I feel a lot of empathy for single parents but those seem to be relatively rare in the field.
I feel a lot of empathy for single parents but those seem to be relatively rare in the field.
And yes, I'm thinking of a specific couple -- this is not a made up situation.
Plus, this solution isn't highly scalable; only so many people can do it.
so you're saying they are already getting the highest salary they could've gotten then (adjusted for cost of living etc)?
> this solution isn't highly scalable; only so many people can do it
If people move away enmass, then the demand for said worker increases, which should (at least, under the great invisible hand!) increase the salary, and a new balance reached. So it should only take a small % of people moving away due to low pay to affect the pay.
You don't have to move half-way across the country. Pick any high rent location in the United States, there's a lower rent location 30 minutes away. SV included.
It's not only not that simple, it's not even clear to me it's the right answer. The right answer is probably something involving employers understanding that this is a hard time right now and you need to be flexible.
It is just one more failure to come up with a robust solution to the problem here.
Immigrants land in places without a social net or help or support network literally 100% of the time. Often moving to places where language and culture and geography is starkly different from what they are used to reach for their best interests.
It is not the end of the world. To refuse to leave the cozy familiarity of ones social network is understandable only to those who feel the he same way.
Most immigrants I know leave their home countries and the coziness of familiarity for their children. And moving around America even temporarily is not the same as moving across oceans for a better quality of life.
Employment contracts should be examined due to the extraordinary circumstances we are in and that would depend on the companies. I was only replying to specific comments that may or may not have anything to do with OP.
Everyone sacrifices. If moving is your biggest sacrifice, consider yourself more than blessed.
It seems bizarre to say that CA is so expensive due to the poor choices of people who live there, and the solution is for everyone else to pay their exorbitant luxury bills for them.
You said it is a right/requirement to live/work in California or wherever, but the reality is living/working in any particular location is a privilege!
Where are these anecdotes from? Of the divorced men I know in California - they're on the hook for a lot of money. Their wives chose to not work (first few years to do childcare - remaining years because they didn't want to). The women didn't want to be in the relationship anymore and got a divorce. The men end up owing their spouses alimony for decades plus child support (regardless of where the kids spend the most time).
As a straight man, I've decided to not marry based on their horror stories alone. I see marrying someone who wants to be a SAHM as a huge financial liability not in just temporary loss of earning potential but in near permanent levels of loss due to potential divorce.
I don’t know what horror stories you’ve seen. But for most ordinary men, alimony and child support add up to very little. If you make $75,000, maintenance for a 15 year marriage in which the other spouse earned nothing adds up to $22,000 a year. And it ends in about 11 years. A significant hit, no doubt, but if the other spouse had similar earning potential (which is typical these days—people tend to match up with people of similar education) it won’t come close to covering the lifetime loss in post-divorce earnings.
It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days.
But - isn't giving up work for 20 years her choice?
For the men I know - the payments turn into about 1/3 of their net income. For the ultra rich and even the higher up FAANG, it's not really the end of the world. For the startup software engineer, it's devastating because they can't even exercise their options anymore. The payments AFAIK aren't for 11 years - it's longer. Some of them weren't with their partner for 15 years. I think it falls all on what judge you get.
$22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000. Especially when you don't actually get $75000/yr and you still have to pay $22,000 net.
> It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days.
Maybe more people would marry between incomes if the high earning partner wouldn't be out at least 1/3 of their income for over a decade. I'm currently in a relationship with someone who has no hopes of making any money close to what I do - marriage ain't happening and they know why.
A better outcome here would've been if she hadn't needed to give up her job to have kids, like if there had been universal childcare and her work was more accommodating of mothers.
> $22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000.
If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k!
You don't need childcare for /20/ years. If you're a stay at home parent for 20 years, that is most definitely a choice.
> If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k!
I don't know why you think two people are surviving on $22k? It's one person and they can still get a job and keep the income. The $75k becomes $54,000 after tax. Which then becomes $32,000. So, bye bye 40% of your net income. In many cases - having a spouse living with you doesn't require spending 40% of your net income every month.
That very much depends on circumstances. If you have two children born one right after another, probably not. If, however, your spacing is more spread, say, you have two children first, and then another child 8 years later, you'll easily need childcare for 15 consecutive years. My youngest sister is 11 years younger than me, and I'm not even the oldest of my siblings.
Are you going to argue that in a society that has relatively wide spread access to contraception that when you have children 11 years apart - it's not a choice? Come on. It's a choice to have kids 10 years apart, it's a choice as to how many, and how far apart you have children (assuming no biological limitations). Thus, you don't need childcare for 20 years if you have your 2-3 kids over a span of 4-5 years.
Also, I don't think you can blame income tax on the woman. The guy's salary is gonna get taxed regardless. So we need to either use pre-tax or post-tax salaries throughout all figures, not mix them and then blame the entire net difference, including tax, on the child support.
When we say "22k of 75k" it sounds like 1/3, but the 22k is net and the 75k is pre-tax. Once we normalize the 75k, we realize that 22k is almost half the person's net income.
I was shocked to learn that spousal maintenance was a thing with no kids in the picture. However, when there are kids involved, I feel like child support is probably not enough!
I don't think the quotes around 'choosing' are valid. Having children is a choice, especially in today's age when contraceptive measures abound, and trying to paint it like it's not really a choice is disingenuous.
Next, we're gonna have people argue that getting a loan to buy a house is not in fact a personal choice, because, in the aggregate, the majority of people need to have a place to live in in order for society to survive.
From the perspective of analyzing society, therefore, treating having children as a choice is unworkable. If your societal design doesn't accommodate 2.1 kids per person, its useless. It's like designing an electric car that can't be recharged. Nobody cares what other characteristics it has.
I don't understand this statement. Is it 2.1 kids per person or per family/couple? Has society collapsed in countries where the average is below the 2.1 figure you are quoting?
If you are talking about the extinction of the human race and not societal collapse, then I don't buy for a second the argument that someone choosing whether to have children or not is making the choice based on the "human race extinction" factor. When making choices, most humans could care less for their 2-days-in-the-future-self, nevermind caring for the human race.
I personally decided that I did feel a duty to do my part to continue the human race, and that nothing else I would likely do could ever rival that in terms of lasting consequence. And folks who are interested in making it harder for parents or harder for children because they feel like families get too much slack or something, they are de facto aligned against the mission of continuing the human race, and I hope they change their minds over time.
I also feel a duty to do my part to continue the human race, but I don't pretend that I didn't make a choice, that somehow there was no other real option for me to choose.
I especially dislike it when people present their choice as a sacrifice for humanity. Another poster put it better:
> People can have children without congratulating themselves for a sacrifice well delivered ... Kinship for species only extends so far and not much at all when there is parental entitlement.
But neither do the rest of us have any obligation not to band together and vote in legislators who will tax the shit out of the childless-by-choice — because in the long term, the childless-by-choice are the ones being subsidized by those who us who have raised children. Don't like it? Then do something about it, or move elsewhere.
When you have a child, 12 years of education(amongst other things(are handed over free). That’s 10k minimum/annum. Totally 120k worth of free education. PER CHILD. The more children one can have, more benefits. Net benefits exceed that by several hundreds of thousands.
The childless get NOTHING. If they are successful enough financially, they are taxed for their entire lifetime to support those whose children get subsidized.
And still the whining and whinging and cries for the red badge of honor. I am embarrassed for you lot. Wtf do you they need compassion for?
I think of it as charity. Forced charity because my species is less equipped and capable than a band of apes in the jungle when it comes to resources management and survival and child rearing. I have nothing left to give. It’s like literally handing over money to someone for their choice to have sex without protection and children without a plan.
Forget about compassion. How about some gratitude. The kids raised by these inept parents are going to be a further burden on society because they will literally have zero survival skills and a whole lot of entitlement.
I am not moving anywhere. Those who can’t handle CA are moving elsewhere anyways. (I am looking at you Austen Allred of YC’s Lambda..spewing your snark about quitting CA for Utah...couldn’t you quit gracefully without spitting on the valley that made you successful?) Maybe withholding on the emotional blackmail and virtue signaling demands and rallying cries for more ‘compassion’ will finally make adults out of the whiners.
You know what I see? I see a dystopian orange world out of my window. I see farm workers picking up YOUR food in this toxic soup weather and taking care of their children. While tech..and YC, I am looking at you..Michael Siebel, I am looking at YOU..because agtech for YC wasn’t profitable for food producing farms ..did NOTHING to fix the Ag in our state and the dire situation of the people bringing food to YOUR TABLES.
I have literally ZERO compassion. Your air is clean. Farm workers are picking food under falling ash while tech twits are debugging Tinder.
If we all starve because our Ag system crumbles, I still won’t have any compassion. Silicon Valley and tech sphere have FAILED the human race and our means for survival. Breeding children is not enough. We also have to make sure the world we LEAVE BEHIND for them is not straight out of the Blade Runner movie.
Handle your kids. Farm workers are literally filling their lungs with ash and smoke to feed the fruits of your loins. Fucking hell!!
On the other side, school is certainly an expensive subsidy to children, and so are regulations that make things safe for children, and probably other categories I'm not thinking of. I'm not sure how it nets out.
Your roads, schools, infrastructure was paid for by the previous generation.
In an average senior’s working years, three generations of school education has been subsidized. And they get no tax subsidies or benefits. Never mind the bonds and extra parcel taxes that property owners pay.
And when they retire and Medicare and SSN kicks in at age 65, that’s 10-25 years of minimal payments.
It nets out as a working citizen subsidizing on average 3 generations of school children to gain perhaps one generation ‘paying them back’ and even that might not happen because ssn comes from 40 quarters of employment. And 65 years of even unemployed citizenry paying sales taxes and shouldering an economy. Never mind fees, licenses, permits..taxed from everything water to power to road use to driving licenses.
And society accepts this. And pays. And bears it. Having said all that..It is rich for parents to act as victims and martyrs for taking care of their own children and claiming that their contribution to the gene pool is a sacrifice they have made while the childless are free loaders. I am embarrassed for the half brain cell that is working overtime in those who have made this claim and proceeded to shame the rest of the populace.
A tunicate is a marine invertebrate that hangs on to rocks. Adult tunicates have a hollow cerebral ganglion, equivalent to a brain, and a hollow structure known as a neural gland. They procreate. A sea squirt that is a kind of tunicate is famous for eating it’s own brain. If you poke it , they will squirt in defense. They decided that being mobile was too much of a hassle and decided to eat their own brain because our brains evolved to assist our mobility. They too reproduce. They haven’t asked for a medal for procreating, afaik. Or shamed those who didn’t. Haven’t gone extinct. Yet. Just sayin’!!!!
* Continuing the species is the most important thing we as a society need to do
* Therefore, all members of society have an equal obligation to advance this goal
* Some individuals choose to have kids which directly supports this goal, but is difficult
* Others choose not to have kids, which is easier
* Therefore, society should redistribute until parents and the childfree are making equal efforts to support future generations
So yes, parenthood is a choice, but of course all of society should help out. This is probably a little past what I actually believe, but maybe not by much!2. The point is that mating and procreation is the easiest thing and the most natural thing to do ever because life exists so genes can be replicated.
3. Can we please stop putting people on a pedestal because they have procreated 1..2..15 times their own genes?
4. Can we please stop treating those without children as though they have owe their life and savings and undying fealty to those with children?
5. Can we acknowledge that the world is past carrying capacity and our resources are fast depleting that if we don’t control and reduce population to manageable levels, the resources will disappear along with depopulation leaving the species with no option but to become extinct without means of survival?
6. Given point 5, those without children are the ones who need to be seen as doing a service for for removing themselves from the gene pool so their own kin or others in the gene pool have a chance to replicate their genes? (I recommend the book Moral Animal by Robert Wright) It is a choice AGAINST ones selfish and best interest..which is to replicate ones own genes. At best, it’s noble..at worse, they are odd balls. But they are not ‘free loaders’.
7. Can we acknowledge that those with children these days do not understand parenting as a personal endeavor and not something to outsourced to hired help or the state? In my part of the world, that’s what is happening. And hence my position.
8. Can we acknowledge that a contract between employee and employer is between them and nobody..like the childless or with adult children.. has any obligation to NOT feel slighted when they are treated differently than those with children because that would be discrimination. Both are choices.
9. The childless are not asking for special dispensations. The ones with children are constantly in need of special treatment because they want it all. Kids, alone time, career and money. All this with their offsprings being subsidized with the childless getting no piece of the pie. Parents derive more joy, material advantages and personal gain from their own children than the childless. The human animal recognizes and dislikes unfairness.
10. Having children is not a disease or a terminal illness. The way people whinge and whine about raising their own, i am skeptical about paying my mandatory dues towards the perpetuation of the human species as taxes to subsidize their kids because it feels like throwing good money after bad.
11. Society should screen and train young adults to be parents. Earlier, family and community provided that service to their kin. The world is a diff place now and perhaps child rearing needs a manual. No shame in asking for help. The key words being ‘asking for help’. Not demanding entitlements.
12. If having kids is ‘difficult’, there is no medal for trying. This reminds me of the American public school system where there is a trophy for everyone and for just participating because no one should feel left out.
13. The way the breeders are treating the non-breeders is insulting and abusive. There ought to be more gratitude for all the freebies and understanding. It’s like having a puppy that pees all over the neighborhood and the pet owner claims that it’s more difficult to own a pet and that non pet owners are having it easy and they should chip in and volunteer for the puppy training sessions and the costs. Only in bizarro world!
14. This whole point would be moot if we follow this: a. Only procreate if you can afford the child. b. Keep family and friends close. They are the social network who will be the ‘village’ that will help you raise your kid(s). It’s not the literal village that will raise the kids for parents. c. Consider child rearing as a full time job. Remember that it is indeed the most important and most difficult job to do. Do it well and be proud. d. Take responsibility for choices made voluntarily. The ones who are paying for others kids don’t have that choice wrt mandatory tithing. There is no shame in being a stay at home mom or dad. It IS a job. e. When asking for help, it would work better if one is polite. Honey better than vinegar etc.
15. Finally. Kids are a net benefit to society or that’s what we hope they’d be, but they can also be liabilities. We live in a world with gray zones. There is a lot of abysmal parenting out there and they should be witnessed. If not, everyone who has a child will walk around the with a halo believing themselves to be superheroes who saved humanity.
So..basically, I disagree some with you. Cheers.
Life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie. Two year olds think that the universe came into being at their birth and will end at their death, and so nothing else matters. You should consider whether that describes your childless-by-choice attitude.
I mean no offense, but you're free-riding on the child-rearing efforts of others past and future, whether you want to admit it or not. (I'm guessing you might not quite understand "pay it forward" either.) Your ancestors didn't free-ride on that score, yet you seem to think you're somehow privileged to do so without a care.
Have you considered that someone who doesn’t even want to replicate their own genes is likely not going to worry about the perpetuation of the human species? You are asking someone who doesn’t care even if their half of genes become immortal to feel the feels for someone else’s DNA. If I could say to some of these parents.. your baby is ugly and you smell like elderberries, I totally would.
My ancestors spawned multiple copies of what’s my DNA. Your understanding of genetics is shockingly sparse.
A mother bird will feed the strongest in the nest. The runt would be pushed out of the nest because the strongest has to survive to keep the species going.
Perhaps it’s better for someone without parental instincts to NOT become a father. Perhaps someone has a genetic disease and chose not to pass it on creating defective species. Perhaps someone dedicates their life to supporting orphanages or children’s hospitals. Perhaps someone wants to leave a light footprint because their 6 siblings have 3 children each.
You literally have NO valid reason to judge anyone who chooses not to spawn more of their own genes in this crowded 8 billion strong..soon to be 10 billion...world.
The only people I judge are those who willingly choose to have more than two children and are reliant on others to raise their own children. Even then, I want to say that I understand that instinct. Sometimes it’s a mental illness. Sometimes it’s an abusive situation. Sometimes it’s faith. Who knows. I have no choice but to respect their choices as long as they take responsibility. But those who bring children into this world without any responsibility and happy to look at others rather than themselves to raise them earn my ire.
Your words have however made me want to look this up. This parenthood martyrdom syndrome is fascinating. It is certainly more recent. It is basically a deception technique. There is a bird called killdeer and they lay eggs in the farm on bare ground. When a predator comes along, they hop a little distance away and enact a soap opera called broken wing syndrome. Pretending to flail around due to a broken wing..when they have distracted the predator long enough they’d fly away. Bird brain predator will likely go away in the next direction or the other birds will crowd them after hearing the cacophonous warning. That’s what this sacrificing parent archetype reminds me of...fascinating. I am going to write a story about this.
Holy hyperbole, Batman!
[..] The single most important factor in population growth is the total fertility rate (TFR). If, on average, women give birth to 2.1 children and these children survive to the age of 15, any given woman will have replaced herself and her partner upon death. A TFR of 2.1 is known as the replacement rate.[..]
In other words, if a woman has 2.1 children, she can replace herself and her partner. Even halving this number will not result in ‘the disappearance of society’. There will be a dip in population.
Which is actually desirable because we are at 8 billion and our resources are fast depleting as we are in the midst of the sixth extinction event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
[..] Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically translate into a population decline because of increasing life expectancy and population momentum: recently high fertility rates produce a disproportionately young population, and younger populations have higher birth rates. This is why some nations with sub-replacement fertility still have a growing population, because a relatively large fraction of their population are still of child-bearing age. But if the fertility trend is sustained (and not compensated by immigration), it results in population ageing and/or population decline. This is already happening and impacts first most of the countries of Europe and East Asia.[..]
[..] Some governments, fearful of a future pensions crisis, have developed natalist policies to attempt to encourage more women to have children. Measures include increasing tax allowances for working parents, improving child-care provision, reducing working hours/weekend working in female-dominated professions such as healthcare and a stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination measures to prevent professional women's promotion prospects being hindered when they take time off work to care for children. Over recent years, the fertility rate has increased to around 2.0 in France and 1.9 in Britain and some other northern European countries, but the role of population policies in these trends is debated.[52] In Italy, for example, natalist policies may have actually discouraged the Italian population from having more children. This "widespread resistance" was the result of the Italian government, at one point,[when?] taxing single persons and criminalizing abortion and even contraception.[53][..]
As a female, I am disgusted by how women’s bodies and reproductive ability is being commoditised. Natalist economic policies are akin to forcing them into flesh trade.
And then there is religion. I don’t want to risk a aneurysm and will refrain from that commentary.
And they would be right. Tell me what percent of the population can buy a house without a loan?
And if you dare say rent, that is just a loan by proxy.
Your ideals don't seem to be in line with how our reality currently works.
Maybe we should not all buy houses. After all, at the moment of out birth nobody decreed "This person is a house buyer". Maybe some of us should build our houses, which will almost certainly come out cheaper than buying. This is another choice we can make. Maybe one can buy a house in another area without getting a loan. This is another choice. Acting like someone else is forcing our choices on us I think it's ultimately self defeating.
Another thing to consider is that using the banks' money to buy houses inflates the price of the houses similarly to that happened to college tuition.
Loans do increase costs in asset inflation. At the same time they increase home ownership. Also it's not the same thing as college tuition. Bankruptcy is an option on home loans.
Is work bad, somehow? Should one get a house without work, simply because one wants a house?
You should read about the veil of ignorance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
We live in society because at the individual level each of us gets some benefits from doing so. When that stops being the case society will cease to exist.
It’s invariably to allow the woman to raise the couple’s kids. (Either a decision made by the couple after marriage to do that, as was the case with my MIL, or a man marries someone who wants to be a stay at home mom. Either way, it’s not a surprise or an accident.)
It’s also enormously beneficial for the man’s career, which is why many high earning men seek out women who want to stay at home to raise kids. My wife is similarly educated and earns as much money as I do. It’s hard and exhausting for both of us to juggle both things while raising kids. I have had the kids the last week and a half while my wife puts out fires at work, and it sucked. I had to whisper into a conference call today because I was putting my two year old down for a nap. When the kids were babies I’d take nights because I don’t need as much sleep, and I just dealt with the constant sleep deprivation while trying to do intellectually demanding work. (Luckily, my boss is similarly situated and negotiating over our banked-up “spouse capital” is accepted practice.) Even during normal circumstances, what suffers is home life—the plan for dinner this week is turkey sandwiches.
If we made the decision for her to stay home, it would be as much for me and our kids as her. It would be to allow me to focus more on work. It would allow her to focus on the house and kids. We have a fridge where the delivery has been put off for months because neither of us have the bandwidth to wait on hold for two hours to schedule it. One kid is getting a bit chunky and needs a curated diet of vegetables (which she refuses to eat). The other kid is advanced but nobody has time to read to him. All that could be improved if we chose to do it. (We chose not to do it because she loves her job and her earning potential is so high it would be a huge hit long term. But it still is a slog.)
> Maybe more people would marry between incomes if the high earning partner wouldn't be out at least 1/3 of their income for over a decade. I'm currently in a relationship with someone who has no hopes of making any money close to what I do - marriage ain't happening and they know why.
The rules are designed for the common case. Very few men earn enough where they can pay enough in alimony to offset the earning loss to a stay at home spouse from being out of the workforce.
This was not my decision and it was a huge stress to the early part of our marriage. I had the whole financial burden of the couple, and I didn't even have a house wife since she wanted 50/50 chores.
Luckily my country doesn't have alimony. I do pay a significant amount of child support despite having the children more than her but it doesn't bother me too much.
In the real world, usually a husband's deference to his wife's choices makes it her choice. If he doesn't defer, there will be arguments until he does.
That's not the ideal view of the world, but it's what I've observed in many friends' relationships.
But for the person receiving them, they are nowhere near what that person could be earning as a professional with a continuously developing career. And that's what rayiner is really talking about.
Also, just because someone is required to pay alimony or child support, it does not mean they will. Some people just skip out on it and dare the system to catch them; others fall on hard times themselves and can't pay what they intended to. Either way, it's a fragile situation for the recipient, compared to having their own job and income.
You are comparing here two different situations: one is actively working and building a career, and the other one is not having to do anything and have the money deposited to your account every month. Sure, the former usually will result in more money in your bank account, but the latter has pretty huge benefit of not actually having to do anything to earn it. I'd happily take 50% pay cut if I could, you know, quit my job and get the money anyway.
You're mixing up cause and effect. A married women trying to resume her career (which also happens for many other reasons in addition to divorce)is going to have the same problems as a women who is trying to resume her career due to a divorce.
Or historical/current practices and attitudes to relationships and child rearing is what created the liability, specifically the societal pressure for women to leave/not pursue a career and thus lose highly valuable work experience relative to men. Divorce just highlights this.
Shitty sexist traditional societal practices exacerbated the risk of exiting the workforce for women. The fact that women are more vulnerable to all kinds of life conditions such as divorce is a simply a consequence of that.
We are hearing "automation will destroy jobs" left and right and for some reason, we can't afford stay at home moms.
The "universal child care" argument makes me feel uncomfortable. It one step short of a dystopia. One where women would surrender their child to a state sponsored center where child care specialists make them productive members of society. Freed from their child rearing duty, "mothers" can continue working efficiently.
Why not just let mothers be mothers? What's the point of progress if we can't even do that. And also turn gender equality the right way, by letting fathers be fathers instead of requiring both parents to work full time.
For those who supported the government, it was much more expensive.
For those who were persecuted by the government, it was a living nightmare.
Because on the job market you compete against your neighbors. You can't do it now, because you can't get the neighbors from the 50s.
When most of your reference class have one income per family, the labor market will adapt so that you can feed the family from one income, because your neighbors will refuse to work for less. Then also you can get an income sufficient to feed your family.
When most of your reference class have two incomes per family, the labor market adapts so that now you need two incomes to feed your family. Your neighbors are willing to work for half the cost, and to remain competitive so do you.
(Here, "feed your family" is an euphemism for... basically the total cost of living on the same standard as your neighbors. That includes literally food, but also the cost of housing, schools for kids, health care, etc. A part of it you can save by living more cheaply than your neighbors, for example always cooking at home and never going to restaurants. But you can't do much with the housing costs, and that is a large part of the family budget.)
> Why not just let mothers be mothers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma -- if all mothers stay at home, they can. If half of them chooses career, the other half has to.
With regards to productivity and pay, I share with you many illustrative charts. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Interesting. That's exactly what's expected from H1 holders.
It's sad when both parents have to work minimum wage jobs just to make enough to get by. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a particularly bubble of tech where people make more than enough to get by and choose expensive lifestyles to match their expensive salaries.
What an absurd claim, only 21.1% of (Americans) two parent households with children under six have both parents working full time.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/indicators-child-family-and-comm...
With daycare, nannies, and/or school it’s perfectly reasonable both parents can have full time jobs. One parent may have even delayed their career during the youngest years and only recently resumed work.
The issue now is COVID makes these childcare options impossible, so it isn’t the parents fault for both working, and they have a momentary huge increase in childcare responsibility. This is not something they could have planned for and suggesting one parent quits their job and stays at home is unfair.
I spent years working my arse off after I became a single parent so I could have a career that also lets me be an involved parent. This year was meant to be my first relaxing year. It hasn't worked out that way but it's still an easier year for me than 2019 and 2018. I would go two months straight with 100-110 hours per week of time commitments.
Maybe I have an advantage because I'm used to not having free time. Home schooling is at most 30 hours per week but in reality far less unless your child has special needs. My 7 year old is mostly autonomous. Let's assume 40 hours per week of work. That's still only 70 hours per week. People might need to just manage their hours better each week. I do a lot of homeschooling on weekends, the work we missed during the week when my kids needed help but I was busy. I don't see any reason schooling on weekends would be an issue?