agreed. this is why childless unmarried women earn more than childless unmarried men. however, the value added there is to them personally in the immediate (in the form of increased salary) and to the business in particular. Society, however, see's a net loss - because the value added of the individual is only exceedingly rarely that of the full value added of future citizens. for example, were my two boys to disappear and my wife enter the workforce full time - she would have to make up in the 15-ish years that she would have otherwise been out of it the full work-life value of both of my sons, just for us to break even. Given that the most powerful indicator of a childs' direction is usually the parents, this is a game that one would be extremely unlikely to beat. For example, if Person A would earn a lifetime average of $40K with kids, but $75K without them, and would otherwise have raised two children who each would have earned $50K; then the advantage to society of that person choosing to focus on their work rather than raise children is not $35,000 a year annualized, but rather negative $65K.
I think it's funny that you think that people who have kids actually raise them. Your patriarchal bias is showing. Both parents can work, and in many times they do... and when that's the case the kid's are usually at babysitters and some people even have nanny's. Through in the fact that working families usually use kindergarten and elementary school as a free babysitter, and arranging play dates for their friends and you get a lot of hands off parents and parenting.
Your wife is stay at home, so she raises the kids and you pretty much don't... You work and support them, which isn't any different than you personally raising them, so why are you any more valuable than somebody who doesn't have kids and doesn't raise a child?
On top of that, child free may parent as much as you do. I am child free for now, but I babysit my nieces. I also donate time and money to my community like my brother, but I haven't done near as much as he has. I am also seven years his junior, so we'll see... If I have kids it doesn't mean I am less valuable to my society.
Your arguments are really demented IMO, because you'll find very little people who share your opinions... As I said, I think it boils down to sexism and cultural superiority. And I dare say you probably couldn't handle your wife wants to work, you'd probably tell her know, her value is raising the kids... and I find that disgusting and controlling.
which sort of sinks your earlier "people don't have kids because they can't afford to" thesis. people don't have kids because they are more focused on themselves and what they are doing.
People have the economic freedom to determine if they can afford kids or not. If they want a more expensive house then your house, and plan on making the payments responsibility, then it's true they probably can't afford to have kids.
on the contrary, the vast majority of parents have done something definitively positive for the world. it is the childless who generally are more prone to feel that life lacks meaning.
Your arguments aren't winning any hearts here... If their life lacks purpose and meaning, then they can have kids. If it's too late, they can adopt kids. :shrug:
"is NOT easy" "better skills".
