Contrarian opinion click bait piece.

Apple is top heavy, just like the military. There many many many that have stayed because their job is safe, their ESP is vested and earning them tons for their nest egg. There are plenty of people with 10 yr, 15 yr or even 20 yr letters of appreciation hanging on their cubicle wall.

What's more important is dispelling this myth that Apple's work life balance is great or that they even pay well.

Unlike SF, working in SV most people skew older than 30+, have starter families, and live in the suburbs. Their lives are already established. But Apple is under market when factoring in the commitment you put in.

On top of that day care here in Cupertino or even the south bay are extraordinary expensive. Google has child care, they even hire full time child care providers that are even issued RSUs. But then, Google is building a cult that Apple once were while Apple is transitioning to being a campus that Google once were.

Ask the contract bus drivers here when you have a chance. They will all tell you the same thing. Of the people they pick up, whether it's Facebook, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn, every Monday morning, the ones that look like they most want to shoot themselves are Apple employees.

I'm guessing it was a typo, but the reference to SV workers having "starter families" brings up some fabulous mental imagery.

Starter family as in finally saving enough money to put down on a $600k new condo they just finished building in east san jose while working in west san jose and budgeting and maxing out Amazon Prime to get more diapers for the new baby.

It's a very expensive co-op game with plenty of DLC.

Note to self: No mater how bad things get, don't "pivot" the family.

If a starter family is like a starter home, after you spend 5-10 years saving money you would be expected to sell the starter family and buy a mid-range family in a better part of town. ;-)

Wouldn't you keep the starter family as a rental?

Couldn't you play devils advocate and say that lack of day care implies that you should go home?

If the daycare is on-site, a person might stay longer at work since their child is taken care of.

DISCLAIMER: I have no children which means that my comment is ignorant or how a parent might read the same article or "message".

To parrot the article. For companies that aren't trying to provide every other perk on the planet, this is a reason that makes sense. For a company that is including such things as work shuttles, food, and gyms... it is a little hazier.

That is, they are making a clear commitment to prioritize things that reduce the time you are away from the office. Having on site food is convenient for the employer. Less time away from doing work.

Daycare, though, doesn't really do much more than help the employee actually have a family life. You won't stay at the office longer, since it will close and you will pick up your child and go home.

I'd actually extend the idea further and say what else sets this apart is what people do in the other locations. It is not uncommon to network on a gym or cafeteria. Daycare? It probably can happen. Doubt it does.

It totally depends on context. My office doesn't have a gym, but there's one next door and we reimburse its membership fee. Colleagues seem to find it easier to go regularly during the workday, rather early in the morning or after work. I think it's fantastic that this kind of "break" is allowed and encouraged. In this city of dysfunctional transportation, saving you a "second commute" to the gym is a valuable service.

Food? A nice lunch that I don't have to think about beats packing PB&J or throwing away money on restaurant meals.

Dinner is provided very late, and is by no means an expectation, more of a courtesy to employees working late for other reasons. It makes sparse use of one cafeteria, where lunch overflows ~5.

Most engineers in my immediate area are solidly 10am-6pm unless something comes up. (Several have hour-plus BART rides to their families deep in the East Bay).

I actually know more than one person in the software industry who has done some networking at daycare/preschool, and I'm not even in the Bay Area.

Many Corp daycares are for one-offs (they may cap it at some number of times per year, for example) when your regular caregiver can't render services or other minor emergencies.

People probably don't want to leave their infant children home alone while they go to work, regardless of the overtime situation.

> Apple’s future, and their employees will not stay 25 forever.

Most of the Apple employees I know skew higher than 25 -- of the companies in the valley it seems to have the most long-term-ers.

A couple of days ago someone here brought up a good point why companies should not offer daycare- wait times to get children into daycare in sf are between 8-10 months. So in case the employee is let go/leaves then it'll take almost an year for them to get their children in a new daycare.

That seems to me to be a reason companies, in their own self-interest, should offer daycare.

If apple, and others, provided on-site day care it would take some of the pressure off daycare in the region and the wait times likely wouldn't be so long for everyone else (including people who get fired). Also, if they're arguing this is such a critical benefit it shouldn't be handled by apple because the impact of losing it is so great then why do they provide health care?

Because you don't have 10 month waiting lists for health care? You get it instantly at the new job.

No real reason they couldn't allow non-employees to continue to use the daycare for a reasonable period of time.

And that's relevant because? If anything, that's a reason for companies to OFFER day care.

And if the parent is let go/leaves, then they'll be at home until they land a new job, and thus not need daycare until then.

I'm sure Apple pays enough for their employees to pay for daycare if they need it.

I don't really think taking care of kids is my employer's business.

Indeed. And if it was an employer's responsibility to care for employees' children: Which employer? Most children have two parents; why should the employer of one parent pay to care for their children while the employer of the other parent doesn't?

Of course, the article answers this question with the assertion that children are a woman's responsibility; Apple's male employees are cavalierly dismissed as "not exactly breeders", which must be one of the harshest judgments I've ever heard applied to such a large group.

It seems to me that the attitude that fathers have no place in the lives of their children is a much bigger problem than the question of whether Apple employees have on-campus or off-campus child care.

> Apple's male employees are cavalierly dismissed as "not exactly breeders", which must be one of the harshest judgments I've ever heard applied to such a large group.

'Harshest judgments'... have you been on the internet?

In any case, her point was not "Apple male employees are dorks", but that "25-year-old tech bros are not breeders... yet". The 'yet' is in her comment. She was saying those kinds of men aren't up for being fathers now, but will be later.

> It seems to me that the attitude that fathers have no place in the lives of their children is a much bigger problem than the question of whether Apple employees have on-campus or off-campus child care.

The very next two paragraphs talk about these same men wanting daycare for their eventual offspring, and being able to find it at Google. Apart from saying the parenting burden falls disproportionately on mothers, the article makes no suggestion that fathers are lesser parents.

And yet, how the employee gets to and from work (shuttles), where the employee eats during the day (cafeterias), if the employee is fit and healthy (gyms, wellness centers) are all within the purview of corporate empires like Apple.

It's only a matter of time.

>how the employee gets to and from work (shuttles)

Well, that sounds like an obvious thing the company should care about. It has been offered to employees and lowly workers since 50 or even 100 years ago...

>where the employee eats during the day (cafeterias)

Any place where people spend 1/3 of their day or more has cafeterias. Even court houses and public government offices in most countries. Obviously a company would HAVE a cafeteria. What else would be going on, have employees take a walk around every time they wanted a soda or snack? Especially in places like some US cities, where you need to drive for 5 or 10 minutes of suburban sprawl to find some food choices.

>if the employee is fit and healthy (gyms, wellness centers)

Again, that's for the employee. Who is sitting 8+ hours straight on some desk coding or doing office work, and needs some exercise for their health.

Daycare, on the other hand, is not for the employee, it's for their family members.

Companies provide health insurance, which family members can be added onto as dependents.

Transportation, food, and health/fitness services are benefits to the Apple employee. Childcare is a benefit to all the parents of the child - in most cases, only one of which is an Apple employee.

Transportation, food etc... benefit the entire family the same way childcare does because most families mix their finances.

For childcare, the benefit to the non-apple parent is financial plus whatever benefit they get from making it more convenient for the apple parent to drop off their kid for daycare.

For transportation, the benefit for a non apple family members is financial plus whatever benefit they get from making it more convenient for the apple employee to get to work.

>Transportation, food etc... benefit the entire family the same way childcare does because most families mix their finances.

They are not meant as services to boost the family finances though -- but to keep them at the company premises more.

How does that affect the OP's comment that I was replying to?

> Childcare is a benefit to all the parents of the child - in most cases, only one of which is an Apple employee.

It adds context to it that the other benefits are not meant for the employees but for the company (and that we don't have much reason to expect one that doesn't benefit the company).

>the other benefits are not meant for the employees

This is only relevant to my reply if someone you're saying that Childcare doesn't benefit the company in the same way a gym membership does, i.e., keeping the employee around longer. I don't think you're saying this, so I still don't understand the point of your reply.

Health insurance, provided by employers such as Apple, usually allow for non-employee dependents to be added.

And for that employee it is most likely more important than a shuttle.

How is it any different from any of the other perks that Apple and other similar employers provide? I don't really think having a cafeteria/gym/shuttle is my employer's business.

I suspect if there was enough demand for daycare as a perk it would be provided. People who work for apple frequently have the option of going elsewhere, so it might be fair to assume they're at least ambivalent on the perk of daycare as a group?

The employers obviously think otherwise.

I wouldn't say no if my employer wanted to run a daycare in the building. It would save me some hassles dropping my kid off and dealing with emergencies.

But they don't. And as far as I know, no one does. Not in Silicon Valley. Not anywhere else. Am I wrong?

SAS (which I believe Google modeled their early benefits packages on) in the RTP has onsite daycare.

Doesn't Cisco have a daycare?

It looks like they do. But don't get excited because it's off-campus. How is that better than any other daycare in Milpitas?

http://child-care-preschool.brighthorizons.com/ca/milpitas/c...

It's not like Google's daycare is particularly accessible either. The cost is far above market rate -- almost 2x from what I've heard -- and your chances of getting in are <10%. It's not a free benefit, and it's not a benefit available to every employee by a long shot.

I think Apple's failure to start a daycare sends exactly this message: we're not good at running daycares.

Is Google Daycare staffed, or are the kids directed to a Google Group and advised to self-help?

This would be my guess, too - along with the fact that Google is fine outsourcing things outside their core competencies while Apple would want to micromanage the exact color and count of every toy in every class.

> Apple would want to micromanage the exact color and count of every toy in every class

You joke but people will tell you this is why they love it.

Well. Google does not outsource the daycares. So that would not be a delta versus Apple in this domain.

They started by outsourcing it, then eventually took it over and raised the prices by a lot. Sounds like it was pretty dramatic.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/business/05nocera.html...

Still don't get why people are constantly surprised at the difficulty of building a career and having kids. Having kids is a life choice with upsides (awesome upsides imo) and downsides. Same goes for having a career in tech. Wanna do both? You can, but YOU WILL have to work 2x harder than all the people doing only one of these (arguably, you'll also get a lot more).

I don't see why any employer has to provide for day care. Instead allow people to work from home, pay for day care as a benefit etc. It would not be possible to build a day care easily to satisfy all employees since this is very personal. (Just like parents prefer different type of schooling)

And Google s day care is not free. And is like 2-3k a month ridiculously expensive.

3k per month is not expensive in major cities for daycare.

Are companies morally required to have daycare? It's a nice gesture if they do, but my kids go to a regular daycare. Bonus is that they don't have to switch daycare when I switch jobs.

They also charge for food and the gym.

If there ever were people who could afford private daycare, it's relatively well paid tech workers (or any relatively well paid worker). If you wanna complain about lack of daycare, take up the cause for the people (moms) juggling multiple barely living wage jobs at the likes of global companies like wal*mart, etc.

This is more like well paid persons' problems. There are people who need those amenities way more than appl workers.

So would the Jony Ive designed diapers have a little Apple logo on the front?

in fact I think of it the other way around. By not providing a daycare, they would want their working parents to go home on time. Having a daycare at work provides excuse to drop kids at care and work late evenings.

In the Jobs-ian arcology, employees spring to life from the cloning tanks in bodies that look 20 and are preloaded with Apple software. Reproduction is obsolete, and so the ports have been removed from the design. Everything is smooth and white and rounded corners.

So you're saying that Ridley Scott got his ideas for Blade Runner 2049 while directing the 1984 Apple ad?