3 ms·

A similar but slightly different anecdote - I'm a 34-year-old man, and my wife stays home with our two children. We're very aware that this has hurt her earning

A similar but slightly different anecdote - I'm a 34-year-old man, and my wife stays home with our two children. We're very aware that this has hurt her earning potential, which means that if I were to die suddenly she'd be in a real financial crisis. To offset that disparity in earning potential, we've had to purchase significant life and disability policies on me.

seagullz 8y ago
This, addressed at the macro level, probably calls for the societies to function in ways that incorporate exercise of sufficient sense of solidarity and empathy. A relevant argument is made strongly here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSUkDXekMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSUkDXekMM
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  I can't agree with much of anything in that video. The question is immediately reframed as a strawman ("childcare is not work"), but that's not at all what I'm saying. My household absolutely derives value from my wife's labor. What is impacted here is earning potential; if my wife were to need to seek employment outside the home in order to earn income, her income would be substantially less than it would have been if she had been gaining relevant experience during this time in our lives.
  - seagullz 8y ago
    The lecture and the Q&A where the points were made predates your comment here and is not necessarily about the pros and cons of an individual on the short term, assessed under rather unfair political-economic regulation. The analysis is at the macro level, with a view to why/how a society can pursue reforms towards fairer socioeconomic reality, instead of being submissive to the prevailing order. Slavery, for one, seemed unmovable too at one point in history.
kpil 8y ago
Money isn't everything. If you can afford it spend as much time as you can with your kids if you have the chance. If you are a mere 'Salaryman' there's no way your loss of income is worth more than the experience and relationship you gain.

seagullz 8y ago

This, addressed at the macro level, probably calls for the societies to function in ways that incorporate exercise of sufficient sense of solidarity and empathy. A relevant argument is made strongly here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSUkDXekMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSUkDXekMM

LyndsySimon 8y ago
I can't agree with much of anything in that video. The question is immediately reframed as a strawman ("childcare is not work"), but that's not at all what I'm saying. My household absolutely derives value from my wife's labor. What is impacted here is earning potential; if my wife were to need to seek employment outside the home in order to earn income, her income would be substantially less than it would have been if she had been gaining relevant experience during this time in our lives.
- seagullz 8y ago
  The lecture and the Q&A where the points were made predates your comment here and is not necessarily about the pros and cons of an individual on the short term, assessed under rather unfair political-economic regulation. The analysis is at the macro level, with a view to why/how a society can pursue reforms towards fairer socioeconomic reality, instead of being submissive to the prevailing order. Slavery, for one, seemed unmovable too at one point in history.

kpil 8y ago

Money isn't everything. If you can afford it spend as much time as you can with your kids if you have the chance. If you are a mere 'Salaryman' there's no way your loss of income is worth more than the experience and relationship you gain.