4 ms·

"So while I'd like to force the startup to make the decision without considering this factor, is that always reasonable?" I believe it is. As a society, we've

"So while I'd like to force the startup to make the decision without considering this factor, is that always reasonable?" I believe it is. As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup.

saagarjha 8y ago
> As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Maybe we could take this out of the hands of the startup and have society subsidize it?
- emptybits 8y ago
  Some societies do. I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps. Regarding societal values, this the same program that would normally pay you temporarily if you were laid off (not by choice). Normally you wouldn't be eligible to collect benefits if you willingly left a job. Pregnancy is generally considered to be a choice, so I think making these benefits available to parents shows society does value the choice to parent and will subsidize it. Parents who adopt a child receive significant additional benefits on top of the standard allowance. Recently there have been changes to the program to improve benefits for self-employed. As we on HN know ... sometimes a startup founder isn't "employed" or receiving salary in the usual sense and historically it was difficult for such professionals to receive employment insurance benefits but it's changing. Anyways, progress? :-)
  - ldp01 8y ago
    > I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps. This. I'm writing from Australia- it looks like we only get $622.10 for 18 weeks, but it seems like a nice middle ground to support new parents. At that low price I would probably agree that 35 weeks is reasonable. I get confused when people argue strongly against the middle ground position. I don't even want to have kids but I don't begrudge the use of public money in this way- it's a direct investment in the future of society which shields both parents and businesses from undue financial stress without being profligate or forcing too much ideology on the rest of us.
  - xav0989 8y ago
    IIRC, it's 15 weeks at 55% for maternal benefits (only for the birth mother), and either 35 weeks of parental benefits at 55% or 61 weeks of parental benefits at 33% (can be shared between parents of biological or adopted child). And I'm sure many employers do top it off somewhat.
  - jbob2000 8y ago
    As an addendum, this leads to much less toxic work culture around pregenancies in Canada; it never feels like a “burden”, it’s just part of life. Combined with the fact that our tech salaries tend to be half that of the US, most companies are well protected from pregnancies because it a) doesn’t cost them much and b) they can hire more people to fill the gaps.
to_bpr 8y ago
>As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Err no. It wasn't long ago that a family could survive well on a single income with the mother at home, cars paid, schooling sorted and food on the table. Not even remotely feasible on a single income now, unless you're talking executive pay. Society has by and large chosen to abandon the family when it comes to supporting reproduction. Hell, we're told that we aren't reproducing at rates enough to replace us and that the only solution is bringing in cheap immigrants (got to keep those wages down) rather than making having more kids more accessible to the people already here. Society has chosen rabid capitalism at virtually every cost possible.
- xienze 8y ago
  Don’t forget feminism’s role in this as well. The traditional working father/stay at home mother arrangement has been deemed oppressive and degrading to women.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Consider what happens if you are in an abusive relationship, or a relationship that turns abusive, and your sole employable skills are ten years of home-making.
    - star-castle 8y ago
      "Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!" "Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!" ... not quite good enough. "Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one parachute just your yourself. That way, when the plane's in its terminal dive, you can abandon your family to their deaths and make it out alive." Something more like that, although that's absurd. Your view of the situation is inverted and immoral. A relationship is what might actually make life worth living for you. Your skills are how you get a job, and "ten years of home-making" just means that your lonely, pathetic existence, post-relationship, has a few less luxuries in it.

saagarjha 8y ago

> As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Maybe we could take this out of the hands of the startup and have society subsidize it?

emptybits 8y ago
Some societies do. I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps. Regarding societal values, this the same program that would normally pay you temporarily if you were laid off (not by choice). Normally you wouldn't be eligible to collect benefits if you willingly left a job. Pregnancy is generally considered to be a choice, so I think making these benefits available to parents shows society does value the choice to parent and will subsidize it. Parents who adopt a child receive significant additional benefits on top of the standard allowance. Recently there have been changes to the program to improve benefits for self-employed. As we on HN know ... sometimes a startup founder isn't "employed" or receiving salary in the usual sense and historically it was difficult for such professionals to receive employment insurance benefits but it's changing. Anyways, progress? :-)
- ldp01 8y ago
  > I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps. This. I'm writing from Australia- it looks like we only get $622.10 for 18 weeks, but it seems like a nice middle ground to support new parents. At that low price I would probably agree that 35 weeks is reasonable. I get confused when people argue strongly against the middle ground position. I don't even want to have kids but I don't begrudge the use of public money in this way- it's a direct investment in the future of society which shields both parents and businesses from undue financial stress without being profligate or forcing too much ideology on the rest of us.
- xav0989 8y ago
  IIRC, it's 15 weeks at 55% for maternal benefits (only for the birth mother), and either 35 weeks of parental benefits at 55% or 61 weeks of parental benefits at 33% (can be shared between parents of biological or adopted child). And I'm sure many employers do top it off somewhat.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  As an addendum, this leads to much less toxic work culture around pregenancies in Canada; it never feels like a “burden”, it’s just part of life. Combined with the fact that our tech salaries tend to be half that of the US, most companies are well protected from pregnancies because it a) doesn’t cost them much and b) they can hire more people to fill the gaps.

to_bpr 8y ago

>As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Err no. It wasn't long ago that a family could survive well on a single income with the mother at home, cars paid, schooling sorted and food on the table. Not even remotely feasible on a single income now, unless you're talking executive pay. Society has by and large chosen to abandon the family when it comes to supporting reproduction. Hell, we're told that we aren't reproducing at rates enough to replace us and that the only solution is bringing in cheap immigrants (got to keep those wages down) rather than making having more kids more accessible to the people already here. Society has chosen rabid capitalism at virtually every cost possible.

xienze 8y ago
Don’t forget feminism’s role in this as well. The traditional working father/stay at home mother arrangement has been deemed oppressive and degrading to women.
- vkou 8y ago
  Consider what happens if you are in an abusive relationship, or a relationship that turns abusive, and your sole employable skills are ten years of home-making.
  - star-castle 8y ago
    "Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!" "Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!" ... not quite good enough. "Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one parachute just your yourself. That way, when the plane's in its terminal dive, you can abandon your family to their deaths and make it out alive." Something more like that, although that's absurd. Your view of the situation is inverted and immoral. A relationship is what might actually make life worth living for you. Your skills are how you get a job, and "ten years of home-making" just means that your lonely, pathetic existence, post-relationship, has a few less luxuries in it.