Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another few generations, new humans will be products of extensive genetic programming, gestated in artificial wombs, raised by the AI in an augmented and virtual reality, and destined for the hive mind and immortality.
Whether the leave is paid or not was not brought up here. Only the length of leave and difficulty providing coverage at work was being discussed. Other countries do manage somehow.
Sweden 480 days
Iceland 9 months
Serbia 29 weeks + 1 year
Norway 45 weeks
Hungary 24 weeks + 156 weeks
Estonia 140 days + 435 days
Lithuania 18 weeks + 156 weeks
Some of this is paid, some unpaid, some for mom only, some split between mom and dad.
Canada gets 35 weeks.
When our daughter was born, my wife took six weeks paid then was lucky enough to take another 12 weeks unpaid leave. Then, through FMLA, I was able to take 12 weeks unpaid leave.
We were lucky. Two parents. Two jobs. FMLA. Able to save to do it. So her first 6.5 months was with one of us at all times, minimum. It was wonderful for mom and me (the kid, too, I reckon ... but we each loved our time home with her).
I was the first father at my employer to use FMLA. For any reason. Given their coolness toward it (not my boss, but the HR dept. - the VP called me in to office to discuss whether this was a "good" decision for them (FMLA - you have no LEGAL choice in the matter)). I suspect I was the last as well.
But as I said, we were lucky. I know others without our choices. And they made for great parents with mostly-great kids (I kid, I kid ...).
Maybe my daughter, if she decides to have or adopt children, will be in a more enlightened society. I hope so.
I'm not really sure where to post this, this is a very directed question. This question has been pondering my mind for awhile and just would like a view from the other side
Background
Father and mother are millennials and just had a newborn baby child.
Both have 0 debt - pay everything off every month in full easily
They live a modest life - decent house ($300k), normal cars (low end Toyota/Honda/Ford/etc), no luxury goods, just a mellow normal life with no high expense taste
Only high expense is they love traveling and do it often, but that will probably change with a child
Father brings in $120-$150k year while mother brings in $50-$70k
Healthy savings
This new child is supposedly "everything" to them (you know how new parents are). Now my question is why doesn't the mother just take time off and take care of the baby full time for an extended time? I'm not saying retire, but esp when the baby is young and needs nurturing and attention, why not take an extended leave? Mother doesn't need to work per se (based on facts above). Reason I ask is because I see millienials these days are so focused on finding babysitters and getting straight back to work. It's great you have motivation and work ethics, but again you don't "need" to. Obviously your newborn child is not everything if you choose work over him/her
Same reason dad doesn't. Because they probably DO need her 50K (that's not chump change), and because if she stops working she will lose all the progress she's made in her career and might not even be able to go back to it later. Then she can join the legions of former stay-at-home moms who get divorced at age 50 and have no savings of their own, no career anymore, and end up working part time as receptionists or cashiers.
And maybe they'd like to pay for their beloved child's college. Or his siblings'.
Unknown, the simple answer is because they don't want to. That's what it boils down to.
But it's a choice. I saw a sign in a women's gift shop thing last week, "I was going to be a stay at home mom until I realized the kids would be there too". um hmm.
Something like that.
LOL! That's hilarious! (And maybe a little true...)
Maybe they live off of her income and invest all of his income. They are planning on being independently wealthy enough to retire before they are 40 and spend Every Waking Moment with their children. Then who will be the fool?!?
I'm not really sure where to post this, this is a very directed question. This question has been pondering my mind for awhile and just would like a view from the other side
Background
Father and mother are millennials and just had a newborn baby child.
Both have 0 debt - pay everything off every month in full easily
They live a modest life - decent house ($300k), normal cars (low end Toyota/Honda/Ford/etc), no luxury goods, just a mellow normal life with no high expense taste
Only high expense is they love traveling and do it often, but that will probably change with a child
Father brings in $120-$150k year while mother brings in $50-$70k
Healthy savings
This new child is supposedly "everything" to them (you know how new parents are). Now my question is why doesn't the mother just take time off and take care of the baby full time for an extended time? I'm not saying retire, but esp when the baby is young and needs nurturing and attention, why not take an extended leave? Mother doesn't need to work per se (based on facts above). Reason I ask is because I see millienials these days are so focused on finding babysitters and getting straight back to work. It's great you have motivation and work ethics, but again you don't "need" to. Obviously your newborn child is not everything if you choose work over him/her
What the hell is a millennial lol? Anyway, perhaps keeping up with the Jones is more important? We live in an area where opening up credit cards to charge vacations is quite the norm. And I'm curious how you would possibly know ANYONE's finances like this? Perhaps the husband is a tyrant who makes her work? Perhaps she is the type of mom, I met one and read about many on the internet who just can't "bare to be home with their kids all day." Sounds very strange considering they came out of you lol, but hey I'm not them.
And I know many, many, SAHMS who went back to work in the same field, some even 10 years later (very common in the teaching field) and never ended up working in McDonalds. If you have a degree and relevant previous work experience, it's not that hard. May take you some time, but the furthest thing from impossible. I always laugh when I see the "Oh, you'll never be able to work again" when that's not true at all. Yeah, maybe you can't practice medicine anymore lol, but not sure if there's any doctors posting on city data.
Why do you keep comparing parenting to going to grad school?
Clearly you don't understand feminism. Another feminist who stayed home with my kids raising my hand.
One here too. And FEMINISM is about choosing what to do that makes the most sense for your family. My priority and my husbands were our children first and a career second. Not to mention the money we did not have to give to a stranger so I could work. It's what works for us. At the end of the day, my kids will be at my deathbed hopefully, not my job.
Oh, and I have a Masters's degree too with a license I have not used yet (still kept it active). Just out of curiosity, I send my resume out about once a year, just to see how IMPOSSIBLE it will be for me to get a job. And I get tons of responses for interviews. I can't tell you how many unemployable former SAHMS who HAD a degree, work experience, something pre- kids that I run into. Yeah, none lol.
Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.
This! I'd like to also add that I've been married for 14 to years to the love of my life but life doesn't guarantee anything. What happens if he's gone for one reason or another? Rely on lower paid part time jobs? There's no way I could support my kids on that. At least with the way things are now, if my husband were to pass or leave, I can still comfortably support both children. I'd sell the house, take the money and buy a smaller house, and we'd do fine.
My friend's husband died unexpectedly at 37. Without her career - even with life insurance- she would not have been able to care for her girls as she wanted to. And needed to. They are all thriving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
