income is after healthcare and social security costs (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=46).

By the way, asking out of legitimate interest, do you have any statistics on that?

For example, there is no word on comparing household income on a purchasing power parity basis. You'd want to reflect prices, which may be higher/lower.

There is no word on the fact household sizes in the region in and around Scandinavia are typically very low, quite a bit lower than the US. (fewer dependents, lower required income for the same standard of living).

There is no word on average vs median statistics, the former favouring less equal countries like the US in the statistics, but the latter painting a more accurate picture of the typical household.

There is no word on expense requirements. Yes, direct social transfers (e.g. rental assistance) would be part of the disposable income statistics. But indirect subsidies (e.g. social housing rents, substantially below market rate, or universal healthcare insurance premiums far below market rates, or universal tertiary education costs far below market rates) are not part of these statistics.

For example, the fact university is free in Denmark, is absolutely not part of the household income. The fact public healthcare is free in Denmark, is not part of household income statistics. Yet the quality of both is very good.

There is also no word on the differential interest rates. For example, Denmark currently has negative mortgage rates. Obviously that increases household debt. But any additional household mortgage debt for example is actually creating a net income for these very same households. You can debate whether these interest rates signal economic issues, that's a fair discussion, but the point still stands that 'not all household debt is equal'. You cannot say 'high debt is worse', when many EU countries have interest rates from -0.5% to - 1.5% and the US has interest rates of 2 - 3%, and compare them.

Same with net worth, it all ties in to every other aspect of the welfare state. In the US you have a minimal welfare state and thus must accumulate net worth for retirement, kids' education, medical copayments etc etc. In many North/west EU countries education, healthcare, housing is all free or strongly subsidised and publicly funded, requiring much lower accumulations of private net worth to attain the same quality of life.

In short, the data you cite is not incorrect, but your conclusions are shortsighted and need far more interpretation and context to approximate the truth of the matter.

USA seems to be in the middle. Right next to Germany, which one might think more similar to the Nordic countries compared to US. Where as Canada is higher than Finland.

The government offers heavy incentives that promote owning a house/apartment, making renting long term a pretty bad economic option. If you plan to live somewhere for more than 2-3 years it's cheaper to own than to rent.

Mortgage rates are typically far lower. My rate is about 1.5%. In Denmark it's -0.5%, yes you get paid to borrow.

If you look at mortgages, you have two negative cashflows: the principal you pay back, and the interest you pay on the loan. Of these two, the interest is actually the only cost. (taxes/insurance is separate because they're typically paid regardless of whether you have a mortgage, you'd still pay this even if you bought the home in cash without a mortgage.)

Paying back principal is not costing you anything. As in, suppose you had a $100 loan and you paid it back, you now have $100 less cash but also $100 less of a loan. You're not any richer or poorer. Similarly, if you do the opposite: borrow $100, sure you have $100 in cash, but you're not richer, because you still owe $100.

In that sense, if you borrow $250k for a home and over the years, earn $250k and use it to pay off the house, you've not 'lost' $250k. You still own it, it's just locked up in the home. If you sell the home, you get the $250k back, assuming the price hasn't changed.

But the interest, that's gone forever. That's where the real cost is in carrying a mortgage.

As such, the borrowing capacity and housing costs that someone can bear, is substantially influenced by mortgage rates. In the US these are 2-3% or so, in Denkmark it's negative 0.5% or so. These interest rates essentially dictate how favourable it is to buy, and how much more prices can rise, while still being affordable. Just compare the monthly fees of a 3% interest mortgage to one with a 1% interest mortgage. Or more informative even: compare how much you can borrow with say $1k a month in mortgage fees (principal+interest, or just interest whatever you want), when the interest rate is 1% or 3%.

For example, a $200k loan at 3% is $300k in total fees. A $280k loan with 0.5% interest is also $300k in total fees. And that's including principal. If you take out the principal, the difference is far greater.

On top of that there's significant tax benefits to home ownership in much of Europe, like deducting interest payments from your taxable income to a very large extent. The combined effect is that a lot of households have tons of debt which is actually very affordable and not problematic. (until interest rates will rise, which will get ugly... but most economists expect low rates to be the 'new normal'... we'll have to see. And a lot of the rates get fixed for 10-30 years so the impact if it happens, is not very direct).

What process would you use to come up with a set of quantitative criteria that would measure costs and benefits?

In Canada, your maternity/paternity wages come out of the Employment Insurance system, so everyone chips in. Mothers or fathers can split the leave, which is 52 weeks or more. Seems like a good system.

But some of your concerns are valid; from the employer's standpoint, planning around your staff having children isn't easy. Sometimes new parents decide to never come back to work, and in this country aren't required to provide special notice.

That's for each child. I worked with a guy who had 5 kids and with sick leave and holidays he worked <6mo a year for 7 years straight and when he did turn up he was too tired and uninterested to do anything useful.

Its a good reason why Europe is disappearing as a economic force. OTOH The other reason is not enough children so maybe my coworker ended up helping the economy.

0: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

You can look at it as they’re “buying” these (and other) benefits via lower salaries across the entire market.

Instead we have the opposite. We have very welcoming immigration laws(which waters down salaries) we have plenty of skilled grads as education is basically free(which waters down salaries again), so in my college town I can't pretty much throw a rock without hitting someone who's doing a PhD in DS/ML/AI but we have no massive local companies that can utilize all that talent and no big VC funding so all those bright minds end up working in lame webshops/consultancies or in some research institute that gets bought up by FAANGs the minute it comes up with a good idea. So basically, we have a huge supply of talent(local and imported) but a low demand(compared to the US) wich results in lower salaries.

To summarize, this is why we can't compete with the US on the tech front, not because of our taxes but because the US can outspend us.

The more labor costs an employer in category X, the less the employer has left to offer labor in categories Y and Z.

Really? How easy is it for an American to get a work visa in France? It’s pretty damned difficult. I lived there for four years with a non-working visa and even getting that was difficult. And every year I had to show my bank statements, health insurance, and provide proof that I owned my house there.

Also to your other points, only one of the FAANGs has been around for more than 25 years. Yet the salary differential has been around a lot longer than that. In fact, it was much worse.

And why doesn’t Europe have massive VC funds? It’s pretty simple, taxes on gains are confiscatory, creating a disincentive to take big risks.

But also huge language barriers, especially for small shops, not speaking the local language is seen a disadvantage.

> we have no massive local companies that can utilize all that talent and no big VC funding

That is not because Europe has less money, but because they have different risk profiles and competencies regarding investing. In some European countries governments are the biggest venture capitalists, which speaks to the inefficiency and desperation created, which explains the lack of unicorns booming up.

This is not just a money issue, it is also a culture and competence issue.

Yeah, this x1000. In my area, most startups survive by government and EU grants so the thinking pattern of most startups here is "what do we do to get more grant money?". You can't create successful SW companies like that. Not to mention, the elephant in the room, the fact that those government grants are often accorded by favoritism instead of merit(connections, nepotism, etc.)

On one hand I guess you could compare it to American manufacturing vs. manufacturing in e.g. Vietnam, India, China where companies often fly under local labor laws and workers are worked to unreasonable hours.

On another hand I also do think there is something to be said for better mental health => better work output at least in skilled jobs. A fact that many American companies don't seem to get.

It's not magic, obviously overall the economy is still paying for this to happen, but then the US system isn't magic either, babies don't magically receive any benefits from parents who are actually working all the time and barely see them for a handful of hours per week. So the question is only: Is it a good idea? Because if it's a good idea then paying for it is just a question of mechanics. Same for universal healthcare, the provision of safe drinking water, literacy programmes, you name it.

And yes, the "aktivitetskrav for mor" is stupid. There are some other subtleties as well. I helped make the original digital application in 2015, and there was a lot of edge cases. Like if you're a fisherman your pay should be documented a different way. Fun times.

2. Yes if the mother doesn't qualify the father doesn't qualify. I think that there has been a court case that found that this is not legal. But the law has not yet been updated.

I know someone who had only substitute positions for shorter periods in the ten months before birth. But after several rounds of back and forth with NAV (even after birth), she got her benefits. She had to argue that staying at home would cause her to loose income (showed that she had to say no to some substitute work because of birth), and give them detailed lists of all hours she worked. Somehow it amounted to "enough".

At this point in my career I take it as a red flag against the company. Women obviously still face many more hurdles than men when it comes to workplaces and an expanding family, and both genders deserve more paid time off in the US when the family grows, but policies like this end up specifically targeting men more often than not.

By default it defines men to be a less important care-giver than women.

My company leaves that decision to the couple. The couple chooses who is primary and secondary. My wife got 12 weeks as the primary caregiver. Our situation is a bit weird because we work for the same company.

Also they just finished their pappaperm which they said was 133 days over the summer and that means their child likely started in nursery in August or September as is the child's legal entitlement if they were born before August last year or in September last year...

I get that you did something different but the OP's case really does sound like they did what most Norwegian fathers do... (I'm not knocking it because that time was truly special for me.)

But I also think that aside from not sleeping at night (which depending on if the mother breastfeeds the father may not be able to help much with anyway) the first few months before the kid starts crawling are actually easier than the subsequent few years. For us it was mostly about spending that special time together as a family.

Our first daughter was born a few weeks ago. I took off the first week, but it had to come out of my PTO (and I only have 2 weeks total per year). My wife had to quit her job so she could recuperate and spend time with the baby. She had a rough c-section and is still in bed in a lot of pain. I'm trying to work, take care of her, and take care of the baby.

I wrote a long angry paragraph about US politics and culture here, but on second thought, for my mental sanity I need to drop it.

SO and I have been seriously discussing moving somewhere else and plan to once the pandemic eases up enough for travel to be easier. We're still not 100% sure yet where to go though.

The good part about moving elsewhere from the US is that you can go anywhere sort-of-western and have things get a lot better.

You need to have been in your current company at least a year

The duration changes based on the number of children you have. up to 1 year for 1 children, 2 years for 2, 5 years for 3 or more.

It can't be denied by the employer

Your contract is suspended, but the employer has to take you back with an equivalent contract once your back

The (big) downside is that you are paid a small allocation during this time. When you already have a really low salary it can be quite interesting, but when you have a higher salary it can be a big pay cut.

If there's a will, there's a way.

Oh, our external debt is about 40% and our tax rates are largely comparable to Western ones. So far the only signs of collapse seem to be coming from Communist era buildings :-p

As my dad who still lives there told me, unless you know someone in the system or pay the doctors bribes or go to their private offices(because of course) they won't lift a finger to help you and just leave you sink in the healthcare bottomless pit of endless misery, bureaucracy and waiting lists where you keep being bounced around like a hot potato that nobody gives a damn about. If you actually want to be taken care of the right way, you have to pay up or know someone in the system.

And once you end up in the underfunded public hospitals, you then have to pay the nurses to take care of you and not leave you in your own sh!t, buy medicine, toilet paper and food out of pocket as what you get there is lacking or sub-standard. Basically, if you're poor, you're f*cked.

But yeah, at least on paper, some Romanian laws still got some things right, even compared to richer countries. Too bad that major corruption is eating all that away.

- clean hospitals

- punctual appointments

- basic services covered

Everything being bought with public funds ends up being bought through middle men at 10x the price.

On the other hand, can we afford mutinationals paying no taxes?

For all its talk about "family values", the US doesn't seem to care much about families; it's one of the few countries in the world without paid maternity leave (the others are Papua New Guinea, Lesotho and Swaziland), and it has the highest maternity death rate in the developed world.

And the US is not a poor country by any means; this is really a matter of culture and values.

???

Meanwhile, many countries much poorer than the US do a lot more. Maybe not quite as much as Scandinavian countries, but they do something.

Thought experiment: imagine next year from Jan 1st to Dec 31st, literally every 25-year old stops working and simultaneously everyone who was due to retire in that year has their retirement delayed by one year.

The total size of the workforce remains constant.

If this became a permanent feature of society [0], GDP, average corporate income, and tax revenue, would all be constant.

Private pensions as well as states pensions would also pay out less in total, as there would be less years between retirement and death. How much would your pension pay, relative to parental leave, if someone equivalent to you were to reach pension age today? Because that’s the amount available for paternity in this thought experiment, not the number that your actual pension will be worth when you reach pension age.

[0] For a one-off year it would appear higher, but that’s an illusion caused by old people having more experience and therefore higher productivity and income; it obviously wouldn’t remain true once those 25-year-olds with one fewer years of experience each became 65.

My actual retirement is my defined contribution 401(k) account. The amount I put in now grows until I draw it down in retirement. There’s no one who will give me a year of their 401(k) drawdown, of course. What 401(k) money I and my wife don’t spend is part of our estate and inherited just like any other type of private savings.

Defined benefit plans (“private pensions”) are rare (and becoming more rare) for the current workforce.

Social Security is more than a rounding error in the retirement picture, but it’s by far the minority of income for most professional jobs. That’s literally the only “pension style money” that’s available to me and it’s about $1400/mo as far as I can tell. That's not going to take the typical 25-year old new parent very far I don't think. (It's slightly over the federal minimum wage for one full-time worker.)

Edit to add some stats/refs:

[0] - 4% of private sectors workers have only defined-benefit plan (down from 60% in the 1980s) 14% of private sector employees have access to both - https://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/pensions_basics.money...

[1] - https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/factsheet/defined-benefit-frozen....

But of course your basic point stands. Absent a separate defined-benefit pension (which still exist from older jobs in some cases), SS is fairly minimal by itself even if you own a house.

You are though, by definition, taking away an average benefit from those who would retire to give to parents, so I think average is the right reference figure when contemplating "what would the parental benefit be if funded from social security delays?"

Thanks for the compliment, I’m glad to see I’m improving :)

Of course. Like so many other things, it's a matter of priorities.

Actually Norwegian parental leave is not that generous by the standards of similar countries. There is one year total of leave shared between mother and father (or other mother).

Edit: Living in Norway is more expensive though. So a family of low income might not have been able to sustain themselves if the compensation was lower.

Anecdotally, my (US) employer started offering paternal leave a few years ago and most new fathers are using it. We allow it to be split, so many will do 2 weeks initially, then in 1-2 week chunks over the next several months.