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

151–160 of 328 posts

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

#151

Post by SamReidHughes »

zanny wrote: post #136
engi_nerd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> how in the world are they going to pay for a child for 18 years?

How could you possibly infer that to be a problem via a plain reading or even an uncharitable reading? Having money in the bank account doesn't help your kids as much as having a house in the right neighborhood.

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

#152

Post by asveikau »

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.

Summary: maybe they should try not being poor.

If I am to take this to its logical conclusion, I guess there are entire nations, indeed probably most of the human population, who you think should just not reproduce.

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

#153

Post by SolaceQuantum »

aianus wrote: post #119
striking wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Or people would find new ways to make a new class to be abused/used.

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

#154

Post by thaumasiotes »

veidr wrote: post #134
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.

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 sh…

Steve Jobs, the child of two Ivy League students? That would in no way qualify under "you shouldn't be having kids if the only job you can get is McDonalds or Yum! Brands".

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

#155

Post by stickfigure »

mikesickler wrote: post #143
Turing_Machine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But it's okay for Facebook to bear the burden? What exactly are you objecting to here?

Facebook bears the burden for the exact same reason that it provides free food, bikes around the campus, pretty lawns, a barbershop, etc... because it wants to retain fickle employees. It's not a moral statement.

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

#156

Post by drstewart »

scurvy wrote: post #149
gkop wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California requires employers to cash out unused vacation days to employees when they leave the company [0]. Therefore instead of giving a certain number of days, some sketchy companies have an "unlimited vacation" policy, so they can claim to offer great benefits, when they're really just trying to save money. The norm at these sketchy companies is definitely no more than 2-3 weeks vacation in practice. [0] http://w…

Correct. Since employees don't accrue vacation hours, companies are not required to carry the equivalent pay on their balance sheet as a liability. It varies state by state, but California (where most startups are currently located) does convert this liability to an employee cash out upon leaving the company. Unlimited vacation means no accrual so no balance sheet hit. It's a sketchy way to save money while effective…

>Now, the industry largely knows that it is industry speak for "2-3 weeks vacation but up to manager discretion."

Funny, because neither company I've worked for has that unspoken policy. You should come in and dictate the actual culture to us since you know it so well. I don't need to tell you the companies of course, since you're already well acquainted with them obviously.

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

#157

Post by glesica »

droopybuns wrote: post #147
dimdimdim wrote: post #142

The point is --- there was no real need to even mention this on an FB post! the CEO is also an employee and he could have done this more privately. I hate it when top CEOs try to prove that love "work-life" balance when in reality once you reach the top, its always easy to do the "right thing" in any circumstance. If she would have been pregnant when he just started FB, then would have taken more than 2 days off?

I don't think what you're saying reflects reality. Anyone who is responsible for making payroll is experiencing a kind of pressure that most people will never know. "United Continental Holdings Inc's (UAL.N) new chief executive has suffered a heart attack, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday, barely a month after he took on the job of improving the airline's profitability and reputation." http://www.reut…

Then quit and take a lower-stress job. Once you're at that point you can afford it (in fact most people in that position these days could just quit and reduce their living costs, maybe not even that). I think that's what GP was saying.

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

#158

Post by ta0o0o0 »

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.

Do you plan on retiring?

Who's going to produce the goods and services you intend to purchase in your retirement?

First world birth rates are already low. Under your guidance we'd have a demographic crisis like you wouldn't believe.

Sure, there's immigration, but I don't see why your rule doesn't apply to poor people in other countries.

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

#159

Post by PKop »

x5n1 wrote: post #48
acangiano wrote: post #7

This is great. It sends the message that no matter who you are, prioritizing family over business is an option, especially when a newborn has arrived. I'm also willing to bet that it's good for business. An employee with better relationships at home is more likely to be productive at work in the long term.

Zuck could take the rest of his life off work. And when he's an old man he will wish that he had. But in the mean time the share holders can benefit from his keen.

He could have done that when he was 19 years old. Obviously....OBVIOUSLY.... Zuck, and Facebook, are what they are because he doesn't agree with your views on his life.

How do you know he wouldn't regret stopping work now when he's an old man? You have absolutely no idea. But we can take an educated guess by the motivations and choices he's shown in the past. Which were, to keep working and building his company. Because he probably enjoys it.

My grandfather grew up dirt poor. He built a small real estate business on his own, and continues to come to work every day and he's in his 90's. If he was forced to "take the rest of his life off" not just 20 years ago, but even now, he would without question be less happy as result. He enjoys working. Many people do. Especially those who are founders of businesses.

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

#160

Post by ta0o0o0 »

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.

If only rich people had children we could eliminate the human race with in a (few) generation(s).
Post reply on HN