12 ms·

I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children. Unless that

I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children. Unless that is their choice as well. I would like to spend many hours of the day on my art. I don't want children. Should my employer be forced to continue to pay me if I want to go spend a year focusing on my art? Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life?

leothekim 12y ago
Employers don't have to, at least in the U.S. Lots of people I know have used up their PTO and sick days for maternity leave. There is also FMLA, which is unpaid but guarantees you'll still have a job after 12 weeks. In some cases, like in the parent comment, they'll figure out a way to cut you loose.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  My wife took FMLA for six weeks. Law or no law, HCA happily told her she had the right to apply for another job at another center when she got back. With no guarantee of the same pay. Of course, she ignored them and didn't go back, but we didn't sue either, as that wasn't feasible. Big companies can get away with a lot that isn't legal or ethical.
- dreamdu5t 12y ago
  Oh, for some reason I was under the impression they were. Thanks for clarifying. A quick Google search seems to show that a few states require paid leave for a short period at a discounted wage.
dmm 12y ago
Women are the only people who get pregnant. If you force people to choose between a family and a job some people would see that as discriminatory against women.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    In Western welfare states, where public services are paid-for by deferring burdens into the future, childfree people are essentially freeloading.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - rayiner 12y ago
        It's not just what you traditionally think of as "welfare." Our whole economy is predicated on the assumption that populations will not collapse. This is especially true of Silicon Valley. Baked into the $50 million investment round that values your company at $500 million is the assumption that the company, if it succeeds, will have customers in the future. If, e.g., the whole world became sterile tomorrow, VC, the stock market, property values, everything would collapse.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - afutd 12y ago
      This comment is akin to the farmers who tell us we need to subsidize them because without them we will all starve. There are hundreds of millions of people who would very much like to come to the United States. They are ready and willing to start working and contributing taxes now. We can pick and chose the skills we need, not invest for 22+ years and hope for the best. We only need the product you are selling because you use your political power to prevent your competitors, with a superior product, from entering the market. That's predatory behavior, not altruism.
      - 12y ago
bpodgursky 12y ago
> Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? Because at a fundamental level, a society continuing to exist is predicated on people continuing to have children. Your art does not fit that criteria.
groby_b 12y ago
The straight answer? Because their kids (maybe, just maybe) will have jobs and pay taxes that keep services running when you're retired. It's part of the social contract[1]. You might make the point that your art benefits society as well. It might, I have no idea. But more importantly, we as society haven't agreed on that benefit (which I think needs to be talked about as well), so you don't get recognized. Like any "standard" contract, the social one does not address everybody's needs equally, but it's the one we arrive at by consensus. And so we are bound by it as long as that consensus stays. (Or we opt out of democracy, which certain SV nutcases are certainly considering) You might make many other points about the social contract that are valid, like e.g. the scarcity of work, the unsustainability of current society, etc. I think we need to address them, and I think the social contract will change significantly in the next 30 years. But as it is right now, that's why employers should support people who have children. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract (You're probably familiar with it, but on the off chance you aren't, here's the link. It's not meant as snark)
- dreamdu5t 12y ago
  Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It has zero legal applicability. There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force, not by any sort of contract or agreement. There is no social contract except in philosophy class and books that have no legal standing.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Not entirely. John Locke's take is that you agree to a rule of law by choosing to live in it, and that you can move to another government if you disagree. Only Thomas Hobbe's take was based purely on force, because he viewed the nature of man as being vile and completely evil, which isn't surprising given the environment he lived in.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
krschultz 12y ago
> Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? Fundamentally, human society exists because it increases the chance of our species success. Everything else - from art to the internet - is a peace dividend from how much better we are at taking care of our young than the average species. Biologically human child birth & child care is actually really disadvantaged, but we more than made up for it by the advantages of society. Keep that in mind anytime you compare "giving birth to a child" to literally anything else in society. Giving birth to a child is the core reason for it all.
rayiner 12y ago
Having a child isn't really a "choice" in the aggregate. As a society we need to have kids, or else all this paper Silicon Valley wealth predicated on the extensive of successive generations of teenagers goes up in smoke.[1] It's more like paying to install bathrooms than for something societally optional. [1] Or our debt-funded public services, or our socials security system, or our stock market. The inter-generational dependence of the old on the young and vice-versa is inevitable. All modern inventions like retirement savings do is create a level of indirection between young workers and the retirees they support. But at least until we obsolete human labor, having new generations of educated workers is essential, and having kids generates a large positive externality.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Fomite 12y ago
  It's also not a choice in aggregate in that ~50% of pregnancies are unplanned.
  - morgante 12y ago
    > It's also not a choice in aggregate in that ~50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Abortion is, fortunately, always a choice in the US.
    - Fomite 12y ago
      Unless the only hospital nearby is a Catholic-affiliated hospital. Or you live in one of several states with little to no access to abortion providers.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Unless the only hospital nearby is a Catholic-affiliated hospital. Elective abortions generally aren't mostly performed in hospitals anyway, but in separate clinics, so what kind of hospital is nearby is largely irrelevant (it might have an indirect relationship in states that have adopted rules requiring abortion providers to be doctors with admitting privilegs in a nearby hospital, but those rules have, IIRC, only been proposed in places where none of the elective abortion providers meet that description in the first place, and are intended as a backdoor prohibition on abortion.)
djb_hackernews 12y ago
Why should employers be forced to pay a minimum wage? Provide a safe work environment? Pay in to unemployment benefits? Why? Because we are trying to have a civilization here. Our purpose on this planet isn't to work. It's to live, and creating life is just about the most mind blowing life experience we can ever have. We let your employer exist, not the other way around.
- hiharryhere 12y ago
  "We let your employer exist, not the other way around." I really like that little nugget.
  - innguest 12y ago
    To say "we let you exist" is to say "we could have destroyed you but chose not to". To be said "we could have destroyed you" to, is to be oppressed. So you really like this "nugget" that makes your subservience clear.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      In the case of employers that aren't individual persons but which are legal entities established under forms provided for by law, "we let you exist" doesn't mean "we could have destroyed you but chose not to", but "we took active steps to cause you to exist in the first place". Corporations, LLCs, etc., don't exist in nature. They are creations of government through law that funnel benefits, at public expense, to particular members of society, in exchange for the specified obligations.
      - innguest 12y ago
        Oh, gotcha. Well, barter exists in nature, and gold as well, so from what you're saying I gather that you would not be opposed to: - instead of a Corporation or an LLC, I just be myself - instead of an employee, I choose to barter some natural gold for some natural manual or intellectual labor from someone else if I don't care to oblige to the labor laws du jour? Because right now that's illegal. I agree with you, if you benefit from creation of government then you should pay in, awesome. We agree 100% (I'd still prefer to see an itemized bill, though). But why should I go to jail if I have an ongoing promise to give someone a shiny "worthless" rock (not created by government) so long as they keep laying bricks at my backyard the way I tell them to?
pdiddy 12y ago
Companies are not obligated to provide paid maternity leave--only unpaid. There are expenses incurred (namely, health insurance), but you won't be receiving a paycheck to raise your children or focus on your art, as in your example.
emodendroket 12y ago
In fact, why don't we just bring back indentured servitude? Why should employers be forced to let their employees leave the workplace?
GolfyMcG 12y ago
I find myself truly struggling to get past this point all the time. I think people too often think that having children is somehow granted as given for anyone who wishes to. I am a man but I expect then whenever I decide to start a family I will attempt to spend less time at work. At the very least, I'll be tired from trying to do both. That's not a burden I would "require" a company to bear, but if companies wish to compete for me, they would provide it. Perhaps it's not worth the price of keeping someone on once an employee moves into the family starting part of their life : /
mgolawala 12y ago
I think the solution isn't to pay someone when they have kids. Allow _all_ employees enough time off or flexibility so that there is a work/life balance. Whether your life consists of caring for others (children, elderly parents, or disabled relatives) or for your self (fitness, education, relaxation, or having fun) should not be differentiated. The point is employers need to realize that you need to HAVE a life, and that will in the end make you the most productive and happy employee. Perhaps what we need is acceptance of part time work in more high earning jobs. People who want to work 60-80 hour weeks and make the maximum money should be able to do so, while accommodating those who want to work 30 hours a week but are okay making less.
- alexashka 12y ago
  Work/life balance problem applies to very few fields. Imagine an average construction worker, if you give him/her a year off, what on earth are they going to do with it? What life/work balance problems do they have to begin with? It is only creative fields with blurry boundaries of what is expected of you that keep shifting somewhat, that this is brought up. It's a non-issue for most jobs, for most people.
  - chuckcode 12y ago
    I think you're really underestimating construction workers and people in general. Einstein was a patent clerk while doing amazing physics. Jimi Hendrix worked odd jobs and was a paratrooper. People are capable of amazing (and terrible) things and it is folly to think that you can understand people's problems and potential without getting to know them individually.
    - alexashka 12y ago
      Shrugs - you're cherry-picking exceptions when I clearly used the word average. If I say dancing around a fire and chanting, on average, doesn't help people with kidney disease and you retort with 'it helped my grandmother' - where do we go from here? Should I get to individually know every person with kidney disease to see if dancing around the fire will cure them? That seems to be what you're suggesting, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
shawabawa3 12y ago
For a bunch of reasons: 1. Having children was until very recently (probably still is) the norm 2. Children are net-benefit for society (otherwise you have problems of lack of young people to support an ageing population) 3. The government should at least partially subsidise [pm]aternity leave - the rest is just part of the cost of doing business (along with all the hundreds of other laws business have to deal with) 4. Parental leave attracts more experienced staff (as they're older and more likely to have children) As a european, I find it almost inhumane not giving statutory parental leave. Having children is a normal part of life, and in the current economic climate having a full-time job is basically a requirement for most people. You shouldn't need to be rich to afford children
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  1. Having children was until very recently (probably still is) the norm 2. Children are net-benefit for society 3. The government should at least partially subsidise ^ These make me feel that we had a population bubble that popped some time ago. Just compare it to housing: Buying it is the norm, it is net benefit for the economy, and yet it still sometimes pops and then no government subsidies help when people are not ready to buy anymore. Same thing we have with children, albeit much more inertial.
auganov 12y ago
I don't see the parent suggesting anywhere that employers should be forced to do anything. I kind of dislike how most conversations on these topics quickly turn into regulatory or philosophical ones. I'd much rather have people discussing what can be done by companies, people and other agents.
dreaminvm 12y ago
Children are the future. Companies and society as a whole invest in the next generation because they will need more workers and support for an aging population. A company without paid maternity leave is directly discouraging employees from having children. I think (most) companies, especially in SV profit more than enough to offer their employees paid maternity leave (and probably time for you to work on your art).
danudey 12y ago
In most western countries (basically all, except the US), maternity/parental leave is paid for, and not by the company. You're required to hold the person's job (except in extreme cases, like if you're restructuring and the job no longer exists, in which case you're required to try to provide a similar position). > Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? The reason why parental leave is important is that the first few years are extremely formative, and having an opportunity for mother and child to bond (or father and child, whatever the case) strongly affects development. Being able to focus on the care of your child is extremely important to their development[1], and because those children tend to become more well-adjusted, it's beneficial to society as a whole. That's why most countries provide parental leave for one or both parents. So the answer is, women should be able to have children and not feel punished for it or discriminated against because of it because that discourages a society where people care about each other and feel like they're part of something. [1] http://now.uiowa.edu/2012/10/parental-bondinghappy-stable-child http://now.uiowa.edu/2012/10/parental-bondinghappy-stable-ch...
brandonmenc 12y ago
> I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children Discussions about the social obligations of "businesses" would benefit to have distinctions made between the different kinds of businesses. A large profitable corporation with thousands of employees can probably provide paid maternity leave whereas paid maternity leave would put most small businesses and early stage startups out of business. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument. My mom lost a few years of seniority working at the phone company (GTE) in the 80s due to pregnancy, and as a result was often outbid on higher paying jobs for the rest of her working life. On the other hand, my current startup would have instantly folded if we had to cut paychecks for a non-working employee. I'm guessing the majority (by number) of businesses just cannot afford to offer paid maternity leave, and this needs to be acknowledged. There aren't simply "two sides" to this discussion.
- digikata 12y ago
  The third perspective would be for governments to collectively provide social benefits in this category, decoupling many aspects of the big vs small business disparities - which also extend to the provision of healthcare by businesses in general.
Spooky23 12y ago
Children are the future of any society and part of the natural order of life itself. They will be the ones paying your way when you are old and frail.
guyzero 12y ago
Because there was a law passed in the United States in 1978 called "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act" which makes it illegal to fire people based on their pregnancy status. So assuming the commenter is in the US, it's the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm
swimfar 12y ago
Can we please stop downvoting comments like these? There were no incorrect facts, or mean statements presented. This person asked a sincere question in a non-aggressive way. I'm sure there are other people who had the same question, so why not discuss the point openly? Even if you disagree with this opinion, maybe you can change it, or change the opinion of someone who felt the same way and was just reading through the comments. Would it be preferable for people to be afraid of stating their opinions and therefore never have a chance to hear someone else's perspective?
analog31 12y ago
A couple of reasons might be: Motivation, and political power. "Motivation" is the idea that certain factors motivate people to compete harder in the workplace. One of those factors is having kids. A colleague of mine was dissatisfied with his advancement, and I suggested that he should become a project manager. His response: "Why should I take that horrible job when my engineer job lets me go home at 5 every day?" He had no kids, but lots of social activities. An amusing story about motivation at my workplace, a Fortune 500 company, is that our management jobs tend to be pretty thankless, even if they pay more. Everybody I've known who has applied for those jobs, has kids. I've read that after the birth of their first kid, there's a 50% chance that a worker will change jobs in pursuit of higher pay. I also read about a study of unskilled, single women living in the south side of Chicago. Those with kids tended to earn higher wages, and traveled further to their jobs, than those without. It may be that the choice is not so much children versus art, but career versus art. Providing family benefits might be one way to effectively pay people more without creating an overt caste system where all of the higher level jobs are held by people with kids. Political power relates to motivation. From what I've read, people with kids tend to vote. Unsurprisingly, we vote our interests. And there are certain interests that can only be met, within our system, by influencing employers.
fsloth 12y ago
Human life has a few cyclic needs that are necessary. These include: eating, sleeping, recreation. Family is also such a cyclic need, but with different temporal properties and statistic properties - the time taken by parenthood is localized over a brief period of time and reduces to zero. And as for statistics, the need is throughout the entire population but some individuals can avoid it. Workplaces recognize the need for food and rest. The needs of a family is a similar need, although it is localized to a few persons, it permeates the entire population. A human workplace recognizes the critical needs.

leothekim 12y ago

Employers don't have to, at least in the U.S. Lots of people I know have used up their PTO and sick days for maternity leave. There is also FMLA, which is unpaid but guarantees you'll still have a job after 12 weeks. In some cases, like in the parent comment, they'll figure out a way to cut you loose.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
My wife took FMLA for six weeks. Law or no law, HCA happily told her she had the right to apply for another job at another center when she got back. With no guarantee of the same pay. Of course, she ignored them and didn't go back, but we didn't sue either, as that wasn't feasible. Big companies can get away with a lot that isn't legal or ethical.
dreamdu5t 12y ago
Oh, for some reason I was under the impression they were. Thanks for clarifying. A quick Google search seems to show that a few states require paid leave for a short period at a discounted wage.

dmm 12y ago

Women are the only people who get pregnant. If you force people to choose between a family and a job some people would see that as discriminatory against women.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  In Western welfare states, where public services are paid-for by deferring burdens into the future, childfree people are essentially freeloading.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - rayiner 12y ago
      It's not just what you traditionally think of as "welfare." Our whole economy is predicated on the assumption that populations will not collapse. This is especially true of Silicon Valley. Baked into the $50 million investment round that values your company at $500 million is the assumption that the company, if it succeeds, will have customers in the future. If, e.g., the whole world became sterile tomorrow, VC, the stock market, property values, everything would collapse.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - afutd 12y ago
    This comment is akin to the farmers who tell us we need to subsidize them because without them we will all starve. There are hundreds of millions of people who would very much like to come to the United States. They are ready and willing to start working and contributing taxes now. We can pick and chose the skills we need, not invest for 22+ years and hope for the best. We only need the product you are selling because you use your political power to prevent your competitors, with a superior product, from entering the market. That's predatory behavior, not altruism.
    - 12y ago

bpodgursky 12y ago

> Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? Because at a fundamental level, a society continuing to exist is predicated on people continuing to have children. Your art does not fit that criteria.

groby_b 12y ago

The straight answer? Because their kids (maybe, just maybe) will have jobs and pay taxes that keep services running when you're retired. It's part of the social contract[1]. You might make the point that your art benefits society as well. It might, I have no idea. But more importantly, we as society haven't agreed on that benefit (which I think needs to be talked about as well), so you don't get recognized. Like any "standard" contract, the social one does not address everybody's needs equally, but it's the one we arrive at by consensus. And so we are bound by it as long as that consensus stays. (Or we opt out of democracy, which certain SV nutcases are certainly considering) You might make many other points about the social contract that are valid, like e.g. the scarcity of work, the unsustainability of current society, etc. I think we need to address them, and I think the social contract will change significantly in the next 30 years. But as it is right now, that's why employers should support people who have children. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract (You're probably familiar with it, but on the off chance you aren't, here's the link. It's not meant as snark)

dreamdu5t 12y ago
Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It has zero legal applicability. There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force, not by any sort of contract or agreement. There is no social contract except in philosophy class and books that have no legal standing.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Not entirely. John Locke's take is that you agree to a rule of law by choosing to live in it, and that you can move to another government if you disagree. Only Thomas Hobbe's take was based purely on force, because he viewed the nature of man as being vile and completely evil, which isn't surprising given the environment he lived in.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

krschultz 12y ago

> Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? Fundamentally, human society exists because it increases the chance of our species success. Everything else - from art to the internet - is a peace dividend from how much better we are at taking care of our young than the average species. Biologically human child birth & child care is actually really disadvantaged, but we more than made up for it by the advantages of society. Keep that in mind anytime you compare "giving birth to a child" to literally anything else in society. Giving birth to a child is the core reason for it all.

rayiner 12y ago

Having a child isn't really a "choice" in the aggregate. As a society we need to have kids, or else all this paper Silicon Valley wealth predicated on the extensive of successive generations of teenagers goes up in smoke.[1] It's more like paying to install bathrooms than for something societally optional. [1] Or our debt-funded public services, or our socials security system, or our stock market. The inter-generational dependence of the old on the young and vice-versa is inevitable. All modern inventions like retirement savings do is create a level of indirection between young workers and the retirees they support. But at least until we obsolete human labor, having new generations of educated workers is essential, and having kids generates a large positive externality.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 12y ago
It's also not a choice in aggregate in that ~50% of pregnancies are unplanned.
- morgante 12y ago
  > It's also not a choice in aggregate in that ~50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Abortion is, fortunately, always a choice in the US.
  - Fomite 12y ago
    Unless the only hospital nearby is a Catholic-affiliated hospital. Or you live in one of several states with little to no access to abortion providers.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Unless the only hospital nearby is a Catholic-affiliated hospital. Elective abortions generally aren't mostly performed in hospitals anyway, but in separate clinics, so what kind of hospital is nearby is largely irrelevant (it might have an indirect relationship in states that have adopted rules requiring abortion providers to be doctors with admitting privilegs in a nearby hospital, but those rules have, IIRC, only been proposed in places where none of the elective abortion providers meet that description in the first place, and are intended as a backdoor prohibition on abortion.)

djb_hackernews 12y ago

Why should employers be forced to pay a minimum wage? Provide a safe work environment? Pay in to unemployment benefits? Why? Because we are trying to have a civilization here. Our purpose on this planet isn't to work. It's to live, and creating life is just about the most mind blowing life experience we can ever have. We let your employer exist, not the other way around.

hiharryhere 12y ago
"We let your employer exist, not the other way around." I really like that little nugget.
- innguest 12y ago
  To say "we let you exist" is to say "we could have destroyed you but chose not to". To be said "we could have destroyed you" to, is to be oppressed. So you really like this "nugget" that makes your subservience clear.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    In the case of employers that aren't individual persons but which are legal entities established under forms provided for by law, "we let you exist" doesn't mean "we could have destroyed you but chose not to", but "we took active steps to cause you to exist in the first place". Corporations, LLCs, etc., don't exist in nature. They are creations of government through law that funnel benefits, at public expense, to particular members of society, in exchange for the specified obligations.
    - innguest 12y ago
      Oh, gotcha. Well, barter exists in nature, and gold as well, so from what you're saying I gather that you would not be opposed to: - instead of a Corporation or an LLC, I just be myself - instead of an employee, I choose to barter some natural gold for some natural manual or intellectual labor from someone else if I don't care to oblige to the labor laws du jour? Because right now that's illegal. I agree with you, if you benefit from creation of government then you should pay in, awesome. We agree 100% (I'd still prefer to see an itemized bill, though). But why should I go to jail if I have an ongoing promise to give someone a shiny "worthless" rock (not created by government) so long as they keep laying bricks at my backyard the way I tell them to?

pdiddy 12y ago

Companies are not obligated to provide paid maternity leave--only unpaid. There are expenses incurred (namely, health insurance), but you won't be receiving a paycheck to raise your children or focus on your art, as in your example.

emodendroket 12y ago

In fact, why don't we just bring back indentured servitude? Why should employers be forced to let their employees leave the workplace?

GolfyMcG 12y ago

I find myself truly struggling to get past this point all the time. I think people too often think that having children is somehow granted as given for anyone who wishes to. I am a man but I expect then whenever I decide to start a family I will attempt to spend less time at work. At the very least, I'll be tired from trying to do both. That's not a burden I would "require" a company to bear, but if companies wish to compete for me, they would provide it. Perhaps it's not worth the price of keeping someone on once an employee moves into the family starting part of their life : /

mgolawala 12y ago

I think the solution isn't to pay someone when they have kids. Allow _all_ employees enough time off or flexibility so that there is a work/life balance. Whether your life consists of caring for others (children, elderly parents, or disabled relatives) or for your self (fitness, education, relaxation, or having fun) should not be differentiated. The point is employers need to realize that you need to HAVE a life, and that will in the end make you the most productive and happy employee. Perhaps what we need is acceptance of part time work in more high earning jobs. People who want to work 60-80 hour weeks and make the maximum money should be able to do so, while accommodating those who want to work 30 hours a week but are okay making less.

alexashka 12y ago
Work/life balance problem applies to very few fields. Imagine an average construction worker, if you give him/her a year off, what on earth are they going to do with it? What life/work balance problems do they have to begin with? It is only creative fields with blurry boundaries of what is expected of you that keep shifting somewhat, that this is brought up. It's a non-issue for most jobs, for most people.
- chuckcode 12y ago
  I think you're really underestimating construction workers and people in general. Einstein was a patent clerk while doing amazing physics. Jimi Hendrix worked odd jobs and was a paratrooper. People are capable of amazing (and terrible) things and it is folly to think that you can understand people's problems and potential without getting to know them individually.
  - alexashka 12y ago
    Shrugs - you're cherry-picking exceptions when I clearly used the word average. If I say dancing around a fire and chanting, on average, doesn't help people with kidney disease and you retort with 'it helped my grandmother' - where do we go from here? Should I get to individually know every person with kidney disease to see if dancing around the fire will cure them? That seems to be what you're suggesting, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

shawabawa3 12y ago

For a bunch of reasons: 1. Having children was until very recently (probably still is) the norm 2. Children are net-benefit for society (otherwise you have problems of lack of young people to support an ageing population) 3. The government should at least partially subsidise [pm]aternity leave - the rest is just part of the cost of doing business (along with all the hundreds of other laws business have to deal with) 4. Parental leave attracts more experienced staff (as they're older and more likely to have children) As a european, I find it almost inhumane not giving statutory parental leave. Having children is a normal part of life, and in the current economic climate having a full-time job is basically a requirement for most people. You shouldn't need to be rich to afford children

guard-of-terra 12y ago
1. Having children was until very recently (probably still is) the norm 2. Children are net-benefit for society 3. The government should at least partially subsidise ^ These make me feel that we had a population bubble that popped some time ago. Just compare it to housing: Buying it is the norm, it is net benefit for the economy, and yet it still sometimes pops and then no government subsidies help when people are not ready to buy anymore. Same thing we have with children, albeit much more inertial.

auganov 12y ago

I don't see the parent suggesting anywhere that employers should be forced to do anything. I kind of dislike how most conversations on these topics quickly turn into regulatory or philosophical ones. I'd much rather have people discussing what can be done by companies, people and other agents.

dreaminvm 12y ago

Children are the future. Companies and society as a whole invest in the next generation because they will need more workers and support for an aging population. A company without paid maternity leave is directly discouraging employees from having children. I think (most) companies, especially in SV profit more than enough to offer their employees paid maternity leave (and probably time for you to work on your art).

danudey 12y ago

In most western countries (basically all, except the US), maternity/parental leave is paid for, and not by the company. You're required to hold the person's job (except in extreme cases, like if you're restructuring and the job no longer exists, in which case you're required to try to provide a similar position). > Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life? The reason why parental leave is important is that the first few years are extremely formative, and having an opportunity for mother and child to bond (or father and child, whatever the case) strongly affects development. Being able to focus on the care of your child is extremely important to their development[1], and because those children tend to become more well-adjusted, it's beneficial to society as a whole. That's why most countries provide parental leave for one or both parents. So the answer is, women should be able to have children and not feel punished for it or discriminated against because of it because that discourages a society where people care about each other and feel like they're part of something. [1] http://now.uiowa.edu/2012/10/parental-bondinghappy-stable-child http://now.uiowa.edu/2012/10/parental-bondinghappy-stable-ch...

brandonmenc 12y ago

> I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children Discussions about the social obligations of "businesses" would benefit to have distinctions made between the different kinds of businesses. A large profitable corporation with thousands of employees can probably provide paid maternity leave whereas paid maternity leave would put most small businesses and early stage startups out of business. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument. My mom lost a few years of seniority working at the phone company (GTE) in the 80s due to pregnancy, and as a result was often outbid on higher paying jobs for the rest of her working life. On the other hand, my current startup would have instantly folded if we had to cut paychecks for a non-working employee. I'm guessing the majority (by number) of businesses just cannot afford to offer paid maternity leave, and this needs to be acknowledged. There aren't simply "two sides" to this discussion.

digikata 12y ago
The third perspective would be for governments to collectively provide social benefits in this category, decoupling many aspects of the big vs small business disparities - which also extend to the provision of healthcare by businesses in general.

Spooky23 12y ago

Children are the future of any society and part of the natural order of life itself. They will be the ones paying your way when you are old and frail.

guyzero 12y ago

Because there was a law passed in the United States in 1978 called "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act" which makes it illegal to fire people based on their pregnancy status. So assuming the commenter is in the US, it's the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm

swimfar 12y ago

Can we please stop downvoting comments like these? There were no incorrect facts, or mean statements presented. This person asked a sincere question in a non-aggressive way. I'm sure there are other people who had the same question, so why not discuss the point openly? Even if you disagree with this opinion, maybe you can change it, or change the opinion of someone who felt the same way and was just reading through the comments. Would it be preferable for people to be afraid of stating their opinions and therefore never have a chance to hear someone else's perspective?

analog31 12y ago

A couple of reasons might be: Motivation, and political power. "Motivation" is the idea that certain factors motivate people to compete harder in the workplace. One of those factors is having kids. A colleague of mine was dissatisfied with his advancement, and I suggested that he should become a project manager. His response: "Why should I take that horrible job when my engineer job lets me go home at 5 every day?" He had no kids, but lots of social activities. An amusing story about motivation at my workplace, a Fortune 500 company, is that our management jobs tend to be pretty thankless, even if they pay more. Everybody I've known who has applied for those jobs, has kids. I've read that after the birth of their first kid, there's a 50% chance that a worker will change jobs in pursuit of higher pay. I also read about a study of unskilled, single women living in the south side of Chicago. Those with kids tended to earn higher wages, and traveled further to their jobs, than those without. It may be that the choice is not so much children versus art, but career versus art. Providing family benefits might be one way to effectively pay people more without creating an overt caste system where all of the higher level jobs are held by people with kids. Political power relates to motivation. From what I've read, people with kids tend to vote. Unsurprisingly, we vote our interests. And there are certain interests that can only be met, within our system, by influencing employers.

fsloth 12y ago

Human life has a few cyclic needs that are necessary. These include: eating, sleeping, recreation. Family is also such a cyclic need, but with different temporal properties and statistic properties - the time taken by parenthood is localized over a brief period of time and reduces to zero. And as for statistics, the need is throughout the entire population but some individuals can avoid it. Workplaces recognize the need for food and rest. The needs of a family is a similar need, although it is localized to a few persons, it permeates the entire population. A human workplace recognizes the critical needs.