> sure there's probably a number that is high enough, but it clearly needs to be higher than Norway
There are three cost buckets: cost of birth, opportunity cost of birth, cost of child rearing and opportunity cost of parenting.
Norway is solving the first and probably the second while subsidizing the third. That leaves the opportunity costs untouched and direct costs, still, a net negative. Norway would need raise its annual payment to parents to completely cover the actual cost of raising a child, and then something for the career hit. I don’t know what those numbers are, but given it would directly increase the tax base, it’s almost precisely what one should borrow for.
There are three cost buckets: cost of birth, opportunity cost of birth, cost of child rearing and opportunity cost of parenting.
Norway is solving the first and probably the second while subsidizing the third. That leaves the opportunity costs untouched and direct costs, still, a net negative. Norway would need raise its annual payment to parents to completely cover the actual cost of raising a child, and then something for the career hit. I don’t know what those numbers are, but given it would directly increase the tax base, it’s almost precisely what one should borrow for.