
Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Parents - aaronbrethorst
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/upshot/silicon-valley-perks-for-some-workers-struggles-for-parents.html
======
mindfulgeek
Technology across the board is not family or parenting friendly -- in my
experience. It seems like it would be, given the technology tools that make
remote working and flexible work environments possible.

I recently was let go from my director of engineering position when I was 9
months pregnant. They said they were outsourcing their operations, but I was
the only team-member let go. I also would be on maternity leave during a
critical release... I can't say they let me go since I was going to have a
baby, -- I think their decision to outsource made sense. I just think it was a
catalyst as there was zero transition plan and probably would have been too
hard to let me go during or right after maternity leave, which would have made
more strategic sense.

I seriously consider leaving technology for good after dealing with the
challenges of being a woman, mother and engineer for so many years.

I'm not alone, its pretty common for women to leave technology after having
kids.

There is such a push to have more women become technologists, but if we leave
once we become parents, what's the gain? The struggles of culture and
technology are far deeper than getting more young women to be interested in
engineering. Women aren't the only ones to suffer. It's hard for men too. The
culture also seeps into the quality of products we create -- in both design
and code.

Unfortunately, I have only seen the culture become more toxic as time goes on,
not less.

Maybe I'm jaded. I'm certainly sick of it.

~~~
dreamdu5t
I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why
employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children.
Unless that is their choice as well.

I would like to spend many hours of the day on my art. I don't want children.
Should my employer be forced to continue to pay me if I want to go spend a
year focusing on my art? Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have
children more important than what I choose to do in life?

~~~
groby_b
The straight answer? Because their kids (maybe, just maybe) will have jobs and
pay taxes that keep services running when you're retired. It's part of the
social contract[1].

You might make the point that your art benefits society as well. It might, I
have no idea. But more importantly, we as society haven't agreed on that
benefit (which I think needs to be talked about as well), so you don't get
recognized.

Like any "standard" contract, the social one does not address everybody's
needs equally, but it's the one we arrive at by consensus. And so we are bound
by it as long as that consensus stays. (Or we opt out of democracy, which
certain SV nutcases are certainly considering)

You might make many other points about the social contract that are valid,
like e.g. the scarcity of work, the unsustainability of current society, etc.
I think we need to address them, and I think the social contract will change
significantly in the next 30 years.

But as it is right now, that's why employers should support people who have
children.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)
(You're probably familiar with it, but on the off chance you aren't, here's
the link. It's _not_ meant as snark)

~~~
dreamdu5t
Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real
world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It
has zero legal applicability.

There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is
established by force, not by any sort of contract or agreement. There is no
social contract except in philosophy class and books that have no legal
standing.

~~~
gclaramunt
An aging population is never good for any government. Unless you are a really
overpopulated country, having a positive birthrate is a good thing (translates
to economic growth). The case for encouraging the population to have children
is pretty straightforward...

~~~
parennoob
Another way to increase younger population is also to encourage immigration in
that population group. However, for other reasons, this will never be
acknowledged as a reasonable measure :)

~~~
tsotha
Eh, what? Not only is this acknowledged as reasonable in many countries, it's
_policy_.

~~~
parennoob
The anti-immigration sentiment often seen in the US (sometimes even on HN),
and in a lot of European countries seems to say otherwise.

~~~
tsotha
There isn't much anti-immigration sentiment in the US. What we have in the US
is anti _illegal_ immigration sentiment.

In terms of European countries there was an article about a week ago regarding
Americans going to Germany for free college. The Germans were hoping they'd
stay.

I think people worry about the quality of immigrants. We want more young
Sergei Brins and fewer middle aged guys with a sixth grade education.

~~~
joncrocks
While that may be technically true, AFAIK it's hard for someone to immigrate
to the US. If I wanted to move to the US tomorrow, I believe it would involve
me having to get a job before I got there.

One could argue that saying that you're against illegal immigration and making
legal immigration very difficult is the same as saying that you don't really
want immigration.

~~~
tsotha
We have over a million legal immigrants a year, so even if you can't get in
easily somehow a whole lot of other people are managing.

------
geebee
This is another very important article about the difficulties of a career,
rather than a stint, in high tech.

I've noticed that many health-care related professionals, such as dental
hygienists and registered nurses, have median pay that is close to or exceeds
the median pay for software developers [1], and that well paid professionals
such as dermatologists or radiologists often earn vastly more. These fields
also offer what I'd describe as _career_ flexibility.

As a software developer, I can almost always go off and have a cup of coffee
when I please. So in that sense, yes, it is "flexible." But one very
attractive quality of being a dental hygienist is that you can step back from
the field for a few years, work part time (or not at all), and re-enter a few
years later. My cousin is a radiologist, and she worked half time while she
had kids (collecting a much higher salary than the typical full time
developer). I also know an emergency room physician who was able to scale back
while she had small kids without badly compromising her career progress.

Add in open offices, back visibility, a dave n busters vibe, mass layoffs
involving work visas and "knowledge transfer", frequent allegations of sexism
and discrimination, an insistence that you locate to a place where the median
3br house is well over a million… and now, as it appears, a situation where
you they don't want you if you have kids.

At this point, why do we keep acting like there's some mystery why people with
_choice_ (i.e., whose professional options aren't limited by the visa process)
are avoiding this field? Why does President Obama nod gravely as he stands
next to tech CEOs talking about severe shortages of tech workers at press
releases?

[1] check out US News Best Jobs, which provides a summary of BLS data on
median salary _by region_. In San Francisco, dental hygienists earn $112,970,
software developers $114,400, and registered$127,670. Physicians and lawyers,
of course earn considerably more.

~~~
bkjelden
The similarity between pay for Software Engineers and RNs in the bay area is a
bit of an anomaly nationally. My wife is a RN and before we moved here I was
making twice what she did. Now our incomes are roughly equal - before
factoring in any bonuses/stock I get.

It is kind of refreshing to see how the nursing industry hires and treats its
professionals compared to software, though. No "10x ninja" BS just to get
hired as a rank-and-file employee. Hourly pay, as well as unions, prevents
anything comparable to the long hours and hero stunts that are rewarded at
tech companies.

There are days where I do think it'd be nice to have the flexibility that they
have, but then I remember that I could never do that job. Just like software
engineering, nursing has attributes that make it only desirable to certain
people. Patient is actively refusing care, shouting racial slurs at you,
trying to assault you, etc? They still need to be cared for. It's still your
job to take care of them.

~~~
ageek123
It should also be noted that health care costs are astronomical and have been
increasing much faster than inflation for many years. There may be a
correlation there. Moreover, as "medical tourism" continues to grow due to
unaffordable health care costs in the US, US-based RNs are going to start
losing jobs, just like the auto workers who negotiated contracts so generous
that they literally killed their employers.

~~~
mrkurt
Nurse salaries are a vanishingly small portion of health care costs. They're
largely a function of the difficulty in finding qualified nurses. It's
unlikely that will change anytime soon.

------
maudineormsby
I'm a developer in SF, and I moved here 2 1/2 years ago on a relocation
package from a startup.

Immediately I realized that I would be the only parent in the office (there
was one other remote worker with kids) once my wife and I decided to have a
child. And sure enough that's what happened. I actually lost my job there (for
unrelated reasons) and it was an enormous relief to be out of that culture.

In addition to children, I am religious and have obligations to my church,
which were frowned upon (tacitly) by my coworkers. Nobody said anything, but I
was the only one leaving work at 3 on Good Friday and 5:30 every Wednesday so
I could be at church.

In hindsight I can see what I couldn't see before - the article is right in
suggesting that single, young people are unencumbered by obligations. But it
misses the point that we choose what obligations to tie ourselves to around
the age that most people are starting at these startups - I chose wife,
children, church. They're choosing company, work, and technology. It's not
that different in principle, but it's a huge behavioral difference.

~~~
x0x0
In my experience, leaving sf and working in the valley proper meant having far
more coworkers with families. They tend to be older -- 30s to 40s rather than
mid 20s. In turn, they tend to be much better about not fucking around in the
office: they come in, work, then leave. Which is a much better cultural fit
for me, and it sounds like for you. There's lots of places where working 40-45
hours per week while being productive in the office is part of the culture.
Just not in sf.

~~~
maudineormsby
I actually work in SF now at a very family friendly company (Tapjoy). That is
probably because 1/2 the engineering team is located in Boston.

------
bagacrap
I don't understand this article. It fails to mention that tech companies have
the best paid parental leave policies[1]. There are other family-oriented
perks: on top of normal life insurance at Google, "The surviving spouse or
partner of a deceased employee will also acquire vested stock benefits, and
children will receive $1,000 a month until the age of 19. The timeline can be
extended if the child is in school full time."[2] I bet there are more perks
at other companies which I'm not aware of.

The article is full of anecdote and false implications. So, "Yahoo told
employees they could no longer work from home." If you are working from home
because you're taking care of your children, I think it's fairly reasonable to
expect that your attention is split and you won't be as productive. Much of it
describes the work habits of top execs. I don't think that's representative of
the industry as a whole, and probably aligns pretty well with work habits of
top execs of other industries.

[1] [http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/tech-companies-
offer-w...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/tech-companies-offer-
workers-the-most-paid-parental-leave#.ooe73qaoN) [2]
[http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/google-employee-death-
benefit...](http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/google-employee-death-benefits/)

~~~
cesarbs
I think the point of the article was to point out that while tech companies
supposedly have perks for people with families, those are rarely enjoyed to
their full extent due to diverse factors. And also that those tech companies
might say they offer a family friendly environment, but depending on your
team, the culture will not reflect that.

I've experienced a bit of that. It's hard not to feel bad for going home at
5pm to be with your family when all the driven single 20-somethings around you
will continue to work late into the night and produce a lot more than you.

------
mathattack
My 2 cents... I'm a reforming Jerk Manager. When I was late 20s and early 30s,
single and travelled full time, I believed that everyone should commit 100% to
the project. My rationale was, "Winning breeds positive mindsets" and not the
other way around. I really abused some folks that were married with kids.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I have to worry about working for a
jerk like the younger version of myself.

The one thing I can say is that as a parent, it's good to work at a place
where the management team is all from in-town, and most have kids. Almost all
the managers at my current employer have young kids. This means that "office
hours" are 10-5, with a ton of flexibility, and nobody bothers you until 9 at
night. But the trade-off is that everyone is expected to be online until 1 or
2 in the morning if needed (after the kids go down) and be current on their
email first thing in the morning before coming in to the office.

I feel very bad for the people who were laid off when pregnant.

------
727374
Last time I interviewed, I actually strategized to mention our infant multiple
times when talking to people. If that will turn off some orgs, I really don't
want to work for them. I ended up finding a job at a great company this way.
Being able to filter out so many companies that don't care about you having a
life outside of work definitely feels like a luxury made possible by the
current high demand for skilled tech workers, which is a little worrying.

~~~
gaius
_actually strategized to mention our infant multiple times when talking to
people_

I hope you understand that by doing so, you placed your interviewers in a very
awkward position. It would be the same if you revealed to them your e.g.
religion or sexual orientation, when they never asked. It smells like you were
setting them up for a future lawsuit.

~~~
krschultz
So it's ok for a company to say "he's not a culture fit", but not ok for an
employee to say "that company is not a culture fit"?

The reason every startup asks "so what do you like to do for fun" in
interviews is that kind of "cultural" fishing. The OP is just flipping the
game around.

~~~
gaius
That's not what I said, I am talking specifically about an interview. A
company is not allowed to ask you about your family plans, religion, sexual
orientation, blah blah, and for good reason, these things are nothing to do
with job performance, yet may be the basis of discrimination. It's therefore
in poor taste to "force" your interviewer into knowing something they should
not and would never have asked.

~~~
lkhjafsklhjadfs
If someone at the company is LGBT, religion is _incredibly_ relevant.

~~~
nostrademons
Because all religious people are anti-gay? C'mon, the point of anti-
discrimination laws is so you _don 't make snap judgments about a person based
on the attributes of a group they belong to_. Your comment is just as bigoted
as those who say that a person's sexuality means they can't have a family.

~~~
cgearhart
It is not bigotry to assume that someone who self-identifies in a religious
group believes the things that the community of that religion identifies as
its beliefs. While it is true that not all religious people discriminate
against homosexuality, most Western (and particularly Abrahamic) religions
disapprove of homosexuality as part of the standard interpretation of their
doctrine. Other people cannot be expected to know what exceptions you
personally make to the rules of the religion you follow.

------
CountSessine
_“Young people just have simpler lives,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-
founder and chief executive, said in a talk to would-be entrepreneurs in 2007,
when he was 23. “We may not own a car. We may not have family. Simplicity in
life allows you to focus on what’s important.”_

Don't have kids so you can focus on what's important to Mark.

~~~
srdev
"Important" was a bad choice of words on Mark's part, since its a value
judgement that is necessarily going to differ from person to person.. However,
he essential gist of what he's saying is true. If you don't have kids, you can
spend more time focusing on things other than taking care of your kids. I'm a
dad and it does take up a lot of time and limits what I can focus on. My only
disagreement is based on a personal value judgement of whats important;
raising a child is the most important thing to me, but that's not a universal
truth for everyone.

~~~
vizeroth
Your job should never overwhelm your ability to do something important with
the rest of your life.

~~~
dragonwriter
I don't think its any more wrong to fully devote yourself to a job that _is_
the important thing you want to do with your life than it is to have a job
that exists to enable other important things you do outside of the job.

------
bobsky
America's lack of guaranteed Parental Leave is already a shameful situation
for such rich and developed country; it doesn't even compare to anything out
there where every OECD country has such protections. [0]

But I believe the tide is turning, and companies that embrace this human right
will be rewarded with higher quality employees. As entrepreneurs and leaders
ourselves, we have the opportunity to set the culture we want. So I must
congratulate and highlight how one YC startup, AeroFS, is standing up and
making a difference:

"..AeroFS employees of any gender are eligible for: _10 weeks leave, paid at
100% of salary,_ 8 weeks additional leave, paid at 50% of salary, and *10
weeks additional unpaid leave—or more, if approved .." [1]

[0] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/12/12/among-38-nat...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/12/12/among-38-nations-u-s-is-the-holdout-when-it-comes-to-offering-
paid-parental-leave/) [1] [https://www.aerofs.com/blog/parental-leave-at-
aerofs/](https://www.aerofs.com/blog/parental-leave-at-aerofs/)

~~~
jobposter1234
I'm sure it's not shameful. It might bug you, but I don't see it as something
worthy of _shame_.

I do not have kids, do not plan to have kids, so I'm not sure why I should pay
for someone else's decisions to create life. Whenever someone goes on family
leave, other people who were not involved with that decision have to pick up
the slack.

Now, maybe if I could take paid (or unpaid) leave-of-my-discretion as an
alternative, I'd be okay with it. Otherwise, it feels like federal level
discrimination against unmarried, child-less, individuals.

~~~
emodendroket
And while we're at it, I'm not currently ill, so why should I have to pay for
disability benefits for others? I'm not old, so why should I have to pay for
Social Security?

~~~
ryanx435
you are probably being sarcastic, but as someone in their late 20s, I do not
believe I will every get a social security payout. either the age requirements
will keep getting pushed back as people live longer or the whole program will
be abolished by the time I qualify.

I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit
from.

~~~
michaelchisari
> I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit
> from.

What do you propose the elderly living off of social security should do
instead?

~~~
jobposter1234
Keep voting as a bloc and hope the music doesn't stop during their lifetime?

------
startupstella
Right now, good parental leave, flexible work hours, and allowing remote work
allows companies to have a competitive advantage when hiring. For example,
this article (link below) on Treehouse was popular last month which talked
about how they have 4 day work weeks because it's not a drag on productivity
and people want to spend time with kids.

I work at Trello, and the company has a similar philosophy in terms of
treating people like humans who have responsibilities and interests that
enrich them outside of work, which only benefits the work environment. A big
draw to working at Trello, in addition to loving the product and team, is the
fact that these policies exist.

I hope in the future- "perks" like paid parental leave will become something
we laugh about as being painfully obvious. Who cares when work gets done as
long as it gets done?

Treehouse link-[http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-some-start-ups-
friday...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-some-start-ups-fridays-are-
so-casual-everyone-can-stay-
home/2015/02/06/31e8407e-9d1c-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html) We're hiring
at Trello!- [http://trello.com/jobs](http://trello.com/jobs)

------
AstroChimpHam
If you're at a start-up and some unforeseen problem occurs that needs to get
fixed right now, and you're the only person who can fix it: yes the start-up
expects you to fix it before you can pick up little Suzie from soccer
practice. Yes, they will hire the person most likely to make that choice. If
they don't do that, their chance of failure is much higher.

We make sacrifices to work in some areas of tech, and we get paid well to put
work before most other priorities because that's what's needed in some (not
all) tech jobs. If you want to put kids as a priority before work, that's
fine. There are plenty of jobs in tech you can take, but don't expect the same
positions as the lady who puts work above all else and consistently delivers
when stuff's on fire. She's devoting more of her life to the company and
deserves a better title and more pay.

~~~
s73v3r
90% of those "Must be fixed right now!" problems aren't, and no one will die
because the problem didn't get fixed for another hour.

~~~
AstroChimpHam
If you don't trust your coworkers' ideas about what needs to be fixed right
now, that's a separate issue.

------
kirinkalia
One of the commenters on the NY Times site said it best:

"My experience is that a lot depends on your boss. I always got my work done
quickly and thoroughly, but I've had bosses who made you sit in your chair
even when there was nothing to do, I've had other bosses who were much more
accommodating. It is about the culture of the department. My best job was in a
very hard working engineering department, when we were on deadline we worked
killer hours, but when things were slack, we went home. Everyone had kids,
family outings were encouraged and our boss took us to lunch and treated us
like humans. I worked my butt off for that boss. When I have had a boss who
treats me like a child, I act like one. If you treat people with dignity and
respect and give them time off when they need it, they will work harder."

~~~
phubbard
Reciprocity is the most-basic of interactions. Wish more people understood it
better. Unfortunately, it seems like kiss up, kick down prevails.

------
bluedino
>> Bret Taylor, former chief technology officer at Facebook and a founder of
Quip, with his son Sam and daughter Jasmine.

>> He leaves work at 5:30 p.m. so that his employees will not feel obligated
to stay.

Bret is pictured in his expensive home, standing in front of a gas range that
was at least $10,000. He can afford to take it easy. He's already sacrificed
and put in the 16 hour days.

~~~
pdiddy
Yes, Bret has a nice home, expensive stove, and kids. It sounds to me like
he's doing the right thing by not pressuring his employees to appear like they
are "putting in the hours."

~~~
kchoudhu
First thing they told us in training sessions after promoting us: you head
home at 5:30, and remove pressure for your subordinates to stay in the office.

You _may_ login after hours to wind up your day's work (it is, in fact,
expected), but you are to make damned sure nothing hits your subordinates'
inboxes until 8:30AM the next day. If that means putting delays on your
messages in Outlook, so be it.

Makes for a much more relaxed and productive team.

------
jeffbush
I've read a lot of articles with this general tone and theme over the last
year or so, and they always bother me, for a number of reasons. They tend to
paint the overall industry with a very broad brush, and are, in my experience,
often caricatures (this one certainly isn't the worst). This article is based
mostly on anonymous anecdotes and is peppered with weasel words, for example:
"More broadly, some economists say..." "Workers with children say..." The one
piece of data I saw, the number of women in the workforce, has a truncated Y
scale.

I've lived and worked in Silicon Valley at tech companies for the last 17
years at many small and large high tech companies, including Apple. My wife
also has been working in tech for longer than that, and she enjoys it. I have
two young children. When I read these articles, I feel like I'm reading about
another universe, as it is so vastly different than my experience. Of course,
I can only offer my own anecdotes in response, but here are a few of mine:

\- My wife interviewed at a small startup when she was pregnant with our first
son. During the interviews, she informed them she was pregnant and wasn't sure
how much time she wanted to take off after the baby was born. They were
totally cool about it and said they'd be happy to have her for as long as they
could. She ended up working there and loved it.

\- I'm 40 years old. The people who work with me are a mix of ages. I've
rarely been the oldest, and I certainly don't feel like I'm outnumbered by
people much younger than me. I've interviewed at a number of companies with
young founders, and never felt discriminated against. I still get pinged by
plenty of recruiters, so I'm not seeing the ageism that is supposedly so
rampant here. I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who are close to my
age, and I'm not hearing these complaints from them either.

Honestly, I think this is sloppy journalism, designed to provoke an emotional
reaction. I don't want to deny the very real problems in this industry that we
should be working on, but I don't think articles like this are helping. If
anything, they are scaring women and minorities away from the industry and
making the diversity problem worse.

~~~
slantedview
Your experience is hopeful, but in no way negates the reality of other
people's experiences which are the opposite of yours.

~~~
jeffbush
Yes, I certainly agree. However, the thing that bothers me about the article
is that it insinuates that the problems they talk about are the _norm_. That
is a strong indictment and, I believe requires more evidence than they've
given. I'd go farther and say it does a disservice to many decent people in
this industry.

------
SovietDissident
The harder you make it to fire someone, the more reticent the employer will be
to hire that person in the first place. This may apply to employees generally,
or to a specific race, gender, or subclass.

For example, after the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed, it led to a
decrease in the employment of people with disabilities. If the employer has a
higher likelihood of lawsuit in the event that the employee must be let go,
they have to make damn sure they can't find someone else (who isn't disabled)
to fill the position in the first place.

The existence of this sort of legislation actually exacerbates the employment
problem for minorities and women in tech!

[http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/re...](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf)

------
aestetix
I think a major reason that Americans expect employers to give them maternity
leave (among other things) is that health benefits are covered through your
job. Getting fired while pregnant, while difficult, would not be nearly the
same disaster if you were still able to get necessary medical treatment in the
duration.

------
ddoolin
I'm 23 and never, ever reveal that I have a wife and 2 sons until after an
offer has been made. I suppose potential employers could find out fairly
easily, but I know very well from personal experience that start ups do not
like when I tell them about my family life, so I leave it off the table until
I'm ready, despite it not inhibiting my ability to work just as hard and for
as long as my single coworker counterparts.

I guess it really depends on the size of the company, and it's really
something you have to kind of feel out for yourself. Naturally I haven't
really had this problem with large companies, only small teams.

------
nbm
FWIW, Sheryl Sandberg also leaves work at 5:30pm to spend time with her kids -
strange that something she's been talking about for some time (before Bret
left Facebook, even) isn't mentioned.

The Facebook hackathons used to start at like 6pm with the implicit
expectation that one worked through the night (and weren't expected to work
the next day), but these days they start during the day (the next one is
9:30am). There's still time to work all-night if that's your thing, though.

One thing I noticed at a previous hackathon was one of our engineering VPs
showing their kids around. I've seen a few parents doing that - often their
spouse will bring their kids to visit for dinner and to spend some time,
sometimes they go back together, or the kids and spouse heading home for
bedtime. Not sure if that's a "this is how I get through this horrible
expectation people have of me" or "this is how I blend these two parts of my
life that I value", but I'm hopeful it is the latter.

------
TheBeardKing
How can one not being a "culture fit" be interpreted in any way that is not
blatant discrimination?

~~~
blhack
It _is_ discrimination. The question is if that discrimination is a bad thing
or not.

For instance: you are discriminating against people who don't know javascript
if you are hiring for a job that requires javascript and don't hire people who
don't know it.

Is that a bad thing? I dont' think so.

There are _some_ things that we as a society have determined that it is not
okay to discriminate based on. Here is a list of them:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

~~~
gknoy

      You are discriminating ... if you are hiring for a job 
      that requires javascript and don't hire people 
      who don't know it.  Is that a bad thing? I dont' think so.
    

You might be overlooking good coworkers or employees, especially older ones
who have experience in other languages. I knew zero Python or Javascript
before I started this job, and now write in it 100% of the time. (My previous
job was Lisp + GWT.)

Similarly, I recall an article from Matasano that said that some of their best
candiates did not have prior experience with something that one might have
expected to be a prerequisite: "Some of the best testers we've worked with
didn't have a formal security background." [0].

If you only hire people who "know" $Language, what will you do if six months
down the line you decide to rewrite in Clojure, or find that Haskell is the
best way to move forward?

0: [http://matasano.com/careers/](http://matasano.com/careers/)

------
katielo
As a young woman developer this is a very saddening article to read, and
especially upsetting the comments of women engineers being let go
while/because they became pregnant. My hope is that the industry will become
more balanced as the many millennials working in tech start families...

------
sbov
The funny thing being: actively avoiding parents, while simultaneously
complaining about the lack of tech workers. New workers with the aptitude
you're looking for don't magically spring forth from php code you hacked on
for 20 hours per day.

But, short term thinking.

------
brryant
What bothers me most about this article is that it chooses to fixate on the
"new" tech industry where 20-hour days, and complete dedication to your job
are common. However, why does the author not mention the finance industry?
Hundred hour weeks have always been the norm, and new mothers are encouraged
to come back to work as soon as possible or risk missing their next promotion.
Some would argue that finance is even more male-dominated than tech, and
because of this it makes working at a big bank/fund even more difficult for
parents.

Same is true of healthcare, and big law. There are plenty of industries that
suffer from unfriendly family workplaces, not just the tech industry. I'd love
to read an article that attempts to compare how family friendly different
industries are for parents, but unfortunately only a large, costly survey can
provide the non-subjective data readers can appreciate.

------
ageek123
I guess it is completely lost on the NY Times that one of the main reasons the
tech industry is the main engine of economic growth in the US (and one of the
few things we do better than other countries) is exactly BECAUSE many
companies expect long hours and hard work. We can certainly switch to the
European lifestyle the NY Times is fawning over, but it's going to have a huge
negative impact on the success of our country's tech companies.

~~~
ProAm
You may be right (I doubt it though) but that is a horrible reason not treat
employee's as if they are human beings. Good culture isnt having free snacks
and a ping pong table.

------
slantedview
This article reminds me of the HN post about the newly planned Google office,
where the renderings featured young twentysomethings, almost exclusively.

Considering the Zuckerberg comment, we have to realize that ageism in tech is
not only wrong, it's not sustainable. We all age. As this article mentions,
twentysomething grads will become thirtysomething parents. Building a tech
culture that ignores this fact is ridiculous, but it's our current reality.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Considering the Zuckerberg comment, we have to realize that ageism in tech is
not only wrong, it 's not sustainable._

What we have to do is make sure that all of the older engineers who "age out
of" the Valley move to the same place: could be Chicago, Boulder, Austin,
maybe Portland or even Minneapolis. Probably not NYC (I'm fond of it, but it's
too expensive to raise a family). Doesn't matter _where_ so much as that the
place exists. If any one urban area can capture 15% of the programmers who age
out of the Valley, for a decade or two, it'll have more talent than that
shithole and be able to out-compete it.

~~~
mavelikara
+1 for Portland.

------
dataker
I sympathize with SF parents, but one must understand the nature of the job
and try to work with it. As a software engineer, I know I must work towards a
path that allows me to prosper as a father and have time for my family.

SF/Wall Street/ Hollywood/... all have their own problems, which is a side
effect of their excellence. Yes, WS analysts work 100h/week, but that's how
the industry works. The key is to work with, not against, it.

------
cesarbs
On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting to note that a lot of
technology per se is not very family friendly. Family Sharing was only
recently introduced by Apple. Before that, it was very cumbersome for a couple
to share their music libraries. The same applies to most subscription
services. Take Amazon for example: my wife can share free Prime shipping with
me, but not Prime Music.

I wonder if this is for legal reasons (licensing, etc.) or because of the
people that create such services. My wife's hypothesis is that since a lot of
technology is created by single, young and not very social people, it doesn't
even cross their mind at design time the fact that a couple (or a whole
family) might want to share some of their contents while still keeping their
own individual accounts.

------
fsloth
Strangely, the discussion around this article seems to indicate to me that
children seem to be looked as trophies for their parents.

Children are as necessary for the society as a body as is food and sleep for
individual humans. I understand the individualism that drives peoples toward
libertarian ideals but children are beyond market mechanisms. They are part of
our humanity, the structure without any efforts towards economical or other
goals are pointless.

A child is not like a new SUV or an expensive hobby. A healthy, happy child
_is a net plus for the society to which he or she is born_ , that benefit all
in the long term.

------
sireat
I was shocked on how little time off my US friends got for having kids.

Most fathers kept on working and mothers were back to work within a week to
month of having a baby.

This practice of encouraging mothers to return to work so quickly seemed like
a relic of some era of one wage earner families.

How can Europe and US be so different in this regard, when the demographic
problems should be similar?

------
jim_greco
Here's my New Yorker perspective: Everyone I know who has a job that pays them
$150k-300k a year doesn't have much work/life balance. Jobs in
finance/law/tech are all consuming and the pay is commensurate with that. This
seems little odd signaling out tech.

------
tnorthcutt
_Bret Taylor, former chief technology officer at Facebook and a founder of
Quip, with his son Sam and daughter Jasmine. He leaves work at 5:30 p.m. so
that his employees will not feel obligated to stay._

Why not leave work at 5:30 p.m. _so that his kids will get to see him before
bed_?

------
serve_yay
I see a lot of problems with our society or our economy generally, discussed
only within the context of technology. I mean, what, is finance a wonderland
for parents? Not that it excuses tech of course, but sheesh.

------
cafard
I would point out that a lot of these perks are meant to keep the employees
working longer hours. Parenthood and longer work hours go only so well
together.

------
zxcvvcxz
Should employees at larger, established firms be able to demand parental
benefits? For sure, it's healthy for the organization to help their employees
(often the more senior and experienced) achieve their life goals of starting a
family.

But should startups be required to do the same? Is it discrimination if they
don't? This is where it gets blurry.

Let's say me and a friend start working on something. Someone is being
considered as a potential co-founder. During the vetting period, I learn that
they are about to become a parent, and will need certain logistical allowances
for the next 6-18 months. I decide to pass on this person - at this stage in
the company (very early), everyone needs to be able to hustle long hours. I
can't risk having a cofounder not put in the sweat. Dead weight kills
startups. So to me passing seems fair.

Keep in mind I didn't even mention if the company was incorporated; if it
wasn't, surely you can't call this "discrimination" in a legal sense. Two guys
just decided not to partner with a third person. If it was just incorporated
yesterday and I make this decision, do things realistically change? The
company is at pretty much the same point - 2 people who need more that can
work long, hard hours.

But what if we're now 5 people and one key employee stops pulling their weight
because of family obligations? I don't have the resources to support them in
this manner, so I either have to let them go or keep on the dead weight. The
first option reads like "discrimination", while the second seriously messes up
my startup (imagine I could replace him with a similar skillset person).

And you could think of the same scenario at 10 people, 15, 30, 50, 100, etc.

As final food for thought,

> The American workplace has always prized people who prioritize work over
> family, and European countries have long had more generous policies for
> working parents. But in the last two decades, that gap has widened
> significantly. Other developed countries have expanded benefits like paid
> parental leave and child care, while the United States has not.

Yes, but who's leading the world in technological growth? Certainly I can't
claim causation either way, but simple logic implies that more work means more
growth and tech.

Scanning through the comments, it seems like the readership here would rather
re-balance this in favor of more benefits and less work (thus meaning less
growth and tech). Remember you don't get to have all of both.

So that's great and all, but are you justified in trying to impose this upon
Silicon Valley? SV started like this because a bunch of people with the
opposite opinions got together so they could work hard and drive progress as
much as possible - sacrificing in the process. Should they leave, or should
you? I suppose the answer is to vote for the political representatives that
support your world view.

However, I'd argue that it'd be a bad thing, on a moral level, to enact policy
against the SV hard work culture. I worry that too much lobbying will result
in restricted options for employers and entrepreneurs which would ultimately
drive progress down. I believe technological progress is a moral issue; we
need our high-performers and hard-workers to cure diseases, combat food
scarcity, create better hardware, etc. And we need a place where they can
congregate.

~~~
jtzhou
> Yes, but who's leading the world in technological growth?

Actually, China, Mongolia and India are leading the world in GDP per capita
growth. If by "technological growth" you mean labor productivity growth, other
countries with parental benefits, such as Denmark and Sweden, are doing fine.
[http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDYGTH](http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDYGTH)

It's not impossible to grow while supporting enjoyable lives for your
citizens. In fact, as median wealth and median income increases, automation
and broader technological advancement become more worthwhile.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
By "technological growth", I mean creation of a novel and innovative nature.
Stuff that goes "0 to 1" as Peter Thiel says
([http://www.meaningfulhq.com/zero-to-one-by-peter-
thiel.html](http://www.meaningfulhq.com/zero-to-one-by-peter-thiel.html)).

The first group of countries are using existing technology to "catch up", so
clearly their growth rate ought to be higher. This is "globalization" rather
than "innovation". And as I mentioned, there are certainly other countries
with great work-life balances that still enjoy high productivity. By the
common sentiments I see in this thread, it seems that a lot of people would
much prefer these places than Silicon Valley, and I encourage them to research
further as in the link you posted.

That being said, here are some questions: where are the leading computer
science researchers? Machine learning experts? Software entrepreneurs? Largest
and most successful technology ventures whose market caps are greater than the
GDP of a lot of countries?

While I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that you don't get world-changing
technological innovation without living an unbalanced life.

~~~
jtzhou
According to QS World University Rankings, countries such as UK, Hong Kong,
Switzerland and Singapore, which do offer parental benefits and are a fraction
of the population of the United States, all place well in the rankings.

Also, the USA is a very large market which is why a lot of pure software
companies are headquartered there. Specialization is inherent in larger
markets. A lot of other large vertically-aligned technology companies are
headquartered around the world, such as Volkswagen, Samsung and Alibaba.

The lionization of specific billionaire entrepreneurs is more due to
abnormally low tax rates (by Western standards) on extremely high incomes.

------
makeitsuckless
We could go all the way down the list, parent-unfriendly, sexist, agists
etcetera, but it's way simpler to describe SV culture as what it is: an
immature frat boy culture. Amplified by the lack of government regulation in
the US in general.

When it comes right down to what really matters, when you see through all the
fancy "perks", what remains is a business culture that is not just immature,
but downright conservative to the point of being reactionary.

I mean, what kind of 21st century Western company that employs highly educated
middle class people doesn't facilitate parenthood?

~~~
ageek123
It's also hugely successful economically compared to most other US industries.
Maybe correlated?

~~~
hudibras
>It's also hugely successful economically compared to most other US
industries.

Just keep telling yourself that and everything will be okay.

For what it's worth, everybody working in the US health care, defense, energy,
finance, and aerospace industries are doing just fine, thank you.

~~~
ageek123
You're kidding, right? Health care and defense industry in the US are
incredibly economically unprodictive (in the technical economic sense).
Finance has similar work ethic/hours as tech.

------
EliRivers
_office culture — which can, for example, reward people based on how many
lines of code they can write per week_

I'm not convinced... even the least hip of startups isn't this stupid.

