> But there is a huge double-standard here about what a job is and how compensation works. [...] Why is a VP paid $500,000 for taking care of their child for 6

> But there is a huge double-standard here about what a job is and how compensation works. [...] Why is a VP paid $500,000 for taking care of their child for 6 months but an entry level employee is paid $50,000 for taking care of theirs? You can't look at a VP's output the way you'd look at a factory worker's. The VP is being compensated for the work they'll provide over the time spent at the company. They might have no output for 6 months then provide outsized output during the next 2 years (as organizational changes they've made start paying off). Their compensation is based on this lifetime output. Them taking parental leave in average once every 4 years is taken into account in this formula. People that never have children are still a minority, so they get lost in this calculation. Yes, they're definitely being "underpaid" in that sense the same way someone leading a healthy lifestyle is "under-benefitting from his tax contributions".