5 ms·

> How come we don't expect people to understand that having a kid is a lot of work, something that will inherently set their life back, and price that into thei

> How come we don't expect people to understand that having a kid is a lot of work, something that will inherently set their life back, and price that into their decision of whether to have a kid? Specifically because people understand this is why we need to accommodate people who have children. If having children starts really setting you back because it's not accommodated in the slightest, all the ambitious, driven, and responsible people will decide that they can't afford to have children. If it gets bad enough, it becomes so common that the fertility rate of your entire country falls down. The other reason is a business oriented one: a very large portion of the population intends to have children. It would be rather strange to exclude them all from your employment pool. > Can't we rephrase that as, someone who has a matter in their life they need to spend hours a day taking care of will have less hours for other things? Now a question for you. Would you want to live in a world where the only way to survive was to dedicate 100% of your life to your job? No relationships, no hobbies, no time for things like exercise. Just your job.

brhsiao 10y ago
Makes sense. Ok, you changed my mind. I did read once that humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a society. Apparently villages used to raise all the kids together. So I am probably arguing against biology here. I'm still not sure assuming that people with kids have less time left over is discrimination, but I am probably projecting my own lack of desire to have kids onto the separate issue of how society should be run.
- telesilla 10y ago
  >humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a society On that, you are right. It's incredibly frustrating for many trying to raise a family in Western-style living arrangements being so separate from their extended families and community. Child-raising is most efficient when done by a group: alone, it's exhausting and challenging and it's bad for the economy in the long term: http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-needs-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-live/ http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-ne... Even if you don't care about the emotional aspect, there are many impacts on society caused by the very recent rise of the Nuclear Family.
- shard 10y ago
  Don't forget that even childless adults are sometimes put in situations where they need time off to take care of someone else, such as a sick spouse, sibling, or parent. Having a system where theses events are accepted helps companies retain their employees through times of crisis.
1_2__3 10y ago
Not accommodating kids in the workplace has worked pretty great for us for a few hundred years now. I'm not sure your arguments for changing that are compelling.
- patmcc 10y ago
  For the last few hundred years women were effectively required to stay home and look after children. We've pretty much doubled the size of the workforce, but have to make some accommodations now that there isn't an assumed stay-at-home caregiver.
- dpark 10y ago
  Pretty sure you didn't think this through since in the last few hundred years we absolutely accommodated kids at work. In coal mines and factories. Pointing at historical norms is generally a poor way to argue for what's right.

brhsiao 10y ago

Makes sense. Ok, you changed my mind. I did read once that humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a society. Apparently villages used to raise all the kids together. So I am probably arguing against biology here. I'm still not sure assuming that people with kids have less time left over is discrimination, but I am probably projecting my own lack of desire to have kids onto the separate issue of how society should be run.

telesilla 10y ago
>humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a society On that, you are right. It's incredibly frustrating for many trying to raise a family in Western-style living arrangements being so separate from their extended families and community. Child-raising is most efficient when done by a group: alone, it's exhausting and challenging and it's bad for the economy in the long term: http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-needs-to-die-in-order-for-us-to-live/ http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-ne... Even if you don't care about the emotional aspect, there are many impacts on society caused by the very recent rise of the Nuclear Family.
shard 10y ago
Don't forget that even childless adults are sometimes put in situations where they need time off to take care of someone else, such as a sick spouse, sibling, or parent. Having a system where theses events are accepted helps companies retain their employees through times of crisis.

1_2__3 10y ago

Not accommodating kids in the workplace has worked pretty great for us for a few hundred years now. I'm not sure your arguments for changing that are compelling.

patmcc 10y ago
For the last few hundred years women were effectively required to stay home and look after children. We've pretty much doubled the size of the workforce, but have to make some accommodations now that there isn't an assumed stay-at-home caregiver.
dpark 10y ago
Pretty sure you didn't think this through since in the last few hundred years we absolutely accommodated kids at work. In coal mines and factories. Pointing at historical norms is generally a poor way to argue for what's right.