13 ms·
I strongly disagree with "I remained flat" statement. I mean, you were taking care of your children, weren't you? If you do it right (imho, if you even just try
by spyremeown 4y ago
I strongly disagree with "I remained flat" statement. I mean, you were taking care of your children, weren't you? If you do it right (imho, if you even just try to do it right), it's the biggest accomplishment one can do.
I understand how frustrating it must be to stay professionally flat compared to your peers. We absolutely should celebrate people taking their time off to literally raise the next humans, instead we're turning them down because they spent 5~6 years off the industry. How is this not counterproductive for humanity as a whole?
- stepanhruda 4y agoIt’s pretty clear that’s what the author is talking about in that sentence - I remained [professionally] flat.
- knorker 4y agoParenthood is by far the most subsidized personal choice in the universe. Let's not pretend it's not. Some countries give more than a year paid parental leave, in what can only be described as vote purchasing. Parenthood is compensated.
- JaimeThompson 4y ago>Parenthood is by far the most subsidized personal choice in the universe. The amount spent on keeping shipping lanes protected, the world "stable", and older people having access to medical care are, in the US, subsidized more I believe.
- knorker 4y agoNot a personal choice, though. It's not my choice to need care when I get old.
- sz4kerto 4y agoIt is really not compensated if you look at the financial side. The cost of raising a child plus the lost income because of parenting plus the fact that 'you remain flat' is way higher than months or even a year extra pay. It is worth it though for most people (because of the extra happiness) so I'm not saying that we should necessarily compensate it further, just that financially it's not compensated for.
- knorker 4y agoYou're right that it's not the case that "someone else" pays the whole bill. But why should they? It's a personal choice to have children, and it's impossible to be a parent X hours a day and also spend those same X hours "in the lab". Just like it's not possible to spend all your time in the lab and also be a (present) parent. The limited time for everything that can be done in a lifetime is not about "fairness", and nobody owes you to be able to do all things in life, even if it were possible, which it isn't.
- pempem 4y agoBecause you need those children to grow up and: - pay taxes - make good governance choices - buy the products you may be making - make the products you might be selling - make the products you consume the list goes on...
- knorker 4y agoThat's making purchase decisions on my behalf. Which is what taxes is in general, of course. But this is the most subsidized one of all (even in the US), and people do it whether it's subsidized or not. You could say that they are getting "paid in love". If it's already worth it for them, why should they be paid twice? Most of the benefits you list may be better off with fewer kids with the same government support. I definitely think we should invest in schools and such, to make the best people we can. But I'm sick of parents complaining that children affects their economy or has opportunity cost. Parents don't deserve a handout. Children do, however, deserve a good education. Literally everything in in life has opportunity cost. Nobody owes removing that cost for anyone else. If you spend all your money on partying nobody owes you the cost of nice clothes.
- pempem 4y agoLMAO paid in love. I am not a parent but when's the last time you called a parent of yours and paid them with that love? I 100% have not done so recently. Parents aren't getting a handout, we're ensuring the continuation of our society and so many forces are attempting to shape it actively.
- toshk 4y agoIt's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. And it's also not personal in the sense that the government often takes an active role in raising and educating kids (wether you like it or not).
- thefz 4y ago> It's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. I hear this often and it's such an incorrect assumption. People had kids way before subsidies. Humans won't stop having kids if subsidies stop.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- knorker 4y agoI do like it. I just wish parents stop acting as victims of their own choices, and that they should bare no consequences. And people won't stop having kids, subsidies or no subsidies. So that's a non-issue.
- marvin 4y agoWeeeeeeeeell..... Birth rates are below replacement levels in most Western countries.
- knorker 4y agoThat's not self-evidently bad, long term. What we do know is what we used to have, the population pyramid, definitely won't work going forward, long term.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pempem 4y agoPeople are slowing having kids. To the point of societal wide concern. Its possible that there is a frustration obscuring your view on the topic. Multiple countries in GDP leadership positions are incentivizing having and raising children because women who are able to - exercise bodily autonomy - pursue an education - and generally have rights, though in no country are they equal choose to have less kids. IMHO they choose to have less kids because its clear the current set-up is a raw deal for women at best. Not having enough kids to replace the current working generation is an issue in: the US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and a number of other countries. This greying of a population is a massive concern and also one of the reasons that some have pushed and bet on robotics. To replace human workers. Separately, its mostly women, if not exclusively women, bearing the consequences of the action of you know. propagating the species. Its absolutely mind-boggling when you think about the fact that propagation is a requirement of our continued existence and only half the species pays a massive tax
- modeless 4y agoParenthood is vital to society and it's very much in the interest of countries with declining birthrates to promote it. It is currently subsidized but not nearly enough to make it a rational choice for individuals from a purely economic perspective. If we want to stabilize declining birthrates, we will need to increase subsidies by a lot.
- jseban 4y agoTotally depends on the state of society and what the needs are, China had the opposite policy for over 30 years to achieve a declining birth rate. It's not true that more children = better. It's only an issue somehow for pyramid schemes of the welfare system.
- xyzzyz 4y agoYes, and that policy turned out to be a huge mistake that the Chinese government is now struggling to reverse.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI appreciate having fewer humans to compete against for resources, including carbon emissions.
- FastEatSlow 4y agoThe process of shrinking to fewer humans is painful however: less people working, more people old and unable to work.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoPainful for who? Maybe asset owners and the few deciles below them who live a decent life due to globally cheap labor. For the young and poor who only have their labor to sell, the situation would seem pretty decent.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoNot in the US
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- spencerchubb 4y agoThat's 1 year of compensation for 18+ years of part-time labor, in countries with the most parental leave
- knorker 4y agoName any other life choice one can spend 18+ years on (that'd be all of them) that gifts a year of tax funded compensation. That is my point.
- paulcole 4y agoSo you’re not disagreeing that it’s compensated? What decision(s) can a non-parent make to get 1 year of compensation like parents get?
- shadowfiend 4y agoA non-parent can also raise a child for 1 year and get 1 year of compensation.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoThe point appears to be that a year of compensation is pitiful even if one considers the 18y effort part time. Having young kids I think it's more like full time parenting, on top of any regular day job. Unless you can find a spouse willing to do all the kid work, which is like non-stop 12-16h days until all are in school. Heaven forbid your SO wants to homeschool and expects you to do at least 40% of parenting, with your day job.
- paulcole 4y agoRight, but that wasn’t the point being made. Regardless of the ROI, choosing to be a parent is something that’s compensated.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoSaid another way, the compensation is pitiful. And one gives up so much time and energy being a parent, unless you're wealthy enough to outsource large chunks of the work. (Daycare in the US is 10-25K per year.)
- Zababa 4y agoI don't really think it's fair to call parenthood a "personal choice". It's not a complete necessity like food and water, but it's also not a complete personal choice like getting a tattoo. The majority of humans are going to be parents. All living humans come from a long unbroken line of parents. It's more fundamental than a simple personal choice.
- krapp 4y agoParenthood must be an entirely personal choice. Otherwise the implication is that "society" or government have the right to regulate bodily autonomy, force people to have children, outlaw abortion or homosexuality as "threats to society," engage in eugenics, etc. Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral.
- jseban 4y ago> Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral. I think it's already immoral how society punishes people for being childless when it's a natural thing and can be 100% caused by characteristics that you are born with and have no control over.
- krapp 4y agoYes, both can be immoral.
- DangitBobby 4y agoHow does society punish you for being childless?
- jseban 4y ago
- DangitBobby 4y agoI guess it depends on where you live, but it is so much less expensive to be childless in the US. Monetary aid provided by the government does not cover the costs, let alone make it profitable. And government aid is not just for unfortunate events, it's used to promote desired behavior. That's why there are subsidies for companies developing green energy and EVs, for farmers growing certain crops, for animal feed (very frustrating as someone who always has to pay more for veggie burgers), and many other things. Clearly, though, the US doesn't value parenthood very much because the monetary incentives simply are not enough. I guess when you know your replacement rates are kept afloat by immigration, you don't care much if your citizens have kids. It's funny that you say being social is easier, because what I see is the opposite. Being a parent isn't a panacea for socialization. It can be very isolating when your childless friends can drop whatever they are doing to go have a good time (so they don't bother to make plans, they just go) while you have to secure a babysitter just to get a quiet dinner. Your friends have to accommodate you, and many will not. As someone who is currently childless with both new parent friends and not-so-new parent friends, it's very clear to see how much simpler it is for the ones of us who don't have kids have to be social or follow their own interests. I feel in no way compelled by any law or incentive to have children and am in fact dreading the day my wife is serious about having them, because I have seen first hand what it does to your bank account and your personal life.
- razemio 4y agoIt is absolutely not! We live in Germany which has good options compared to other countries and it is still not enough. My wife earns 5000€+ in her job. Guess what, you can earn a maximum of 1800€ during parental leave. It gets even better, now that she takes a few hours less because somebody needs to take care of our child, kid number 2 will even be compensated with less (1400€). How is this fair? This is without the missed opportunities to get a higher position. Women are less likely to be employed because of the fear that they might leave for a year or 2. What needs to happen is that the compensation is higher AND that men are forced to take an equal time of. If the woman takes a year the man has todo the same. Otherwise equality will be very difficult to archive.
- k__ 4y agoI know a bunch of women who ran a successful startup on the side of parental leave, so it can't be too bad.
- ushakov 4y ago[this was a joke]
- WitCanStain 4y agoThis kind of presumptuous content does not belong here.
- ushakov 4y agoin Germany the expectation is that you will inherit if you’re not looking to inherit while you’re young, you end up in a whole different social hierarchy
- brigandish 4y ago> How is this fair? Well, if I were going to argue the case I would probably start with the impossibility of any man ever getting that opportunity. Of course, whether those figures are enough or given out in the right way to the right people at the right time, all of those details can be argued over, but if you're going to start with fairness as your argument you'd better address the elephant in the room first. > AND that men are forced to take an equal time of Why is it right that anyone is forced to do anything so that your political views are enacted?
- cowpig 4y agoWhat a strange perspective to take. A "subsidized personal choice," as if there is some higher economic power that we are in service of, and those who decide to dedicate a third of our adult existence to the next generation are making some luxurious lifestyle choice.
- brigandish 4y agoIs it not a choice?
- el_jay 4y agoI suppose if we followed OP’s logic to its conclusion, we’d find that when it comes to parenthood: you must be this net worthy to ride.
- knorker 4y agoNot at all. Poor people successfully raise kids every day. And I want schools to get more of my tax money, if for no other reason than that I want to be in a world of smarter people. (And there are other reasons, that are more important) But it is a life choice. Other ones are to become an artist. But barely anyone says that anyone who chooses to be an artist (bad or not) deserves for "someone else" to foot the bill for their life. Or maybe you'd be happier we me saying that yes, in the same way that you must be this net worthy to collect fancy cars. Makes it easier, sure. But nobody owes paying for your choices.
- el_jay 4y agoTo do the work of fulfilling our most fundamental evolutionary urge, and perpetuate the future of humanity is a “lifestyle choice” isomorphic to “choosing to be an artist” or “collecting fancy cars”? You may feel that having kids is an optional luxury; the evidence suggests this is not a majority perspective.
- knorker 4y agoI'd argue that sex is an even stronger fundamental urge. Yet there's no right to sex, and rape is illegal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pbourke 4y agoDriving a car is by far the most subsidized personal choice in the United States. It’s not even close. As for subsidizing parenthood and children: the more the better. I don’t have kids, but as a human person I have an interest in the next generation of people being happy, healthy, well adjusted and well educated. And that of course begins with creating an environment in which the parents of those children can be successful.
- s5300 4y agoIt’s funny you say this when people heavily involved with yCombinator & capitalism argue otherwise, disagreeing with your statement.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI have seen what women go through to bring children into the world and feed them, and a year’s parental leave does not come close to making up for the toll it takes on their body not to mention the myriad risks of complications like perineum tearing, separation in abs, death, and maybe even having to care for a special needs child.
- paulcole 4y agoThe question isn’t whether it makes up for it. It’s whether there’s any other life choice that leads to similar compensation (regardless of whether that compensation is “worth it.”)
- taylorius 4y agoAnd yet, if no-one had any kids, humanity would go extinct. What's the ROI on that outcome?
- knorker 4y agoHistory shows that humanity has not gone extinct even without compensation. So ROI is infinity, without comp. It's finite with comp. And note that I'm not even saying the right level is zero.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoOne of capitalism’s exploited externalities (no economic value placed on the labor of raising children)
- knorker 4y agoYet society pours HUGE amounts of money on it, because obviously it has huge value and the government pays boatloads for it. Do you really mean "no value"?
- wahnfrieden 4y agothere's no living wage (or any wage) provided for it. sorry for imprecise words in my OP but I think you understand anyway
- knorker 4y agoOk. But you think the government should pay a living wage for the personal choice of having a child, and just be home? Even though people do it anyway, and think the trade is worth it?
- wahnfrieden 4y agoYes
- DaveExeter 4y agoI know. Why should anyone have kids! The ROI of children is vastly lower than most other endeavors in life. Start a company, not a family.
- UncleMeat 4y agoA lot of people judge their life with metrics other than their bank account.
- 4y ago
- pizza234 4y ago> If you do it right (imho, if you even just try to do it right), it's the biggest accomplishment one can do. Family ambitions and personal ambitions are two separate things (although for some people, typically women, they do match). Personally speaking, I do have parental and professional goals, and I don't think of any of the two as neither superior nor compensating respect to the other. > they spent 5~6 years off the industry It doesn't need to be like this (I have firsthand experience as parent). In a balanced family, two parents can be have full professional and familiar lives at the same time (although it's challenging). Of course on the first year or so there's a physical need for the child(ren) to stay with the mother. Based on the description of the article, the wife and the husband deliberately chose extreme positions - the wife as fully involved stay at home mother, and the father as all-time worker: > I took care of everything, so my husband could focus on work, which was super important as we were a one-income family I sympathize with the difficulty of finding a job, but there are more balanced (in terms of gender roles) structures that benefit all the parties. Most importantly: > I wanted to devote a few years of my life to raising them. I wanted to see their first smile, their first step, their first fall, and I was privileged and lucky enough to be able to do it. One definitely doesn't need to stay 24/7 with the children to be a fully present parent, and > my husband could focus on work, which was super important as we were a one-income family. one doesn't need to offload the children to the partner, in order to achieve professional success, unless there's some workaholism involved; this is also not a great way to start the relationship with the children.
- in_cahoots 4y agoIt doesn’t need to be like this, but that’s what her family chose. One model isn’t superior over the other. It would be great if tech companies supported both family styles, just like they tout their other family-friendly benefits.
- jjeaff 4y agoI agree that people can do what they want. But I can't help but wish people did not do this. I don't think anyone honestly believes that children are not better off by having more balanced input from both parents where possible. And the more people that do this (where the working parent is a workaholic) the more difficult it makes things for working parents who want to have a more balanced home life. This is similar to the modern issue of dual income families. In the area where I live, homes are very expensive. The majority of home owners here could simply not afford a home without both parents working. Which means if there weren't so many dual income families, homes would simply have to become cheaper here. The fact that many families here are dual income puts financial pressure on everyone else to do the same.