[flagged]
Regardless, not the author nor commenters do imply the answer is "nowhere". On the other hand, your post implied an answer somewhat far toward the opposite end of the spectrum.
To be clear, no argument is being made that people should not consider pragmatic parameters when deciding to have children. However, they should not have to meet such a high bar, as you are implying by your attitude on this specific case (the author's case).
He isn't expecting empathy for having kids.
He's making an equation that says:
The cost of child care is so high that if you work from home and handle your children with flexible working hours, it is hard for him to find a job that requires him to be in the office and will compensate him the cost of child care he cannot perform himself.
So even if in-office jobs paid more, it would unlikely be worth it to him.
What he doesn't explicitly say is: He's got an incredible privilege. Not everyone has a skill or a negotiation ability that lets you pick a remote job always. So not only does he save the $40k per year in child care, he probably earns quite well on his remote job, compared to the national average who does need to show up at the office.
That choice, for may, could be the choice to have children, deciding to stay in a HCOL area, going to college (specifically taking out loans to do so) etc.
SVB made "safe" bets on 10 yr T notes and it ended up being wrong. Individuals making "safe" bets on getting married, going to college, having kids, may also be making bad life choices for them. I think at least we should have that conversation...
Author says working in office has too high alternative cost because of kids. But it could have been any reason: that time spent flexibly could have gone towards any goal.
Using kids tuition is just a flex. Once you can afford to insist on working remote (assuming you want to), you can earn more money because you get 5-15 hours back every week from not commuting and lunch breaking every day.
But for those, this conversation does not apply.
You can make a different argument that working in office prevents you from exceeding being a wage space, because you can’t run a side business or live on a beach as you always wanted.
The essence of the article is the alternative code of working in an office, you seem to make it about whether one should have kids, as if the cost was a deciding factor for those who consider to have kids at all. Which it supposedly is for some, but not all.
I really don't understand what the value of this blank check for having children regardless of circumstances provides...
At no point did they say anything even CLOSE to that you disingenuous butthead. Don't put words in people's mouths.