> Sounds discriminatory against ppl who don't have kids and are over 40.

The economy ceases to exist if, in the long run, couples don't have at least 2.1 kids on average. People are free to not have kids, of course, but having them serves an essential social function and it's not "discriminatory" to have values that accommodate that.

Accommodating employees with kids is great. Discriminating against people who don't have kids is wrong, and illegal.

For what it's worth, the first 2 startups I was a founder of in Silicon Valley had a bunch of founders with kids.

So what does that value imply about ppl without kids? That they should be putting more hours in or have less flexible schedules?

Why not have resonable work schedules for everyone, children or not. I just dont' get why employers have to come up with discriminatory policies for the 'good of the economy'. I would rather support a transparent 'tax childess ppl more' govt policies that these insidious "values". Whatever happened to the value that your employer shouldn't care what you do outside of work.

Employers are part of society and have to accommodate peoples' human functions. Requiring employers to make bathrooms available and giving bathroom breaks is reasonable, as is requiring employers to provide say parental leave (even if childless people can't use it). Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing--expecting people to regularly be in the office after typical daycare closing times is a bad thing to do.

> requiring employers to provide say parental leave

You pivoted into govt laws on employers. That is not what we are discussing here though, I was referring to "values" that employers come up with voluntarily. I don't have any issues with clearly laid out govt policies.

> Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing

I don't disagree with this as long as everyone can use this flexibility.

By "requiring" I mean in terms of social expectations, not government laws. Many policies, e.g. lunch breaks, are "required" by social norms, not law. (Only a minority of states require lunch breaks; bathroom breaks are not required for the most part either: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/...) E.g. Most tech companies offer far more than the minimum FMLA required leave. That reflects "'values' that employers come up with voluntarily." That's also based on social expectations--a tech company that only offered the legally required minimum leave would get a lot of bad publicity for violating social norms, even though it would be legal to do so. Finally, it's not "discriminatory" even though childless people can't take advantage of such leave.

Raising children is a service to society. That doesn't mean the childless should be discriminated against, but it does mean families should be accommodated. Giving a parent more flexibility than a non-parent is not discrimination, it is accommodation, and it's for the good of us all. The childless clearly benefit from healthy families.

i don't agree. I will vote for more childcare support/tax breaks but vote against discrimination at place of employment.

I think you might have misunderstood the suggestion. Giving people enough time to manage a family is different from giving more time to people who have families.

An employer might prefer having employees with children for a variety of reason and mostly would treat "family benefits" as method to hire older more experienced people.

> An employer might prefer having employees with children

Isn't this straight up illegal? Only straight ppl can have children, for example.

I have several gay friends with children.

But yes, at least in California it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.

> it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.

This is to avoid so discriminate against people without children, an objectively right objective.

Still you can accommodate the needs of people with children as a sort of "levelling the field". The same way you can accommodate the needs of minorities by making sure that office culture is respectful of their identities.

If I can go a bit off-topic in both cases the specific demography you are trying to help might be just an example of a common human trait that is just easier to see in some people. Sometimes single men want to work part-time and white rich people do not like racist jokes.

> Only straight ppl can have children, for example.

This "example" is demonstrably false.

yeah you are right. bad example.