- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
A female friend of mine forwarded me this article ...
Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty”
I replied to it with
...without a doubt. Anything that takes you out of the work force for long periods of time and anything that changes your focus from work to other will lower lifetime earnings and that is not a bad thing. That is the balance trade off for those who want kids.
We went back and forth a bit and ultimately she told me she cannot agree. That women should not pay a penalty for choosing to have children.
That was even after I gave her a direct example from my office place as we had two people celebrate 5 years anniversaries with us who work in the same jobs. Both are similar aged (early 30's) but one has had 3 kids in 5 years and only been in the office physically 2 years and the other is a workaholic young guy who takes every minute of over time available and has got several bonuses due to hard work and dedication. In the same 5 years span he has worked 2.5 times more than her but he has made about 3.5 times more with bonuses.
I asked her if she thought the woman who choose to be a mom should just be levelled up in pay to what he is making or if he should make less. I also said she might be happier and have more balance in her life even if he has more money and that should be ok.
In the end she still said she disagreed with my position and does not believe it is right for women to be penalized for having children.
Socialist leaning sherbro's where do you stand on this?
(btw I cannot even read the article beyond the teaser portion as it is stuck behind a pay wall for me since I once subscribed to the Economist and now I cannot see articles free. So my reaction is not to the body of the article)
Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty”
I replied to it with
...without a doubt. Anything that takes you out of the work force for long periods of time and anything that changes your focus from work to other will lower lifetime earnings and that is not a bad thing. That is the balance trade off for those who want kids.
We went back and forth a bit and ultimately she told me she cannot agree. That women should not pay a penalty for choosing to have children.
That was even after I gave her a direct example from my office place as we had two people celebrate 5 years anniversaries with us who work in the same jobs. Both are similar aged (early 30's) but one has had 3 kids in 5 years and only been in the office physically 2 years and the other is a workaholic young guy who takes every minute of over time available and has got several bonuses due to hard work and dedication. In the same 5 years span he has worked 2.5 times more than her but he has made about 3.5 times more with bonuses.
I asked her if she thought the woman who choose to be a mom should just be levelled up in pay to what he is making or if he should make less. I also said she might be happier and have more balance in her life even if he has more money and that should be ok.
In the end she still said she disagreed with my position and does not believe it is right for women to be penalized for having children.
Socialist leaning sherbro's where do you stand on this?
(btw I cannot even read the article beyond the teaser portion as it is stuck behind a pay wall for me since I once subscribed to the Economist and now I cannot see articles free. So my reaction is not to the body of the article)