= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on On not getting a job as an option - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (187)
Well, in terms of a guess, that is what, 12% of the population?
You forgot to mention not getting a job is acceptable for children, college students and elders. Probably also the handicapped.
Even then, maybe that sums up to two thirds or something. That's still a hundred million people who could benefit from considering the option, if only to give up on it a few days later.
I find the gender asymmetry in this case to be perplexing. Just like I think polyamory should be equal for both sides. it seems to me the opportunity not to work and be fine with it should be equal for both sides. In both cases one could make arguments of tradition, or from biology (naturallistic fallacy etc...) trying to explain the asymmetry, and in both cases I think it is unjustified.
You can't completely exclude the biological part, at least if the couple wants to have children. There will be at least a year per every child, when the woman can't go to work, and this can't be avoided for many people (in some cases the woman can work from home, but that's not an option for everyone). So there is some real assymetry, although it may be less important than it seems.
Tradition, prejudice, etc... that's like advertising. It may be completely irrational, but it is still a force that exists and moves the market balance. You can model the past and the culture as an enormous advertising budget, and the advertisement says that men who don't have a decent income are losers, and indirectly the women with such partners are also losers (because they had to choose losers as their partners). We can disagree with this, but there is this huge advertising budget against us, and it skews the relationship market balance.
This seems to be wildly off based on my experiences. Women I know (with working husbands) having children are taking 2-3 months off.
My first reaction: Checking whether you are from USA.
Yeah, I know this is not an argument, but the cultural difference is huge here.
I would like to know if there is a scientific research about whether separating 2 months old children from their mothers for half of day has an impact on the child, and what is the impact specifically.
Viliam, as far as I recall from memory alone, there is very little effect on what a tiny infant does for half a day in their future lives.
It matters more which of the attachment kinds the baby will acquire when the mom is present, not when she is absent.
People are 50% genes 50% question mark, if you summarize psychological science super ultra violently. Not the best strategy for science, but good enough for a cached thought.
I am from the US, and work in manufacturing, which is even more culturally conservative. But this isn't out of line with any other experiences I've had.