When I want to torture myself about living in the US I go and look at the pictures of the maternity package sent to every Finnish woman giving birth. This is not the only benefit you get for having a baby in Finland, but it's the most tangible one. There are researches about the birth rate in Europe, and surprise surprise, the Nordic countries where babies and mothers are supported in every way lead the way. Where Italians have one child or less, Finns are getting to three. I think (but am not sure) that Norwegians might be ahead of that too. Explanations abound, but I think personally, that when getting a child is not really a financial problem (before they get a bit older) it means that those who want to have children can.
America is a different story altogether - people have loads of children compared to Europe, with hardly any benefits. True, there is a tax benefit - but even with that, all the stuff you need to get, the fact that childcare is frighteningly expensive, the fact that you don't get paid for your maternity leave (in some work places you might) and all this makes you really count whether you can afford the baby or not... fortunately, with the American volunteer spirit, friends and family will help out.
But then there are all the American mothers who get babies without planning, without any economical possibilities of taking care of them and so on... I think might have to do with lack of sex ed and also a more negative attitude towards contraception than, say, in Finland. These mothers go to Medicaid for health insurance to cover their labour and oh-oh if they're too "rich" for that. They'd get used clothes for their babies (very sensible I think) and as to childcare, they hope there's a grandmother or aunt who can help out... because they can't afford to take more time off work than a couple of weeks.
After this rant, let me add a list of what the maternity package of 2009 includes (they haven't translated the 2010 package to English yet on Kela's pages, and I'm too lazy to do it myself):
-Snowsuit
-hat
-insulated mittens and booties
-Sleeping bag / quilt
-Knitted hat
-Balaclava hat
-Socks and mittens *2
-Bodysuit *5
-Romper suit *4
-Footed leggings (pants with socks)
-Leggings (pants)
-Knitted overall
-Stretch suit
-Play suit
-Mattress
-Mattress cover
-Under sheet
-Duvet cover
-Blanket
-Bath towel with hood
-Nail scissors
-Hairbrush
-Toothbrush
-Bath thermometer
-Cream
-Bib
-Cloth nappy set + 2 inserts
-Muslin squares
-Bra pads
-Sanitary towels
-Condoms
-Lubrication gel for parents
-Picture book, 16 pages.
-Toy
-Leaflets
-Box (can be used as crib)
Does it really seem so barbaric for people to rely on family and friends in raising families? Like it's some sort of abberation, people taking care of each other when really it's government that should be stepping in to do something?
ReplyDeleteIs there no "European volunteer spirit"?
Little bit late with the condoms...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteManpace: not barbaric at all. The volunteer spirit is a good thing I think in America. One of the best American things.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like to have the maternity package - it gives the basics and family and friends could help out with the rest of the stuff. Also, what if your family doesn't have baby stuff nor money to buy it?
The condoms are fantastic! You know that American doctors start talking about contraception (or should start) before the baby is born, so that unless you want it you won't have another baby in nine months, while one is still nursing. Of course, if that's what you want, contraception is nothing to worry about.
The nordic countries are leading? Really? You must be reading other statistics than all those whiny people out there saying how families with kids are not supported here at all or not enough, at least. And it doesn't matter to them when you try to point out that actually this is one of the countries that support families at all. But it's never enough, I suppose.
ReplyDeletePeople even complain about the package. How it has all the wrong stuff in it and how the clother wear out too soon and sure you can just take the cash instead, but it's not the same and blah blah blah.
I think it's great there is a support system by the government. I think there is also voluntary helping out by friends and relatives, but cases when someone else could take care of the baby long term or long hours are rare because everyone else works too and they can't quit their job to go and help someone else.
ReplyDeleteUS government helps out too: 1) you get taxreductions - in our case those would benefit us financially much more than what we get from our government - the bad thing, it doesn't help those who most need the help, those with no income or minimum income 2) kids start school (and you there are public schools too) a few years earlier than here, so there is no need for day care as such at that stage anymore.
Interesting statistic - in Finland the amount of children has slightly risen, but there are more and more families with 4 or more children - the rise of that kind of families has been tremendeous in last 10 years. (don't remember the exact numbers, but it's been big)
Mirja
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI should proof read my posts better, sorry for the deleted posts there.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm one of these whiny people then ;)
Well, no, I'm very happy for all the benefits we get, but I think it all depends on how the whole system is built. What I mean is that it's not that easy to compare countries, because the whole system is built differently. For example in Finland it's not very easy for a family that plans on having say 4-6 kids and have one parent at home permanently to get by if the one parent working is making a small to average amount of money (pieni-keskituloinen).
If on the other hand both parents are working, even in low paying jobs and they have say 1-3 kids I think they're doing rather ok in Finland, because they get benefits in the form of daycare which is heavily subsidized. The previous family does get the child care money (kotihoidontuki) sure, but if you have lots of kids, it's rather small. And I for example didn't get any money at all now for a while when I had a three- and a four-year-old at home. (Ok, I admit, this is starting to get whiny :D But our family does pay quite a bit of taxes too...)
In some other countries, where families are not supported in the same way as in Finland the tax thing does make a big difference. So the systems are not that easy to compare. Although I do admit that supporting families through taxes does create other problems. But no system is completely fair, I think.
But I still prefer Finland. Especially paternity leave rocks! :D
A word about condoms... After you have given birth, using condoms and/or lubrication is the LAST thing that crosses your mind. Trust me :)
ReplyDeletehaha... true. but after a few weeks I was up for it ;) would not have been without condoms or lubrication, though.
ReplyDeleteSara said:
ReplyDelete"For example in Finland it's not very easy for a family that plans on having say 4-6 kids and have one parent at home permanently to get by if the one parent working is making a small to average amount of money (pieni-keskituloinen)."
I think that situation is better in Finland than in US for large families with average or small income. In US support is done mostly with tax benefits. However, that doesn't help much families with low income. In Finland support is targeted with more egalitarian manner.
Every family is entitled for child benefit (Lapsilisä) from 100 to 182 euros per child per month until child is 17 years old. Regardless of your income.
If one's child is less that 3 years old, family gets 500 - 1000 euros per month, if they don't use childcare services.
In addition healthcare and education is free. According professor Pulkkinen, the cost of early childhood services (Neuvola), library, healthcare and education costs total about 100000 € per child.
So lets think about 6 kid family for example. In Finland, they are entitled for 877 € per month for lapsilisä. That totals 168384 € in 16 years.
Lets think that family is entitled home care support for total 10 year. That adds up to 90000 euros.
Education and healthcare benefit is about 600000 euros.
In addition family might be entitled to housing benefit (asumistuki) or some other supports or subventions.
So it all adds up to about one million euros. So do you think that this family is going to pay that much taxes? I don't think so, if they are earn average income.
So I think that families are well supported in Finland. So who is paying for this all? We all are - including the singles.
Best Regards,
Teemu
I agree with you Teemu in meny ways. I prefer Finland myself :)
ReplyDeleteStill, in the US, in most cases, when you have a job, you also have healthcare. Education is also free until college. Free libraries too, although not always as good as in Finland. Child benefits do help a lot, but when you have 4-6 kids you usually need to have a car and a regular 5-seater won't do anymore. Also a bigger apartment is a must and even if you'd get a rental apartment from the city, they usually only have apartments suitable for small families. Isn't this a big problem with some of the immigrant families in Finland? The whole family won't fit into one apartment. So you need to find a home on your own and the prices jump when you have to go so big. Or then you need to live far in the countryside and the car becomes even more essential. And this is where I think the child benefit doesn't add up, since the increase in expences isn't linear.
*with healthcare I meant to say healthcare for the whole family, not just the person with the job
ReplyDeleteTaxes... If a person has for example three kids in child care (say a 1-, 3-, and a 5-year-old), the city pays 2000-2500e/month for it. I think this person would need to be making quite a bit of money for the taxes to cover just the actual day care expences ;) So I think the decision the government/city makes on how to support families is also very much an ideological one.
ReplyDeleteLet's do some math properly Teemu.
ReplyDeleteIf you have 3 kids under 3 years + 3 other kids under 6 yeard, totalling 6 kids under six years you get benefits 684,84 €/month if you take care of them at home. Some counties may add a few tens of Euros on top of that, but it varies and many don't give any extras. If the household income is 1700 €/month or less (both parents that is) you get an extra 168,18 a month. It rarely reaches the 1000 € a month and it is higly unlikely that anyone will have six kids under six years and that biggest amount of benefir you would only get for that one year.
So yes, you get benefits while the yongest child is under 3 and taken care at home. But after that the only benefits you get, is the lapsilisä.
I totally agree that we are better of than the US system when considering the whole group of people. Our system supports better those with no income or low income. And I think it's well right. I'd be ready to take the benefits away from those who earn a certain sum of money, who really have absolutely no need for support.
Just that in our current situation the tax benefits would benefit our family more.
I'm happy to pay high taxes to support mothers being home with their children as well as the health care system, free education even on university level and many other things I feel important.
I'm kind of with Sara on the day care issue. I don't think us stay at home mums should be paid as much as the real cost of day care is, but I think those who choose the day care should pay for it a closer amount of the actual cost. It's not education a mother couldn't give. Even then though I'd make it sure those with low or no income would have the chance to pay for it as little as they do now.
Mirja
Wow, all these comments...
ReplyDeleteEverybody seems to agree that (if they live in Finland) they really like the Finnish system. And if we count in the free education from preschool to university, I'm sorry to inform all you moms that you would never get that much tax benefits from the US that it would cover for it. I don't know about your incomes - probably better than my family's - but we counted with my husband that even just with child bonus (until the child is 17), added income for home care (for 3 years) and maternity packages we will never get as much tax benefits. But yes, that would depend on your income.
If health care is added, it's more complicated. Sara, not all working people get a reasonably priced insurance for the whole family, and if your job isn't stable you'd get in real trouble. We'll live this summer on extended insurance (called Cobra) since husband doesn't have a job during three months (very common in academia, at least in the beginning) and it's crazy expansive. However less expensive than the $10,000 that a c-section would cost without insurance, so we'll take it. But still not sure how the baby will be insured for that one month before work starts... it will use up all our savings for sure.
But everyone sees these things differently, mostly from their own perspectives I guess.
"Sara, not all working people get a reasonably priced insurance for the whole family, and if your job isn't stable you'd get in real trouble."
ReplyDeleteI know this and that's why I said "in most cases". ;) A better word would have been in "a lot of cases" I guess or something like that.
I have seen situations of families with a lot of kids in the US, for example one family with 10 kids and they've had to go without insurance for some periods of time while the husband was in between jobs. It's scary. So I'm very much in favor of the Finnish system, despite it's problems. But I think the beautiful idea behind the US system is that work is the best social support, and family. In Finland we leave it to the state, which I think is good, since not everyone has a job or family.
But I have my issues with the Finnish system as well. For example the much praised Finnish healthcare system works well for someone like me, a young pregnant woman and for kids, sure, but I think the level of care isn't as good for older people, a person like my mom for example who's 65 years old. I don't think she's getting the proper care she should be getting and she still (hopefully) has 20 years or so of good life ahead of her. And I'm not even talking about nursing homes, just basic healthcare... (I've pretty much made up my mind that my parents never have to suffer that, the nursing homes in Finland, I'd rather take them to live with me.)
But this healthcare and nursing homes rant is a completely different topic, sorry, so I'll stop now :D
Sara: how good of you to feel that you'd be ready to look after your aging parents. However, that's a view that a lot of people don't share. And that's where in my view it becomes confusing. Because I've seen in my work so many times how families have such great expectations (or should I say dictations?) on how their parents should be looked after, but the idea of looking after them themselves is unheard of and outrageous.
ReplyDeleteOn the US health care issue you wrote: "A better word would have been in "a lot of cases" I guess or something like that."
I'd say the proper word would be "in some cases", because the people with average or low income are usually the majority and the people with high income is the minority. I've also heard of a family with 10 kids in US who didn't have insurance. Their 11th kid they had to deliver at home because of that fact. They were going to get a midwife to help but she bailed out on the last minute because she didn't want to get in trouble if something went wrong.
From what I get from the news, this doesn't seem to be a very rare case either since a very great number of pregnant women are without any kind of health care.
Mirja: I'm very much waiting for Teemu's reply, since I've rarely seen anyone outdo him in maths ;)
That's exactly what I consider so insane in Finland, how people think it's the worst thing to take care of your own parents. I have no illusions, I had a grandmother with Altzheimer's, so we'll have to see how it goes in reality. Hopefully by the time my parents need constant care my own kids will be all grown up. That's why I would really like my parents to get the best possible care now, to be able to make it on their own for as long a possible.
ReplyDeleteAbout the healthcare in the US thing. I can only tell from my own experience, and I think our experiences vary greatly, from state to state etc. In Utah my former "host uncle" for example was (is) an average blue collar worker, he worked at an oil refinery. They had four kids and the mother had always been at home. I don't know how much money he made, but I do think they had medical insurance for the whole family. They had a modest house compared to a lot of other people, but a very nice one in Finnish standards. One can always argue that they probably had a huge debt, but I doubt it, since they never seemed to be after a lot of luxuries. Naturally they had some kind of a mortgage loan for the house, but they seemed to be doing just fine with their finances. Never too much money, but didn't seem to be missing anything either. Two of their kids have a university degree, the other one got a four year soccer scholarship and the other one I think he got some kind of a scholarship as well. They were just average in high school. The youngest just graduated from high school, so I don't know about him and the oldest child became a hairdresser. Anyway, I don't have any statistics about the insurances, so I can't say for sure how common it is to have insurance that comes with your work, but most families I met had one, not all of them "rich people". But like I said, I don't know. That's just my experience.
I've discovered that what these discussions usually come down to is actually about the "elintaso" (can't think of the word in english now, sorry) that one feels that a family's entitled to. And who should pay for it. Like sara said a bigger family needs a bigger home and a bigger car. True, but what KIND of home and what KIND of a car? Actually I've heard a friend of mine (who thinks bigger families are not supported well enough in Finland) say that she could never imagine her and her family driving a minibus. She feels it's just too low class. She also has ideas about the kind of housing you should have with a big family.
ReplyDeleteThat's all fine. Everybody's entitled to think that a minibus is too low class. However, I don't think that the goverment should support you well enough to buy a nice minivan for you just because a cheap minibus is too low class. And the same goes for housing.
I think of another friend and her family. They've got 5 grown up kids and the mum always stayed home. They knew this would mean sacrifices, but it was a choice they willingly made. They had a very modest home (actually not that much bigger than the one we have now) and they didn't have a fancy and expensive car. And I've never heard any of them complaint about the money (of course it doesn't mean that they never have, I've just never heard them voice it). I hold a very high opinion of this family.
I do think that a bigger family should mean bigger expenses. And I do think that those expenses should be MAINLY be covered by the family, not the goverment (wheather in the form of tax benefits or other support).
Also I think that it's only fair that you make less money when you have only one person at work vs you have two (in the same family, I mean. I'm fully aware that some people make more money than me and my husband make together). It's only fair that a family of 6-8 has a different lifestyle than a family of 2-3. Even if the income is about the same in both families.
I won't start on the daycare. I'll leave it to Teemu to explain the maths on the subvention there. :)
one more thing. Just out of curiosity. I had to check the house prices in SLC vs Espoo. Found it very interesting indeed. An average 4 bedroom house in SLC is betwee 73 000e (lowest) and 122 000e (highest). An average 4 bedroom house in Espoo (in Keski-Espoo area, to be more accurate) is between 315 000e (lowest) and 870 000e (highest).
ReplyDeleteThat might sort of explain the nicer home you can get in SLC vs to the main Helsinki area in Finland :) I only know of my own occupation that the pay would be much better in US too than in Finland, so that doesn't explain the difference in the cost of living, either.
Just a thought, out of curiosity.