3 ms·

> have retirement sooner By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime. Or men, whose par

> have retirement sooner By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime. Or men, whose partner could get pregnant (or adopt). > have/spend time with their families Applies to anyone over the age of 18. Probably under 18 too. > theyve already been trained in some other work method Which is why once you learn one programming language, you are immediately banned for working with any other language.

mise_en_place 4y ago
I just want to comment that your comment reminded me of min wage requirements. I'd love to hire a really Jr DevOps engineer but because of min wage and benefits that makes it impossible. If there was no min wage requirements I could hire a high school student with interest and not get destroyed financially by regulations
- soco 4y ago
  Which is exactly why there are regulations in the first place, to protect also that high school student with interest from being kicked out next year when a new round of high schoolers with interest comes around.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  Maybe you can't hire anyone because your business model just sucks.
  - mise_en_place 4y ago
    No, the req just becomes a senior role because comp has to be adjusted accordingly. Do you think min wage creates jobs?
native_samples 4y ago
> By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime Although you're presenting this as obviously absurd, taking that risk into account was long practice wasn't it? Forcing companies to pretend women are as likely to suddenly disappear for long periods as men is ultimately an economic choice and debatable as such in economic terms. It's essentially a kind of welfare that companies are made to pay, except instead of being an insurance scheme with actuarial rigor and smooth risk sharing over the entire population, it's a form of regressive taxation that disproportionately impacts smaller firms. It can therefore be argued that it'd be better for society to take a different approach here, maybe more similar to (non-US) healthcare, e.g. mandatory maternity leave insurance, and then allow companies to simply price in the higher risk of extended absences. If they're no longer on the hook for paying wages this difference would be basically disruption risk and shouldn't be a particularly large difference for any but the tiniest firms, especially as motherhood comes with a much longer notice period than the typical resignation.

mise_en_place 4y ago

I just want to comment that your comment reminded me of min wage requirements. I'd love to hire a really Jr DevOps engineer but because of min wage and benefits that makes it impossible. If there was no min wage requirements I could hire a high school student with interest and not get destroyed financially by regulations

soco 4y ago
Which is exactly why there are regulations in the first place, to protect also that high school student with interest from being kicked out next year when a new round of high schoolers with interest comes around.
moron4hire 4y ago
Maybe you can't hire anyone because your business model just sucks.
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  No, the req just becomes a senior role because comp has to be adjusted accordingly. Do you think min wage creates jobs?

native_samples 4y ago

> By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime Although you're presenting this as obviously absurd, taking that risk into account was long practice wasn't it? Forcing companies to pretend women are as likely to suddenly disappear for long periods as men is ultimately an economic choice and debatable as such in economic terms. It's essentially a kind of welfare that companies are made to pay, except instead of being an insurance scheme with actuarial rigor and smooth risk sharing over the entire population, it's a form of regressive taxation that disproportionately impacts smaller firms. It can therefore be argued that it'd be better for society to take a different approach here, maybe more similar to (non-US) healthcare, e.g. mandatory maternity leave insurance, and then allow companies to simply price in the higher risk of extended absences. If they're no longer on the hook for paying wages this difference would be basically disruption risk and shouldn't be a particularly large difference for any but the tiniest firms, especially as motherhood comes with a much longer notice period than the typical resignation.