Work and family

Baby blues

A juggler’s guide to having it all

See article

Readers' comments



I have mixed feelings about maternity leave, paid or not. I understand that people need time off after having a baby, especially women who need to recover physically and all. I understand that taking that time off without pay is nearly impossible for most of the people who do it. But in a way, the whole concept of it doesn't make much sense, and really seems discriminatory against people who don't have children but may want time off (or paid time off) to do something else they feel is important (or hell, even if they don't feel it's important). It seems strange that people can just leave jobs for months at a time and coworkers have to pick up all their responsibilities. Honestly it makes me wonder how vital most people in their positions to begin with. If other people can do the extra work when an employee takes extended leave, why have that employee at all? And usually, the people picking up the slack are not getting compensated for that extra work. it seems strange to leave a job, give your responsibilities to other employees for an extended time, and then just come back and your job is waiting. Stranger still if you are getting paid for that time off and the person/people doing your job while you're gone most likely aren't. And it seems strange in this economy of unemployment, that you could keep a job lying dormant for months, possibly even getting paid for it, while hundreds of people who may qualify for your job are desperate for one.

I also think the whole concept of maternity leave and its wide acceptance sort of perpetuates the idea that all adults have children at some point, and helps maintain the stigma of not having children, by choice or circumstance. The only solution I could think of would be to offer all employees-- the parents and the child-free, male and female, extended periods of "personal leave," which could be used to have babies, take care of a loved one, travel, house break a puppy, or whatever the employee wants to use it for. It still doesn't make much sense in terms of putting responsibilities on others and/or getting paid for not working, but at least it isn't discriminatory.

I'm sure people will take issue to what I've written--I obviously understand why you would need time off after having a child, but when I just try to think about it rationally it doesn't make sense. I'm a professional woman who may or may not still have children in the future, but I personally would feel very awkward adding my responsibilities to those of a colleague who may not be getting compensated or may have no choice in the matter just because I made a choice to have a baby. I just think no matter what the maternity leave system, it should be more fair to the workers who are working.


karlovac, the higher U.S birthrate is due only to immigration, primarily of Hispanics often here illegally. Birthrates among African-Americans, Asians, and whites in the U.S. are below replacement rate (2.1). The rate for whites (1.8) is similar to much of Western Europe.


The Economist is incorrect to state that childcare is not tax deductible in Britain because it is. I live in Britain and benefit from the childcare vouchers scheme which allows me to partially pay for childcare using a tax free portion of my wage. (

I liked the article but there doesn't seem to be much of a conclusion to it, is the author undecided as to who does it best?

Finally, the US have it wrong here, bringing up children is everybody's responsibility and child bearing is required for future economic growth and our survival as a species (who will pay for your retirement?). If you decide to opt out of it then you are an economic free rider. Every other rich country effectively recognises this maternity pay (effectively a tax on everyone either through govt or higher prices on goods). Not having maternity leave as part of law is sexist.

Bugs10 in reply to Omricon

Those who decide to opt-in to child bearing are also free-riders. Furthermore, they are creating external costs for the rest of society (pollution, natural resource consumption, education costs, congestion, the risk that the child becomes a criminal or burden on society...). To say that having children is necessarily the optimal economic choice is ridiculous. Both options have costs and benefits, and I would argue that the costs of having a marginal child are mostly likely hirer when you add them all up.


I like the fact that in Finland men help out with the children just as much as the women do. I think that is something that we need to pay more attention to in America. I think it is generally accepted here that when a couple is ready to have children, the woman will take on a majority of the responsibilities that go along with the kids while the man goes off to work. This is perfectly fine for couples that wish to live that way, but that arrangement doesn't necessarily have to happen anymore the way it did fifty years ago.


Maybe the reason that America has a higher birthrate than countries with more "generous" paternal benefits, is that America treats its grown-ups like, well, grown-ups. American adults are generally taxed much less, and given more freedom and responsibility for their future, than their European friends across the pond. Is it any surprise then, that they feel more ready to tackle the responsible, grown-up task of parenting?

By the way, saying that countries "provide" maternity leave makes those countries appear benevolent, but it's a bit misleading. It's easy to look benevolent when you're spending other people's money. It would help if the Economist was a little more specific about *who* pays for family leave:

In California, workers contribute to a fund which pays the worker a percentage of their salary when they take family leave. California (i.e. its workers) truly are directly sharing the cost of allowing parents to take time off to raise children. That seems reasonably fair to me. You can see where your money is going, and you know it will be used to help you (or so

In other countries (like the UK), the government makes employers pay their workers when they want to take time off to raise kids. How generous (with other people's money) of the UK government!


We all owe some support to the cause of raising children. This obligation does not depend on our _having_ children ourselves, it depends on our _having_been_ children ourselves.

In the U.S., educated women are not reproducing at even the population replacement rate (see the article, 40% childless). Having children places them at significant financial risk under the current system. Consider what it would really take to "afford children" and adequately insure against the risks of disability, unemployment, death, or loss of the father's support. Few people attain that level of financial security while still fertile. And if one of those things goes wrong, in the U.S. we seem to be fine with consigning the child and the mother to poverty.

It is almost the definition of a sustainable society that it supports reproduction at the replacement rate. The fact that in the U.S. we rely on immigrants to boost our population growth rate to that level should be a bright red flag about the sustainability of our society.


Economist understates how radical having unpaid maternity leave is even in comparison to the rest of the world. Almost every other country in the world offers some form of paid maternity leave:

China - 90 days at 100% of pay
India - 12 weeks at 100% of pay

Countries that have outstanding rights that constantly rank low on human rights including Iran and Myanmur have them.

Hell even almost all of the countries in Africa offer some form of paid maternity leave. When I talk to the average American on this, they are almost completely unaware of it but the reaction you get from conservatives is fascinating. My experience is that conservative males are in agreement with current policy while females (especially mothers) are pretty appalled by this.

There is something incredibly troubling and perverse about the 'family rights' crowd in the US that talks all things family and then presses for almost nothing that benefits families and their children. One of several areas where benefits for US workers aren't just poor as measured against advanced industrialized countries but any most countries.


I fully believe that it takes a village to raise our society children. I pay taxes for schools, for example. On the other hand, how fair is it that I have to cover for parents while they are out on leave. And now they want to get paid while they're out too while I get paid the same as always? No one points a gun to your head and says have kids. It's called choices, people. Something's gotta give on one side or the other, but I don't see why it has to be me since I'm not asking for the additional perks.


"Now at least they get 12 weeks, albeit unpaid, after which most return to work fairly promptly. Finding child care is entirely up to the parents. It may seem surprising that American women are not put off by all this."

Why should it? I doubt most Americans would agree with the statement that raising children is "the responsibility of society as a whole." Any of the debates over issues ranging from spanking to grading papers with red pens bears this out. If it is their individual responsibility, why would they expect their employer to pick up the cost?

Bugs10 in reply to Anakha82

I agree. I am actually "put off" by it, but I'm not "put off" from working, I'm "put off" about having kids. Work is an inevitable part of life for most people, and something you have to do regardless of your other personal choices. Work is the default. Having kids, and this day in age, is completely a choice for women and men. Any costs associated with lost work are just factored into that decision. Unfortunately most of these costs fall only on women, due solely to social convention, and that's the main problem with all of this.

mvrk71 in reply to Anakha82

Thank you. The most abhorrent idea promulgated by this entire issue is that somehow their should be tax and public policies to transfer wealth from households and businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with a women's choice (and it is exclusively her choice in today's day and age) to have a child. For example, public support to offset the cost of daycare, maternity leave, etc, etc. If you, in the confines of your household or family status choose to have a child, you do so under the burden of your own financial circumstances. You have no right to argue that someone else, be it a person or a firm, or the nebulous and oft-cited "society" somehow benefits from your choices and so therefore should pay for them. If working supports a lifestyle you want, then do it. If staying at home with kids does, then do that. But you have no right to dictate for me, that my family's resources are be spent on your behalf, by invoking the "good of society", because frankly, what is "good" for society is a matter of complete conjecture that people usually invoke to get their way or otherwise get someone to pay for something on their behalf. To make this argument is both financially and ethically immoral. Your household's decisions are your choices alone. One could just as easily argue that society is better off when 50% of our population ignores productivity and stops worshiping it as a universal good and focuses instead on activities that are oriented not towards monetary gain, but (local) community and culture.

Countries that have paid maternity and paternity leave are smart. Even though they will miss out on some work, they will return. I feel like in places like the United States where there is basically no paid maternity leave, it is more likely for the woman to leave work all together or switch to part-time. Also it seems that in the United States' culture, it is not likely for the father to take paternity leave. I think that if the companies where the mother and father work allow paid maternity and paternity leave, it forms a better relationship between the employee and the employer. The mother and the father will miss work but they will be happier when they return to work and more likely to stay with that company.


It is a pity that the article does not focus more on the positive role that part time work could play in achieving better gender equality. In the Netherlands thanks to the widespread use of part time work, young couples are able to share more evenly paid work and care for children than in many other countries and at a much lower price. The most common pattern you see is one where the father works 4 days, the mother 4 or 3 days and the children go to kindergarten for 2 to 3 days. When children go to secondary school parents start working full time again but many women like working part time so much that they don't change back to full time even if it means that they earn less. Allowing people to work part time is a much cheaper for society to take care of kids than long periods of paid parental leave. It is ironic to note that full time working Nordic mothers with all their long paid parental leave, are in fact also working part time, just like Dutch mothers, if you would only count their actual hours worked. Parental leave is counted as hours worked in international statistical comparisons even if the women are not available for work and have to be paid. It is ironic also that Sweden is not doing any better than the Netherlands when it comes to gender equality acording to the latest UN gender equality monitor. The Netherlands tops the list followed by DK while Sweden is in third place. I think that allowing fathers to work part time, i.e. 4 days a week, is probably the only way in which you can persuade men to devote some of their working time to the upbringing of their children. Working part time it also the only way to adjust your working life to the changing needs of the life cycle going from a part time student job to part time flexible retirement. I never understood why many people are so reluctant to be flexible when it comes to working hours.

H.G. Lucas in reply to kays45

Further to this point in the US - many employers offer part time (PT) jobs to avoid paying "extra" i.e. benefits, making it more difficult to find full time work (esp. with benefits). So many less educated/specialized or "stale" trained parents run around 2 or 3 or 4 PT jobs to get less than a full time job, w/o benefits and thus have even less time with their children.

95423133 in reply to job4112

I quite agree with the flexible time in working while having a family..With the advanced technology(e.g. work at home), I think it could use the time properly and efficiently..Just the question is the company trust it ?!


This is part of the mess clever people have got us into.Looking after children and the home properly is more than enough work already for an average person despite modern conveniences and various modern aids.Why should stress be piled up on young people and especially women, simply because they want to have children ?Society should decided if it sees people merely as factors of production or if it goes beyond it's short sighted views of what constitute humanity and sees them more holistically.We are going to have to grow out of this mess we have got ourselves into which is unsatisfactory, for the child,society and adults.We of course have an option to actively discourage people from having children altogether,but that is a diffrent discussion.

Bugs10 in reply to femi

"Why should stress be piled up on young people and especially women, simply because they want to have children ?"

But then why should the stress of covering additional responsibilities with no compensation or no choice to do so be piled upon coworkers, simply because they do not have children?


I am kind of disappointed to hear that the US does not provide maternity pay like some of these other countries. Seeing that we are one of the more wealthy countries and we all know babies are far from cheap. I like the idea of paternal leave as well. I believe equal amounts of time with the child from each parent is important. Child care is quite pricey and personally I am not the biggest fan. At the same time the idea of doing what you love but still having the opportunity to have a family is nice.

Mr Garcia

The attitude towards mothers returning to work soon after birth in Germany depends on the region. While southern states are the most favourable ones about home-care (with Bavarian's ruling CSU party fighting to pay mothers staying at home), former Eastern German states where single income households have always been the exception prefer to get back to work soon.


Some troubling assumptions in this article:

(a) that child care is the woman's responsibility (and the cost of it should be balanced entirely against her wages to determine the net cost of women working). I see men as 50% responsible for the unpaid work of raising their children (whether the father does it "hands on" or outsources it); and

(b) that it is good for children to have this assumption in (a). Psychologists from Dorothy Dinnerstien to Kyle Pruett have been pointing out for decades now that it is harmful for children for there to be this assumption that the mother is the primary parent. Much of the inanity, and even corruption, of Freud's theories on Oedipal complexes and children wanting sex from their parents and other adults arises from this fallacy, which was widespread in turn-of-the-19th-Century Vienna, and is still somewhat prevalent today. The US political system (Pelosi, Gingrich, to some extent, Obama), for example, is perpetuating this fallacy to the detriment of the US people. Sarah Palin's husband did a great deal of child care, perhaps even half the unpaid work of this, and this got little attention, even by her. The cognitive dissonance on this issue in the US is appalling.

mvrk71 in reply to kansasrefugee

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. So you would insist that somehow a family must make the choice to split unpaid (i.e. household) work 50/50? Forget gender roles, a family can make whatever choices it wants regarding productive and non-productive activities. And we could have an argument over which set of activities are actually the most socially and spiritually rewarding. Personally, I would argue that women have traditionally held a much more valuable and socially nourishing role in our society and amongst their children and communities. But no matter which gender holds that role, you would rather replace that role in favor of a dictatorial system underwhich both parents must labor equally outside of the home, and equally inside of the home - or what is more likely, outsource the household functions to others at a cost, there by reducing everything that we do as humans to a commercial transaction. I'm not sure if your argument is more appropriately categorized as hypercapitalism run amok, or typical left-wing dementia, but whatever it is, it is fundamentally absurd.


I find this article interesting since I enjoy being around kids and myself actually worked part time at a children's daycare in high school. Child care is very expensive in today's world and I can definitely see why the numbers of total fertility was higher in all countries back in 1950-1955 compared to 2005-2010. China in 1950-1955 had the most fertility total out of any country. This is understandable considering how huge China is and how many kids are being born constantly. Being that child care is expensive and on the rise in mostly everywhere, people have less children because they are truly an expense, and one needs to be ready to take it on and not be surprised. Good article.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

