[Virax]

Holy cow - when you read this article right after this one:

http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...

it really blows your mind. I think the nay-sayers are missing the point of this article - it doesn't matter if you are sympathetic to the family. You have to remember that the higher paying job isn't creating 2x the economic output - her choice to take the lower paying job means that:

There is one fewer position making $120K

There is one more position making $60K

Now consider this: the $120K position is much more likely to be a management position, which, if done well, could create several $60K positions, lets say 3. This means that for the economy as a whole, there is one less $120K position and TWO fewer $60K positions.

In my opinion this is very scary.

[gnosis]

"Now consider this: the $120K position is much more likely to be a management position, which, if done well, could create several $60K positions, lets say 3."

This does not follow. The task of the higher paid position might be to fire people, not hire them (especially in this economy).

[AlisdairO]

This seems backwards to me. Traditionally, aren't managers appointed when there is a need to manage people doing work? You don't (generally) appoint a manager and then wait for them to somehow create the work that people would do.

[Pahalial]

Well this is just plain wrong. She has two positions available to her; her choosing the $60k one does not wink the $120k position out of existence, and there will certainly be someone else trying for that. Perhaps one of the many people who do not fall in the narrow description of "parent with a mortgage, two kids, one in college" that would make it such a seemingly terrible deal.

[fburnaby]

>> and there will certainly be someone else trying for that

That deserves an award for understatement of the year. You could probably set up a five man brawl to the death for that job right now.