( ^* ^, z% P) h O: `# K4 q说的太是了,生一个孩子耽误好几年呢!" ]& j. f1 P) a/ A& z
政府给一年产假,女的回去上班,那个时候孩子可能刚1岁,DAYCARE都排不上,好多DAYCARE都得排好几年,即使排上了,18个月以下的孩子一个月1200左右的DAYCARE FEE,大点的孩子800-900,而且孩子刚上DAYCARE特别容易生病,一生病就传染全家,感冒发烧咳嗽,一轮接一轮,孩子受罪,大人跟着受罪。如果是家里2个孩子上DAYCARE,妈妈还要去上班,早晨送孩子,晚上接孩子,还要做饭,喂饭,洗澡,哄睡,即使LG很给力,很帮忙,全家也是过的非常累,非常辛苦的!
小黄 发表于 2013-8-21 09:18 % S$ A4 N, ~4 ~' K% w+ s
您说的这个模式,就是用钱换生育呗,更适用于一夫多妻制。没啥错,中国5000年光辉历史的前4900年都是这样 ...
0 l' R! w* Y: E2 D: m7 C3 e* g
7 {% L6 [7 i# q$ I2 \ K% Z' sSorry, I don’t see a correlation between my statement and yours, so to make myself clear: $ v- A* ~1 \+ l6 Z$ Q- t+ ?' ^0 g8 \/ I8 S7 K5 f
If you’re spared from tedious household chores merely because you are the main income earner, it’s only a privilege. $ a! J9 K7 R+ D' a2 m) \4 b% E; o+ e+ j
However it becomes a right (more or less) if you can earn enough to spare BOTH from those. 9 n# ~) W3 m4 R% A! ]4 X: H% c0 P6 s
小黄 发表于 2013-8-21 09:13 9 z% e* P% I, C' T" o" {想钱想疯了?某些族裔的一生就10个8个的生。按照您的逻辑,她们的劳动相当于100万了?9 @, `* D+ B( V" S
0 |' v$ K0 F- s' d
我觉得一个女人 ...
7 } x; B, `5 o) h& Q" @/ | 5 z; t$ x9 r1 O4 f1 f/ x4 R4 YYou can’t value homemaker production by her implied opportunity cost alone. Not from the perspective of society as a whole, anyway. ; W: a( U. l o9 X
- Z& w- c) f( _2 bP.S. when did you piss off Sumash? lol.
SheJing 发表于 2013-8-21 10:42 2 r A- @8 `7 \2 V$ y( k9 ?# _You can’t value homemaker production by her implied opportunity cost alone. Not from the perspe ...
N7 R7 q# x( t 9 V r9 |9 Y. W. T* l+ w投入产出经济学并不能适用于所有范畴。