Nvidia – significant increases in parental benefits for employees
virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com
virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com
After a long string of answers like "two weeks.. three weeks.. six weeks.. four weeks", the international parents in the group felt compelled to begin their introductions with an apology for numbers like six months, one year, two years...
I've never been able to understand how a parent could advocate against European-style healthcare goals (implementation details left as an exercise for technocrats).
That's not how parental leave works. The employer is obligated (by law) to continue paying salaries for the stipulated period while the parent is on leave. The government doesn't shoulder the cost.
Sheesh, haven't you heard of the slippery slope?? Today it's six months of paternity leave, but from there it's a straight line to Stalinism. /s
I'm pretty sure parental leave is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor in the founding documents of most countries.
If we don't have it today, it's not because people advocated against it and removed it, it's because we simply haven't had enough push to advocate for it and add it.
Large countries have a ton of inertia. Diverse, thinly populated countries even more so. When people are far apart, they care much more about local politics and their neighbors than they do centralized government. Making change happen at that scale is very very hard.
People living in European countries enjoy criticizing the US on stuff like this, but they fail to realize how much bigger and more spread out we are than they are. The US is more than twice as large as the entire EU. Our density is less than a third of the EU's.
Another comment here mentions Denmark. If Denmark was a US state, it would be 36th in size, smaller than more than half of all US states. In population, it has fewer than 20 other states. The metropolitan area of the city I live in (Seattle) alone has almost half the population of the entire country of Denmark. LA and surrounding environments contain more than two Denmarks worth of people.
Consider if every US state were to independently enter the EU. In that case, of the top 40 largest members by area, only 9 would still be in Europe.
The US is behind in many ways, but this is not because we are backwater full of regressive idiots. We are a very large country without the density and homogeneity to benefit from good economies of scale. It's a lot easier to reach consensus and move a government forward when you have fewer people and they can more easily relate to each other.
If you are unable to understand why we might not have attained the same healthcare goals as your country, consider that your inability to understand people whose situation is different from yours is the exact psychological problem that slows us down.
What part of population density or land mass size makes for this excuse where there's examples worldwide of both ends of either measure who've implemented paid leave by law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Variation_in_in...
Countries larger and smaller than the USA have better policy. Countries with greater and lesser population densities. Diversity of people might matter but I fail to see a demographic within the US that is outright against increased parental benefits of new parents that doesn't exist within every country that has overcome the problem.
Notice how these lazy comparisons never make any specific comparisons to other countries that would trivially refute their claims, such as Russia having 4x less population density than the US, but still somehow managing to have a federally mandated parental leave.
If it were true that it's just so hard for people far removed from one another geographically to relate to each other wouldn't it follow that the situation in Russia would be 4x worse than the US?
Not a defense of America; I do think the difference is more complicated than just the size.
1.) big and sparse. oh wait..
2.) culturally diverse. oh wait.. [1][2][3][4]
I only have one explanation for social service scarcity in the US: It seems to be dominated by a culture where you'd rather have large parts of the population suffer rather than having anyone chip in for the bill of groups of people (s)he doesn't identify with. It's the idea of self responsibility pushed to an unhealthy extreme. At the same time when talking to people in the US personally (almost) everyone seems to be helpful and nice, much more so than in most European countries actually. That dichotomy is something I'm really struggling with, i.e. I fail to find a good explanation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Ethnic_...
[2] http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2014/11/11/maternity-leav...
[3] https://www.angloinfo.com/brazil/how-to/page/brazil-healthca...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_Brazil#E...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
That's a very different story than the Russia link you provided, which, as I suspected, says that the country is mostly a) ethnically Russian and b) the rest are minorities the Russians have been dealing with for most of their history. I've even seen suggestions that the "White" category is perhaps too coarse, with observable cultural and political differences between whites of English descent and whites of German descent.
There's another pertinent datapoint, which is that Russia has a very low TFR and is experiencing a population decline and is pursuing policies to reverse that, as it is seen as a major problem. The US, on the other hand, continues to grow, largely because of immigration; policies to increase the number of children are superfluous.
That said, as I mentioned earlier, I think that's just a factor. Every country is special and has to be considered on its own terms. Is geographic size a factor? Probably. Is population size a factor? Probably. Is population diversity a factor? Probably. Is some remnant of the mythological self-reliance of American frontierism a factor? Probably. Is the rivalry with the USSR a factor? Probably.
Moreover, while I personally would like at a minimum a year of paid parental leave, the idea that parental leave represents Forward Progress and any country that doesn't have it is backward and deserves to be shamed is rather disturbing. Instead of trying to shame America to conform to somebody elses' norms, we should probably work instead on convincing them that it's a worthwhile and workable idea, and that the potential tradeoffs are worth making.
The fact that the Democrats have had as much political power as they have in the United States and _not_ yielded these results should tell you just how useful they are to 'progressives' as a force for 'progressive' change.
But another thing the sparse argument fail to account the reverse side. US essentially has a big chunk of the resource of a continent for a very little amount of benefit. That has to count for something. It also benefits from some of the worlds most people moving there so I don't think having resource to provide better health care is the issue. From the comments that I read I think two ideas are prevalent that stops this.
- I'm healthy so why should I pay for another's healthcare - I can better afford it so I should receive higher quality care
Now some definitely have ideological issue but I think at the grassroot level this is a big part of the cause.
Didn't prevent the Democrats from "Obamacare".
Except people do advocate against it. constantly.
> but this is not because we are backwater full of regressive idiots
Donald Trump is a presidential candidate.
Canada has less density and doesn't have nearly the constant fighting about seemingly every social issue.
The population density may be an excuse for the poor passenger rail network, but it doesn't make sense regarding parental leave.
>The US is behind in many ways, but this is not because we are backwater full of regressive idiots. We are a very large country without the density and homogeneity to benefit from good economies of scale. It's a lot easier to reach consensus and move a government forward when you have fewer people and they can more easily relate to each other.
The EU has more people and still managed to legislate maternity, paternity, and parental leaves. They managed to do this while speaking 24 languages in Parliament.
The United States is a collection of fifty sovereign states that pool resources to pay for things that are beneficial to the geographic neighborhood, like a giant HOA. It's not fair to compare the universal policies in a conglomeration of sovereign states to the policies in independent jurisdictions; that is, the comparison should be California<->Sweden, not U.S.<->Sweden.
Under that framework, all labor law should be state-level. This promotes competition among jurisdictions for population, which means people have the option to move somewhere nearby if a jurisdiction passes a really undesirable law. More local jurisdictions also makes representative government a lot more feasible. A rep with 25k constituents is going to be much more available to the average citizen in their district than a rep with 25m constituents.
Some areas in the U.S. do have mandatory sick and parental leave, and some don't, and that's how the respective peoples like it. Time will tell which approach is superior. We think that kind of competition is good.
>Or maybe where slavery and indentured servitude hasn't quite been phased out?
The question of whether the Feds had authority to universally outlaw slavery presented a constitutional crisis that culminated in the Civil War, and there are still people who believe that such prohibitions are out of the scope of the federal government's powers (not that they believe slavery should still be legal, but they believe that per the 10th Amendment, the right to make that decision was reserved to the states). It's certainly not a simple matter.
These folk are also know as the "job creators". Why should they pay you for not working? Your newborn doesn't do anything for their bottom line. After all, it is their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value by screwing over employees, customers, suppliers or anyone else who is not a shareholder. They are already not fans of raising the minimum wage, why should they be pro-labor in any other area?
That's not totally true. Many countries require the employer to pay at least some of the leave.
>Again a public good like raising the next generation should be paid for by the public.
This is absolutely not the American perspective. Americans don't think of their children as "public goods", and the expectation is that everyone will support themselves and their offspring, and that individual charity will be accommodated by voluntary private activity as necessary. This isn't based on selfishness, but a belief that if you don't want your children to be wards of the state, they shouldn't be dependent on it for their sustenance.
The European system is looked upon with suspicion out here, to say the least. America is not a big government place.
why is this preferred? make everyone pay for it? make everyone who doesnt have kids poorer? pass the money through the government that takes a cut of it to administer the program leaving less money on the other side. i dont see the good in any of it
Guess what happens if you give birth again in those 3 years? That's right...3 more years.
"It's a free country" and all that. One's employer has no more obligation to continue to employ him/her than the employee has obligation to continue to work for the employer.
At most places I've worked, they would not have been able to let my work go undone for six months or a year or more, so would need to find some other way to get the work done. At the large companies, there might be enough redundancy to be able to spread my work among those already working there. At many, though, it seems they would have to hire somebody.
For senior technical positions, especially if the company has proprietary systems or technology that is not publicly documented, it can take quite a while to get someone new up to speed.
Most kids I've brought up have been about a million times more intense than any tech career I've ever pursued.
And for the companies they work at, how do they manage retaining any half decent people while actively ignorning one of the most basic human processes? Ask any parent what the most transformative event in their life was. How do these companies survive with a staff that's essentialy kids or dysfunctional/depressed parents??
edit: serious question albeit framed provocatively.
How do American companies cover a few weeks of leave? That's too short to hire a replacement but often too long to just let things slide.
It's part of the cost of doing business and companies plan for it.
With respect to absurdly long paid parental leave in particular, I would oppose it on the grounds that it's immoral to force people to subsidize other people's children. Having children is a life choice that other people shouldn't be on the hook for.
"There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!"
> Ensuring that the next generation of society is well adjusted and participative
How does forcing companies to subsidize people's decision to have children achieve this goal?
> "There are other bad things, so you can't object to this new bad thing!"
The OP never said the things they did not benefit from were bad. Merely that as a tax payer, you pay for things that you personally do not always benefit from directly. You might think these are bad, but this is not the same as them being bad.
I do not personally benefit from having, say, wheelchair accessible housing requirements. This does not mean it is bad to have those requirements -- I simply do not use a wheelchair. This is only the simplest case imaginable. So your reply comes off as a bit of a farce, I think.
Your argument seems to hinge on premises like the fact there is a definitive moral/societal calculus by which we can determine if something is "good for us", so we should/should not do it (it's "immoral" to subsidize having children, but many would argue the same about providing birth control), that we should even treat it as a 'subsidy' vs 'investment' or 'just a good idea' (if we're "subsidizing" children, why even do it for 3 weeks? why not only give 3 days of parental leave?) or that there is a definitive, negative result to be the whole outcome, regardless of context (e.g. that extended parental leave is a definitive societal drain vs the value to be reaped in the same period). If it does not rely on these premises, I apologize, but that's what I read of it.
Skipping the bits about morals (you will not do well to convince people on that one) - is there any evidence to suggest that extended parental leave, as offered by EU countries (your quoted bit from the OP) for example, results in sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects?
Well obviously, there is no such thing as "being bad" as an intrinsic quality. All "badness" or "goodness" is extrinsic, so it should have been fairly clear what I meant. ("This is bad" = "I think this is bad".)
> This is only the simplest case imaginable.
And in this case I disagree with you. I question whether or not legal accessibility requirements have been a good thing for society. As an example, I used to live in an old university building that was legally required to have a sort of wheelchair lift on some stairs to a commons room. The university had to pay close to $300,000 for that machine. In the two years I lived there, I do not believe the machine was used once. Was it really worth a good 35 years worth of in-state tuition scholarships to pay for a wheelchair lift that no one ever used?
> sustained economic or societal "subsidization" that has observable, long-lasting negative effects?
While it's impossible to isolate this policy as a causative factor, almost all European countries have drastically inferior GDPPC (adjusted for exchange rates and purchasing power) to the USA.
It's also not very hard to see how encouraging people to leave the workforce for months at a time would hurt productivity.
Too much.
> Do you consider killing people more noble job than raising them?
False dichotomy. I'd rather subsidize neither.
While I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, I believe you're saying that we shouldn't give money to retirees because they're economically unproductive. I agree, except that most retirement programs (nominally) required retirees to put in money before they retired, so it's at least plausible to claim that they're owed that money, having already paid for it.
> Or should you be allowed to employ or even work with people who were raised and educated at the expense of people who made the choice to do so?
Not sure what you're saying here. As far as I'm concerned, employment should be a mutual agreement to trade labor for resources. Not sure how the way they were raised comes into it.
> Paternity and Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean in subsidizing the expenses parents make or the benefits of their choice to society.
While I disagree that people having children in general is good for society, let's leave that aside; we don't feel the need to have the government subsidize (or force companies to subsidize) every "good" behavior, like being nice or having a job. There is no need to subsidize people having children, because they will do it anyway. It's a lifestyle choice, not a public service.
By the same token, I've never understood how parents could advocate against having a one-income family.
Oh wait, I know. Because everything has a cost, and everything is a trade-off.
The reason to not have a year-long leave is the same reason not to have a stay-at-home parent: it's expensive.
---
Of course, some people do wind up making that compromise. But Americans don't expect everyone else pay for their decision. Thank God.
You're presenting an extremely selfish point of view.
That sounds selfish to me.
jk
---
More seriously though, I 100% like the decision to have children.
1. I'm a father of two. I work, and my wife stays home.
2. An alternative would be both of us working, except for my wife stops working for a while when our kids are born.
3. Another alternative would be both of us working, and paying for child care.
Each of these have trade-offs. But whatever way we go, I'm not selfish enough to force everyone to pay for my decision.
Most did things like rent a house somewhere else and stay for 2-3 weeks. All of them still rave bout this as being some of the best times of lives. If you do ever get the chance to do this, I recommend doing it with another couple in the same situation so you have a built in baby sitter so you can go out to diner without having to worry about who is watching your new born.
Just to show the other side, one of my friends sent out this article below to highlight the downside of parental leave. As this becomes more common, I think companies will learn but it can still be a sticky topic.
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/the-dark-s...
That actually sounds like a really clever system.
This would be true if the child were the property of the company paying for its raising ;-)
Or do we just say that having children is just that, having children, and that parenting is a privileged class?
I also think that those who don't have children should have the opportunity to have the same time away from work that parents who get time to "have the best times of their lives" are allowed.
Sabbatical. It's time off from work to make some significant progress on a side project that isn't directly related to work.
There's a pitiful 3-4 states (including California) that offer partial paid leave. That's it. CA's is only ~50% taxable income for six weeks and no job protection if you are not covered by CFRA/FMLA. If you're a mother recovering from a C-section or if you're taking care of a seriously ill spouse, good luck!
I believe FB is 16 weeks?
(To be perfectly correct, the parental leave length has been fluctuating between 10, 12 and 14 weeks during the last decade, in what amounts to a major bikeshedding competition by the political parties).
How are they've overcoming the legal issues around offering a 10-week difference in maternity/paternity leave?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/business/attitudes-shift-o...
One example from the article: "Just last week, CNN and Turner Broadcasting quietly settled an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge with a former CNN correspondent, Josh Levs, who claimed that the company’s paid parental leave policy discriminated against biological fathers.
At the time Mr. Levs’s daughter was born, in October 2013, CNN offered 10 weeks of paid leave to biological mothers and the same amount to parents of either gender who adopted children or relied on surrogates. By contrast, the company offered two weeks of paid leave to biological fathers."
I'm surprised more companies don't do this.
The smart business move would be to let people just take the time "off" and come back healthy and rested after a few months. Not sure why businesses don't see this obvious fact.
Except I'm sitting in a little room all day staring at a computer, you're spending all day with your family and seeing your new child walk and talk for the first time.
Gee, I wonder who has a more rewarding time.
Providing for a family is very rewarding.
New parenting (infants) is about 5% photo-filled rewarding, 95% just repetitive work, cleaning up shit (literally), waking up every couple of hours, trying to keep it together with your spouse in stressful situations with very little sleep, and feeding this organism that will eventually have a personality and start interacting back. And that ratio gradually changes as they grow older.
I remember after the first month, I used to consider going to the office my "break from parenting" because of its consistency and ability for my mind to just rest for a bit.
Just remember when you're asking a parent of an infant to have a full-time job on top of parenting, you've essentially now got an employee that is splitting their time/attention/energy between two jobs. If you're ok with the altered productivity, then that's fine.
But let's not fool ourselves.
It's not a "job" in the normal sense because you're not generating profit for anyone, but the company is still paying you. All the people without children perform more labor but get rewarded less (because they get less time off, don't get whatever benefits patenthood may entail, etc.). People without children absolutely get screwed over by such arrangements.
Whether or not this is acceptable depends on your goals and what you consider acceptable incentivization schemes.
This seems to be a stark contrast between the normal policy!
So the one giving birth gets 22 weeks. The father gets 12 weeks. The mother of adoptive kids gets 12 weeks.
I see no issue here. There are differences between the sexes and catering / supporting those differences doesn't automatically mean discrimination.
And to be fair, it's a hell of a lot harder on a birth mother than anyone else. You'll notice adoptive mothers in this policy only get the 12 week benefit too, so this one is already fairer than most.
Well, the law does recognize that the person who just delivered a baby went through a lot harder time than the one who simply contributed the other half of the genetic material 9 months before.
After my wife gave birth, she breastfed every 3 hours (typical for a newborn) so that means very little sleep. Recovery from having pushed another human being through the birth canal (or from having the abdomen cut wide open) is not trivial.
Then there's the baby's bonding, which is primarily with the mom in the first few months.
Paternity leave is a great thing; as a dad I got to support my wife in child with all the household stuff. And there is not replacement for witnessing the first few months of one's child's life. That goes by so fast.
But as a dad, I recognize that the largest burden was born by my wife. Many trivialize the effort women go through but I think they are the unsung heros of humanity.
Small study: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/169/1/30.short Meta study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185905
It is indeed an interesting coincidence that there is another story about parental leave at the front page.
It's the price you must pay for having so much Freedom (TM).
CAP theorem for the Bay Area: Commute, Affordable, Protected (from crime). Choose two.
You're seeing a consequence of not having enough freedom.
Maybe the comment you were replying to hinted at that (if I squint I can read it that way), but if so, the thing to do is gently turn the discussion back in a neutral direction with a substantive reply, or simply not to reply at all.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12306675 and marked it off-topic.
I don't know who took this decision to just give away money and free time to employees, and maybe it's good PR after all, but I do hope this is not announcing a trend.
I've found it costs an employer an average of $3000 to hire someone for $8/hour and it costs an average of $26k to hire someone for $80/year. If you can pay someone a few weeks of salary and buy goodwill during a life event like this you keep your company competitive in the competitive tech space.
TL;DR This will probably save them money in recruiter fees.
I disagree strongly. When shareholders purchase their shares, the rights they get with it are clear. Very, very commonly, they do not include the right to set renumeration. Not theoretically. Not practically. Not at all. Non-voting stock very deliberately gives shareholders no power.
"If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong."
I disagree very strongly. It is the job of the executives to make these decisions. Their first duty is not to shareholders, despite the pernicious myth that there's some kind of legal obligation to do the best for shareholders. Shareholders do not need to be consulted.
Shareholders literally own the company. They have influence on everything, at least indirectly. They vote the board of directors, so if they are not happy with the way employees are thrown money at, they will sack the directors and elect a board that will not do the same thing.
Not only are shareholders not supposed to make such decisions, they also actually don't make those decisions. Literally owning the company doesn't actually mean they can do what they like it, and that's how it should be. It's not as if they're liable for anything the company does wrong, so even calling it "ownership" is a leap.
Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm not pissed off. I take a long term view and I find the attitude of shareholder value above all to be backwards and damaging.
I also know that the best shareholders could do is put up their own nominations for directorship positions. It would damage the company and should be done, frankly, only if the company was already a slow motion car crash. Sometimes you see activists doing this as a prelude to getting as much money as they can out of a healthy company.
Here's a company doing its job, looking after its employees and investing in its future.
I'm a shareholder as well. I'm willing to believe this decision was made for good reasons so I give the executives the benefit of the doubt, but to me it is slightly worrying.
You applaud this, fine. We disagree, still fine. There is no right or wrong here, in the end it's only the votes that count. Because, if what the executives do pisses enough shareholders, they will be voted out and unlike you I believe this is all right.
Not saying it is a bad thing, but in the end such decision are likely made to attract talents and/or limit turn-over more than anything else.
Basic Humanity. Belief that existing laws in the US are pathetic and don't go nearly far enough.
Or staff retention, if you insist on degrading human relationships to purely economic terms.
As you put it, it's a "Belief". I'd rather call it a point of view or even a political opinion.