Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwd | Hacker News Reader

> Of course not, but choosing to have children in the first place is.

The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society.

If you're 30, the toddlers of today will be voting and coming into the workforce and voting when you're 50; and will be basically running your country when you're 70. If the next generation isn't raised to take your place, your retirement is going to really stink. And the character and attitude of the toddlers now are going to have a massive impact on your life.

When the harassed parent on your Zoom call apologizes and puts you on mute to spend 30 seconds interacting with their toddler, that's an investment in your own future. Be grateful for them for doing that work.

View on HN

> It's a choice which benefits all of society

Then maybe all of society should participate in that choice. AFAIK no one will question, or evaluate the results of that choice, so we only have your say-so of the supposed benefits.

If your kid emigrates the day they graduate, do you pay a penalty for the loss of benefit society? If I deem the "character and attitude" of the next generation to be poor, can I hold you to account, do I get a refund?

To be clear, I have no problem with corporations, or even the government, providing parents with perks and service; I do have a problem with the entitlement shown in demanding such things, especially based on some fluffy premise.

People who spend more free time on themselves and improve physical and mental health is also a benefit to society since they will use less of resources from the health sector and pay taxes longer (and often more).

Giving everyone more time is something which benefits society. Studies done on 6hrs work day (or 4 days work week) has shown exactly that. Better health, more time with children, less resources needed in the health sector. An argument being presented together with such reduction in work hours would be to raise the pension age again, which would then increase how much taxes a person pay in a life time.

In addition more people with disabilities can stay in the work force when there is more balance between work hours and home. This also increase taxes and reduces medical costs, and also reduces the amount of people who need to enter early pension.

The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work.

> The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work.

Where did I say people without children are wasting societies resources?

I don't think everyone needs to have children. There are definitely some people cut out to raise children, and definitely some other people not cut out to raise children. (And loads of people in the middle.) Raising children is a massive amount of work and effort stress, and anyone who doesn't find that work rewarding is going to struggle to do a good job. The argument I made works both ways: a good parent will make society better, possibly for generations; a bad parent will make society worse, possibly for generations. If someone doesn't think parenting is for them, I'm the last person to push them into doing it.

But what's a fact is that it's critical to society that somebody do that work. The least we can do is cut the people who are doing that work a little extra slack.

I'm not sure what more free time has to do with it. Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't.

"The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society."

If a person choose to spend time on themselves then that is a choice which also benefits all of society.

"Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't."

I have my doubts. The concessions that people need to balance life and work looks all very similar. A lot of the concessions that people with children seem identical to the concession that many people without children also need, those being flexibility in the job and hours spent doing work. If we include debilitating health conditions, does it matter for the job if a person need flex time to balance the condition or if they do so in order to setup the teaching platform to their kids?

What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from?

> What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from?

Well, to go back to my first post: If you're in the middle of a Zoom call, and a parent's toddler interrupts them and they have to take 30 seconds to see their finger painting before sending them back to the other parent, just be patient and accept that. If someone in the middle of a Zoom call says, "Sorry, just let me take 30s to pump out 5 pull-ups here", or "Sorry, just bear with me while I search to see how fast Queens regenerate energy", I think you have a right to be somewhat annoyed.

If someone says, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- our infant is sleeping poorly", and it's the 10th time this month, cut them some slack for the 10th time. If they say, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I was up all night playing Starcraft" or "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I did back-to-back marathons yesterday", and it's the 10th time this month, I think you have a right to be somewhat more annoyed.

I could go on, but do I need to? I feel like the difference between having a human being that depends on you for its very survival and having a hobby that you can mostly schedule -- or at least behaves predictably -- should be pretty obvious.

You don't know the background to justify being annoyed. Maybe the reason they spent up all night playing starcraft was that they had any of the long list of medical conditions that causes stress and disruption of normal sleep, and what you perceive is laziness is management of that condition.

If someone in the middle of every meeting say "sorry just let me take 30s to go to the bathroom", are they disrespecting you or do they have a disorder of the bowel?

The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same.

If someone is doing 10 back-to-back marathons in a single month then maybe its time to talk to them. It sound like a person crashing from stress and who might need a break from work (ie a concession) in order to not end up in the hospital.

> The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same.

Once again, where did I say that people shouldn't be cut slack for a medical condition or a sick relative?

The comment to which I responded, starting this sub-thread, was making the case that because parents had chosen to have children, that therefore they should not be given more concessions than people who had not chosen to have children -- as though the decision to raise children was comparable to the decision to become a grandmaster Starcraft player. Most people don't choose to have a debilitating medical condition, nor do they chose to have relatives who need special care; so those situations aren't relevant to the discussion.

The distinction that I see is that work should allow people to balance life and work life, regardless if the reason people need concessions are children or because other reasons. It is also a sad fact that in many cases there are social stigma attached to those reasons and thus make it likely to be concealed. What get perceived as choice can actually one of those situation which a person has not chosen. To put a number to those things, about 50% of the population is currently suffering from a chronic diseases. You add that with the number of people who has elderly relatives, the number of people with children, and the total number is creeping very fast towards almost 100%.

It is also a bit telling that in a very large company in my country, the term used for flex work can be roughly translated to "entrusted work schedule". It seems that the reason people are not given concessions automatically is that the employer simply don't trust their employees and view flexibility as something that a stereotyped lazy employee will abuse to goof off and play video games. A good start to combat this would be to view flex time as something that everyone need, which would naturally benefit parents.

> as though the decision to raise children was comparable to the decision to become a grandmaster Starcraft player.

Why isn’t it comparable though? Both are life affecting choices and both affect other people around you.

As someone without children, I’ve often had to pick up the slack because parents needed time off or to leave early or to step out of a meeting. I think it’s ok to cut people slack, what I don’t think is ok is drawing arbitrary lines between what it is and isn’t acceptable to cut people slack over. If your toddler interrupts every meeting and it’s causing problems to the rest of the team that is on you and you need to figure out a solution, the same way as if the Starcraft player affects the team then that’s on them. To the rest of us there's no tangible difference. Yes, if its medical and its out of your control, or there's some occasional issue, then its no problem at all and obviously extra concessions should be made during the current global situation and I’m absolutely supportive of giving extra concessions to parents in this case — but this is an extraordinary situation that needs extraordinary care and concessions. The part that isn't ok is if its regular and you expect everyone else to be ok with it because the reason happens to be children. You don't get to force your life choices on us, sorry. At least afford us the same flexibility.

To be clear, I’m ok with making concessions when parents need them, I just also think the favour needs to be returned when I need time, regardless of why I might need it. Having children is a choice, no matter how you want to rationalise it (and it’s perfectly fine to make that choice but it’s not fair to then expect people who didn’t make that choice to bend over backwards for you, at least in normal non-covid times)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com