> Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few.
Literally every single person that has children does this. That covers almost 90% of the population.
Every single person who has children takes 2-4 years off from work? (as300's original comment, five posts parent to this one.) No, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the population does not do that.
I just don't understand why 2-4 years off work is the ideal. Have you spent 2-4 years with a baby/toddler? The moments of delight are interspersed with poop and boredom and any human would want a break. I think the neo-American ideal of having a single adult human hover over a child non-stop for four years to give them the "best possible childhood" is really f(*&ed up. As a child certainly my parents were important but playing without them, with other kids, out in nature were all highlights! Children are not hothouse plants.
Ahh, fair. I didn't realise that's what he was talking about specifically. I thought he was referring to the (real) monetary losses that come from people shifting priorities away from career and towards family.
No, I'm not saying we compensate people for the opportunity cost for not having kids. I'm saying we compensate them according to the value to society of them having them and spending time raising them.
Literally every single person that has children does this. That covers almost 90% of the population.