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

251–260 of 273 posts

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#251

Post by knorker »

pempem wrote: post #221
knorker wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'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", an…

Because 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...

That'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.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#252

Post by paulcole »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #228
paulcole wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parental leave is exclusive to parenting. See the original comment: > Some countries give more than a year paid parental leave You yourself are making my point by saying “similar compensation” “albeit spread across the length of a career.” There is nothing for non-parents that is equivalent to parental leave.

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Honestly it just seems very narrow and pedantic since even non-parents benefit from efforts to blunt the incredible costs of parenting. It leads to quality of life improvements, even if modest, for families. Non-parents themselves, and all their friends, love interests, and family have to come from parents somehow. If society does nothing to help then more parents will choose t…

A paid year away from work is not minuscule. The benefits of somebody else having kids is minuscule to me.

> If society does nothing to help then more parents will choose to have fewer, or no, children.

Fewer people is our best option (it is still a terrible option, don't get me wrong) for mitigating the effects of climate change.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#253

Post by knorker »

marvin wrote: post #217
knorker wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Weeeeeeeeell..... Birth rates are below replacement levels in most Western countries.

That'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.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#254

Post by knorker »

el_jay wrote: post #234
knorker wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not 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…

To 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.

I'd argue that sex is an even stronger fundamental urge.

Yet there's no right to sex, and rape is illegal.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#255

Post by knorker »

modeless wrote: post #226
knorker wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population pyramid is not sustainable. The exponential function just will not allow for the combination of age pyramid and our increasingly effective health care keeping us alive to all become parents. Watch this talk: https://youtu.be/O133ppiVnWY Tl;DW: we can not prevent the end of exponential population growth. We can only choose how it ends. By starvation, war, disease, or fewer births. Pension systems have r…

I'm not advocating for growth. I'm advocating for stability. The population pyramid is already over for us. Shrinking is now the default. We need more parents simply to stop the future shrinking. I know some advocate shrinking for sustainability reasons, but a policy of shrinking is a policy of irrelevance. Other cultures with a growth mindset will continue growing and ruin your sustainability plans. Let's have abund…

> Let's have abundance instead of austerity

Others in this thread have, in so many words, said that being a parent should be paid by tax payers as a full time job.

It's a waste of resources and society's investments to pay doctors and lawyers to quit and instead be paid to be full time takers.

So that lessens abundance, creating a poorer world.

It's like the conversation about UBI. If it's actually U and (as often stated by proponents) enough for a middle class lifestyle I would quit today. No way I'd be a sucker paying taxes to support government funded FIRE, without doing it myself.

And so would most of the population.

On a small scale I've soon this in friends' relationships. "Can I stay home with kids and video games, and you just support us?".

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#256

Post by knorker »

spencerchubb wrote: post #29
knorker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parenthood 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.

That's 1 year of compensation for 18+ years of part-time labor, in countries with the most parental leave

Name 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.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#257

Post by pempem »

knorker wrote: post #251
pempem wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 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...

That'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…

LMAO 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.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#258

Post by knorker »

taylorius wrote: post #130
knorker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parenthood 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.

And yet, if no-one had any kids, humanity would go extinct. What's the ROI on that outcome?

History 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.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#259

Post by pizza234 »

caeril wrote: post #249
121789 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood it as both of them taking the far ends of the spectrum of work/parenting balance (one fully parenting, one fully working) rather than a "less extreme" scenario where both take more balanced roles in working/parenting. I didn't see it as an evaluation of the choice in lifestyle.

There are MANY couples for whom a balanced approach is financially and emotionally suboptimal. If spouse A has earning potential of $300k/yr, and spouse B has earning potential of $50k/yr, and child care costs $40k/yr, it's absolute batshit insanity to take a "balanced approach" and A. lose money on a net-of-taxes basis whilst B. seeing your children less.

One doesn't need to work 24/7 in order to reach their career potential (300k/yr is not the CEO type of position); even in a slightly longer than full time position, there's enough time to take a share of the parental tasks (and stay with the child(ren) in general) to allow the other partner to work at least part time. Working fulltime also doesn't imply to work in a single stretch from morning to evening.

Those who don't find the time do be a parent because of work (again, excluding particular jobs) are either workaholics, or uninterested parents, or both; it's not about finance.

To be noted that from approximately the second year onwards (so, I'm excluding approximately the first two), children spend significant hours (whole morning and small part of the afternoon, depending on the parents' choice) in children care. Especially in a family where the mother works part time, the difference from a stay-at-home mom, in terms of time spent with the children, is little (or none).

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#260

Post by knorker »

pempem wrote: post #257
knorker wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'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…

LMAO 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.

What I mean is that being paid to be a parent is like being paid to watch a movie, or doing something you love.

What's the point of paying you for it, if the act actually is its own reward?

Post reply on HN