5 ms·
There does seem to be a element of: "people who value their careers more than children end up making more money" here, which seems pretty obvious when you think
by saas_co_de 9y ago
There does seem to be a element of: "people who value their careers more than children end up making more money" here, which seems pretty obvious when you think about it.
From a social and corporate perspective we have a choice though: should be allow incentive systems that reward people who value their careers over their children to continue? Or should we change our incentive systems so that people who value children over career earn equal wages or even more?
Which group of people is actually more valuable to society?
- 09bjb 9y agoTeachers, full-time mothers and fathers, and generally anyone who's in charge of raising the next generation properly, are all underpaid and arguably undervalued. However, when you legislate away any reward for risk-takers, innovators, and all those folks you mentioned who simply work harder at the expense of something else in their lives...then you end up in a society where nobody tries, nothing happens, and everyone's pretty well subsumed into an existential crisis -like existence. What's the point of trying if it's guaranteed not to make a difference? "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." - Soviet-era saying
- indrax 9y ago> risk-takers, innovators, and all those folks you mentioned who simply work harder at the expense of something else in their lives. Given just that description, you could be talking about parents. The consequences you list for not rewarding them aren't off the mark either.