5 ms·

I'd disagree. Just learn to use time better. When you're feeding a baby, think over problems. When baby's asleep, code them up. When you have less time to hack

I'd disagree. Just learn to use time better. When you're feeding a baby, think over problems. When baby's asleep, code them up. When you have less time to hack, you tend to use it more efficiently (I've worked at home most of the time my youngest 2 were babies). I can't imagine having had a nanny and missed out on all that bonding, fun, and awesomeness that is baby/toddlers. (Not to mention things like my son puking up a full bottle of milk straight onto the keyboard of my laptop - I was feeding him and coding at the same time, which was probably a bad idea).

tptacek 17y ago
You can absolutely do both things: have a nanny, and bond with your infant. Work from home, and use the nanny to keep the kid out of your hair when you need to focus. Of course, no nanny costs more than the most junior developer makes. I'm not sure how toddler awesomeness is relevant to the discussion. Nobody's offering a free lunch. But there clearly are jackasses who don't want to hire women because they think maternity leave is going to screw them.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employer. It's a higher risk. I'm of the opinion that real freedom means the freedom to discriminate if you want to. Insurers are freely able to discriminate, it seems like employers should be able to as well (I know in this age of political correctness it's impossible to). Should terminally ill people be able to go on apprenticeships? I'd say on balance no - if they die before they're trained in the job, then the employer who is footing the bill of training them, has lost out.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    You shouldn't hire terminally ill people at all. Turnover is expensive. Also, the chronically ill drive up insurance premiums. For that same reason, you shouldn't hire people over 35. Another reason not to hire people over 35 is that people under 35 will work 80 hour weeks for no additional pay. That's also a good reason only to hire offshore developers, or, better yet, H1-Bs from H1-B bodyshops: they can't quit, or they'll be deported.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      Right. And personally, I think those decisions should be up to employers. Similarly, I'm completely against the minimum wage. Give employers the freedom to hire who they want, for whatever wage they want to offer.
      - justinhj 17y ago
        Where does equal opportunities fit into that view? Not at all, does it?

tptacek 17y ago

You can absolutely do both things: have a nanny, and bond with your infant. Work from home, and use the nanny to keep the kid out of your hair when you need to focus. Of course, no nanny costs more than the most junior developer makes. I'm not sure how toddler awesomeness is relevant to the discussion. Nobody's offering a free lunch. But there clearly are jackasses who don't want to hire women because they think maternity leave is going to screw them.

bumblebird 17y ago
FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employer. It's a higher risk. I'm of the opinion that real freedom means the freedom to discriminate if you want to. Insurers are freely able to discriminate, it seems like employers should be able to as well (I know in this age of political correctness it's impossible to). Should terminally ill people be able to go on apprenticeships? I'd say on balance no - if they die before they're trained in the job, then the employer who is footing the bill of training them, has lost out.
- tptacek 17y ago
  You shouldn't hire terminally ill people at all. Turnover is expensive. Also, the chronically ill drive up insurance premiums. For that same reason, you shouldn't hire people over 35. Another reason not to hire people over 35 is that people under 35 will work 80 hour weeks for no additional pay. That's also a good reason only to hire offshore developers, or, better yet, H1-Bs from H1-B bodyshops: they can't quit, or they'll be deported.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    Right. And personally, I think those decisions should be up to employers. Similarly, I'm completely against the minimum wage. Give employers the freedom to hire who they want, for whatever wage they want to offer.
    - justinhj 17y ago
      Where does equal opportunities fit into that view? Not at all, does it?