In previous jobs, child care hours accommodation also included a political / PR aspect: they didn't want to deal with the shit storm of spouses going to the press or contacting senior leadership / powerful stakeholders with complaints about time spent away from children.
A more interesting question to me is this: Those hours would allow me to have a more socially adjusted life. I would have more opportunities to meet women with similar views and personalities to my own (outside of work). I would have more time to date during traditional hours, for instance. So which should it be? Should society always optimize for the families that exist or should it optimize (in circumstances left for debate elsewhere) at least some of the time toward the possibility of new families? I'm talking the difference between pure strategies and mixed strategies. Usually mixed strategies work out best for everyone involved over repeated games - and this is definitely a repeated game situation.
Since it isn't, I suspect there's opportunity for you to change jobs or roles to trade off for the comparative advantages you have in your current role (maybe you have lots of opportunity to learn or have a pay premium).
I suspect that your situation is temporary, and once you have accomplished the short-term objectives you have in mind, you'll take advantage of a better opportunity.
It may be unfair, but if the person who is making this decision has children, they likely view spending time with children as the most compelling reason.
(That's the idea anyway. Whether it's actually true I cannot say. There are so many confounding variables and pretty much no conclusion can be drawn from one example.)
The 'human capital' name refers to real increase in production, on this case, probably because people tolerate higher hours and shitter jobs and 'ability bias' because of higher competence people self-selecting into marriage.
Some people just don't want to produce offspring or commit to a traditional marriage for a number of different reasons, some of these even include focusing on work/business. Why should these people "earn" less than people who went with the cookie cutter nuclear family approach?
My point is they have two workers vying for the same shift. Overriding corporate policy and business interests would put me on that shift. But they're going with a married guy because he has a kid. That's all I can give you for the circumstances. Judge away.
My judgement is that they're choosing someone based on social standing. I think they'd classify that as 'human capital' in this article.
It's kinda hard to. What are you doing on that time? Caring for your elderly and sick grandmother? Tutoring orphans? It's kinda hard to come up with a legitimate reason that is better than that guy spending time with his kids.
"Spending time with" being shorthand here for performing quality parenting that over time makes their kids grow up to be well-adjusted, valued members of society. What could a single, childless person possibly do with that schedule that is more important than improving the future of a dependent that has more life ahead of them than you or I?
No, you don't have to provide an answer if you choose not to. But don't expect us to take you on your word either.
Beyond that, importance is different to everyone. To the company it isn't just your reasons, it is also if they give you the better shift they look anti-family. So they are not only risking you or the other guy quitting, they are also risking dozens of other people deciding this isn't a company they want to work for.
Businesses aren't families, employees shouldn't be discriminated against because another employee needs/wants help.
OR, as the article states, it has nothing to do with marriage and the married person is better at their job and gets to push their weight around more where scheduling is concerned.
Explain why not?
Bear in mind that if the tables were turned, the other guy would be going all over the internet saying "My employer gave this shift to another guy because they hate children and discriminate against families with kids", and the same responses would be had in the opposite direction.
Making these choices is always going to alienate someone, but they're a fact of life.
This is one of the shittiest attitudes I've seen on HN in a while.
Having a child is not in itself something that qualifies as a greater contribution to the species than anything anyone without children can make.
Honestly this is the weirdest kind of child-worship.
But I do not think that these matters should be handled on the employer/employee level.
It will exist solely to assuage the preconceived notions of child-worshiping cretins in management who like to give people preferential treatment based on something that's none of their damn business in the first place.
So you're welcome.
> Take up arms to defend your country?
I'll let you know after your girls serve a tour of active combat duty in an infantry platoon.
My imaginary kid won't contribute tens of thousands of
CO2 to the emissions either.