Also, increasing the population is one of the most damaging things to the environment, so there's an argument that not having kids is paying it forward to future generations also.
If you care about the short term, then yes.
If you care about humanity leaving the solar system before the heat death (or asteroid, whatever), then no.
No, that's paying it forward for the children of those that choose not to think as conscientiously as yourself on the matter of taking care of the environment. That's not the world I want to live in.
We know the culprit is excess consumption of fossil fuels among other resources, and we know if people have the option of consuming them, they will. Therefore, you can generalize it to mean reducing the population of people who may be in a position to consume at levels similar to the personal car, single family home with a yard family, driving 15,000 miles per year would help the planet.
We turn on each other when we should really be focused on those making us work the late hours.
Having a law that mandates that I cannot work when I want to because other people need the time sounds terrible
Sport teams is a typical example but I also see it when the stakes are just how much a person can get out of an experience and how smooth the activity went.
Yet HN people are downvoting me to oblivion, yet again, for proposing a reasonable solution: "legally-protected personal time". I guess they all enjoy working till 11pm.
> a person who chose to have children ends up being able to be excused from work to take care of children, ... a person [with] no children is not as easily excused to do what they want to do
On this point, taking care of your children is not always something you want to do. It's a never ending, unrewarding responsibility that is often met with fighting the party you're trying to help in order to make sure they don't die. "Eat this so you don't starve", "Don't eat this so you won't get poisoned", "Don't crawl into the oven to hide".
Which leads into...
> We need to be prioritizing peoples' personal time and respecting however they choose to use it. Regardless whether someone chooses to spend their personal time raising kids or raising orphans in an orphanage or rescuing animals or reading books or hiking the wilderness or community service or being social and sleeping and watching movies, all of these things are good for their own mental health, and we need to not discriminate between these choices in giving people their personal time.
I'm not sure what you mean by raising orphans in an orphanage, but if you mean volunteering to feed and do day care for children at an orphanage, then that again is a choice not comparable with the obligation of being a parent. There's a certain social pressure that you can not just give your baby to somebody else when you get tired of it as you would a pet. Parenting is definitely not something people do for fun for their mental health. And it's not something everybody signs up for. Yes, the actions that created that child may have had known outcomes, but it's also very hard (and very easy) to get pregnant.
> It's when people are working till 11pm and someone says "I need to leave at 6 to make food for my kids" that the resentment happens. If everyone got off at 6, there wouldn't be any resentment.
The ire should be directed at those you feel pressured by to stay until 11, such as managers. Not those who have to take care of another life. Just as "people choose to have children", people also choose to have whatever job says they must work till 11. It's just that there is much, much less pressure to leave a job than to leave your children. The 2 are really not comparable.
What would you propose then? The parents starve their children? What an absurd thing to have resentment over. Do you believe the parents don't feel guilt over having to duck out early while others without children continue to work? I know when I have to do it I do.
It's a pretty terrible place to be stuck between letting your kids down and letting your coworkers down.
What an awful thing to build resentment over.
The proposal is right there: everybody should go home at 6.
I do not feel guilty for going home after I put in 8 hours of good work. The employer should be feeling guilty if it's demanding more than that.
> What would you propose then?
I proposed a solution, in the very first line of my comment: "legally-protected personal time"
It would offend many (including me) if the law prohibited people from working as hard/long as they wanted.
If you want legal protection to prevent being you fired specifically because you don’t want to work more than 40 hours a week, I’d 100% support that. If you want legal protection to prevent me from working harder than that, I’m 100% opposed.
Now if you want to sacrifice your own time to do some charity work to benefit your employer, there's nothing wrong with that in principle. But if the company rewards that, and more people start doing that, it could still become an unspoken expectation for all employees to put in those extra hours, and then we're back at the unhealthy working hours.
Correct, it is this which is what I want to happen. I wouldn't care if you chose to work beyond that. I want protection for people who need to raise kids, deal with personal medical issues, and the right to free time for mental health.
But in addition, I would also add that one should not be discriminated against for wanting to only work 40 hours a week, especially in a salaried job. There should not be peer pressure and possible loss of promotion if others around you work 60 hours and you only work 40.
For hourly jobs it's psychologically much easier between peers because everyone knows they are getting paid based on how much they work. However, I would stipulate that for hourly jobs, the wage should be set such that 40 hours of work is enough for the average person to have a reasonable quality of life in the locality. Setting the wage such that a supermarket worker needs to work 7 days a week in order to make a living isn't fair, but if they want to work 7 days of their own volition, that's fine.
All else being equal, I believe the new college graduate who regularly puts in extra hours (whether for work directly or on side projects) is likely to get better faster than someone who puts in 33% fewer hours. In that regard, they’ll have earned a promotion earlier in calendar time. You didn’t lose a promotion; they just earned one faster than you.
In such a case, you weren’t (unfairly) discriminated against; someone else just got better faster and got promoted based on merit.
So, a few problems here:
1. Parenting is not a choice when you have children in your home.
2. Most parents do not want to be woken up in the middle of the night to change a diaper, only to have their child pee on them while they do so.
3. It is not about priorities. Children need adult caregivers because they cannot survive on their own. COVID restrictions have upended childcare arrangements but children still need care, and when nobody else is available it is up to parents to provide care for their children. Nobody is weighing childcare against other possible non-work-related activities, because childcare is not optional.
4. If like me someone has a toddler in their home, working from home is difficult. Even with a nanny around to watch my son, he still wants to see what mommy and daddy are up to in the "office." He has no concept of us being busy with work; from his perspective it is more like, "Daddy is playing with something and it must be fun, I want to try it!" so he will run over and "type" on my keyboard (you try writing code while someone is randomly pounding on your keyboard). For people like me it is not that we are asking for time to be parents, but rather for our employers to recognize that by requiring us to work from home they are putting us in an environment where we cannot be as productive as we were at the office.
"when people are working till 11pm"
What makes you think parents are not working late -- for example, because they cannot have uninterrupted time to work until after their children are asleep for the night?
1. Yes, children need self-care. But so do adults. Just as it is wrong to tell someone they can't take care of their child, I'd say it's equally wrong to tell an adult that they can't, for example, get their exercise time, because I would consider that also a human necessity. You risk early death if you do not exercise. For medical reasons I don't need to state here, the risk may be even higher for me personally if I don't get that time. Other adults have other medical conditions they need to attend to. However, not all workplaces recognize these as on par with taking care of children.
2. Those that choose not to have children may also be playing essential roles in our society in their off-hours. Heck, they may be volunteering at the Red Cross and saving other children from death, who knows, that may be why they chose not to have kids. Should we judge?
3. Let's not underestimate how important mental health is to society. People will die (from various causes, including suicide) if they are made to work late every day. Yes, I agree that children need to be taken care of. But the response to that shouldn't be to take an unreasonable work share given to a working parent and shove the excess onto the single/child-less workers in the same organization to slave away for 80 hours a week. This actually happens, and I have seen it happen. Instead, the response should be to give everyone a fair, normal 40-hour work share and let them do whatever they need or want to with their spare time.
I'm a little confused by this argument, because (if you don't have children) the time you had to exercise pre-COVID is still available to you. If you used to get up at 7am, go out for a run for an hour, come back, shower, and start your work day, you... can still do that.
If somehow you are unable to continue this routine during COVID, perhaps because your employer is expecting you (as someone who is childless) to work until 11pm, which makes you too tired to get up to exercise, then shouldn't your ire be directed at your employer for imposing unreasonable work expectations? It seems pretty pointless to get pissed off at parents because of that.
I also do not have kids. I put in 8-10 hours a day, just as I did pre-COVID, and have the same amount of free time as I used to. It's very different free time, and there are mental health implications to that, but none of that in any way has anything to do with my employer showing empathy toward parents and making allowances for them to take care of their kids during the work day.
The big difference between parents and non-parents is that child care is not optional during work hours. If your school or pre-school or day care or whatever has shut down because of COVID, you can't simply opt out of caring for your child because you have to work. COVID has not given non-parents any new non-work responsibilities during work hours. But it has certainly done so for parents.
When do parents get this self care? Between work, kids, sleep, what free moments are you imagining?
If you can't fit in a workout when you're now without a commute, then I'm confused. And, if you equate a workout with the relentless task of educating and entertaining a toddler, well, you must be _very_ serious about your gym time. Little kids are 7a to 9p, _maybe_ a nap on a good day of an hour, and oh, if you slack too long they just don't get to learn math.
Stop working late. Take care of yourself. Stop blaming people with other responsibilities if you're not doing that. Above all, develop empathy - this is hard for everyone, so stop playing the "those people are getting benefits I'm not" game.
But from what you’re saying, it sounds like you need better communication with your management. Otherwise, I can’t imagine it having been a healthy environment pre-COVID.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
> "It's when people are working till 11pm..."
Says it all right there.
A big part of the resentment is that a person who chose to have children ends up being able to be excused from work to take care of children, while a person who has no children is not as easily excused to do what they want to do, because it is deemed low priority compared to children.
We need to be prioritizing peoples' personal time and respecting however they choose to use it. Regardless whether someone chooses to spend their personal time raising kids or raising orphans in an orphanage or rescuing animals or reading books or hiking the wilderness or community service or being social and sleeping and watching movies, all of these things are good for their own mental health, and we need to not discriminate between these choices in giving people their personal time.
It's when people are working till 11pm and someone says "I need to leave at 6 to make food for my kids" that the resentment happens. If everyone got off at 6, there wouldn't be any resentment.