I'm not surprised at all. As I prepare for the birth of my second child in October, I was recently told that my maternity leave has gone from 8 weeks (2yrs ago with my first) down to six weeks. That is for a vaginal or csection birth. A month and a half!

Most daycares won't accept a child under 8 - 12 weeks old which requires me to either not get paid to stay home or use sick time. I have no problem with that but for every hour I need to take for a doctor appointment (myself or children) I lose four hours of PTO time.

I would hope in this country we would treat our mothers (and fathers) with a little more respect. Just my two cents.

it's a maddening paradox that highglights where our priorities really are in this country.

Six weeks?! That's ridiculous!! I live in Canada and the majority of people are allowed a year! Legally you must be allowed 37 weeks (and that DOESN'T include pregnancy leave if you choose it) although most employers will give you a year at a slightly reduced pay (usually about 80% salary). Those who don't qualify for maternity leave paid by their employer will receive EI for the duration of their leave. I can't believe how far the US lags behind in maternal care. In Canada we even have lactation consultants available to us paid for by the government for the first 6 weeks after the baby is born. If a mother chooses a mid-wife instead of a doctor, it is 100% covered. I am a Respiratory Therapy student finishing up the last year of my degree so my daycare is 100% paid for (at a fantastic daycare -there are definitely no second rate subsidized daycares around here). I count my lucky stars every day that I was born in Canada; my life would be drastically different if we lived in the US.

Unfortunately most of our country views maternity leave as socialist, which is "bad".

I work for the federal gov't and all we get is FMLA-- i.e. no paid time at all-- you can save up your vacation/sick time and use that if you want. My previous job we at least had short-term disability for 3 months that covered pregnancy.

Also, it is frustrating for people to always assume that people are even covered by FMLA-- there are a number of exemptions from FMLA, some of which are due to the size of the employer, length of time employed, etc. There are even statutory exclusions for positions within the federal government-- in these cases your boss must request that you be covered. So, along with many people getting no paid time off, many people also get no protected time off.

@alia7, 100% paid daycare???

i'm gonna go sit in a corner and cry now.

I worked for a large corporation in Canada, and maternity leave was full pay for 9 months (EI portion the difference paid by the company). Even paternity leave was quite generous...I was given a month at 75% of my pay up to 55k. Daycare in Quebec is $7/day...so it varies across Canada but in general it's much cheaper than the amount we'll be paying now that we're back in the US.

I am also Canadian, with an American husband, and am self-employed. This means that I do not qualify for maternity leave, but my husband does. He can take 9 months off with 60% of his salary paid for, and a guaranteed job to go back to. I am pregnant with our 2nd child, and feel so lucky to be living in Canada.

Yes, the USA are "behind" in many things. How can a country be so proud of itself that does so little for its people?

Lets do something about it:
http://www.momsrising.org/

I pay $165 a week for in-home daycare - $33 a day. That includes meals and snacks. I provide diapers and wipes. Infants usually cost more and if you have two in the same daycare you can usually get a "sibling" discount. I used to pay $175 but that daycare closed. In my area (Central Massachusetts) I have seen it as high as $190 for one child.

You can judge a country on how it treats the children.

I'm an American expat living in Quebec. I moved here with a 12 day old baby almost two years ago, but I obviously didn't earn maternity leave since I had never worked here. I believe it is SIGNIFICANTLY better for mothers and children in Canada than it is in the US.

It's not perfect, however. We do have subsidized daycare that is $7 a day per child. You have to put your child on lots of waiting lists, and it can be hard to find one. If you don't want one of those, you can also pay for a private daycare. We do have PLENTY of second-rate, horrible daycares where I live. I've been appalled by what I've seen on the public playgrounds. We do have good daycares as well. I suppose it's like that anywhere.

Still...I can name plenty of ways it's better here than in the US. And I last lived in California before moving here, which is definitely not the worst state in terms of mothers and children.

Actually - California is the only state with a paid family leave law and has some of the best maternity benefits in the US.

i am just a little curious...everyone is commenting on the differences in maternal care available in the US vs other countries (this alone makes me want to leave the US by the way)...but can anyone tell me what its like returning back to your job after a blessedly long maternal leave??

I worked for a large aerospace company in Phoenix, AZ...I was able to take 6 weeks off paid and used 2.5 weeks of my vacation & sick time I had saved...I believe I took another 2 weeks unpaid, but could not afford to take the full 12 weeks off allowed by fmla. After reading about Canada's policy I most certainly resent the fact that I got stuck having to use up all my vacation and sick leave to spend extra time with my daughter.

There was no time left over to use for all of the doctors appointments once I returned to work. I ended up resorting to a creative schedule to make time for this - something that is (not surprisingly) frowned upon by management in the Aerospace field.

My biggest disappointment regarding the United States and Maternal care is the attitude towards mothers upon returning from maternal leave. Maybe it has something to do with American culture ("live to work") but I feel a lot of women lose some respect professionally (especially with upper management) after starting or expanding their families.

I was amazed to find out the options out there for working mothers in other countries. It is heartening to know that there are places and governments that put more priority on maternal care. I think the US could benefit from following others' examples, but I highly doubt our political and corporate leaders care.

Blah. . . . I was blessed to have a child while in graduate school (some might say cursed, but a dissertation CAN be written over the course of a year of naps), but I dread having a second child and not having that flexibility.

I love working, but I already feel guilty towards imagined child #2 for not being able to promise it a year of delicious mommy time.

When I complain about this some say it is a decision, in the US you can choose career or family, and that's good, it promotes hard work, and perceived equality between men and women. They truly believe you can be fulfilled by deciding to be a kick@ss mom OR CEO, and that it really is incompatible to be both. But I say PHOOEY! This is no way to live life in the world's richest country.

Wow, what an excellent thread of conversation. I have lived in both Singapore (not as a mom though but I did work 2 summers as a daycare assistant teacher so I had some insights into the "perks" for working moms in Singapore) and now as a mom of 2 in the US. I also work for a multinational company and when we have global meetings, the working moms like to compare stories. So I was absolutely not surprised to hear about how US fared in the report. And its frustrating to see why super-talented women who want to return to the workforce, have to make the decision to stay home because the daycare costs and vacation/personal time policy reeks.

In Singapore, daycare is heavily subsidised and dual-working parents family are very common. Family community is also alot stronger and it is not surprising to hear of a mother-in-law or mom caring for their grandchildren, or living in the same household so there is some relief from another adult.

Maternity leave policy is about 4 months with the company paying part of your salary for those 4 months. Even those who are self-employed can get 2 months worth salary from the government, 4 months if you're going past your 2nd pregnancy!

On the same note, the stigma of a working mom is more self-imposed vs society-imposed in the US. it is not that big of a deal anymore to see American women in executive-level positions and I think that part of that stringent maternity policy has allowed that to happen more easily because men can't complain that women have the year-long maternity leave perks and companies just love these power career moms that jump right back into the swing of things. (Yes our society supports, even commends women who do that.)

Grace Hester Designs
Silhouette- and typography- based artwork and prints
Shop my designs at http://gracehesterdesigns.etsy.com
Experience my blog at http://gracehester.typepad.com
Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/gracehester

I think these are interesting observations- especially troubling about the infant mortality rate.
But I think we should look closer at the maternity leave issue. 6 months maternity leave with pay sounds good. But seriously, who do we expect to pay for it? It costs money to pay a maternity leave replacement and continue paying salary. These advantages found in Canada and other countries are great, but there is a cost.
If you are happy to pay about 48% of your income in taxes (as in Norway) this kind of leave becomes more feasible. I'm all for a very long leave, as I think it helps mothers, but there has to be a trade-off somehow. I do think it's impossible to expect to have it all, meaning both a career that advances continually upward while having sufficient time to be a mother, and get someone else to pay for it.

It's the ex-pat here again. We pay about 42% tax, and I'm happy to do it. We get so much for it. And most of the people I know here feel the same way, so I wouldn't call it a trade-off.

I'm from Australia and although not all workplaces offer paid maternity leave everyone is still entitled to 1 year off paid or unpaid. The government also gives out $5000 for every child you have, plus depending on how much you and your partner earns the government also gives out a fortnightly payment. For example if you and your partner earned the "average" middle range wage you would receive (roughly) from the Government $350 per fortnight.

mistymoo, you just reminded me--we also get paid a monthly stipend to help support children. On top of that, everyone, including all children, has health insurance, and all children in our province have full dental insurance until the age of 18. There are so many more benefits too. These are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head.

The most telling thing is that in the United States we have a significant percent of teen pregnancies and a good number of those girls don't receive consistent pre-natal care. Many don't see a provider until they are in labor. And because many don't have pre-natal care there is a higher rate of pre-term births leading to complications. (which makes things very expensive and many don't have health insurance to begin with.) This lack of adequate healthcare extends into early childhood and so more children die needlessly. In a country this wealthy; that is deeply shameful.

mistymoo09- unfortunately that "average" middle range wage is quite low - we don't qualify for any payments, but we do get 50% back every quarter for child-care costs (which is not means tested). We currently pay $65.00 per day for childcare, of which we get back 50% - that is pretty cool, but unfortunately childcare centres just happen to raise their fees whenever a new refund measure is announced. Our costs have risen from $40.00 per day in 2005 to $65.00 now in 2010!

Still, better to be in Australia than the US by the sounds of it! I had no idea that infant mortality rates and maternity leave conditions were as bad as they are there.

Australia is ranked way, way higher than America. For mothers and children, there about 27 other countries that might be a better place to live.

If America has some things to be embarrassed about, Afghanistan is a tragedy, though. They are ranked the worst in every category, worse than any other country on the face of the earth. They have a serious problem and need help. Is it surprising that the poorest, most neglected children, those most surrounded by needless death, starvation, and illness are turning to violence?

Yes, the maternity leave in this country is shameful. 6 weeks off is ridiculous plus the trend in companies hiring contractors doesn't help in that contractors are not eligible for maternity leave, which was the situation that I found myself in.

I don't think that our country has quite adapted to having women in the workforce. I do think that from a social perspective that for the most part women are viewed as equal performers in the workforce but our work culture has not transformed into accommodating dual working families. I would really like to see companies offering more part-time professional positions. I know quite a few women, including myself, who choose to stay home because they cannot stomach the idea of putting a child in daycare for 50 hours a week. I say 50 because that mandatory lunch hour does not count towards your minimum 8 hour day, plus commute time your child is lucky if their day is just 50 hours. Companies are really losing out on some talent by not offering more flexible schedules hopefully they will wake up and this will change.

Yes, you can argue that 6 weeks off does keep women from being denied promotions etc. but not all women want to be the Cheif technology officer some are just fine being a staff software developer. Women who aspire to being a Law Firm Partner should certainly be entired to do so but I don't believe that they should expect to take as much time off as the lawyer that wants to just handle their firms casework and go home at the end of the day.

The infant mortality is skewed. Many European countries split the difference between miscarriage and premature birth differently. If you do not consider it an infant death it throws the numbers out of whack.

It also does not adjust for the number of mothers in American hospitals who do not receive prenatal care due to their own legal resident issues. Who's maternal mortality rate is that exactly. I am not trying to be a smartass. It is still a tragedy. But America is not quite as bad as you'd think from this study.

I am an American, but I have been living and working in the UK for two years. My first child is due in July, and I was shocked to hear about the great maternity benefits in the UK, as compared to my homeland. I get up to a year off, 9 months of it are paid to varying degrees and the last three are unpaid should I choose to still be on leave. I am also guaranteed my job back and I have health coverage, benefits, etc. throughout. And there is not a social stigma associated with being a professional and a mother. Yes, the tax rate is higher in Europe to support more social services, and yes, a lot of Americans don't want higher taxes. But you continually see American falling farther behind the rest of the world in many respects. Americans are consistently rating lower in happiness, life expectancy, income, etc than European countries like Norway. When will people start to realize that the way America does things is not necessarily the best in the world anymore? If America continues on this path and continues putting children at a disadvantage, then we can only expect to be worse off in the end.

Yes we pay more taxes in Canada, but guess what? I can stay home for a year with my baby. I don't have to worry about how much the hospital fees will be, and whether my insurance will cover any of it. From what I understand, Americans pay exorbitant health insurance fees, where even having hay fever will put you in the high-risk we-don't-want-to-insure-you group. And some insurance companies play dirty, finding excuses to cancel your insurance once you get sick: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100423/hl_nm/us_wellpoint_cancer. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that.

For all the guys out there thinking that women are getting away with something, think about it: wouldn't you love this for your wife and children, so that your children can be with their mother for their first year? Instead of with strangers at a costly daycare?

And finally, as a generalization, the religious conservatives tend to be Replublicans, who are most vehemently against any 'socialist' care. Honestly, where do you think Jesus would have stood on this issue? How can you claim to be faithful to God and Jesus if you do not wish to take care of your fellow man? Consider it your tithe, if you must.

Just checked the full report, and have some concerns about the accuracy and methodology.

For example, Canada is rated 20th; if you check into why, they claim that Canadians only get 17 weeks of maternity leave. Well, sort of: the rest of the 52 weeks can be split between the parents however they see fit, and is called "parental leave". This leave is available to adoptive parents as well. My husband took 3 months with our first child, and I got 9 months; for our second, I took all 12 months.

The study also doesn't accurately report how much mothers on maternity/parental leave receive. Technically, you are entitled to 55% of your salary or a maximum monthly amount, whichever is lower; however, most employers (no, not all) top this up. I received 93% of my salary for all the months I was off.

So this study significantly under-represents the maternity benefits offered in Canada, and thus misranks Canada.

When I compare Canada to Switzerland -- with very minimal maternity benefits -- they really have a total of 14 weeks, not a maximum of 52 weeks as in Canada -- weak female participation in the labour force (lowest rate in all of Europe, according to some studies), insufficient preschool or daycare, schools that do not cover off lunch hours...

Really, this study has gotten their facts wrong. And these are the two countries with which I am most familiar...

I am Swiss, and want to clarify something: Yes, we have little daycare, no dayschools (kids go HOME for lunch), etc, but that has to do with the country's structure. Most families used to have a great life and a lot of money although women did not work - most women were stay-athome-mums. This study rates this as "bad", which it isn't really bad for us fulltime-moms of course. Things have changed a little (divorced women need their own household, so the ex-husband's money split in two is not enough anymore, economy is not as good as it used to be). If Swiss women had the choice, many would just work little to get out of the house once in a while, but hardly anybody would want a fulltime job.
In Sweden, where I have many freinds, they kind of hold the state responsible for daycare and actually the upbringing of their kids. It is clear, that after a long maternal leave, you go back to work. Swedish people pay SO much taxes, that, even though they get free (opr let's say "paid in other ways) medical care and so on, they can sometimes hardly afford the clothes they're wearing. Every coin has its two sides.

For those who are interested in life as a person, not only as a mother ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_most_livable_cities

Interesting! 3 Swiss cities, NO US city.

Well, I live in the Bahamas, so I cant't invite you over to Switzerland...

Certainly something to think about this Mother's Day. We deserve more than just brunch or breakfast. Better maternity leave options, better daycare choices, etc... Everyone has a mother. Not sure why these measures would be so difficult and controversial. Let's make them a priority for the good of our moms and our children.

Satashasatasha - there are many women in the world (both in Switzerland as well as other places) who want to work full time for reasons other than the two "needs" you mention.

Regarding taxes, I live in NYC, where I pay 40% of my income to taxes. That's not including the additional 3-5% of my income I'll pay for healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket costs for having a baby this year.

Nor does that include the $2000-3000 per month I need to contribute for childcare, the $1000 per month toward my retirement or the $500 per month per child toward their university education.

48% taxes looks really good from here when you consider that it's often the *marginal* tax rate on income and it gets you decent parental leave, subsidized childcare, free education and healthcare plus some retirement security in many countries. Then when you think about the tax breaks and stipends that many of these same countries offer for parents... well, if you think about it too much it's just depressing.

I wasn't trying to say that Australia is better than America or any other country, I was just making some points on how things are here in Australia.
Stellacake - we also pay about the same amounts for childcare here, possibly even more ranging from $350-$450 for a 5 day week. And the "Average" income for Australia would be (roughly) $50,000, I don't know what it would be in America or the cost of living over there etc.
Satashasatasha - Australia also made it in the top 10 most livable cities whoo :)

WOW. Anyone else wanting to call their congressmen?

Just a reply to those wondering about how I have daycare that is 100% paid for...in Canada it is subsidized by the government based on your household earnings. I am a single parent and also in my final year of university, so I am eligible for free daycare. You must apply to a waitlist but it's well worth it.

Were I to have to pay for it, it would cost me $66/day (which obviously as a student, I cannot afford) and I would be forced to quit school just shy of my respiratory therapy degree and work somewhere for minimum wage. On the flip side of this, it's a shame that I see many people abuse the system. Mothers who claim to be working full time but are not and who send their children to daycare that is paid for by tax dollars and spend their days doing as they please. I'm sure this is the exception but all the same, I resent the fact that some people give me the stink eye when I tell them my daycare is paid for by the government. I am a student who works nights when I can so that I can keep food on our table until I graduate and become a contributing member of society instead of a single mom on welfare, which is likely what I would be in the same situation in many other countries. Countries that do not provide adequate support to those who are in need are only perpetuating the cycle and creating welfare-dependent families who cannot get themselves out of debt and will only end up costing the country money. It's not only a matter of social responsibility but long term economical responsibility as well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Tax dollars spent helping someone get back on their feet can be considered an investment in the future of the country and will be paid back ten-fold when that person earns a decent salary and buys a house, car, food, clothes ANYTHING (not to mention setting up the child(ren) to be in a better position- so exponential growth here). That being said, obviously Canada has some improvements to make, especially in the area of disability benefits. A quick look at our homeless population will confirm that; however, that's for a whole other thread I suppose...

I'm an American currently living in Canada and pregnant with my first child, and I have to say, I would happily pay a higher tax for the rest of my life to receive the benefits that the Canadian system offers mothers and fathers and to allow others that privilege as well. It is wonderful to not have to nickel-and-dime my way through the various prenatal options (ultrasounds, blood tests, etc.), and to not have to worry about hospital costs, to be covered entirely whether I have a home or hospital birth and whether it is doctor or midwife assisted. I think it's appalling how my mother-friends in the States have to piece together even a short maternity leave out of their sick and vacation days, and have to pay exhorbitant hospital fees and insurance fees on top of that.

im indonesian and even though my country is listed as 54th on the less developed country, i know that for most workers (goverment & private companies) we get paid 3months leave (required by law)... its still too short, but at least its more than a month...
as for daycare, i can opt to hire a sitter (a big punch to the wallet), but both my mom & mother-in-law chooses to watch my son (alternately of course) while im at work. i think its how the social system still works here that helps a lot with the raising of a child... (im not sure what this is called in english)...
though i represent those living in cities or working in factories/offices, i cannot say that this is the same for rural areas where there is also less education & poor goverment management... sad...

People, wake up! America is still the most desirable country to immigrate, that says it all. I'm an immigrant myself and will never buy this "28th place" after Croatia, of all the countries, ha-ha! I have a child and another one on the way and am very thankful for the life in the US with its general benefits! Why do you all want the government to support your kids! Look at Greece, the former USSR: this system of welfare for the able citizens is bound to collapse. Stop whining already!!!!!

Sure, Norway tops the list--why don't you tell the Norwegians? Maybe they'll start having kids! For all that it is a wonderful place to give birth and rear children, Norway's birth rate is not sustainable... My Norwegian husband and I are quite happily living in the US with our two kids under two, and yet nobody back in the "motherland" believes that we aren't out of our minds for having 'so many so quickly.'

No, maternity/parental leave does NOT vary across Canada.

It is a full 52 weeks, with the first portion, 17 weeks, exclusive to the birth mother. The remaining weeks can be split between either parents, and is also available to adoptive parents.

What varies is how much top-up employers provide; the minimum is 55% of your salary (to a maximum level -- used to be $1700 per month), which is provided by the Government of Canada Employment Insurance program. Most employers top this up.

Maternity leaves of less than 12 months are most likely down to having taken place before the maternity/parental leave program was updated (late '80s? early to mid '90s? Long before my childbearing time...).

The only exception is, of course, the province of Quebec, which was trying to introduce 2 year maternity leaves, similar to the those of the Nordic countries. However, the second year is supposed to be unpaid. I am not sure how far along they are with this project.

As for Switzerland... Swiss women are hit very hard when couples divorce (they have the same sort of divorce rates everyone else has), as women with children rarely work outside of the home, and when they do, hold down relatively low-paying work. There is very much a cultural attitude that if you have children, the society has no responsibility for contributing to raising them (the very opposite of Hilary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" approach), despite all the research demonstrating the importance of preschool education, etc., etc.

Moreover, even when children are in school, mothers are not off the hook: schools close 2 hours in the middle of the day for lunch, and so mothers spend their days walking to and from school with only 2 hour breaks in between -- not enough time to hold down a job, or really get much done. Here in Geneva, it is even worse: there is no school on Wednesdays. That is the day when most music, dance, swimming lessons, etc., outside of school are scheduled, and so mothers spend that whole day ferrying children from one class to another. All holiday camps are atrociously expensive -- the average is about $500 per week per child; not affordable -- definitely not if you have more than one child! A series of swimming lessons at our neighbourhood pool costs $275 for 12 lessons!

Contrast this with France, which has very generous maternity benefits, provides school lunches (excellent ones!) in public schools, as well as after-school and holiday programming through the local schools. Holiday camps in France, run through the schools, cost $600 for a full month, including hot meals and snacks. (I am referring to communities in France 5 minutes away from our house)

Oh, and the added issues: in France, grocery stores, etc. are open until 8:30 or 9:00 pm; in Switzerland (unless it is a ski resort town like Verbier), supermarkets and all stores close by 6:30 pm, except for Thursdays, when they stay open until 8 (closed Sunday, and close by 5:30 on Saturdays). Oh, and small shops, the post office, pharmacies, and so on? They all close for 2 hours over lunch, so don't think you can run errands then.

No, the whole society in Switzerland is set up so that one parent (i.e., the mother) has to stay at home, and run all the errands and feed and care for the children...

So I really have to question some of these ratings...

I think our biggest problem in the US is that most of our law makers are older, white males who come from privileged families and, once they became adults, always had enough money to "pay" their wives to stay home (and for nannies, nurses for the elderly, etc.). They have NO idea what it is like to NEED that second salary or try to be a mom and the sole breadwinner.
And it's easier to just blather about "family values" and "individual responsibility" (translated: We'd rather look backwards and infer blame on WOMEN by implying that working outside of the home ruins "family values" and thus put the blame on the victim, than try to figure out a new economic/social system that accepts women's right/need to work outside of the home.)
This is where all the "We support family values" groups make me nuts. Because somewhere along the line, the terms "Pro-family" and "Family values" started to be used as tag lines by the "Conservative Christian/anti-gay/anti-birth control/anti-working mother" groups instead of ACTUALLY meaning "Let's help people support their families AND care for their children".
However, since the current demographics show that the Boomers are going to need LOTS more babies/young people to work and support them in the cushy retirement they all seem to expect, it's going to be interesting to see if that carries through to pro-fertility/child/family legislation here in the US like it has in other "child-strapped" developed nations like Japan.

It is shocking...and for a more personnal yet very informative and well researched perspective, look into reading "The Price of Motherhood". Don't ask my why, but I read this before I was even considering becoming a mother, and I was so saddened by our historically proud culture to have turned it's back on what could be considered one of the most important jobs in the world. Even though it's been years since I've read it, it seems nothing has changed...and may perhaps has gotten worse. I can truly say that after becoming a mother, we are not a cohesive group and standing united together (which would give us so much more power to change things). With our very different life styles, and most important socio-economic statuses, I've seen prejudices, animosity, and a lack of understanding from the stay-at-homes, have to work, chose to work, and single moms. It seems our judgement has gotten in the way of our ability to come together with probably the most important thing to all of us that unites us: motherhood.

Six weeks?! Good lord, I was just starting to walk without pain at six weeks and was still bleeding like crazy. I cannot imagine going back to work at that point - that's downright cruel and inhumane.

After my daughter was born, I took the full year I was entitled to in Canada and my employer topped up my pay to 85% of my salary for 9 months and 75% for the last three. I also received all of my benefits during my leave. However, in return for that I had to agree to work at least one more year in return for my employer - if not, I had to repay the money I received during my one year leave.

I've been back in my position for almost a year now. Aside from my *$@hole male manager who hates working mothers (he once told a coworker of mine she should stop breastfeeding because it was getting in the way of her working overtime), everyone has been great about me coming back.

Just wanted to add that we shouldn't be limiting this discussion to "mothers" and "maternity leave." Don't forget that all of this applies to two-dad families, single-dad families, etc. as well. And parental leave isn't always taken for a newborn, since many children join their permanent families at an older age.

I have to agree with the Norwegian US resident. If the US is so horrible and other countries are so great, why is the US birthrate the only one above replacement level? I come from Spain, allegedly no. 13 in this report. Yes we have universal healthcare, there is free daycare for low income households (tho I have to say that this means VERY low income households, the rest of us have to pay...) 4 months paid leave etc. But still no one having any kids. The reason, IMO, is a huge lack of flexibility in the labour market, caused mostly by rigid severance pay policies and, yes, benefits. This means that if you have a kid a glass ceiling immediately pops up above you, your career drops a couple of gears and if you EVER decide to quit your job for a little more than the statutory 4 months that is the end of your life in the workforce. So no one is having any kids, at least no middle class people (not me, expecting my third as a self-employed translator). This is not the case in the US. I think the results are skewed, tho I agree that the infant death rate is pretty bad.

Things have improved greatly here in Germany (I guess that's why it's now among the best 10), you get 14 months of payed maternity leave (67%) that can be split between both parents any way you want. You can even take it at the same time, which is great. You can take an (unpaid) leave of up to three years. This is all brand new, but it does take a lot of stress out of the decision whether to have a second child or not, many people are even considerung a third. The price and availability of daycare depends on where you live, it can be good and expensive like in Hamburg, where I live, cheap and good like in the East German districts or virtually non-existent for under 3 year olds like in the Rhine area. You also get 170 EUR per child an month until they've finished school or university. So it's not too bad here on the whole. However there is another thing, and that is the social pressure to be a good mum and stay at home. I always earn raised eyebrows when I tell people that both of my kids are in daycare while I work. So while both the government and the economic leaders have realized that leaving half of the qualified workforce at home is not a clever plan, the concept of "working Mum" hasn't permeated society like in the Scandinavian countries. But we're getting there.

Everyone in the US is so worried about paying more in taxes, but like everything else we spend money on, it's more about value received than money spent. I would be happy to pay higher taxes to cover the kinds of social services available in many European countries, rather than taxes that go to maintain a huge defense budget and wage unnecessary wars.

I'm a baby boomer, and my children are grown and just beginning to have their own children, but it is clear to me that social benefits raise the level of all society, not just the specific groups that benefit immediately.

One more example of short term vs. long term thinking, I guess.

No one here has mentioned the fact that the US has one of the highest C-Section rates in the world (maternal mortality) and on one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world (infant mortality). I don't have a clue why. These two things are more important than taxes or daycare. If you are dead you can't pay taxes or work.

Yeah. Maternity leave policy here in US really surprised me. It was one of the few things where my home country India has much better policy than US. In India they offer 6 months of fully paid maternity leave. And thats when India has a much higher population growth rate. I think if India's developing economy can bear the 'burden' of new moms for 6 months,
US definitely can....or not.

I sometimes feel like I won the lottery when I was born in Norway ;)

As it happens, I'm on maternity leave at the moment, and now I really feel that the 36% tax I pay is worth it.

I think the reason our birthrate is not sustainable is because many Norwegian women, myself included, don't start having kids until they are in their thirties. I guess the thought of starting a family doesn't occur to us until we feel that we've done and seen enough, and are ready to settle down.

I think the high birth rate in the U.S. is because of the "me me me" culture where people think it's fine to have as many kids as they personally want rather than considering the toll all the kids will take on the global environment. People in many other places have a different perspective.

I would gladly pay more in taxes if it meant accessible day care and health care for my children. Instead, I pay $400 a month to a health insurance company that will only pay once we've met a $10,000 deductible. God bless America.