Not sure how I missed this, but David Leonhardt's most recent column addresses work/life balance--or the total lack thereof--in the financial services and consulting fields.  Leonhardt talks about this Harvard study, among others, that compares the family-friendliness of various elite fields and finds, surprisingly, that medicine is actually one of the most flexible professions, often allowing established practicioners to carve out an enjoyable family life while also having a satisfying career.  Finance and consulting, by contrast, allow for little to no flexibility in working hours or conditions, thus forcing people who want to spend more time with their children to drop out of the field entirely, or to take time off for which they are later penalized: taking time out from a financial services career means an average 41% pay disparity with former colleagues upon returning to work.

Nice to see this issue taken up in the Economy section of the Times; after all, the issue of whether workers have lives worth living, complete with thriving families, should be a central question in the cultural conversation.  And while the studies that Leonhardt references deal with elite, highly educated workers, they could be the beginning of a broader public discussion needs to address these issues and their implications for the average Janes and Joes of the workforce.