Posted on 06. Apr, 2004 by Brian Reid in General
For those of you who wonder why I have a link to the very non-dad-sounding M.O.T.H.E.R., take a gander at this nice letter they sent along to Time magazine. What more could I possibly add.
And I don’t mean to ding Full Time Father twice in two weeks (still I owe Mike lunch), but he takes a rather narrow view of the good news that the Senate has approved $6 billion for additional child care as part of the ongoing welfare reform efforts. FTF sees this as incentivize parents to leave their kids in paid care, I see it as a reality of working today.
I am lucky that I can stay home, and a huge chunk of why I can is economic. Most working parents don’t have that choice. They can make staggering financial sacrifices and stay with their kids, or they can work in a work world that is hostile to families (see item one, above) to keep the family afloat, fiscally. And if you make that second choice, your day care choices are probably either staggering expensive (when we were looking at day care, it was upwards of $1,000 a month) or worryingly poor in quality. Dumping more money into that system — especially one that requires “workfare” — can’t help but serve as a net benefit for kids.
I don’t have my almanac of family-friendly nations and their policies in front of me, but it seems to be that the countries with the best quality, best funded day care centers are also the ones with the best work/family balance and the most parental involvement. Not a bad model to aspire to.
amy
07. Apr, 2004
Hey, I don’t think paid childcare is a crime, and I’m a fulltime mom. I love my daughter immensely, but I don’t want to be with her all the time, and I’d love to have more time during the day to do my own work. You know, the kind you can’t do while the kid’s trying to eat electrical cords. When she’s a little older, we’ll do part-time daycare…and if we decide to have a second critter, we’ll have the money in the bank for a part-time nanny first.
Part time serious non-child work, man. It’s my key to sanity. Needs to be more of it around.
amy
Michael Weber
07. Apr, 2004
I want to know what a “family-friendly” nation, as opposed to a “non family friendly” nation.
I would venture a guess that the United States is one of the most family-friendly nations in the world. But, I’d have to see the qualifications first.
Rebel Dad
07. Apr, 2004
I’d rank the US as fairly non-family friendly, as far as the developed world goes. No paid parental leave, the longest workweek in the world, the fewest number of vacation days, etc.
— rD
Michael Weber
07. Apr, 2004
But, you still haven’t answered my question? Which developed countries are more “family-friendly?”
Germany, France, Japan? I don’t know. Generally a country with more of the things you mentioned are more Socialist, than capitalist. I suppose we could swing a little farther to the left to get more vacation time…but, if we go to far we really won’t be family friendly (China - government reproduction regulation).
Michael Weber
07. Apr, 2004
My point is not to get into a political arguement. I just thought your arguement was weak (unusual for you, I might add).
Here, (in the US) I have the choice of leaving work to take care of my children and running a business to help make ends meet. True, I have had to make financial sacrifices, but I don’t believe anybody is locked into anything. There are always choices…even when there seems like there isn’t.
Rebel Dad
08. Apr, 2004
Here’s why I figure the U.S. is at the low end of the family-friendly scale (in the developed world). We are one of two — two — OECD countries that don’t have paid maternity leave. A decade ago, there wasn’t even a federal protection for taking parental leave here period.
Are the countries that are usually considered more family-friendly (i.e. Sweden) also more socialist in their leanings? Sure. But the Swedes have choices, too, and their move toward family-friendly policies had more to do with capitalist ideals (A couple decades ago Sweden needed to maximize its labor force, so it made it easy for women — and men — to go from home to work and back again) than with some Marxist ideal.
I can’t think of a single policy or trait that the U.S. can claim that shows us to be an uniquely family-friendly nation.
I’m intrigued by your post though, Michael: what do you see as marking the U.S. a family-friendly country?
- rD
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
I think we’re trying to compare apples and oranges. If you try and look at the Federal Government’s policies that would be deemed “family friendly,” you will come up short. The reason Sweden can do some of the things it does is because of the government’s economic system.
However, Sweden’s not much bigger than some of our states. They are able to manage “family friendly” policies in a way that our federal government could never do. And if I’m not mistaken, Sweden has a socialist-leaning economy which makes the flow of services much easier to maintain.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
But my argument wasn’t about what unique family friendly policies we have in the US…it was about what other countries are doing that you feel makes them “family friendly.”
So far, you’ve only named Sweden. If the US was really one of the worst family friendly nations in the developed world, than it should be easy to come up with at least 4 or 5 other countries that are more family friendly.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
Plus, one more thing…I received a nice tax break on daycare when our first daughter was in daycare. I also received 2 checks from the federal govt, one for each child last year. I also did not pay any taxes (everything was returned). My youngest daughter was born a little premature and had to spend some time in the NICU (in many countries she wouldn’t have survived). My wife was able to take a full month off of work (paid and received a raise during that time). I was instructed by more than one nurse (thanks to govt grants) about being a new parent. I sold a set of Daddy Gifts to a grant-funded program as an incentive for fathers-to-be to attend their classes.
So, there are a few things going on out there. They may not be so obvious, but if you dig underneath the surface…
amy
08. Apr, 2004
Well, let’s see. There’s France, which has a state-run system of daycares that puts our public schools to shame, and which provides for parents to work part-time in their professions for — iirc — the first couple years of their childrens’ lives. There’s Canada, which also spends more on daycare, provides parents with a stipend while the children are small, and ensures access to prompt routine healthcare for all parents and children (as frequently noted, if you want or need something special or expensive, you can be in trouble under that system).
I think probably the fastest rule-of-thumb measure would be to look at childhood poverty rates. We’ve got some of the highest in the industrialized world. Around 20%, iirc.
amy
08. Apr, 2004
Also, Michael, I don’t think saying “family-unfriendly” means there are _no_ services for parents. I think it means that what services and laws exist have to be searched out by the willing and energetic, and often negotiated for one case at a time, with the parents often in the role of supplicant. Take jobshare or flex arrangments, for instance — if you’re the employee, you usually have to hope and pray that the boss will be amenable when you go hat-in-hand to ask. In a more family-friendly country, you’d have certain rights to part-time or restructured hours, and the business community would fit itself around those laws. That may sound outlandish, but it’s happened before; take a look at the maximum-workweek and child-labor laws passed early in the 20th c. We managed to thrive as a nation even so.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
Good point about the willing and energetic. However, that’s my point. If you really want to spend time with your children, and you are “willing and energetic”, you can find a way. Would increasing “family friendly” social services make more families want to spend time with their children? Those who want to, do.
As for France and Canada, they both have socialist economies (although, I’ve read that France is trying to move away from their socialist roots). I believe some of the upsides (less tax burden, more entreprenuerial opportunities, better medical care) balances out the scale somewhat.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
As for state-run daycares, don’t even get me started on that. You wouldn’t even want to hear what I have to think about that (hint: early indoctrination).
One of the differences between here and France, is that our public school systems are run by the individual states and local municipalities. So there is no uniform standard across the country. The federal government has to give money to the states, who in turn dole it out as they wish (with some fed guidelines).
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
One more point I’ll concede is the child-labor laws and max workweek laws. Can you imagine me having this arguement over the government NOT regulating child labor and the work weak? Holy cow! You are right.
However, we did get the Family Medical Leave Act (which I took full advantage of, much to the chagrin of my employer). That’s a good start. Maybe the Federal Government can offer some sort of tax breaks to companies with family friendly policies.
Mike P., aka Full Time Father
11. Apr, 2004
I’ll pass on the US vs. Old Europe debate for now-we could do things better than we do, but I would not want to live in those countries.
I’ll elaborate on this more at my blog, but since Rebel Dad dings me for being surly about the $6 billion extra in federal taxpayer money the Senate wants to use to subsidize commercial day care but not other child care arrangements, I would ask why should we cheer giving money ONLY to those who put their kids with commercial centers but not those who stay home themselves, or use a grandparent, etc. to raise the child?
More at my blog.