3 ms·
> I just can't muster up the empathy he seems to be expecting. He isn't expecting empathy for having kids. He's making an equation that says: The cost of chi
by sshine 4y ago
> I just can't muster up the empathy he seems to be expecting.
He isn't expecting empathy for having kids.
He's making an equation that says:
The cost of child care is so high that if you work from home and handle your children with flexible working hours, it is hard for him to find a job that requires him to be in the office and will compensate him the cost of child care he cannot perform himself.
So even if in-office jobs paid more, it would unlikely be worth it to him.
What he doesn't explicitly say is: He's got an incredible privilege. Not everyone has a skill or a negotiation ability that lets you pick a remote job always. So not only does he save the $40k per year in child care, he probably earns quite well on his remote job, compared to the national average who does need to show up at the office.
- Zetice 4y agoThe point I'm trying to make here is that it's very possible the answer to the question of, "Why is my life so difficult?" to be, "Ten years ago you made a really bad choice for you and there's no real way around that." That choice, for may, could be the choice to have children, deciding to stay in a HCOL area, going to college (specifically taking out loans to do so) etc. SVB made "safe" bets on 10 yr T notes and it ended up being wrong. Individuals making "safe" bets on getting married, going to college, having kids, may also be making bad life choices for them. I think at least we should have that conversation...
- sshine 4y agoAuthor does not say his life is difficult because of kids. Author says working in office has too high alternative cost because of kids. But it could have been any reason: that time spent flexibly could have gone towards any goal. Using kids tuition is just a flex. Once you can afford to insist on working remote (assuming you want to), you can earn more money because you get 5-15 hours back every week from not commuting and lunch breaking every day.
- Zetice 4y agoRight, but proximate cause vs. ultimate cause is in play here. Without kids, would these problems exist? Maybe, but I’m arguing we should discuss the possibility that choosing to have kids are the ultimate cause of OPs issues.
- sshine 4y ago> we should discuss the possibility that choosing to have kids are the ultimate cause of OPs issues That doesn’t make sense. Considering OP’s efforts, having kids is presumably an objective in this person’s life. If he wasn’t breathing, he wouldn’t have these problems, so why not discuss the possibility that the ultimate cause of OP’s problems is that he’s breathing?
- happytoexplain 4y agoThe word "could" is doing too much heavy lifting here. It doesn't justify the application to this specific case.
- Zetice 4y agoRight, I don't know it to be the case, but I think we ought to consider the idea that "have kids" is not the answer for everyone.
- sshine 4y agoPeople who don’t have kids won’t have the specific problem of paying for their kids’ expenses and being as constrained for time during working hours. But for those, this conversation does not apply. You can make a different argument that working in office prevents you from exceeding being a wage space, because you can’t run a side business or live on a beach as you always wanted. The essence of the article is the alternative code of working in an office, you seem to make it about whether one should have kids, as if the cost was a deciding factor for those who consider to have kids at all. Which it supposedly is for some, but not all.