Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 328 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#111

Post by engi_nerd »

scurvy wrote: post #109
engi_nerd wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good idea. Hopefully hyphenated-corporation won't manage to avoid that law like they have several other laws I have been impacted by...

It's state run (part of the unemployment/disability system). The company really has no choice... I'm not trying to patronize you, but it sounds like you should be looking for a new job! Edit: Here's a HN thread where I asked "where should we move to?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10103373

Oh God I don't want to move again. If I did it would be 5 times since 2011. I like my job otherwise.

Hyphenated company manages to avoid our state laws on covering infertility treatment by funding its own health plan, thereby taking advantage of a loophole in the state law. I can only believe that such a large company, in the state where it is incorporated, would find ways to put loopholes in any new laws.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#112

Post by engi_nerd »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #110
engi_nerd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? And I'm not sure how to parse the whole "not to mention being hirable in the first place" phrase. What exactly are you trying to say?

No. It's not a false dichotomy. The compensation you can negotiate depends on how much work people expect to get out of you. Your price also depends on other people's willingness to take advantage of benefits that you're not interested in. Young people in general are riskier hires than older people -- they have less of a history, they're more likely to change jobs or move -- having a paid leave policy increases that…

All valid points.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#113

Post by VanillaLime »

lghh wrote: post #108
Turing_Machine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying (again, with the understanding that there are accidents, people who get laid off from better jobs, etc.)

So you're suggesting a sort of eradication of the poor over a generation due to the lack of ability to bear and support a child?

So you're suggesting that being poor is a genetic condition (and one that apparently should be perpetuated)? Because that sounds even more dehumanizing than suggesting that the poor consider their resources before choosing to have children.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#115

Post by aianus »

click170 wrote: post #67
Turing_Machine wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably going to get me voted down, but maybe...just maybe ...you shouldn't be having kids if the only job you can get is McDonalds or Yum! Brands (i.e., Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.). If you choose to have a child when your resources are that limited, your non-paternity leave is going to be among the least of the child's problems.

You've got a valid point that available resources should factor into the decision making process for having a child. That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children so clearly there has to be more to this. What if instead, a CEO is only allowed to take time off equal to or less than the average of every other employee.

> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children

You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#116

Post by striking »

aianus wrote: post #115
click170 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got a valid point that available resources should factor into the decision making process for having a child. That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children so clearly there has to be more to this. What if instead, a CEO is only allowed to take time off equal to or less than the average of every other employee.

> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.

And the entire workforce that powers the rich.

You seem to forget that capitalism only works when you have a captive group. In order for your life to be good, other people's lives have to be comparatively worse.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#117

Post by hugh4 »

mikekchar wrote: post #105
Turing_Machine wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably going to get me voted down, but maybe...just maybe ...you shouldn't be having kids if the only job you can get is McDonalds or Yum! Brands (i.e., Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.). If you choose to have a child when your resources are that limited, your non-paternity leave is going to be among the least of the child's problems.

I suppose it depends on what kind of society you want to live in. Is a family something that should only be available to those who can afford it? Should we compare having children with buying a new pair of shoes or having a car? Or is it something that we want everyone in society to have available to them: for example like quality healthcare or legal assistance? I'm not trying to pose a rhetorical question. I think t…

>I'm not trying to pose a rhetorical question. I think this is literally a choice that societies have to make.

It would be nice if we could actually make that choice. Better still, it would be nice if we had a whole lot of societies which made different choices and people were free to move between them, so we could individually make a choice.

Instead though we've got a lowest-common-denominator society.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#118

Post by hardoncollider »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #95
dionidium wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and moralizing about the smoking and drinking of the lower classes sound reasonable, but they're basically non-starters. You don't stop having basic human desires when you're poor. And as long as people are having sex, some of them are going to have kids.

I'm not "moralizing" about anything. Effective birth control is readily available. I have no interest whatsoever in policing other people's sex lives. I'm just saying that if you work at McDonald's, you probably can't afford to have a child. Yes, there will be accidents, people who fall on hard times, etc., and I actually have no problem with social programs aimed at helping those people out. But that's not what the…

"If a worker today is employed full time for a full 52-week year at a minimum wage job today, she or he is making $15,080. [...] The average age for these [76 million] workers is 36 years old and they have been in the labor force for an average of 17 years. Only 6 percent of the workers who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are teenagers; i.e., 94 percent are adults."

318M people in the US, 188M above the age of 30. Around 38% of adults (30+) are working for minimum wage and any prospect of having a family would put them below the federal poverty line.

Do we really believe in an environment where 38% of adults shouldn't be afforded the ability to spend time with their child, something every other major-industrialized nation guarantees as a human right?

McDonalds should bear the burden -- I think the $5B in profits last year should allow for a little human decency.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/201...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#119

Post by aianus »

striking wrote: post #116
aianus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.

And the entire workforce that powers the rich. You seem to forget that capitalism only works when you have a captive group. In order for your life to be good, other people's lives have to be comparatively worse.

Who said anything about capitalism?

With that small of an educated population we could sit back, automate everything, and hardly have to compete for resources at all (especially not necessities like food and rent).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#120

Post by zeroonetwothree »

PinguTS wrote: post #35

To be honest, compared to Germany that is not a good news. In Germany, you can have this up to 36 months (3 years) for both parants and your employer can't send you a notice to quit. So, to be honest, I have to laugh at Zuck. Or say it another way: I think, he does not value his kids. I am a shamed of him.

This 3 years seems to be not directly comparable, because it's not all fully paid, and there are limits to how much pay you can get. Seems like it's ~$2k/month max. That's not very much--maybe that's why only "38 percent of dads [in Germany] of children under six chose to take parental leave at all". I guess they don't value their kids either?
Post reply on HN