4 ms·

I agree with his experiences, and there would be more to add. For example our baby-friend families usually were connected via my wife (from birth preparation cl

by Tichy 13y ago

I agree with his experiences, and there would be more to add. For example our baby-friend families usually were connected via my wife (from birth preparation classes for example), so it was a bit harder/more awkward for me to call them up to hang out so that our kids could play together. That's not active discrimination, just stuff that happens. I wanted to throw some other thought to HN: I've come to the conclusion that we won't see a big surge in "stay-at-home-daddying". I have nothing against it, but ultimately I think the rationale would be "why would I pay my babysitter half of my salary" (which is what a stay at home dad is getting)? It seems to me a mother still has a bigger claim to her children because she invested much more physically, so society will deem it more acceptable if she does the stay-at-home thing, getting paid more than a mere babysitter. Or will it become feasible in the future to speculate on becoming a stay-at-home dad? For example (extreme to make a point) instead of taking on another career, take classes in cooking and home decoration in the expectation to one day take care of a home? It seems very unlikely to me, although of course there will be (and already are) lots of women who have and want interesting careers. But would they go forth and marry a guy with no skills but home honing? Please spare me the sexism comments, I want to think rationally about this. (I personally don't care who stays at home). The point is that it is very viable to speculate on becoming a stay at home mother imo.

mtrimpe 13y ago
I forgot which country it was but one of the Nordic countries tried hard to get parental leave taken and in the end they had to make 2 of 6 months of (fully paid) leave exclusively for the father. Once they did that and the family was actually leaving paid leave on the table otherwise, fathers are now nearing 40% of birth leave.
- Tichy 13y ago
  Granted, I wasn't even thinking about the paid paternity leave. Obviously if the state pays for it, the thought "how much am I willing to pay my babysitter" is not a factor. It's actually fascinating that despite full pay a lot of dads apparently prefer to stay at work? I can only assume that they worry about a negative impact to their career in the long run (ie employer doesn't think they are loyal enough to promote them)?
  - ixacto 13y ago
    Assuming: 150k/yr salary * 0.5 (paid leave) * .33 (4 months) =$24750 for just raising a kid, damn. To be the devil's advocate, why not let people who do not have children take a 4 month paid ($24750) vacation every 5 years? I would like to take a round-the-world vacation for 4 months...
    - ecopoesis 13y ago
      Because promoting round-the-world vacations isn't the business the government is in, but promoting good families is.
      - Tichy 13y ago
        Why not, though? Assuming a democratic government represents the interests of it's voters, apparently a significant fraction (ok, at least one) of the population would be interested in paid 4 month vacations.
      - ixacto 13y ago
        TFA said that Facebook paid it his parental leave. If FB thinks it is worth it to retain him as an employee, it's their money. The US government on the other hand seriously doesn't give a fuck about families since most of their programs are oriented to single mothers. Also there is no federally mandated parental leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
    - Tichy 13y ago
      This illustrates very well why you shouldn't become a slave to the money. Earning more money won't make you happier. Spending more time with your kid might.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      > Assuming: 150k/yr salary * 0.5 (paid leave) * .33 (4 months) =$24750 for just raising a kid, damn. Chances are if you are making 150k/yr, you're comfortably set in the upper middle class (cost of living complaining notwithstanding). At that point you probably don't have to worry about money, assuming you don't have any expensive hobbies. Taking time out to spend time with your children could be well worth it for a lot of people, since they don't feel they actually need those extra $24750 for anything. > To be the devil's advocate, why not let people who do not have children take a 4 month paid ($24750) vacation every 5 years? I would like to take a round-the-world vacation for 4 months... Because society wants to facilitate people having children (and a company might facilitate that if they are forced to by the government, or all of their competitors give the same benefits)? People can complain all day about overpopulation, but fertility rates in western countries are low, many places below 2.1 child per woman. Bringing in people from other countries brings with itself assimilation problems, and simply letting the population decline without interfering can lead to lopsided distribution of age brackets, for example to a disproportionate amount of pensioners that have to be supported by a shrinking workforce.

by Tichy 13y ago

mtrimpe 13y ago

I forgot which country it was but one of the Nordic countries tried hard to get parental leave taken and in the end they had to make 2 of 6 months of (fully paid) leave exclusively for the father. Once they did that and the family was actually leaving paid leave on the table otherwise, fathers are now nearing 40% of birth leave.

Tichy 13y ago
Granted, I wasn't even thinking about the paid paternity leave. Obviously if the state pays for it, the thought "how much am I willing to pay my babysitter" is not a factor. It's actually fascinating that despite full pay a lot of dads apparently prefer to stay at work? I can only assume that they worry about a negative impact to their career in the long run (ie employer doesn't think they are loyal enough to promote them)?
- ixacto 13y ago
  Assuming: 150k/yr salary * 0.5 (paid leave) * .33 (4 months) =$24750 for just raising a kid, damn. To be the devil's advocate, why not let people who do not have children take a 4 month paid ($24750) vacation every 5 years? I would like to take a round-the-world vacation for 4 months...
  - ecopoesis 13y ago
    Because promoting round-the-world vacations isn't the business the government is in, but promoting good families is.
    - Tichy 13y ago
      Why not, though? Assuming a democratic government represents the interests of it's voters, apparently a significant fraction (ok, at least one) of the population would be interested in paid 4 month vacations.
    - ixacto 13y ago
      TFA said that Facebook paid it his parental leave. If FB thinks it is worth it to retain him as an employee, it's their money. The US government on the other hand seriously doesn't give a fuck about families since most of their programs are oriented to single mothers. Also there is no federally mandated parental leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
  - Tichy 13y ago
    This illustrates very well why you shouldn't become a slave to the money. Earning more money won't make you happier. Spending more time with your kid might.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    > Assuming: 150k/yr salary * 0.5 (paid leave) * .33 (4 months) =$24750 for just raising a kid, damn. Chances are if you are making 150k/yr, you're comfortably set in the upper middle class (cost of living complaining notwithstanding). At that point you probably don't have to worry about money, assuming you don't have any expensive hobbies. Taking time out to spend time with your children could be well worth it for a lot of people, since they don't feel they actually need those extra $24750 for anything. > To be the devil's advocate, why not let people who do not have children take a 4 month paid ($24750) vacation every 5 years? I would like to take a round-the-world vacation for 4 months... Because society wants to facilitate people having children (and a company might facilitate that if they are forced to by the government, or all of their competitors give the same benefits)? People can complain all day about overpopulation, but fertility rates in western countries are low, many places below 2.1 child per woman. Bringing in people from other countries brings with itself assimilation problems, and simply letting the population decline without interfering can lead to lopsided distribution of age brackets, for example to a disproportionate amount of pensioners that have to be supported by a shrinking workforce.