[klipt]

> All of the old structures of church and community fell without something to take its place, and for whatever reason it's progressive to discount prioritizing traditional values like family over career.

The economy grows faster when people sacrifice their personal lives for work.

Not saying I like it, but it seems obvious why incentives are aligned that way.

[jlokier]

Perhaps in the short term.

It's not obvious in the longer term. Economic growth, which is affected by technological and scientific advancement (among many other things), depends on insight and creativity, not just hard work.

Maybe the economy grows more in the longer term if the people working in it were raised as healthy, happy children in more of a "family values" sort of situation.

[jlokier]

To clarify, I don't intend my comment to be read as suggesting "family values" automatically results in healthier, happier children or is superior in some way. Especially not "traditional" family values.

(Personally I hold much more of a progressive, pro-LGBT+-visibility, love-and-let-love type of position than what are sometimes called traditional family values.)

Rather, I want to suggest that long term economic growth almost certainly depends in some way not just on people sacrificing their personal lives for work now; but also qualities that future generations grow up with, i.e. how children are raised, schooled, looked after, the attitudes they are surrounded by and so on.

I'm not informed enough to know how personal life in the present affects multi-generational economic growth. But I'm sure it has an effect, and that everyone maximising work in the present at the cost of personal life is almost certainly not the path to maximum collective prosperity as measured by economic growth in the long term.