4 ms·

I think this might actually be a leverage / tolerance question. Your employer knows that your peer would probably not be able to tolerate too much time away fr

I think this might actually be a leverage / tolerance question. Your employer knows that your peer would probably not be able to tolerate too much time away from children and are a higher risk of leaving if he were not able to spend that time with his child. Where unless you were to adopt a lifestyle with hard time requirements (mandatory night & weekend religious ceremonies), your employer knows you are less likely to leave. In previous jobs, child care hours accommodation also included a political / PR aspect: they didn't want to deal with the shit storm of spouses going to the press or contacting senior leadership / powerful stakeholders with complaints about time spent away from children.

ianai 10y ago
No doubt there are many factors involved. Clearly from my point of view it feels wrong and from other points of view it appears correct. A more interesting question to me is this: Those hours would allow me to have a more socially adjusted life. I would have more opportunities to meet women with similar views and personalities to my own (outside of work). I would have more time to date during traditional hours, for instance. So which should it be? Should society always optimize for the families that exist or should it optimize (in circumstances left for debate elsewhere) at least some of the time toward the possibility of new families? I'm talking the difference between pure strategies and mixed strategies. Usually mixed strategies work out best for everyone involved over repeated games - and this is definitely a repeated game situation.
- linkregister 10y ago
  If this were a universal problem for singles, they would adapt to socialize during non-standard hours. Since it isn't, I suspect there's opportunity for you to change jobs or roles to trade off for the comparative advantages you have in your current role (maybe you have lots of opportunity to learn or have a pay premium). I suspect that your situation is temporary, and once you have accomplished the short-term objectives you have in mind, you'll take advantage of a better opportunity.

ianai 10y ago

No doubt there are many factors involved. Clearly from my point of view it feels wrong and from other points of view it appears correct. A more interesting question to me is this: Those hours would allow me to have a more socially adjusted life. I would have more opportunities to meet women with similar views and personalities to my own (outside of work). I would have more time to date during traditional hours, for instance. So which should it be? Should society always optimize for the families that exist or should it optimize (in circumstances left for debate elsewhere) at least some of the time toward the possibility of new families? I'm talking the difference between pure strategies and mixed strategies. Usually mixed strategies work out best for everyone involved over repeated games - and this is definitely a repeated game situation.

linkregister 10y ago
If this were a universal problem for singles, they would adapt to socialize during non-standard hours. Since it isn't, I suspect there's opportunity for you to change jobs or roles to trade off for the comparative advantages you have in your current role (maybe you have lots of opportunity to learn or have a pay premium). I suspect that your situation is temporary, and once you have accomplished the short-term objectives you have in mind, you'll take advantage of a better opportunity.