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

181–190 of 328 posts

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

#181

Post by stickfigure »

zhte415 wrote: post #169
stickfigure wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical extension of this argument is that everyone on earth should be forced to have as many children as possible all the time, because - gasp - think of all the wonderful human beings that we're missing out on. In fact, all those women of childbearing age you see walking around without a baby in their womb are guilty of a certain kind of murder . Strap them down and get to work!

The parent's comment said something explicitly different. There's a very clear line: >>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. As I read it, this submission is about paternity leave and associated Zuckerberg/Facebook, not whether people should have children.

The parent claims that we need the bottom quartile of earners to have children otherwise we would lose out on socially valuable humans (list of examples provided). This is a variation on the argument raised by anti-abortionists that goes along the lines of "how do you know you're not killing the next Mozart?" or "what if your parents aborted you?" It's drek for two reasons:

1) You can't know what the world would like if person XYZ hadn't been born. It's pure science fiction. Somebody else would probably have invented the iPhone, or figured out relativity, etc. Or they wouldn't have. There's no reasonable argument to be made here. The world would be different in ways that cannot be predicted.

2) It implies that you are withholding from your fellow man by failing to reproduce more more more, because each could be the next potential Jobs, Rowling, etc.

I also think it's a little bit ugly to point at the conclusions of difficult lives and say "hey, what a good thing that was!" Maya Angelou wrote beautiful poetry, does that mean we should congratulate slavery and racism? I'd happily live in a world without Jay Z's music if it means kids don't have to grow up in housing projects with single mothers abandoned by their fathers and 12 year olds aren't shooting their brothers over stolen jewelry.

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

#182

Post by prlambert »

robotresearcher wrote: post #81
seattle_spring wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then prepare to be amazed, because they actually have four months paid paternity leave.

I hope the environment is such that people feel they can use it without penalty. Anyone have experience?

Yes this is normal. I work at Twitter and new fathers taking multi-month paternity is very common. Lots of friends at Google and believe it's the same there.

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

#183

Post by pyrophane »

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.

I think everyone who works the equivalent of full-time should be able to afford to have children. The fact is, not everyone is going to get out of these low wage jobs, and that doesn't mean they would be bad parents. Have we gone so far as a society towards judging the poor that we don't believe the are fit to reproduce?

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

#184

Post by TeMPOraL »

bbq wrote: post #51
x5n1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you point me to any historical titans of industry who regret their life's work?

I don't buy regret. From what I've read so far, people who worked too much regret not doing things with family, etc. and people who lived bog-standard GenPop family life regret that their life had no meaning. So I guess death is just one big paradox of choice.

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

#185

Post by smt88 »

incepted wrote: post #180
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.

Most large companies in Silicon Valley give men between four and eight weeks of paternity leave, which you can take any time you want (not just right after the baby is born).

Do you have a sense (even anecdata) of how common it is to take advantage of that? Do people feel comfortable taking the full period for leave?

I don't know what it would mean if they didn't, though. I think many successful people have trouble believing that their work will be done well in their absence.

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

#186

Post by nichochar »

incepted wrote: post #179
wobbleblob wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of message does it send? Take two months off when you could afford to retire? If I were in his shoes, I'd sell my shares in that website, take a few years off and then go a little Bill Gates, a little Elon Musk. I guess this is why I'm not a successful businessman.

> If I were in his shoes, I'd sell my shares in that website Probably why you're not.

interesting! I wonder if you're right, or not. I could see both arguments both ways

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

#187

Post by keerthiko »

wobbleblob wrote: post #174
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.

What kind of message does it send? Take two months off when you could afford to retire? If I were in his shoes, I'd sell my shares in that website, take a few years off and then go a little Bill Gates, a little Elon Musk. I guess this is why I'm not a successful businessman.

Unlike Microsoft was to Bill Gates, Facebook seems to embody Mark's lifelong ideologies (connecting everyone in the world). He has often said he doesn't see himself doing anything with his life other than building the future of Facebook, just in a different form if Facebook hadn't taken off. On the other hand Gates just hit the lottery on one of the projects he worked on related to a field he was good at, when what he seems to really care about is more grassroots philanthropy work.

If he could take two months off he could probably take a few years off, but he would probably just be itching to go back to work on FB the whole time.

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

#189

Post by ekianjo »

keerthiko wrote: post #187
wobbleblob wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of message does it send? Take two months off when you could afford to retire? If I were in his shoes, I'd sell my shares in that website, take a few years off and then go a little Bill Gates, a little Elon Musk. I guess this is why I'm not a successful businessman.

Unlike Microsoft was to Bill Gates, Facebook seems to embody Mark's lifelong ideologies (connecting everyone in the world). He has often said he doesn't see himself doing anything with his life other than building the future of Facebook, just in a different form if Facebook hadn't taken off. On the other hand Gates just hit the lottery on one of the projects he worked on related to a field he was good at, when what h…

> On the other hand Gates just hit the lottery on one of the projects he worked on related to a field he was good at

Won the lottery, not really. Bill Gates was a harsh businessman who relentlessly fought to kill off competition by all means possible - it was not by mistake that Microsoft became what it is.

And, I'd dare say that it has very little correlation with how "good" he/they were at all. Most Microsoft software was utter crap till recent history compared to the existing alternatives - the fact that they managed to secure the market and third party developers was much more relevant than anything else.

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

#190

Post by ddingus »

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.

Yes, maybe.

That's a fair comment. However, it's countered by the fact that an awful lot of people are going to be doing basic labors. The basic labors need to get done, and someone is going to be doing them too.

Given that, it's it realistic for very large fractions of us simply not having kids?

Does not seem that way to me.

Anecdotally, the janitor at my school as a kid was not a smart man. Not dumb, just not intellectual. But, he was a pretty great dad and his family did well. They didn't have much, but they turned out just fine. Some of his kids ended up moving up and out on to better things too. I've often thought about that dynamic.

We never know how this stuff turns out. I, myself, grew up in relative poverty. Not just lacking luxuries, but sometimes basic needs. Honestly, didn't do me any real harm, and I'm sure glad I'm here as are my peers and family.

To me, the problem is one of how we value people rather than their decision to start families. People always start families. This is primal. Inherent feature. We need families. Most of us do anyway. Some of us don't. But that doesn't align with the job / value problem.

We need the janitor. Somebody is going to do that work, and what basis is that for denying them basic human dignity? Or, maybe we don't really need the janitor? Ok, that means we do a lot more ourselves. Wouldn't some people make the case they are wasting their time having to do that stuff?

Of course! As they should, and that is precisely why we need to value the janitor. The labor isn't sexy, but it serves an important purpose, even if that purpose is to free some research scientists to cure cancer faster.

If somebody is working full time, maybe that needs to somehow be enough to live a modest life, and to me, that life includes a family. Maybe both parents work. That's OK.

Should we actually put weight behind that idea of waiting to have kids in a time of relative financial security, quite frankly, way too many of us won't be having kids! Worse, that means way too many of us are deemed unworthy somehow, and is that really the right thing to do?

Given we need those basic labors done?

Post reply on HN