I think this is great. It gives the elderly a chance to earn, it provides more access to childcare, and it creates an opportunity to spend more time with family. I'll bet there are grandparents...
I think this is great. It gives the elderly a chance to earn, it provides more access to childcare, and it creates an opportunity to spend more time with family. I'll bet there are grandparents out there who wouldn't mind babysitting but can't necessarily afford to do so.
It should also help those without grandparents, because it should, in theory, open up new spots at daycare centers.
It should also help combat the loneliness and feelings of uselessness that many older people feel. Might even reduce rates of dementia and Alzheimer's among the elderly in these countries.
I wish we had that here in the US...but then again I don't trust mine or my wife's parents with our kid. Hers are old and mine are mentally ill.
From the opinion piece: ... ... ... Also, perhaps it's a cheaper form of daycare, from the government's point of view? I'd be interested in hearing what Swedes think of it, and not just from an...
From the opinion piece:
[E]ven in the Swedish context, the program seems excessive. The country has long had first-rate and well-subsidized child-care facilities, which is another reason not to pay grandparents anything, and Sweden already has high levels of government spending and taxation. Is this additional benefit — and expenditure — really what it needs?
But sometimes even apparently foolish ideas have compelling rationales — so compelling, in fact, that you begin to rethink whether they’re foolish at all. These are often the cases that require the hardest thinking.
...
Start with the fact that Swedish parents currently receive extensive paid leave upon the birth of a child, and so it can be said they are already paid to look after their children. Whether or not you agree with that policy, it is longstanding and well-established. [...]
...
If the grandparents can be paid to take care of your child, all of a sudden the extended family as a whole doesn’t lose the money by having the parent go back to work. Instead, that money is transferred to the grandparents, so the work disincentive is diminished.
...
One side effect is that, to the extent the parent who returns to work is a high earner, government tax revenue will increase. That will help pay for the policy, partially if not entirely.
Also, perhaps it's a cheaper form of daycare, from the government's point of view?
I'd be interested in hearing what Swedes think of it, and not just from an American economist.
Can't read the article on Bloomberg as I'm not registered, and only have a few minutes right now so can't do an extensive comment. It's important to note that this is not a question of adding...
Can't read the article on Bloomberg as I'm not registered, and only have a few minutes right now so can't do an extensive comment.
It's important to note that this is not a question of adding additional expenses for paying grandparents to take care of children, it's instead allowing parents to transfer a limited amount of their parental leave to the grandparents.
My gut reaction is that I'm generally positive to it. It gives flexibility to parents to handle child care. It could help building a wider family unit beyond the child and parent generations. It might help single parents significantly.
I would be cautious about allowing transfer of all or even a majority of the parental leave, as it isn't only to ensure that the children can be cared for but that they can be cared for by their immediate family and bond with them. The amount proposed here is a maximum of 90 out of 480 days, which I do not think is enough to be an issue with respect to that.
Alright, I started typing out a more extensive reply, but it's very hard for me to judge where to draw the line in what to explain about how parental leave works in Sweden and what these changes...
Exemplary
Alright, I started typing out a more extensive reply, but it's very hard for me to judge where to draw the line in what to explain about how parental leave works in Sweden and what these changes affect. So, I'll give a somewhat brief overviews here to start with, and I'll try to answer questions if people have them (although I might not answer quickly).
The sources are unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, in Swedish.
For context: I have lived in Sweden my entire life; I do not have kids; I have tried reading and parsing Swedish law before, but I am not a lawyer and have no formal education in it.
The parental leave we probably most often discuss (but which isn't the only type of parental leave we have; it gets complicated) is the right to full leave and maximal compensation given to parents for a total of 480 days (not per parent).
Parents are free to take these out in full or in part, meaning for instance that they could work 4-hour days (50%) and each day would count as half a day of their 480 days of full leave.
The change in the law which makes it so that grandparents can use some of this parental leave basically has added that there's a right to transfer some parental leave days, up to a maximum of 90 per child and at most 45 days allocated from each parent's pool in case of shared custody. It's also not limited to grandparents, but in fact to most adults.
Quotes from the laws with my translations for more details
Additions in bold and my translation in English:
6 § Under den tid då en förälder får tre fjärdedels, halv, en fjärdedels eller en åttondels föräldrapenning enligt 12 kap. socialförsäkringsbalken har föräldern rätt till förkortning av normal arbetstid med tre fjärdedelar, hälften, en fjärdedel respektive en åttondel. Samma rätt har en arbetstagare som utan att vara förälder får tre fjärdedels, halv, en fjärdedels eller en åttondels föräldrapenning efter en överlåtelse enligt 12 kap. 17 a § socialförsäkringsbalken.
6 § During the time which a parent gets three quarters, half, one quarter, or one eighth parental money benefits according to chapter 12 of the social insurance law, the parent has the right to a reduction of normal working hours by three quarters, half, a quarter, and one eighth respectively. The same right belongs to workers who are not parents receive three quarters, half, one quarter, or one eighth parental money benefits after a transfer according to chapter 12 paragraph 17 a of the social insurance law.*
This refers to a new section of the social insurance law, where the most pertinent part is the following:
17 a § En förälder kan genom skriftlig anmälan till Försäkringskassan överlåta rätten till föräldrapenning till någon annan som är försäkrad för sådan förmån. Detta gäller dock inte föräldrapenning för sådan tid som avses i 17 § andra stycket.
[...]
17 b § Högst 90 dagar för varje barn får överlåtas. Om föräldrarna har gemensam vårdnad om ett barn, har vardera föräldern rätt att överlåta högst 45 dagar.
17 a § A parent can by written notice to the social insurance agency transfer the right to parental money benefits to someone else who is insured for such benefits.
[...]
17 b § At most 90 days may be transferred this way for each child. If the parents have shared custody of a child, each parent has the right to transfer 45 days.
Generally speaking, by living and working in Sweden you'll be insured for parental money benefits and are thus applicable for these laws, but I have not read up on the specifics of this yet.
Honestly, to me, this seems like it could be a significant improvement in flexibility! Parents now have the legal right to let people they know get compensated if they are able to assist in taking care of the child in a limited amount. In general, it brings us closer to living up to the proverb "it takes a village to raise a child". In particular, I hope this will be of significant help to single parents, making it easier for them to find some time to care for themselves, and to make it less of a financial burden for those who are willing to assist.
If I am to highlight some possible negative effects, it may make it so that the distribution of parental leave is less evenly distributed between parents in general based on gender (men currently take out about only half as much parental leave as women do). It also does not in any way regulate it as a commercial activity, which may or may not be good and I don't feel qualified to assess that right now, but my gut feeling is I would prefer it not being allowed to be part of commercial activity.
It is crazy how outsiders can see a foreign ( to me ) country makes no sense. About two years ago the government of Sweden wanted life/the economy to continue as normal despite potentially killing...
It is crazy how outsiders can see a foreign ( to me ) country makes no sense.
About two years ago the government of Sweden wanted life/the economy to continue as normal despite potentially killing off many senior people early.
Now they want to give money to those seniors to babysit their own grandchildren.
Are you referring to their handling of covid? Wasn't the point that those who aren't in risk groups to be able to gather and get herd immunity without risking the more vulnerable? It failed but...
Are you referring to their handling of covid? Wasn't the point that those who aren't in risk groups to be able to gather and get herd immunity without risking the more vulnerable?
It failed but afaik it wasn't about throwing elderly under a train.
There is a line beyond which if you ignore competent people in relevant fields telling you "this is a bad idea because you will be killing off old people", it should be said that you threw the...
It failed but afaik it wasn't about throwing elderly under a train.
There is a line beyond which if you ignore competent people in relevant fields telling you "this is a bad idea because you will be killing off old people", it should be said that you threw the elderly under a train as a part of the responsibility you have when setting up public policy. As I remember it there were enough warnings that this was going to be the result and that the healthcare system won't be able to help.
To be clear I don't think that's this is in opposition with this new law in any way, it's not like they're both part of a systematic long term plan.
Not the way I remember the story. It looked an awful lot like the Swedish government wanted to preserve their economy at the expense of their elderly and the government used building herd immunity...
Not the way I remember the story. It looked an awful lot like the Swedish government wanted to preserve their economy at the expense of their elderly and the government used building herd immunity as the excuse. No disrespect meant.
Fair take, considering the outcome. Though I must say I didn't really hear about the problem first hand from friends living in Sweden, might've been just a sore subject though. But yeah I...
Fair take, considering the outcome. Though I must say I didn't really hear about the problem first hand from friends living in Sweden, might've been just a sore subject though.
But yeah I swallowed the official narrative and didn't really follow it too closely after the fact.
Source: The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden was among the few countries that did not enforce strict lockdown measures but instead relied more on voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations. While supported by the majority of Swedes, this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism. Unfortunately, the respectful debate centered around scientific evidence often gave way to mudslinging. However, the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks.
Worth noting that this paper does not compare deaths among the elderly specifically. It looks at excess mortality in general, which does not tell the whole picture. Lowered excess mortality was...
Worth noting that this paper does not compare deaths among the elderly specifically. It looks at excess mortality in general, which does not tell the whole picture. Lowered excess mortality was not entirely uncommon for example in zero covid countries at that time - it definitely indicates some success though.
That's just a bad take. Disregarding whether it's true or not, we're not even talking about the same demographic. The at risk elderly during Covid were the 70+. The babysitting grandparents are...
That's just a bad take. Disregarding whether it's true or not, we're not even talking about the same demographic.
The at risk elderly during Covid were the 70+. The babysitting grandparents are likely between 50-70.
The story was in the mainstream news, several times. You can search news articles of the past at news.google.com. So let people over 70 die, but 50-70 will still be around to pay for babysitting.
Disregarding whether it's true or not
The story was in the mainstream news, several times. You can search news articles of the past at news.google.com.
The at risk elderly during Covid were the 70+. The babysitting grandparents are likely between 50-70.
So let people over 70 die, but 50-70 will still be around to pay for babysitting.
I meant it as a way not to get into that argument. I trust you aren't just posting nonsense, I'm disregarding it because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The demographic doesn't line up so...
I meant it as a way not to get into that argument. I trust you aren't just posting nonsense, I'm disregarding it because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The demographic doesn't line up so the covid connection doesn't make sense.
If you want to have a conversation about the treatment of the elderly in Sweden during the pandemic by all means, but it's perhaps best served elsewhere. Because ultimately, yes, that's exactly what's happening: The grandparents between the 50-70 range are now getting paid to babysit regardless of the treatment of the 70+ demo during covid.
Something about it seems a bit odd to me. Probably because Im older and of the generation that sacrificed a lot when we had kids. There was a little parental leave but we certainly didnt expect...
Something about it seems a bit odd to me. Probably because Im older and of the generation that sacrificed a lot when we had kids. There was a little parental leave but we certainly didnt expect the gov to make up for a loss of income. Then again, when my wife had our three she was a stay at home mom so there was no income to replace. Being a stay at home mom was still fairly common for all of our friends at that time (mid 80's). Not anymore.
But it feels strange to me to say that grandparents would be paid to take care of their own kin. To me thats just what you do because they are family, not because you are being compensated by other taxpayers to do what you should do for family.
On the other hand, if it means that more grandparents are involved in their grandchildren's lives rather than sending them to a daycare, that seems very much like a net positive.
I guess I just have a problem with the taxpayer picking up the tab for something that should be a family responsibility in the first place. He's your kid, your responsibility, not your fellow taxpayer's. You decided to have the child, you either take care of him yourself or pay someone else to do it but don't look at me to do it. I already pay for his K-12 education and his health care (Canada).
There’s no extra money coming from the Swedish taxpayers, the article mentions that Sweden already has a generous parental system that this would simply redirect if they parent wants to work...
There’s no extra money coming from the Swedish taxpayers, the article mentions that Sweden already has a generous parental system that this would simply redirect if they parent wants to work instead.
Seems like a good idea to me: kid still gets raised by an close family member, the same leave gets paid by the state so no additional tax burden, grandparents get an encouraged way to interact with their grandkids and can get some income, and productive young parents can get back to work sooner.
Children are a necessity for society to survive. I know I was fortunate that my parents could have time off from work to raise me and not be unduly burdened financially by it. I wish others get...
Children are a necessity for society to survive. I know I was fortunate that my parents could have time off from work to raise me and not be unduly burdened financially by it. I wish others get the same opportunity regardless of social strata, and I think parental leave overall leads to a better community to live in. It is exactly the type of collective good I love to see the government spend money on. It's social infrastructure.
For this specific extension of it there may be implementation details I could squabble about, but the general idea of extending who can receive the parental payment benefits beyond just the parents seems worthwhile to me.
I think this is great. It gives the elderly a chance to earn, it provides more access to childcare, and it creates an opportunity to spend more time with family. I'll bet there are grandparents out there who wouldn't mind babysitting but can't necessarily afford to do so.
It should also help those without grandparents, because it should, in theory, open up new spots at daycare centers.
It should also help combat the loneliness and feelings of uselessness that many older people feel. Might even reduce rates of dementia and Alzheimer's among the elderly in these countries.
I wish we had that here in the US...but then again I don't trust mine or my wife's parents with our kid. Hers are old and mine are mentally ill.
From the opinion piece:
...
...
...
Also, perhaps it's a cheaper form of daycare, from the government's point of view?
I'd be interested in hearing what Swedes think of it, and not just from an American economist.
Can't read the article on Bloomberg as I'm not registered, and only have a few minutes right now so can't do an extensive comment.
It's important to note that this is not a question of adding additional expenses for paying grandparents to take care of children, it's instead allowing parents to transfer a limited amount of their parental leave to the grandparents.
My gut reaction is that I'm generally positive to it. It gives flexibility to parents to handle child care. It could help building a wider family unit beyond the child and parent generations. It might help single parents significantly.
I would be cautious about allowing transfer of all or even a majority of the parental leave, as it isn't only to ensure that the children can be cared for but that they can be cared for by their immediate family and bond with them. The amount proposed here is a maximum of 90 out of 480 days, which I do not think is enough to be an issue with respect to that.
Alright, I started typing out a more extensive reply, but it's very hard for me to judge where to draw the line in what to explain about how parental leave works in Sweden and what these changes affect. So, I'll give a somewhat brief overviews here to start with, and I'll try to answer questions if people have them (although I might not answer quickly).
For primary sourcing you can look at:
The sources are unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, in Swedish.
For context: I have lived in Sweden my entire life; I do not have kids; I have tried reading and parsing Swedish law before, but I am not a lawyer and have no formal education in it.
The parental leave we probably most often discuss (but which isn't the only type of parental leave we have; it gets complicated) is the right to full leave and maximal compensation given to parents for a total of 480 days (not per parent).
Parents are free to take these out in full or in part, meaning for instance that they could work 4-hour days (50%) and each day would count as half a day of their 480 days of full leave.
The change in the law which makes it so that grandparents can use some of this parental leave basically has added that there's a right to transfer some parental leave days, up to a maximum of 90 per child and at most 45 days allocated from each parent's pool in case of shared custody. It's also not limited to grandparents, but in fact to most adults.
Quotes from the laws with my translations for more details
Additions in bold and my translation in English:
This refers to a new section of the social insurance law, where the most pertinent part is the following:
Generally speaking, by living and working in Sweden you'll be insured for parental money benefits and are thus applicable for these laws, but I have not read up on the specifics of this yet.
Honestly, to me, this seems like it could be a significant improvement in flexibility! Parents now have the legal right to let people they know get compensated if they are able to assist in taking care of the child in a limited amount. In general, it brings us closer to living up to the proverb "it takes a village to raise a child". In particular, I hope this will be of significant help to single parents, making it easier for them to find some time to care for themselves, and to make it less of a financial burden for those who are willing to assist.
If I am to highlight some possible negative effects, it may make it so that the distribution of parental leave is less evenly distributed between parents in general based on gender (men currently take out about only half as much parental leave as women do). It also does not in any way regulate it as a commercial activity, which may or may not be good and I don't feel qualified to assess that right now, but my gut feeling is I would prefer it not being allowed to be part of commercial activity.
Mirror: https://archive.is/TkNPu
It is crazy how outsiders can see a foreign ( to me ) country makes no sense.
About two years ago the government of Sweden wanted life/the economy to continue as normal despite potentially killing off many senior people early.
Now they want to give money to those seniors to babysit their own grandchildren.
Are you referring to their handling of covid? Wasn't the point that those who aren't in risk groups to be able to gather and get herd immunity without risking the more vulnerable?
It failed but afaik it wasn't about throwing elderly under a train.
There is a line beyond which if you ignore competent people in relevant fields telling you "this is a bad idea because you will be killing off old people", it should be said that you threw the elderly under a train as a part of the responsibility you have when setting up public policy. As I remember it there were enough warnings that this was going to be the result and that the healthcare system won't be able to help.
To be clear I don't think that's this is in opposition with this new law in any way, it's not like they're both part of a systematic long term plan.
Not the way I remember the story. It looked an awful lot like the Swedish government wanted to preserve their economy at the expense of their elderly and the government used building herd immunity as the excuse. No disrespect meant.
Fair take, considering the outcome. Though I must say I didn't really hear about the problem first hand from friends living in Sweden, might've been just a sore subject though.
But yeah I swallowed the official narrative and didn't really follow it too closely after the fact.
Source: The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies
Worth noting that this paper does not compare deaths among the elderly specifically. It looks at excess mortality in general, which does not tell the whole picture. Lowered excess mortality was not entirely uncommon for example in zero covid countries at that time - it definitely indicates some success though.
Thanks for the correction.
That's just a bad take. Disregarding whether it's true or not, we're not even talking about the same demographic.
The at risk elderly during Covid were the 70+. The babysitting grandparents are likely between 50-70.
The story was in the mainstream news, several times. You can search news articles of the past at news.google.com.
So let people over 70 die, but 50-70 will still be around to pay for babysitting.
I meant it as a way not to get into that argument. I trust you aren't just posting nonsense, I'm disregarding it because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The demographic doesn't line up so the covid connection doesn't make sense.
If you want to have a conversation about the treatment of the elderly in Sweden during the pandemic by all means, but it's perhaps best served elsewhere. Because ultimately, yes, that's exactly what's happening: The grandparents between the 50-70 range are now getting paid to babysit regardless of the treatment of the 70+ demo during covid.
To be fair, babysitting will expose the grandparents to more illnesses.
Yeah, sorry, that was meant as tongue-in-cheek.
Something about it seems a bit odd to me. Probably because Im older and of the generation that sacrificed a lot when we had kids. There was a little parental leave but we certainly didnt expect the gov to make up for a loss of income. Then again, when my wife had our three she was a stay at home mom so there was no income to replace. Being a stay at home mom was still fairly common for all of our friends at that time (mid 80's). Not anymore.
But it feels strange to me to say that grandparents would be paid to take care of their own kin. To me thats just what you do because they are family, not because you are being compensated by other taxpayers to do what you should do for family.
On the other hand, if it means that more grandparents are involved in their grandchildren's lives rather than sending them to a daycare, that seems very much like a net positive.
I guess I just have a problem with the taxpayer picking up the tab for something that should be a family responsibility in the first place. He's your kid, your responsibility, not your fellow taxpayer's. You decided to have the child, you either take care of him yourself or pay someone else to do it but don't look at me to do it. I already pay for his K-12 education and his health care (Canada).
There’s no extra money coming from the Swedish taxpayers, the article mentions that Sweden already has a generous parental system that this would simply redirect if they parent wants to work instead.
Seems like a good idea to me: kid still gets raised by an close family member, the same leave gets paid by the state so no additional tax burden, grandparents get an encouraged way to interact with their grandkids and can get some income, and productive young parents can get back to work sooner.
Children are a necessity for society to survive. I know I was fortunate that my parents could have time off from work to raise me and not be unduly burdened financially by it. I wish others get the same opportunity regardless of social strata, and I think parental leave overall leads to a better community to live in. It is exactly the type of collective good I love to see the government spend money on. It's social infrastructure.
For this specific extension of it there may be implementation details I could squabble about, but the general idea of extending who can receive the parental payment benefits beyond just the parents seems worthwhile to me.
I think it depends on whether a low birth rate can be made up for by immigration. Countries will have different perspectives on this.