Most people (55%) in the US earn more than similarly situated people in Sweden [1]. (If you focus only on Swedish Americans, 55% goes up to 85%.) If you want to take paternity leave in the US, you can lower your spending/consumption to that of a comparable Swede and put the money you save in the bank. You can then withdraw it during your paternity leave.
The fact that most Americans choose not to do this suggests that paternity leave is not as blissful as the author suggests. The fact that the Swedish govt had to offer an "equality bonus" and use it or lose it incentives to get men to use more than 6% of the per-couple leave suggests that Swedes don't find it as blissful as the alternatives either.
[edit: replaced the word "standard of living" with "consumption". "Standard of living" is a poorly defined concept and arguing over definitions is pointless.]
I think you're confusing income and standard of living.
The Swedish have a very high standard of living, from everything I've seen when I've visited it's comparable to the USA.
It's described by that famous pro-Swedish anti-American body the CIA as "enviable" in their world factbook and the UN Standard of living survey places them around 5th (the USA is around 10th - both vary year by year but not the order they come in).
Even were your suggestion true, it's as much about the legal protection you have in Sweden to go back to your job. Try 18 months out of work in the USA and I'm guessing that you might find getting back into the work place (particularly in IT where your skills are now rusty and dated) harder than you might think.
It's true, when I said "standard of living", I simply meant "consumption". "Standard of living" is a fairly nebulous and poorly defined concept. I should have been more specific about what I meant. Thanks for pointing that out. I've edited my post to reflect this.
All I'm saying is that the original post which talks about standard of living and then backs it up with income figures is incorrect but I don't mention spending at all (though the original poster does seem to imply their interchangeable I don't comment on that).
As it goes I'd entirely agree with you that many people could lower their income and / or expenditure without impacting their standard of living and / or happiness.
As someone who has a lot of Swedish friends and has spent a lot of time there, I can't imagine that this could possibly be true.
First of all, every Swedish person I know seems to already have a higher standard of living than the American with an equivalent job in almost all aspects. Add to this the fact that the entirety of Sweden itself is maintained to a higher standard; consistently pure/clean water, well-maintained roads, clean parks, well-maintained public services, etc. I wonder how well the textbook definition of "standard of living" corresponds with real life. I think that einarvollset's point about actually having to spend time in Sweden to understand the quality of life is valid here.
Also, you're missing much of the point of the reasons that Swedish men choose not to initially take the leave. Your claim assumes that it's all economic, whereas the article cites that it is more likely a cultural aspect related to traditional thoughts about masculinity that discouraged them to take the leave. It's yet to be seen, but I'm pretty confident that if you gradually take away the bonus after 25 years, the numbers are likely to remain the same.
No, all my claim really assumes is that people have a better idea about what is good for them than I (or some enlightened bureaucrat) do.
Suppose men do prefer working because they enjoy feeling masculine, or that women prefer maternity leave because they enjoy feeling feminine. I generally accept people's desires as they are, rather than treating them as defective when they prefer things different from me and penalizing them if they don't make choices that conform to my desires.
So does Sweden; they are drawing the line at a slightly different point than yourself. I'm assuming that you believe that society's needs trump the rights of individuals at some point, otherwise you wouldn't believe in society at all. Personally, I don't see a problem with encouraging fathers to spend more time with their children; it's likely those children will grow to be better adjusted as a result, and the overall impact on society (including economic factors such as productivity) will be worth it in the long run. To give a similar example: I think that it has been detrimental to the US that parents aren't required to immunize their children; it's obvious that if it continues it will be an overall detriment to the health of American children despite the parents' "desires."
I think that framing the issue as "enlightened bureaucrats considering others defective" is sensationalist and incorrect; The bureaucracy reflects the society, and Sweden is known for their investment and research on gender issues with the aim of resolving societal problems; this policy wasn't some random bureaucratic afterthought.
Apparently not. Before the bureaucracy engaged in coercion, women took 15x more parental leave than men (according to the article).
I'm also curious why you feel that being cared for by the father rather than the mother will cause the children to be better adjusted. Are women so much worse as parents than men?
Your example of immunization is a separate issue - not being immunized creates a harmful externality. Having an unequal distribution of parental leave does not.
Apparently not. Before the bureaucracy engaged in coercion
The democratically elected bureaucracy did what they were elected to do. It's not coercion. It reflects the society because society felt that something needed to be changed, and did the research to come to a conclusion on what to do.
Are women so much worse as parents than men?
The policy encourages fathers to share their leave with the mothers. I believe that a children being cared for by both parents will be better adjusted.
not being immunized creates a harmful externality
Again, we're drawing the line in a slightly different place. The lack of a benefit to society - especially those we once had and have since taken for granted - can also be viewed as a "harmful externality."
The policy encourages fathers to share their leave...
The way the policy was originally structured, every couple was forced to pay for a pool of 180 days of leave, to be split between both parents as they saw fit. Every day the father spent with the child is a day the mother didn't. Under this policy, women spent 15x more days with the child than the father did.
When people made choices the bureaucrats didn't like, they changed the policy - now the father is forced to pay for 60 days of leave which the mother is not allowed to use. Further, if the days are split unequally between parents, the couple is financially penalized relative to couples who split their days equally. Even with all these restrictions and penalties, less than 25% of parental leave is paternity leave.
But I'm sure Swedes are mostly bad parents and make poor decisions for their children. Luckily they make better decisions in the voting booth than they do at home.
> The fact that most Americans choose not to do this suggests that paternity leave is not as blissful as the author suggests
There are a whole slew of reasons why people might choose not to do it. Same thing with vacations, which is a simpler subject: Americans, who earn more, could, in theory, give away some of those earnings to have longer vacations. In practice, very, very few do. Quite possibly due to some herd effects. No one wants to be the only one gone for that long, just like no one wants to always be the first one out the door.
In any case: "it's complicated", and my bet is that we'll see the same old rehashed discussions here.
There's actually one major additional factor here: health insurance. I actually had a lot of money saved up with I had my first kid, enough liquid to pay the rent for four years.
I could probably have gotten private health insurance. However, it's very expensive once you no longer get it through a large institution with bargaining power, and I know many people who were denied due to existing health problems.
Plus, if your baby has health problems, you're in a very risky situation if you're an individual buyer.
Your original point still stands - it's essentially the same equation, but I think that health insurance changes the values of some of the variables. The pediatrician, rather than the rent/mortgage, was what kept me pinned to a job I actually kind of hated.
I could probably have gotten private health insurance. However, it's very expensive once you no longer get it through a large institution with bargaining power,...
It's only 2% more expensive for you than for your former employer (for 18 months).
not bad... though that's the total cost, not the amount you pay, right? It's a big bill, almost the equivalent of rent. But if this is the case, then yeah, it's just money, so the equation doesn't change, just the parameters.
I have a buddy who was denied health insurance repeatedly until he got hired, so there's definitely a subgroup that has no choice but to keep the corporate job. I suppose you could also just buy insurance for the baby rather than get a family plan if you're denied but the child is healthy, though I've never heard of this.
It's not quite as simple as glibly saying that Americans can just lower their standards of living and walk away from stable employment to take paternity leave.
Also, people don't just make choices out of the ether - people's range of choices are influenced by the policy environment. It holds in Sweden too - Swedes didn't make the choice to stay at home until they were given the choice, at which point they did.
At any rate, even if Americans are violently opposed to taking parental leave, surely a non-zero number of men would take it - what's the harm in guaranteeing that men have more chance to bond with their children?
Swedish policy reduces the marginal cost of parental leave to the consumer - they are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not, so the marginal cost of leave is $0.0. This implies Swedes find paternity leave to be worth at least $0.01, and so paternity leave has a positive marginal cost/benefit ratio. That does not mean it has a positive cost/benefit ratio.
I'm sure Americans also value paternity leave at something higher than $0.01. However, most Americans seem to feel that 18 months of paternity leave is not worth 18 months of salary.
The harm in forcing Americans to pay for it (regardless of whether they want it) is that they find the money more valuable. Forcing people to trade something of higher value for something of lesser value is harmful. I'd similarly be harmed if you forced me to trade my Thinkpad for a netbook or my Nexus 1 for an iPhone.
I mean, fine, but this is the case with just about any form of social program. I'm not in danger of needing food stamps, so logic dictates I'd rather have the $20 a year or so I contribute to that program. I don't like bombs, but about 5-10% of my income goes to pay for them.
You're forced to pay for all kinds of stuff. Might as well get some social value out of it (like more cohesive families)
In basically all cases I can think of, forcing people to buy private goods (rivalrous and excludible) is harmful to the people who would not otherwise choose to purchase those goods.
Your example of bombs/military spending doesn't fall into that category, since defense is neither rivalrous nor excludible. My enjoyment of Iraqi deaths does not hinder your enjoyment of same, and the military has no way of preventing me from enjoying Iraqi deaths if I don't pay my military bill. Thus everyone has an incentive to freeload and a free market will not allocate enough resources to killing Iraqis.
Thanks to my American salary and Swedish consumption level, my basic needs can be met for many months even if my salary drops to $0. (Not that I actually want paternity leave - it sounds boring.)
So, I'll assume you're above the crossover point. In Sweden, we tend to think that everybody should be able to be home with their kids, not just the ones with enough income to save up..
The people at the very bottom actually have more time to spend with their kids. 80% of our poor (roughly our bottom 15%) are not in the labor force, for example.
Your first sentence requires an 'if you happen to be at least middle class' at the end.
Your linked blog assumes that money spent on healthcare in Sweden and the US offer the same outcomes. This is plainly not the case - the swedish government spends dramatically less than individuals/companies do in the US to provide the same level of care. If, for example, the author subtracted healthcare benefits from US workers, and subtracted them from swedish workers as well, sweden would compare substantially better. One might find similar issues with respect to university spending.
Do you have evidence that Sweden provides the same level of care?
Note that comparing health outcomes is nowhere near convincing. Lots of factors (ethnicity, lifestyle, genetics) affect health outcomes far more than health care quality. The health care gap between Asian and African Americans is 13 years, for instance.
I will certainly admit to having no stats - although your blog post, a more informed source than myself, states that poor americans will experience significantly worse care than in sweden. My other experience is anecdotal - I've known a fair number of swedes, and they've all been satisfied with their healthcare, while people in the US have serious issues with being underinsured and having legitimate claims denied on technicalities.
Finally, there's the simple fact that the system in the US obviously encourages high prices. In the insurance-based model, there's little disincentive to performing as much work, necessary or not, as possible.
You've only compensated for the loss of income for a total of 480 days, though. That'll let one parent work 75% for about five years, while earning about 95% of their full time salary.
First of all only you're only fully compensated 360 of those 480 days, for the other 120 days you only get the minimum level of compensation. Secondly it depends on what their full time salary is. There is a hard upper limit on how much you can get compensated, and most people with good jobs are quite a bit over that limit. So someone with a higher paying job might only get 40-50% of his salary.
They basically don't. But if they do discover that you weren't actively looking after your child, then you will be made to pay back the money and possibly face fraud charges.
Sure; US effective tax levels brings relative tax rates up much higher than you would expect. That coupled with things like free university education, cheap childcare, state pensions, etc means that I'm highly dubious that all the avg American would have to do is to not get paid for 18 months and they'd be in the same boat. Face it; 18 months leave is a huge perk (snarky comments about going crazy not withstanding).
Furthermore, why the he'll should only the rich get to spend time with their kids?
The costs of the assorted govt benefits is included in the figures I cited. The figures take Swedish income proportions, but scales them upward proportionally to GDP.
I thinks he refers to the fact that the above post by yummyfajitas says that Americans have a higher standard of living than Swedes.
While they may earn more, they also benefit from much much higher social security (for instance family allowances). Also I don't think the gap between Americans and Swedes is such that just by saving a couple of years you can match the paid leave. You must also consider various expanses that Americans have but not Swedes : a personal pension plan (or at least, a more consequent one), tuition fees for the older child, or saving for that of the child just born.
Finally the claim that people don't stop working to take care of their children is a proof it isn't enjoyable is laudable because it doesn't factor in psychological and sociological parameters.
tl;dr Swedes don't have a lower standard of living than Americans. Maybe the reverse is even true.
My friend just had a kid. He works in a grocery store, and doesn't make much. They gave him 1 week of paternity leave, and he had 2 weeks of vacation saved up.
I'm doing as much as I can to help, but it's a shitty situation.
EDIT: His wife quit her job so she can be with the baby. Technically my friend's salary should cover everything they need, but if there are any complications, well, they'll be bankrupt in an instant. Thankfully they've got a good safety net (lots of good friends).
Assuming you are talking about a place in the USA, are you sure that there is not a state "CHIP" program that he can enroll in at little to no charge? http://www.cms.gov/home/chip.asp
Or did you mean complications other than health issues?
Why? Every single one of those coworkers was born at some point. So they benefited from their parents coworkers getting some time off. And almost all of them will themselves eventually benefit when they decide to have a kid....
It's irrelevant that there are benefits from paid time off.
What is relevant is whether the benefits exceed the costs. Most people with the freedom to choose believe the benefits of time off do not exceed the costs.
Your last statement is most likely not true for Europe.
So in the end it comes down to cultural preference. If the majority prefers a certain way of doing things, it makes sense to back it up with legislation to harmonize it and make it safe for the individual (in this case, for instance, guaranteeing you to get your old job back after maternity leave).
I mostly agree with your points in this thread, but this statement might be incorrect. Earlier, Swedes with X income did not choose paternity leave. Now Swedes are given X+leave benefits and therefore do choose paternity leave. Although they were always free to choose, it might be the extra bonus that nudged them into taking the leave.
Also, people are not economically rational. They will blow all their money and then, when they have a kid, not have enough to support themselves for an extended leave. Few people have the self-discipline to save for anything in the distant future, including retirement.
You are free not to receive the benefits. You are not free to avoid most of the costs. For anyone who values the benefits at less than the full costs, this policy is harmful.
The reason debates like these are tiresome is that we all have different opinions on what "society" should pay for, and what the individual should pay for. There are very legitimate reasons to have differing points of view, so it's not like there is An Answer out there. So things go around and around and around.
Even in the US, the coworkers will have to pay for things like public schools and things of that ilk. Less direct, perhaps, but still part of their taxes.
Agreed. But I have some sympathy for the Republican complaint that the poor can tax the rich to pay for "social goods" that mostly go to the poor. If it were a truly equitable tax on everyone for social goods then it would easier to swallow.
Depends on your attitude to individualism I guess. A society where you trample all over each other for monetary gain at the expense of everything else is not one that personally appeals to me.
Assuming you live in a country that has such things, please explain to me how, with easy access to birth control, morning after pills, abortion, and adoption options, is having a kid ever "an accident"? They may not have decided to get pregnant but it was no accident that they decided to keep the child.
Birth control is not 100% effective, and it often used incorrectly (though not on purpose). Once a woman is pregnant, she may not know for more than a month, at which point an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision.
I did not say it was 100% effective (which is exactly what I meant when I said they may not have decided to become pregnant), but it is usually the first line of protection against an unwanted pregnancy.
"an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision."
The decision, however difficult, is still a decision which is precisely my point.
Encouraging procreation isn't a sustainable solution. The planet is over populated and building economic models which depend on an ever growing population (or even one sustained at it's current level) is asking for trouble.
It's true that building an economic model that builds on a growing population is a bad idea. And it it's arguable that building one based on a population that stays the same size is bad, too.
That doesn't change the fact that Sweden has many such programs, and it's the fifth most rapidly shrinking nation. A shrinking population makes any social program where a bulk of the money is spent on the elderly i.e. health insurance or social security is going to take a severe economic hit. The Swedes think that by offering incentives like this one, they can help preserve some of their other programs.
In Germany the regulation to get money for maternity/paternity leave is such that the state pays 2/3 of the regular income for 12 months.
(12 months if only father or mother take the offer, or 14 months if both parents choose to, so e.g. the mother gets 2/3 of her pay for 10 months, father gets his 2/3 for 4 months. You also can double the time for half the money.)
Your employer, on the other hand, has to let you take unpaid leave for up to 3 years (I think, not precisely sure on that one) with a guarantee to continue your employment afterwards.
> Can you imagine what it would mean to a small business with 3 employees if one of those employees goes on a 18-month paid break?
You do realize that the paid leave is 1. not 100% of salary and 2. not fully paid by the employer, but funded in no small part by taxes on the general population?
Furthermore, if it's a "small business with 3 employees" (or 6, or even a dozen) chances are those people are at least somewhat close and talk to one another. And they know that it's not in their interest to bankrupt the business. There are generally ways to reach an arrangement: try to push the paternity itself further, correctly plan the pat' leave, use part-time instead, etc...
I'd be interested in seeing if there's been any effect on Swedish entrepreneurship resulting from generous family leave.
Obviously I'm not talking about high-powered startups here, but lifestyle businesses, freelancers, that sort of thing. Probably hard to draw out causation, but worth thinking about too.
From what I have seen: the risk of starting a company is very low. No matter what happens, you're not going to starve or be homeless or be ill with no health cover.
But on the other hand: it's difficult to start a company (in the sense that there is a lot of bureacracy to negotiate) and the incentive to succeed is also lower (partly because the risk is lower, and partly because the tax system is punitive of anyone who breaks from the herd).
When my daughter was born, I took a six months paternity leave. It was great fun and it allowed me to get a lot of things off the ground for the web app I am now selling.
Your tone is negative. You seem to believe that making parental leave a positive economic choice is a bad thing for those with no children.
Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? Do they benefit from those children having the parents at home a lot when they are very young - does it lead to better-adjusted adults in the long run? What are the alternatives - subsidised child care so that the parents can work? No subsidised child care so that parents are exhausted and do a bad job when they are at work? Does it pay off in ancillary benefits even for those who choose to have no children?
If everyone benefits, then why is it a bad thing? In order to persuade people that subsidising parental care is a bad thing, it's probably better to show your working. It's not clear to many people that it is a bad thing, even people like me who are single males who end up paying for it.
Every country has some ideal population level. Below that level, workers are treated very well but resources go unexploited. Above that level, resources are merely spread thinner per capita, and desperate workers are abused. My country (the US) is leaning alarmingly toward "life is cheap" territory, so I would prefer to dissuade some would-be parents--but that's nearly impossible without screwing up the kids we will be burdened with.
> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)?
I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count.
Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than 18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.
You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've ignored the other benefits too.
You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people.
You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.
> You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children?
Probably.
> would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so
You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence?
> Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people?
I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit.
As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.
> You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis
Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".
It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence.
> You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence?
I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce?
>Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily.
> As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.
Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice.
> Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".
You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence?
Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.
However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....
> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.
> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable?
My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count on as much as folks who don't.
Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who was on leave then.
> Again, a distinct lack of details
Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who makes less money without being given "details".
> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article
Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going with "any criticism implies ...."?
> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.
As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other people.
For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit and less with cost. With (4) ....
Ah, the good old American spirit! It’s certainly a valid criticism of paternal leave in particular and welfare in general. It’s just that many Europeans simply don’t think that way. Many are ok with subsidizing other people.
Those who want can always do so. The thing that's often missed is that there is no choice not to participate. If they don't mind then why are the laws needed?
Ah, right, I should have been clearer in my comment. My assertion would be that many are ok with forcing everyone to subsidize other people. Many Americans seem to perceive taxation as inherently immoral (I blame Ayn Rand), that’s not a view you will often hear expressed in Europe.
Sort of like the government helping people who live in disaster-prone regions of the country. Why should they get special help when they already proven they didn't take proper precautions?
Rich people along the southeastern coast get their beach houses rebuilt every few years courtesy of hurricanes and Federally subsidized flood insurance.
I would also say that the grandparent does little to convince anyone that this policy causes the high taxation in Sweden. It might be, but a snarky comment is not a good argument.
> I guess you get what you pay for - higher taxes, great welfare state. Seems a fair trade to me.
Actually, the taxes paid per person isn't significantly higher in sweden than the US. The US just delivers fewer services, and no, the military isn't the reason. At the same time, US income is higher.
Sweden can do certain things because it's dominated by Swedes. It does about as well as US states with comparable demographics. Other US states aren't as lucky.
I've never heard any of my colleagues in Sweden complain about their tax levels. I've been to Sweden a number of times and it seems like a rather civilized place to me.
I'd be very surprised if nobody in Sweden complained about their tax levels - I was just commenting that in the cases where I have been in Sweden (talking to senior well educated people in good jobs) they emphasize the good things, like paternity leave, rather than complaining about tax levels.
I complain about it all the time, but then again I'm not a employee and I see what I pay in taxes. Which is roughly double what employees "think" they pay in taxes. To use a swedish phrase, it's so "fiffigt ordnat" that half the taxes you pay doesn't show up on the income declaration.
Mainly because of our excessive military spending, and our health care system that brilliantly combines the drawbacks of capitalism and socialism while avoiding nearly all of the benefits of either.
Most people (55%) in the US earn more than similarly situated people in Sweden [1]. (If you focus only on Swedish Americans, 55% goes up to 85%.) If you want to take paternity leave in the US, you can lower your spending/consumption to that of a comparable Swede and put the money you save in the bank. You can then withdraw it during your paternity leave.
The fact that most Americans choose not to do this suggests that paternity leave is not as blissful as the author suggests. The fact that the Swedish govt had to offer an "equality bonus" and use it or lose it incentives to get men to use more than 6% of the per-couple leave suggests that Swedes don't find it as blissful as the alternatives either.
[1] Income distributions overall: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distributio...
Swedes vs Swedish Americans: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-economy-in-o...
[edit: replaced the word "standard of living" with "consumption". "Standard of living" is a poorly defined concept and arguing over definitions is pointless.]