Interestingly, I find that most employees and applicants in high tech accept this, that they've made their choice and will live with it.

It's the tech companies that seem bitter about accepting the consequences of their own hiring practices. They have hiring practices that, by their own admission, result in a very high rate of false negatives. This is their right, they have their reasons, but there are downsides. It means their processes are designed to make hiring hard. It creates a culture where developers are disinclined to pursue new jobs, as the transition costs (intense interview exam prep) are high, and the outcome is uncertain. I actually think these practices may cause talented people to leave the field, and may deter other talented people from entering the field in the first place.

Interestingly, these companies don't seem to accept their role in creating the "shortage" that they constantly decry.

(the solution, it appears, is for the government to grant tech companies power over who is allowed to come to the United States and the conditions under which they are allowed to remain here).

It's only in the tech industry that having a family isn't a regular, normal thing people do.

Maybe it being a choice with a negative association is more of a cover for the fact that most of us who choose this industry are extremely poor communicators and that an out-sized number of us _will not_ get married or have kids (and not by our own choice).

And I say that as someone without such attachments myself.

Or maybe we're okay with being exploited by employers who want us working extremely long hours for their benefit and the choice to keep the engineers away from the older, more normal folks with families is deliberate.

I would bet if you were to sample the average mid-career folks in non-tech groups at FAANGs, you would see normal (or even above average) numbers of people who have families and normal hours.

> It's only in the tech industry that having a family isn't a regular, normal thing people do.

Getting divorced, again, is an occupational hazard of getting to the top in law firms or in finance as well. There are plenty of people with really good jobs that sacrificed family for it. I doubt it’s actuallu the norm but it’s hardky unusual.

That's honestly mostly a myth. The number one factor in divorce rates is income.

Don't believe me?

https://qz.com/1069806/the-highest-and-lowest-divorce-rates-...

Your source does not support your thesis. All of the professions with the lowest rates of divorce require high levels of intelligence but they’re not all very well paid. Clergy certainly aren’t and veterinarians generally have other, much better paid options. Looking at the low end of divorce professions it looks more like a combination of intelligence and systematic thinking being protective against divorce. The only people on the list that might not have degrees are Military Enlisted Tactical Operations and Air/Weapons Specialists and Crew Members and Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products. I’ve no clue about the second but the first seem very likely to be the kind of people who do very well on the ASVAB and get assigned to nuke tech or aircraft mechanic.

The highest divorce rate professions aren’t particularly well paid by any measure but there are plenty of other professions with lower pay and lower divorce rates.

Clergy are such an obvious and well-understood exception that it's intellectually dishonest to use them as a counter-example.

Also veterinarians make extremely good money. Nearly all of those low-rate professions are well paid and virtually none of the high-rate professions are.

Everyone who chose to become a veterinarian could have made more money, by going to med school, law school, pharmacy school, getting an MBA, etc. No comment on the non-degreed, not particularly well paid group that’s highly selected for high intelligence with very low rates of divorce?

I have cats!