[stbarnes]

The article uses misleading numbers. Sure, that 2% bonus is worth $60k if you compound it over 40 years. But that number is almost irrelevant. What's relevant is the opportunity cost. If you spent that time (likely hundred or thousands of hours) working on more valuable skills, you'd likely get much more than 2%. Put another way, the value of that time, when compounded over 20 years, is enormous, probably more enormous than $60k. To compound the value gained from language but not compound the value of the time is extremely misleading - either use present values for both, or use comparable future values for both.