Re:U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold
by watwut on Thursday March 01, 2018 @06:08PM
(#16497255)
How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
Re:U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold
by malvosenior on Thursday March 01, 2018 @06:52PM
(#16497510)
People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children.
Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
Re:U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold
by watwut on Thursday March 01, 2018 @09:40PM
(#16498527)
And a lot of people going into wilderness would be economic issue with economic consequences.
Your first paragraph applies equally to men - but men are statistically less willing to sacrifice extra income to focus more on familly. Maybe men should not have children (?!).
Nevertheless, ignoring judgemental moral in previous paragraph, it does not make theoretical "men with children earn less" something that needs to be discussed as not economics.
Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.