SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Tuesday, August 4th, Neflix announced on their blog that they would begin offering new parents a progressive parental leave policy:
...Today we're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
The Boston Globe picked up the story earlier today and compared Netflix's new policy to Google's, which offers 18 weeks of paid maternity leave and 12 weeks of "baby bonding" time. The Boston Globe also notes:
The US and Papua New Guinea are the only countries among 185 nations and territories that hadn't imposed government-mandated laws requiring employers to pay mothers while on leave with their babies, according to a study released last year by the United Nations' International Labor Organization.
This new policy "covers all of the roughly 2,000 people working at [Netflix's] Internet video and DVD-by-mail services, according to the Los Gatos, California, company."
However, not all media voices are pleased with this change. Suzanne Venker, author of the recent book The Two-Income Trap: Why Parents Are Choosing To Stay Home, writes for Time :
Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.
What does Soylent think? Should companies offer new parents lengthy paid leave after they bring a new bundle of joy into the world, or do generous policies do more harm than good?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday August 07 2015, @05:57AM
It's simple market economics, not some sort of conspiracy. Yes, being near a concentrated hub of economic activity has its benefits, but that comes at a price. One that you seem to be finding out is too high right now. Twenty years ago when Silicon Valley was just starting it was reasonably affordable and then those tech companies outgrew the local supply of talent. It was a great opportunity for educated people to move in and they did. That increased the demand for housing and that started to drive up the cost of living with incomes keeping or exceeding pace, which made the area even more attractive. Now the demand is so high for housing that it's outpacing what even those tech giants can afford to pay their workforce, therefore lowering the net affordability. Essentially its an overshoot after a rapid growth phase. That problem will eventually resolve itself. Some of the companies are going to decide that the area is too expensive and move out or smaller ones may just close up shop. It will likely still be a tech center for decades to come, but it'll never be quite like it was at the peak of the boom. I guess you can try to ride it out paying that high cost of living until the area stabilizes, but there's a risk that it will last too long and you won't have much opportunity to save for retirement.
I think moving somewhere with a decent (and more diverse) job market with a much lower cost of living is a safer bet. If you think otherwise, that's fine. Your priorities and mine are likely not the same and for you it might make sense to stay. Just understand and prepare for the risks associated with whatever choice you make (which applies to every other major life decision as well).