My, what a LARGE ratio you have! The Economist craps all over motherhood and ends up with a SERIOUS timeout
Leave it to The Economist to try and make motherhood into a bad thing.
Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty” https://t.co/Eei0a5Gy1d
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 23, 2019
From The Economist:
IT IS well known that parenthood tends to hurts women’s careers but not men’s. Numerous studies have shown that as a group, having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty”. A wide range of individual decisions account for this effect. Some women work fewer hours, or not at all, when their children are young. Others switch to jobs that are more family-friendly but lower-paid. There is also substantial variation in the size of the earnings decline, ranging from zero all the way up to 100% (in the case of women who stop working altogether).
Because you know, men don’t take time to raise families or anything.
And c’mon, ‘hurts’ careers? What a terrible outlook on motherhood.
If only there were some sort of social contract through which she could couple for a lifetime with someone for whom having a child is impossible, in order to offset this “penalty” 🤔
— P Henry Martin (@PHenryMartin1) November 24, 2019
Were you raised by baboons in the wild, becauae humans raising other humans is never a "penalty".
It is an honor.
— Cringey Von F*ckstick (@Wolfknight74) November 24, 2019
Nonsense. The only thing that kept my income lower was the lack of a degree. Went back to college, still worked full time all while having a child in grade school. I graduated and was promoted. Income increased enough that I was able to retire at 57.
— RockChalk (@NotZacksMom) November 24, 2019
And children are a priceless gift.
There is having money, and there is rich. Learn the difference.
— Bonnie Blue (@BonnieBlueTK) November 24, 2019
Worth every damn dime too. I wouldn’t trade my son for all the money in the world.
— RebekahLeigh (@RebekahLeigh79) November 24, 2019
Raising new people and creating families is not what springs to mind when I think of “penalty.”
— Nate (on the) Stone (@nes_nathan) November 24, 2019
Placing children on a scale of product profitability is an interesting take.
Value includes more than dollars and cents, and it appears that what's become priceless is common sense.
— Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux) November 24, 2019
Voting Democrat raises your taxes. Known as the dumb ass penalty.
— 2020 are we there yet? (@ApoliticalN) November 24, 2019
HA HA HA HA, that works.
The penalty of living a longer and more meaningful life.
— Rohcialism (@roachman61) November 24, 2019
Women are worth a whole lot more than lifetime earning. And they live longer than men.
— Epstein Didn't Kill Himself us395 🇺🇸🌴🏖️ (@US395) November 24, 2019
Reading gibberish like this lowers IQ points, an outcome known as “The Economist Penalty”
— The Boy with the Thorn in his Side (@Pitt70115) November 24, 2019
My daughter has 7 of her own, and unofficially adopted another who's mother was a no show mid-high school
For a while there were 4 in collge in that home
Mommy, daughters 1&2, and "adopted daughter"
My daughter would just smile at this penalty nonsense
Son-in-law's a saint btw
— RalphyBoy (@RalphyBoyUSA) November 23, 2019
Truly astonishing ignorance. “Having children” does no such thing. Men have children, too. It’s choices after starting a family that impact earnings.
— KP Scan (@Markitan8dude) November 24, 2019
Sorry Economist tools, Motherhood rules.
Deal with it.