No it isn't clearly better. Note, I'm single but proposing that someone that lives code as being better than someone that stops to smell the roses of life is a bit too much.

You're also discriminating for people that may be horrible for the team. I bet that person with kids is likely better at conflict resolution than the programmer that never goes out to socialize.

That is what you're discriminating for/against. I'm learning a hobby on how to build some rather completely different things. Not only is it refreshing to think of computers as "just another goddamn tool" but to not need the things at all.

It is letting me escape getting into a rut in software only. But guess what, it means I'm not contributing to open source because I'd rather be doing something, anything else.

Working outside of work is mostly free training for your company. Nice for them, bad for you later on in life. I'd rather meet and make friends as I am growing older. Relationships are the thing I regret most for not paying better attention in life. I don't think as a society we should keep encouraging people to act like mindless drones.

> programmer that never goes out to socialize.

I never said that someone has to live and breathe work, only that they don't have anything _higher priority_ than work.

If I have social plans with my friends I'll likely cancel them if there's a bona fide work emergency. If I have family obligations I cannot and will not.

> I'd rather meet and make friends

OK, and I'd rather ski for an hour or two every weekday morning, then come home and shower and finally start working at noon.

I just don't see why I would expect the work opportunities available to me, and the compensation, to be no less than someone who doesn't have that requirement.

Having kids is a lifestyle choice that is at odds with other choices. If my preferred lifestyle is to be a starving artist/musician, or a ski bum, but I also want to have kids and so might have to suck it up and take a soul-sucking corporate job, no one is going to shed a tear for me.

But if instead of rocking out I just want to get the same jobs and paid the same salaries as people who are actually much more productive than myself, that's somehow not only reasonable but unimpeachable.

All it really is is another in a long line of examples of people with kids expecting special privileges and support for their personal lifestyle choices, not only from society at large (maybe reasonable) but from everyone, individually (not).

If you want society to subsidize having children, then the government should do it, not individual software teams.

What exactly does this mean? I prioritize A LOT over work. My back hurts, work can suck it. I get into an accident, again, work takes a hell of a back seat. If a family member is having issues, guess what, work may not be my highest priority. I'm a human, not a robot.

> Having kids is a lifestyle choice that is at odds with other choices.

That is self evident, what is your underlying non analogy point?

> If you want society to subsidize having children, then the government should do it, not individual software teams.

Software teams are a part of society are they not?

I'll be blunt, I'd rather generally have the people with kids on my team than the humans that think Arbeit macht Frei (had to be done, far too apropos in this specific instance). Having time off from work tends to mean you focus more on work when you're there. I love programming, but I have other things in life I want to pursue. It also means I can compartmentalize work for work, not "oh i was thinking of doing xyz at work, i should spin up a bunch of cloud instances at home tonight and test this shiny new thing out to make my job hopefully a bit easier in the week". That mindset is just doing training for work outside of work. Which is simply, more work, and the end result of that kind of stuff from what I have seen, is guys end up snapping and go insane or worse.

Sure, but those are unexpected and hopefully rare events. We're talking about things that take priority over work every single day.

> > Having kids is a lifestyle choice that is at odds with other choices.

> That is self evident, what is your underlying non analogy point?

What I mean to put it bluntly is that having kids means less time for other things, including work. Make that tradeoff if you want, but don't to make the negative consequences of your choice my problem.

> > If you want society to subsidize having children, then the government should do it, not individual software teams.

> Software teams are a part of society are they not?

Sure they are, what's your point?

Society should probably help out homeless people, but that means collecting taxes and providing services, not expecting individual families to invite them into their homes and feed and clothe them, etc.

> I love programming, but I have other things in life I want to pursue

Same here, but I'm not the one complaining that a team of people who don't share that requirement isn't hiring me, bending over backwards to accommodate me, and paying me the same as their top performers.

I also believe it can make you better at work, in ways you currently may not appreciate. Coding more at home can make you a better coder, but it's a diminishing return. At some point you will get more from being good at communications, making better choices, finding compromises, reflecting, seeing the whole picture, avoiding errors caused by constant typing with tired brains.

It's a great pleasure (for me) to work with people in 30s-40s, with children and hobbies: healthier environment, less stress, usually less ego and drama, focus on working smart and thinking twice before typing, less chance to see and clean shitty code, also, very interesting conversations at lunch.

"they don't have anything _higher priority_ than work" it's too much, man. It is not in the same league with coding at home, it's sacrificing your life for an organisation, shareholders that will never sacrifice their lives for you in return. In fact, they will not even sacrifice potential profit for you, and make you redundant despite your commitment.

Why wouldn’t I put many things as a high priority than work? I don’t have any equity in the company and even if I did, it’s statistically likely to be worthless if it isn’t a publicly held company. If it is a publicly held company, my contribution isn’t going to make or break it.

The company definitely doesn’t put me as a high priority.

Presumably, because you expect to get paid more than someone who doesn't.

Moreover you don't seem to balance your time prior out with others. Sure, time may have an effect, but what if this effect is marginal? This also gets down to something that bothers me about this line of thinking, which is the desire to create overly simplistic models of talent. Talent is incredibly multi-faceted, and hiring based on pithy narratives without actually looking at data is how we ended up in this situation where class signalling or age has become a substitute for talent.

I suspect you'd find it quite ridiculous to have to pick up my slack as I have to run at 5pm to practice with my bandmates, at least if you weren't paid correspondingly more for the extra effort. Change that to a PTA meeting or soccer practice, though, and suddenly it's how dare you suggest that I get paid less for not only doing less work than you, but doing some of the work I was expected to in the first place!

I suppose it depends what the context of "pick up the slack" means but, in general, I'd find it perfectly normal for a co-worker to take off at 5pm for an evening activity, family-related or otherwise.

I do tons of work-related travel and the like. I also don't do nights and weekends work day-to-day. Work emergencies happen (as do odd-hour conference calls) but it's rare I'll schedule evening activities around work when I'm not traveling.

Company A will pay me $400k/yr, but only if I make work my top priority

Company B will pay me $150k/yr, no matter what

Please explain why it's "naive" to choose Company A. I don't need "ownership" in the company to profit from this.

I don't see how the company's reaction to my death factors into the decision at all.

But that's not even close to the situation most developers are in. Most are getting paid somewhere around an average salary, maybe with a few probably-worthless stock options, and they're getting asked to sacrifice their personal time working for free to make founders rich. Working extra hard isn't likely to advance their career at all; it just gives them a reputation as somebody who is willing to take abuse.

If you're in a situation to make a crazy good salary by working hard, by all means, do that if you want. But understand that situation is very rare. And even if you're getting that deal, the person sitting next to you might not be in the same boat.

Working hard to make other people rich is a sucker's bet, akin to playing a slot machine. For a rare few, it pays off big. For a somewhat larger cohort, there's a modest payoff. For the large majority, it's just wasting their career and their time.

Second, if you want to dedicate 10 years of your life to work, make money and retire early - it's a reasonable choice for many. But if it goes into 40s - why do you need money, if you would not be able to enjoy it constantly working? Your money may go straight to doctors and psychotherapists eventually.

You also most likely reach your salary cap in 30s as a coder, so you'll get no ROI on coding more.

Suddenly, physical activities, rest, communications, hobbies make more impact on your work performance.

In the end, it's a matter of personal choice, and the choice is not black and white between work as a meaning of life and leisure skiing till lunch.

Umm. No?

I see nothing "clearly better" about someone just because they don't have any responsibilities.

You don't see anything better about hiring someone for whom the job will be their #1 priority, and someone else for whom it will be #2 or even lower?

I find that difficult to believe.