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

131–140 of 328 posts

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

#131

Post by datashovel »

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.

Sorry, but this is probably the most ignorant comment I've ever read on HN.

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

#132

Post by blazespin »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #61
SCAQTony wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...But how long will it take for paternal leave to trickle down to the largest employers in America who pay near or at minimum wage? 1) Wal-Mart Stores 2,200,000 2) Yum! Brands 523,000 3) McDonald's 440,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers_in_t... IMHO a billionaire taking a two-month leave will not inspire a majority of the top 50 employers to allow their male workforce to take 2-months off. Y…

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.

Are your fucking kidding me. I think people who focus less on capitalism and consumerism and more on raising kids should be the ones allowed to have kids. Not the who want to work all the time. Maybe then the world will right itself in a generation.

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

#133

Post by melted »

engi_nerd wrote: post #13

I am jealous. My mega-large, hyphenated corporation only gives 40 hours. Which I have just had approved (today!) so that I could help care for my newborn son while my wife recovers from caesarian section. Doing this required multiple calls to a third party company that hypenated-corporation has subcontracted their leave and disability claims to, as well as about 30 pages worth of paperwork. I spent about half as much…

Here's my advice: don't work for them. You shouldn't tolerate such bullshit no matter how much they pay. This is your _wife and kid_ you're talking about. You will horribly regret prioritizing the unreasonable demands of your employer over their needs.

Instead of bitching on HN, get off your ass and find a better employer.

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

#134

Post by veidr »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #61
SCAQTony wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...But how long will it take for paternal leave to trickle down to the largest employers in America who pay near or at minimum wage? 1) Wal-Mart Stores 2,200,000 2) Yum! Brands 523,000 3) McDonald's 440,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers_in_t... IMHO a billionaire taking a two-month leave will not inspire a majority of the top 50 employers to allow their male workforce to take 2-months off. Y…

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.

Ha ha! You probably should have been voted down, but OK, let's take a look at your idea.

You are saying 1 out of 4 American workers shouldn't have kids[1].

If everybody followed your advice, a lot of pretty influential people wouldn't have been born: Steve Jobs, J.K. Rowling, Larry Ellison (OK maybe that works in your argument's favor). Jay Z. Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama.

I wouldn't be here, either; my dad was a short-order fry cook when I was born. He worked a second job as a night janitor at PG&E when I was young.

So yeah, you'd better think long and hard about the financial aspects of having kids, but that actually applies whether you flip burgers at Mickey D's for minimum wage or flip bits at Facebook for a $150k annual salary.

Even if the financial aspects are hard, that actually isn't the hardest part of raising kids, even for poor people. And growing up poor isn't nearly as hard on kids as is growing up with bad parents.

If you want kids, the only reason you shouldn't have them is if you aren't up to the task of raising them -- for whatever reason.

That reason could certainly be financial; I'm not sure that I myself would have chosen to have kids if I was a short-order fry cook, instead of a highly-paid tech worker who is married to another one.

But I know plenty of low-income people who are awesome parents and whose examples I strive to live up to with my own kids.

[1]: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/demographics

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

#135

Post by Pxtl »

Future dads out there, look into this. My wife and I split the year of unemployment-insurance-covered leave (half your salary if your salary is mediocre, and that's the cap) here in Canada and it was the best decision of my life. I got 7 months of full time dad duty in and it changed me.

My company and her school both offered a modest top-up on the government's parental leave benefit, so splitting the year meant we got to double-dip our employee benefits.

So it's not just good family building, it's also good financial sense. It's also the best way to fight the pay gap - an employer wonders which of his female employees will vanish for a year or so. This way, everybody leaves for 6 months or so.

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

#136

Post by zanny »

engi_nerd wrote: post #86
SamReidHughes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called savings. Instead of asking for paid leave, you can ask for a higher salary, and then save that extra money, which pays for your leave.

Nice, if you have enough savings to do it. Please don't forget that not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks. I did, until I bought a house, sold it, and bought another in the course of a year due to escaping from a horrible job. I'm getting savings built back up again, and I can afford to miss a few paychecks now, but not at the 6 month level I had a…

> not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks.

Then, sorry to be a bearer of bad news, if they could not afford or save up in advance for three months, how in the world are they going to pay for a child for 18 years?

Children in modern western nations are incredibly expensive. Often more expensive than a house. They are not a decision to be made lightly, and you shouldn't get pity for having them since its common knowledge how expensive they are.

Its probably one of the greatest critical failings of our society in modern terms to pressure people so highly to have kids they cannot afford - its not just bad on a macroeconomic level because it makes those parents dependent on the state, and on average results in poverty stricken kids who have had studies prove growing up poor has a direct and negative impact on intellect, but its bad for individuals because it will destroy otherwise healthy relationships if children are too expensive but they gave into short term peer pressure and got long term consequences.

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

#137

Post by melted »

jedberg wrote: post #21
scurvy wrote: post #8

Ugh. I'm not trying to be super negative, but he's setting a bad precedent by taking half the amount of allowed leave. "We offer 4 months, but Zuck only took 2. Wanna be like Zuck?" He should take the full 4 months and show everyone that it's OK. This is like the unspoken mantra of "unlimited vacation" really being only 2 - 2.5 weeks.

> This is like the unspoken mantra of "unlimited vacation" really being only 2 - 2.5 weeks. I think it depends on your company and management chain. When I worked at Netflix I took more vacation than every before. I'm not even sure how much, since it was untracked, but definitely more than 4 weeks a year. Our management made sure to set a good example by taking plenty of vacation.

I'd take the entire year off just to fuck with their definition of "unlimited" vacation.

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

#138

Post by qmalxp »

13of40 wrote: post #126
oneJob wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a sorta different reaction. I thought, it'd be amazing if everyone at Facebook had the option to take two months off for paternity leave and prioritize family over business without worrying about losing their job or good favor with their supervisor.

I had a different one: Two months? If that guy hasn't built his business up to the point where he can take a sabbatical and do right by his family, then there's no hope for the rest of us.

I suspect it's not so much that he can't take more time off, but that he doesn't want to.

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

#139

Post by devonkim »

engi_nerd wrote: post #94
benihana wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Move to a state with family leave laws. Just move! Great and completely realistic solution to the problem of what to do about paternity leave within my company when a kid is on the way. Brilliant! I wish I'd thought of that.

In a complete aside, I've also moved 4 times since 2011. I am tired of moving. "Just move" is not the most useful advice ever.

I've moved cross country almost every time I've moved and I've moved on average about every 18 months since 2005. Add in the sheer amount of stuff that tends to accumulate when you're married to someone obsessed with physical comforts like furniture, heirlooms, and kitsch and it's pretty much constant mental torture. It becomes extremely bothersome to move over time and constantly job-hopping looks pretty poor on one's resume over time as well. My life is a state where as I'm unpacking, I'm deciding what to unpack because I would have to move it again. Even if you're willing to move constantly though, what will your excuse be to your future employers over the next 30 years with such a peppered employment record? "I don't like the labor laws of any state I move to"? That'll be a pretty short interview.
Post reply on HN