>I'm expecting the penalty not to be so disproportionate as to persist 15+ years after the choice The penalty persists because the years spent pursuing goals o

>I'm expecting the penalty not to be so disproportionate as to persist 15+ years after the choice The penalty persists because the years spent pursuing goals other than those that confer useful skills and experience cannot be regained. Are you suggesting that we reward all people equally, regardless of whether they are able to demonstrate the same degree of utility? >In the case of taking care of other people, I just can't fathom how would you find selfisness in stepping out of a job in order to take care of other people. Selfish from the perspective that taking care of a sick loved one does not necessarily provide a benefit to society at large. More importantly, that time spent not working or learning is effectively a pause in ones growth as a professional - what is the alternative, making hiring and salary decisions by age rather than experience? >I know plenty of people who have jobs with a much higher social utility than mine, yet make much less and suffer long periods of unemployment This is a bit of a conflation. I am arguing over choices which do not benefit society, in which case it is reasonable that one's career value is lower. This particular problem is one of misplaced valuation in our society, as there are tangible benefits to the degrees your acquaintances pursued.