Paul Graham: don’t hire anyone with children

> if you’re an employer and want to hire someone ambitious and productive whose first priority is the company’s project

Sounds like you're searching for a rube above all else.

Someone dumb enough to sacrifice their personal life to your "vision" to this extent will probably exhibit poor judgement in other aspects of your business.

Just hire someone reasonable, with or without kids. If they start pulling away from your project, maybe take that as information that you're not handling the rudder quite right.

That article title disgracefully misrepresents what Paul Graham has written in the text quoted. Paul Graham described his own experience of how having children affected his priorities. In the material quoted he never advocated anything regarding hiring.

Philip Greenspun may have been inspired by Paul's article to come to his own epiphany regarding hiring, but that is exactly what it is - Philip Greenspun's opinion.

I don't know Paul Graham's personal and financial situation, but my impression is that he is someone who has the luxury of reprioritising "work" without major personal consequences.

I would suggest that for most "average" people life changes like getting married, buying property, and having children make people more attentive to work responsibilities because they literally can no longer afford to get fired.

Edited - fixed some grammar.

This isn’t a great conclusion from Graham’s post. If you’re really trying to make this connection, then employers are incentivized to hire people with children since you can more accurately gauge their aspirations, work habits, performance during an interview after they’ve already had the child-having transformation. On the other hand, a childless interviewee may change drastically after having children.

In the end, I like Paul Graham’s introspection but assuming employers would see this as some kind of direction to prefer childless candidates over childbearing ones is far fetched

In my case, it was the opposite. I was prepared to retire at 35. Having a kid changed perspective completely in the direction of being more ambitious.

Is the willingness to make work the most important thing in one's life really this important?

That may be illegal, depending on where your company operates.

I recall when I was in my 20's, unmarried with no kids, how resentful I felt toward all of the older folks with kids. I worked a lot longer and harder than they could, and I was more focused on my work. I was satisfied with my salary, but (at the time) my company provided full medical and dental insurance for the entire family of an employee. I viewed this as a form of unfair discrimination because they were effectively earning more money (in the context of the value of their benefits) just because they had a family.

Of course once I got married and had kids, my selfish self-interest prevailed and I no longer cared about whether or not it was unfair.

Companies like Space-X and Google thrive on exploiting young single people, but on average, they can only get away with it for a decade or less (until the employee gets married).

> In other words, if you’re an employer and want to hire someone ambitious and productive whose first priority is the company’s project… recruit from among the childless and, for long-term employer-employee happiness, the infertile.

Why do you think so many startups still headquarter in SF even though there’s much better (and cheaper) places? by virtue of the cost of living alone you’re going to end up with a much younger work force.

Personally, I don’t mind that someone who wants unwavering and unquestionable commitment to the company (slavery) passes up on me.

Ironically, the assumption that people with kids are less ambitious may be false. Some anecdotes:

1. Long ago, the newspaper reported about a study of single unskilled women in south Chicago, where it turned out that the women with kids tended to work more hours for higher wages, and often commuted further to their jobs.

2. Another study, reporting that a disproportionate number of people change jobs in pursuit of higher pay after the birth of their first child. I was one of those people, and I know a lot of other people who did the same.

3. Completely anecdotal and informal survey of colleagues, that the people who went into the thankless but higher paying jobs in project or middle management are exclusively parents. I've never met a project manager who was single.

All of this is with the usual caveats about "studies" and anecdotes, but the suggestion is that economic motivation can make people more productive. Or at least, it's enough of a counter-argument to the conventional wisdom to justify reserving judgement in the absence of more robust evidence.

Sample size one anecdote here: Having a child made me more focused, ambitious and productive at work. I had a moment of lucidity where I decided to drop all my tech related hobbies and instead split the new-found time between caring for my child and doubling down my efforts at work.

Having kids can reset your priorities to the benefit of your employer.

Wow, what malarkey, what clickbait. PG says nothing about ambition at his 9-5 job, which is what a job should be. If an employer is looking for someone available around the clock, who'll work endless hours tirelessly, complaint-free... well, that's not a place I want to work at. That is, pardon the mixed metaphor, a red-flag-toxic-expectation.

I read this essay as being about personal ambition - the hours you put in above and beyond on your own projects.

Does ambition matter for a non-founder?

If they were more ambitious they might always be looking for better, and bigger things.

I think companies care more if you are a mercenary or a kool-aid drinker. They want kool-aid drinkers that will give everything for the company without asking much, that's why they always go on about their mission as if it's a cult. Whether you are into that BS or not has nothing to do with if you had kids or not.

Philip Greenspun is a legend in the blogging space. One of the pioneers.

But that's not what Paul Graham said or implied. For him, having kids changed him. For others, it's a different effect.

If you'd rather be at the office until 1am, 7 days per week, don't get into a relationship. Nor have kids. Luckily, very few jobs are like that. And the people working there are doing so voluntarily.

This reminds me of the modern take on ancient spiritual practices. “Deities are unfalsifisble lol. Also I’m kind of depressed and find life meaningless.” It feels like missing the forest for the trees. Or throwing the baby out with bath water.

If the person has children works better than one without, hire the person with children. Also, don’t hire the person with children if there is such an exact person without it.

Yeah, keep giving advises witch break the law, PG! This, in addition to ageism, is a serious and underestimated problem, especially in technology!

I want to bust out my Jump to Conclusions Mat after reading this post.

Good thing that somebody had children, else you'd have to learn ALL the things your employees learned to do, so you could make big bucks and bragging rights from their labor.

Hey Christmas spirits ... I think we found Ebenezer again.

...better hire those burdened with a mortgage.

Paul Graham is mediocre,not worth arguing about. I think he preached then left his wife for his secretary or somwrhing.