[pllbnk]

I don’t understand the reasoning to have children if you don’t want to spend time with them and rather would pay someone to do that for you (not addressing directly at you). Being able to spend time with your child is a gift which passes by very quickly.

[rainsford]

Unless you're independently wealthy, even the most traditional two parent nuclear family with a married mom and dad requires at least one parent to spend a significant portion of their day away from their children earning a living. I'm not sure why you would so strongly object to both parents doing that when you would presumably not object to just one doing the same.

[pllbnk]

WFH kind of solves that. Instead of taking coffee breaks or going to lunch with the colleagues presumably one of the working spouses can spend those breaks with the family. Now, I am looking at this problem from the European perspective where one of the spouses receive childcare payments and is allowed not to go to work for 1-2 years. I know about American system (12 weeks off) and it's beyond insane to me.

[subpixel]

I don't disagree that parents should just roll around on the floor with their child until age three. My creditors feel otherwise, I presume.

[pllbnk]

I commented specifically regarding your wording about what's easier. I support the view that daycare is something you have to do reluctantly, not that it's the easy way out. Over the years I had seen too many of my colleagues who "prefer working from the office" because there are small children at home. That implies that the other spouse (every time it's the mother) who is staying at home taking care of them.