Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Restarting my career after motherhood

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 273 posts

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#191

Post by usrn »

tomp wrote: post #187
mmcnl wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying there are two scenarios: 1. Father working full-time, mother staying-at-home for a few years 2. Father and mother working both reduced hours Your conclusion is that sum of wages accumulated over the career length of both the father and the mother is higher in scenario 1 than in scenario 2? If that's the case, then first of all I doubt that's true. And second, that means we…

No, I’m saying that (1) for most unequal splits, father working will be more profitable than mother working, because of biology (mother has to take time off), and (2) unequal splits are better than equal splits (e.g. both working 100%, or both working 60%) because the latter have negative externalities (childcare cost, kids raised by strangers, less career progress because only working 60% etc). Some people will stil…

I'm not convinced working mothers are all that happier tbh, and by having them work the market equilibria shift towards requiring them to work. It's more like gain in individual freedom, loss for everyone.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#192

Post by tomp »

mmcnl wrote: post #189
tomp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m saying that (1) for most unequal splits, father working will be more profitable than mother working, because of biology (mother has to take time off), and (2) unequal splits are better than equal splits (e.g. both working 100%, or both working 60%) because the latter have negative externalities (childcare cost, kids raised by strangers, less career progress because only working 60% etc). Some people will stil…

Indeed you are right that "gain for society, loss for individual" requires coercion, so that's why equal splits should be more profitable (if it's not the case already). That's a political decision.

It’s the ideological difference between “equality” (of opportunity) vs “equity” (of outcome). The former increases freedom, the latter increases coercion.

I see freedom valuable and coercion damaging. Freedom to choose also requires you to be able to choose the “wrong” choice. So in my view enforcing gender equality is just as bad, if not worse, as enforcing gender inequality.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#193

Post by schmookeeg »

tigerlily wrote: post #144
DaveExeter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

Who is going to push your wheelchair?

The lowest bidder among many, all vying for some dust from the bottom of my enormous Scrooge McDuck vault of gold?

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#194

Post by mmcnl »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #188
mmcnl wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it actually makes that much sense from an economical perspective if you look at it carefully. First, the choice is not binary (i.e. mother or father stays at home). There's alternatives like working reduced hours (32 hours) and using day care. This is common practice in a lot of developed countries. Second, the cost of the wage gap resulting from suspending your career for a few years, accumulated over…

The fact is a lot of parents (me included!) don’t want to outsource early childhood just to level up in our jobs. In that rationale, of someone is staying home, it is a binary choice. It’s not a fully economic choice, which makes it even MORE important you make the best economic choice for who stays home. Hence the man, given wage inequality, goes to work. There are definitely couples that both work and leverage chil…

Thank you for your insights. I want to add some.

First, let's say both parents are working 32 hours, and a child goes to daycare for 3 days. That's 24 out of 168 hours a week, in which the child also gets to play with other children. I can understand the hesitancy against outsourcing parenting, but for me this is a perfectly acceptable scenario.

Second, you explain it's depressing for your wife to leave a high powered career and now to be bouncing at the bottom of the career ladder. It's difficult to put a number on this, but I think this should be an important factor in the equation used for optimizing economic outcome. Also, I strongly believe it's better for children as well to have parents who live their ambitions and chase their dreams. Happier parents = happier children?

Finally, you state that earning the most money came at the expensive of her pride and self worth as a professional. Would you have made any other decisions in retrospect?

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#195

Post by mmcnl »

usrn wrote: post #191
tomp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m saying that (1) for most unequal splits, father working will be more profitable than mother working, because of biology (mother has to take time off), and (2) unequal splits are better than equal splits (e.g. both working 100%, or both working 60%) because the latter have negative externalities (childcare cost, kids raised by strangers, less career progress because only working 60% etc). Some people will stil…

I'm not convinced working mothers are all that happier tbh, and by having them work the market equilibria shift towards requiring them to work. It's more like gain in individual freedom, loss for everyone.

Why wouldn't working mothers be happier? Are working fathers unhappier? I think people who have freedom of choice without facing pressure from society are happier. If they choose to stay at home in a level playing field, that's perfect. Everyone should make their own choice. But as long as the ratio between stay-at-home mothers and stay-at-home fathers is not 50/50, I believe mothers face more pressure from society than fathers and have less freedom of choice.

I also think your statement that more individual freedom for women is a loss for everyone needs some clarification. That's a wild thing to say. I hope I interpreted this wrong?

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#196

Post by tomp »

mmcnl wrote: post #195
usrn wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced working mothers are all that happier tbh, and by having them work the market equilibria shift towards requiring them to work. It's more like gain in individual freedom, loss for everyone.

Why wouldn't working mothers be happier? Are working fathers unhappier? I think people who have freedom of choice without facing pressure from society are happier. If they choose to stay at home in a level playing field, that's perfect. Everyone should make their own choice. But as long as the ratio between stay-at-home mothers and stay-at-home fathers is not 50/50, I believe mothers face more pressure from society t…

Most people don’t have the freedom to choose not to work.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#197

Post by fnordpiglet »

mmcnl wrote: post #194
fnordpiglet wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is a lot of parents (me included!) don’t want to outsource early childhood just to level up in our jobs. In that rationale, of someone is staying home, it is a binary choice. It’s not a fully economic choice, which makes it even MORE important you make the best economic choice for who stays home. Hence the man, given wage inequality, goes to work. There are definitely couples that both work and leverage chil…

Thank you for your insights. I want to add some. First, let's say both parents are working 32 hours, and a child goes to daycare for 3 days. That's 24 out of 168 hours a week, in which the child also gets to play with other children. I can understand the hesitancy against outsourcing parenting, but for me this is a perfectly acceptable scenario. Second, you explain it's depressing for your wife to leave a high powere…

In America 32 hours is part time which loses all benefits, including child health care, and it’s a much more precarious position. Further there’s no career advancement possible. Also note most professional jobs 40 hours is the MINIMUM, with typical expectation being 50-60 and often includes travel - during which the parent at home has 100% responsibility.

I don’t know that it was depressing per se for my wife or me, it was what we wanted. And we would make the same choices again given the same options and outcomes. The negative side effects of the choices are mostly societal consequences and I think we would prefer society not make parenting a career damaging choice. There’s no benefit to anyone in the current model. But also it’s important to note in my case I make nearly 10x what my wife would. Most couples will have a tighter decision to make - but will usually pick the man even with a smaller differential due to tradition.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#198

Post by lapcat »

tomp wrote: post #167
mmcnl wrote: post #162

Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers? In my opinion this makes things extra hard for mothers who want to resume their career, because men are used to working with men who don't take breaks from their career to raise their children. Taking time off to raise your children is a personal choice, but it doesn't make any sense that it's almost never the fathers who sta…

Because biology. Mothers have to take time off work (to give birth), fathers don’t. Freedom of choice is important, but so is specialisation (so the couple can be more efficient), so it makes more sense for mother to specialise for family (sacrificing career), and father to specialise for career (sacrificing family).

> Because biology. Mothers have to take time off work (to give birth), fathers don’t.

This is not true. Just google "woman gives birth at work" for many examples. https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-woman-gives-birth-car-deal...

Also, in general, American workers tend to get fewer days off work than European workers, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Let's say a woman works 45 years during her life. That's well over 10,000 working days. And let's say she has 2 kids. How many days off do you think she needs, medically speaking, for childbirth? The percentage is very very low.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#199

Post by [deleted] »

knorker wrote: post #147
toshk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'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).

I 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.

[deleted]

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#200

Post by paulryanrogers »

paulcole wrote: post #170
paulryanrogers wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said 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.)

> Said another way, the compensation is pitiful. The whole point is that being a parent is compensated in a way that no other choice is. Parents take on a significant burden. They are compensated for it. There is no choice I can make as a non-parent that will provide me with similar compensation.

Can you define what compensation you see as so exclusive to parenting?

If just this financial support provided by some governments then consider you could take on a very low pay job with a nonprofit and get similar 'compensation'. Albeit spread across the length of that career instead of front loaded as paternity leave/credits.

Post reply on HN