Hellobee Boards

@jedeve: Guaranteed paid maternity leave would be great, but who would pay for it? If it's companies, then I would worry that they might just stop hiring women of childbearing years...

Better/guaranteed coverage for infertility treatment! Even when you live in a state with a coverage mandate there are so many exceptions that no one seems to have any coverage. It shouldn't be so hard to have even one child.

@jedeve: I would change this statement: "so basically we are going to have to start makin' babies look more appealing if we want to be sustainable!"

I would add so basically we are going to have to start makin' babies look more appealing TO THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD TO HAVE CHILDREN if we want to be sustainable! Unfortunately I think there are too many people that have kids or don't mind having large kids because it means an increase in benefits or they have kids without worrying about how they will afford them

@Thehistoryofus: I agree with you. I also think that there is an over-abundance of children being born and the fact that it's slowing down isn't necessarily a bad thing.

@mrbee: I think most families have the mom stay home, but we have friends where his company tops up his salary to 96% paid for the year and her company offers nothing, so he's taking the whole time.

@jedeve: It's happening in Japan!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-babies-can-japan-survive.html

@mrbee: maternity leave is 15 weeks, and parental leave is 35 weeks, which can be split between the parents. A lot of bigger companies offer top ups. I received 70% for 17 weeks, though it is really 15%, since you get 55% from the government. I worry about what my productivity will be like when i go back to work, but my boss didnt worry since she promoted me before i went on leave...i think companies need to be more progressive and look at the bigger picture.

@oliviaoblivia: DH gets 80% top up for the full year, but he doesnt think he would be happy doing it. I am going to try and change that for #2!

@jedeve: It may be illegal, but good luck proving it. Companies constantly discriminate against who they're hiring and can hide behind "not what we're looking for" any day of the week. I'd worry if we made it a law that all jobs have to be protected when the mother goes on leave, the discrimination would rise anyway.

Not that I don't agree with you, but just want to point that out. "In a perfect world" all this stuff would be great, but we don't live in that kinda world!

ETA -- also, to control the cost of childcare, you'd have to control their costs. The cost of licensing, the cost of food, the cost of power, the cost of rent, etc. I don't know how feasible something like that is, other than the licensing costs.

For me personally, the length of my leave/how much I get paid during that leave isn't going to dictate how many children I have. It's not idea but it's not a deal-breaker. The biggest factor that could influence the number of children I have is the cost of childcare. In my area it costs about 15K a year per child, and will likely hold us to two children spaced out far enough that we don't have to pay for childcare for both of them for too many years. Some sort of subsidized childcare would make a big difference. I know others who are one and done for the same reason.

@jedeve: I absolutely agree. I'm constantly appalled by the things that people will say in comments sections of articles and message boards (not this one to be sure!) when they're hiding behind an online handle. I've told DH that I'm convinced modern American culture has a built-in anti-mother and anti-child bias, and he thinks I'm crazy, but the attitude is pretty much, "Why should we pay for you to breed/accommodate you in any other way popping out children? If you want to have kids, be prepared to give up your career -- it's not our problem."

@mrbee: As far as parental splitting of the parental leave in Canada, it's case by case but on the whole I would say 90% of mothers take the year. I know a few families where mom was the primary breadwinner and so she went back to work after the 'maternity' portion of the leave was finished.

In my small office of 10 people, 3 women (including me) had babies in a span of 4 weeks and were off on maternity leave for a full year. We often joke that my boss won't hire another woman unless she proves she's gone through menopause. I don't think she is really joking all that much though, it's a big burden to hire replacement staff that often and she doesn't need to deal with that over and over.

@ladyfingers: in Canada, the job is protected in so far that when the parent comes back to work, it is a position that is equivalent to their previous position. Also, i believe you have to have worked for the company for x months for your job to be protected. I think that is fair.

All of these affect either/both mothers and children, so in my opinion they count as “child policies”...

3-6 months paid maternity leave
Universal health care
Across the board free breakfast provided at school (no income requirements)
Expand school lunch programs (free and reduced as well as healthy, real-food options)
Expanded subsidized daycare
Expand programs to financially assist mothers who want to go/return to college, job train, go to technical school

@caffeinated: I think it's shortsighted too!!

However I've been burned several times by new moms quitting on short notice. So now I'm not sure what's fair all around.

@yoursilverlining: men are in desperate need of more higher education too! They're falling behind women on a lot of metrics:
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html

I support lower cost education for both genders!

@jedeve: I don't think we need to improve birth rates. And definitely not improve them across the board. I think we need to do more for the children already here.

All these programs sound fantastic, but funding them is always the issue

@bebefly: i am aware of what you need for EI, but does the 600 hours also apply to the protection of your job? I cannot recall. I know that to get the company's benefits, you have to meet the company's requirements (in my case it was 6 months on the job).

@jedeve: I totally understand! I know a lot of people who look for other jobs while on mat leave because they are unhappy at their job, but that was not the case for me. The fact that my boss promoted me to a pretty senior position just before going on. T leave proved that they really look at the long term and i plan on sticking around for quite some time!

@mrbee: I guess i could say i have been burned by single young ambitious men who left for a better job only after a week on the job! so when you say new moms quitting on short notice, is this after they come back to work so they can be a sahm?

I do think the US should have extended mat leave to 3-6 months. It doesnt have to be paid per se, but treated as unemployment benefits like in Canada. I was barely functioning at the 6 week mark...if i were in the US, i would probably decide to be a sahm, or give up breastfeeding. It would just be too hard. Also, think about the time you have to take off work because your 6 week old gets sick from something caught in daycare. I also agree with pp that it shouldnt cost the parents all this money to have a baby.