please don't think about it in terms of "the virtues of unfortunate". Everyone wants "kids to get a solid education and get good jobs and lead a happier, fulfilling life".

please, rather, try to think about it in terms of what best-explains the difference.

this data seems highly inversely correlated with productivity, in countries with lower productivity, people spend more time with their child. Time available seems to be the best explanatory factor.

> Everyone wants "kids to get a solid education..."

No, this is not universal. There are parents who had a bad experience of education and think that is universal, and those who fear that their children will move away if they become educated. It's one of the challenges of teaching in particular areas.

Do you mean "a bad experience of education" or do you mean "a bad experience of school"?

If its the former could you expand on that, like they learnt to read and it messed their life up?

I understand the selfish desire to keep children near, no need to go in to that.

Does reduced productivity at work correlate with more available time though? Take subsistence agriculture, which is very common in poor countries - it is usually done inefficiently, and yet it is very time consuming. In my experience, it's more the leisure time that gets sacrificed - parents have almost no social life while their child is growing up.

By poor I mean lower GDP rather than poverty. The countries up top have lower cost of living and the bottom ones higher, the countries at the top of the table have less parents working, and the bottom, more. Therefore the countries at the top can afford to spend time with children, and the countries at the bottom, can’t afford it.

“Rich countries” are time poor that’s why they produce time related articles like these. :)

What does your FYI line mean - very cryptic.