I was addressing equal pay for equal work in the workplace.

You are making a different argument, essentially saying women should be paid to have babies, because society needs them to. Both France and Japan do that. It has worked in France, less so in Japan to address both countries "fertility rate" issues.

Regarding the cost of families. Typically, the woman, the family and society all pitch in to fund the cost of raising a child. Society kicks in by funding public education all the way through college and providing entitlements for households earning below a certain threshold. How fair is that, probably depends on where you stand.

Economists have observed that based on the incentives in our society, society is telling women with critical workplace skills not to have children and if they do, have as few as possible. In that sense, while you are advocating society fund children more, society is saying sure, but not if your skills are needed in the workplace.

Meanwhile those with marginal skills are rewarded through entitlements to have as many as possible. We are literally paying girls more money to have children (if they don't have a high school degree), then most of them can earn working. So, it's a bit more nuanced and complex then you suggest, I am not saying our current system is the right one, only that women are not "on their own".

As a parent of five children, I have always viewed children as a financial cost I bear not for society's sake, but because I love being parent. I wonder why so many people that can afford to have children choose not to. Being a parent is both expensive, taxing, and the most rewarding thing I have done in my life.

When I die someday (hopefully not to soon from now), I won't look back at my career and wished I had worked more. I do wish I had enjoyed more time with my first three children, when they were young, and I was younger.

Being a parent was far more rewarding than being the CEO of a company with 42,000 employees. I feel lucky, I was forced to retire early due to a heart condition and I got to raise my two youngest children. I never realized what I was missing.

I have very mixed emotions about more societal funding going towards families because the more money society contributes the more input it will assert over what the child is taught and how the child is raised. I will pass on that deal, but I am fortunate enough to have that option.

Meanwhile my wife dropped out of the workforce when our children were born and after the last one hit middle school, she decided to go back to work. I funded her starting her own business. The organizational skills she perfected raising our children are the backbone skills of her business today. One she started in her 50s. Today, the company is doing amazingly and she earns far more than she would likely have earned in corporate America (where she worked prior to dropping out and having children based on national averages).

She got a chance to spend time with the children when she was young, and they were babies and a chance to run her own business when they grew up.

I think the premise of your argument is that children are a burden. But perhaps a better way to view them is as a choice.

If Americans collectively decided not to have children, there are 150 million people that want to come here, fully raised and ready to go to work.

If people decided they did not want children in this country, we could bring young people in at age 18, put them through college or vocational school and have them join the workforce for far less money than raising them as babies.

So, the issue is far more complex, and I understand your point of view and sympathize with it at the individual level. But less so at the societal level. With AI and greater automation coming down the road, we may not need many future "workers" and we are likely to be able to import all we need. At that point, having children is a personal choice, one I think many Americans including myself willingly choose with all the costs and benefits that go along with that choice. Sure, my five children have collectively cost a small fortune, but boy are they worth it (actually, I should have said, but "girl" are they worth it... since four of five children are daughters).