3 ms·
Your point -as I understood it- was that they do work the same amount, just not on work-stuff, ergo they should be treated as if they worked the same amount on
by luckylion 6y ago
Your point -as I understood it- was that they do work the same amount, just not on work-stuff, ergo they should be treated as if they worked the same amount on work stuff. And you can absolutely work on hobbies just the same.
Kids are a choice, first and foremost. And we are, as societies, helping quite a bit with the consequences of those choices, and yes, that's mostly funded by the single people.
- throwaway5792 6y agoKids are not a choice in aggregate. Kids are fundamental to the survival of our species, the only intelligent life we know if in our universe. How myopic.
- mlboss 6y agoI would argue that having kids is the only reasonable goal you can have as a species. Everything else that humans do is optional.
- luckylion 6y agoI don't disagree. Yet individually, they are a choice. We're at a strange time in human history, where "(almost) everybody has children" no longer holds true. While children in total are necessary for a society, any individual person's children are not. We encourage having children by severely lightening the load that comes with having children, but we're not encouraging having children as a life-style choice where you get to cuddle with them and the state takes over any other duties. Yes, raising children is hard work. No, parents are not doing it for altruistic reasons. Yes, we should support them. No, we shouldn't just push more and more work on non-parents so parents can have an easier time.
- throwaway5792 6y agoHang on. Who the hell is having to do more work than before because of parents? Projects get pushed back, scoped down. Childless engineers don't have to be doing 100 hour weeks to compensate.