In which the Economist literally refers to stay-at-home parenting as "a 100% earnings decline." Is this what a family culture in a death spiral looks like?https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1063724705591541760 …
-
-
I remember when the narrative was about valuing SAHM work. My wife chose (not at all influenced by me) to stay at home while the kids are toddlers. Some colleagues were highly judgmental. Some even said the kids were missing out on childcare interactions with other kids.
-
Surely parents should have free agency to choose what they value most. If one (or both in a shared scenario) choose to stay home and forego income to personally provide care during the day that shouldn’t be considered a “loss”.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Very interesting. Good meta observations. I also find it interesting that messaging/meming about overpopulation collided directly with sudden messages regarding underpoulation and the inability of govs to pay social obligations. A jarring 180o “about face” the past few years.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Come to think of it, we’ve basically transitioned from the Paul Ehrlich (and so many others) model of overpopulation=bad to Julian Simon’s model of overpopulation=good. Quite the swing.
@Noahpinion, thoughts?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Memed to death”. I like that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
who is talking about overpopulation other than people who don’t understand anything?
-
What would be defined as ‘overpopulation’?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.