I actually love the idea of tying parenthood to Social Security benefits. It recognizes something we usually ignore: raising children isn’t just a personal choice, it’s labor that sustains the entire system.
At the same time, I don’t think everyone should have children. A child deserves to be loved, wanted, and cherished. That starts with being brought into a home where they are genuinely desired, not into a situation where they exist as a financial strategy or a means to secure benefits.
Children can be deeply fulfilling for those who want them. But for someone who doesn’t, it can feel like a life sentence. That’s not fair to the parent, and it’s certainly not fair to the child.
So I think the purpose of these kinds of interventions should be very clear: not to incentivize parenthood indiscriminately, but to enable it for those who already desire it and are holding back because of structural risks.
Make it easier, safer, and more rational for people who want children to have them. Not to push people into it who don’t.
Sarah. these are all sound ideas and concepts but the workplace is also incredibly ageist. If young women have a kid or several, they're finishing say graduate school and or entering the work force around 30?? they'll be discriminated agains.t
I agree, which is why I propose monetary benefits to companies for the first few years of employment. Beyond ageism (which you are right about), it really is a risk to hire someone who has been out of practice for years.
I've often thought of this issue. Especially now that my kids are of reproductive age. If I were king.....
Pay mom's a decent salary until kids are high school age. Like six figures.
The way we thought about it was,,, "what is our purpose, what is the most important thing we are doing" It wasn't money, or jobs, it was our kids. Moms are far and away the best moms, all dads can really do is help, work like a dog to support one's wife and kids, that's why dads are here.
really, so countries became "great" when they were "faith based"?? what's wrong with Pakistan, which is incredibly more "faith based" than we are. Would you say people's lives were better after the Medieval Period which was INCREDIBLY "faith based"?? I would say yes.. :) Ultimately, can you admit that getting people to return to "faith based" perspective, isn't going to happen, regardless of how much you'd desire this, and EVEN if the "faith based" perspective proved more beneficial? #NotHappening
Just compare the basis of the faith that built the 13 Colonies that went to build the United States and the faith that went to build Pakistan, following your example. Countries are the way they are because of the framework they were built in. The US institutional framework is the best, in my opinion. Don’t know where you are from, but the fact that millions want to come live here shows the system is better than where they lived before. And our system wasn’t built by faithless people. It was built by Protestant Christians for the most part.
pretty similar faiths. Both very Abrahamic. Both hell bent on proselytizing. Both very interested in controlling people's private lives. "Faith" had nothing to do with why people came here, apart from the earliest Pilgrims of course, and I'll leave YOU to be happy in the Puritan Pilgrim wonderland. Care for a Scarlet Letter"? Also, you may want to note the that US "institutional framework" (and here we might agree about US being best) has NOTHING to do with "faith". In fact, the interesting thing about the US is that "faith" was never tied to the state (unlike pretty much everywhere else) in its laws, in its Constitution and in its institutions.
I actually love the idea of tying parenthood to Social Security benefits. It recognizes something we usually ignore: raising children isn’t just a personal choice, it’s labor that sustains the entire system.
At the same time, I don’t think everyone should have children. A child deserves to be loved, wanted, and cherished. That starts with being brought into a home where they are genuinely desired, not into a situation where they exist as a financial strategy or a means to secure benefits.
Children can be deeply fulfilling for those who want them. But for someone who doesn’t, it can feel like a life sentence. That’s not fair to the parent, and it’s certainly not fair to the child.
So I think the purpose of these kinds of interventions should be very clear: not to incentivize parenthood indiscriminately, but to enable it for those who already desire it and are holding back because of structural risks.
Make it easier, safer, and more rational for people who want children to have them. Not to push people into it who don’t.
Really well written piece.
Sarah. these are all sound ideas and concepts but the workplace is also incredibly ageist. If young women have a kid or several, they're finishing say graduate school and or entering the work force around 30?? they'll be discriminated agains.t
I agree, which is why I propose monetary benefits to companies for the first few years of employment. Beyond ageism (which you are right about), it really is a risk to hire someone who has been out of practice for years.
I've often thought of this issue. Especially now that my kids are of reproductive age. If I were king.....
Pay mom's a decent salary until kids are high school age. Like six figures.
The way we thought about it was,,, "what is our purpose, what is the most important thing we are doing" It wasn't money, or jobs, it was our kids. Moms are far and away the best moms, all dads can really do is help, work like a dog to support one's wife and kids, that's why dads are here.
I only wish we'd of had 2 more.
The best argument I have ever seen for supporting Motherhood and rational gender differences. Congratulations
A different perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PpdVEzfgPo
i was going to listen but then I saw "Faith" .. Not interested in a "faith" based perspective. and neither are most people.
Hence the situation our originally faith-built country is in now.
really, so countries became "great" when they were "faith based"?? what's wrong with Pakistan, which is incredibly more "faith based" than we are. Would you say people's lives were better after the Medieval Period which was INCREDIBLY "faith based"?? I would say yes.. :) Ultimately, can you admit that getting people to return to "faith based" perspective, isn't going to happen, regardless of how much you'd desire this, and EVEN if the "faith based" perspective proved more beneficial? #NotHappening
Just compare the basis of the faith that built the 13 Colonies that went to build the United States and the faith that went to build Pakistan, following your example. Countries are the way they are because of the framework they were built in. The US institutional framework is the best, in my opinion. Don’t know where you are from, but the fact that millions want to come live here shows the system is better than where they lived before. And our system wasn’t built by faithless people. It was built by Protestant Christians for the most part.
pretty similar faiths. Both very Abrahamic. Both hell bent on proselytizing. Both very interested in controlling people's private lives. "Faith" had nothing to do with why people came here, apart from the earliest Pilgrims of course, and I'll leave YOU to be happy in the Puritan Pilgrim wonderland. Care for a Scarlet Letter"? Also, you may want to note the that US "institutional framework" (and here we might agree about US being best) has NOTHING to do with "faith". In fact, the interesting thing about the US is that "faith" was never tied to the state (unlike pretty much everywhere else) in its laws, in its Constitution and in its institutions.