Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 448 posts

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#111

Post by immigrantheart »

hedora wrote: post #105
immigrantheart wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't avoid polarization by just meshing people together. If anything, it can backfire. Simply a fact of life, that we are different. Our values, philosophies, ethics, religions, perceptions, etc. We are different, and sometimes our differences are irreconcilable. Forced multiculturalism and diversity will backfire. That's just a fact of life. People who are for abortion won't want to be forced to buddy buddy tog…

The point isn't to change neo-nazis minds. The point is to tip state demographics so that the Republican party never holds 40 senate seats or the presidency again.

The fact that you are straight calling people neo-nazis, and say that "so that Republican party never holds presidency again" proves my point. There are people on the other side of the fence that wants the opposite what you want.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#112

Post by roflyear »

kjfdpoisfjkds wrote: post #50
JKCalhoun wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, Apple should be dialing down investment in Texas.

Will they dial down investment in nations with far worse human rights or is this just virtue signaling?

Do you also think guys with flags and shit on their big trucks are virtue signalling?

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#113

Post by kibwen »

jollybean wrote: post #60
jhawk28 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The split of pro/against is really close to 50/50. If you think that the smart people are only on one side or that only one side has "good" arguments, then you are living in a bubble. The argument over abortion was going on before Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade only prevented legislation from finding a solution.

Yes, it's important for people to realize the split is closer to 50/50 nation wide, some people forget that, but in tech, it's definitely not 50/50 and that's relevant as well.

"As of March 2022, a broad majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade (61%) and just over one-third (36%) support it. Opposition is highest among Democrats (74%), including a majority (56%) who strongly oppose overturning Roe. Most independents (61%) also oppose a Roe overturn."

https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-oppose-overturning-roe-v...

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#114

Post by wonnage »

abernard1 wrote: post #49
jleyank wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, having had a long career in tech, I’ve found that companies like to hire younger people. Those who might be sexually active, considering starting families and trying to balance career requirement vs pregnancies. Such as young professors, rising developers, pretty much every aspect of stem. While the regulatory backlash is a concern, I would think that attracting or keeping staff is a larger concern.

And I, having seen Austin, TX grow from a laughingstock to an industry powerhouse, find your points humorous. There is a very big elephant in the room for where people are moving. And those people are young. And those people do not have the belief monoculture that has existed prior. Smaller elephant in the room #2 is that cost pressures and globalism don't care about the opinions of the traditional PMC that has reign…

Austin is a long way from being a "tech powerhouse"

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#115

Post by imgabe »

jleyank wrote: post #92
imgabe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. Laws are very specifically written and often include enumerated exceptions and specific scenarios. They don't just say "Life begins at conception and that's that".

Oklahoma has proposed. Supremes removed all limits on laws. “Not mentioned in constitution” applies to all sorts of things.

> Though the bill considers a pregnancy to begin at fertilization, and not implantation, the bill does not restrict the use of forms of contraception that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. According to the bill, abortion "does not include the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception."

It doesn't mention anything about IVF, but as that doesn't involve an abortion procedure it would probably not be affected either. The bill does not propose what you're saying it does.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortio...

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#116

Post by roflyear »

DonHopkins wrote: post #38
caiquelira wrote: post #16

Is it possible to avoid a flame war at this point? I believe this arricle is way too inflammatory, political and uninteresting for this forum.

Quoted post unavailable.

Eh I guess that's kinda what they did.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#117

Post by KMag »

fumar wrote: post #72
KMag wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Austin is actually politically moderate, though the strong authoritarianism is much more troubling to me than the heavy political slant.

That is my understanding as well. Austin itself feels like a city plucked out of blue state, but I didn't want to risk being caught in the growing Texan zeal with nowhere to go.

I just moved back to the US after roughly 10 years in Hong Kong. If they pay you enough to move in and move out, don't worry about it (unless your kids are in school).

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#118

Post by unmole »

hericium wrote: post #101
unmole wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relocating to low tax jurisdictions and boosting employee morale both contribute towards creating long term shareholder value. > The Russian sanctions actually surprised me in that a lot of corporations actually pulled out and fast. Companies either pulled out because they were legally obligated (That's what sanctions are) or they wanted to avoid reputational damage to their brands. Again, rational self interest. Cor…

> pulled out (...) to avoid reputational damage to their brands. French retailer Auchan did not move out of Russia and I have some friends who stopped shopping there and are quite vocal about how noone should shop there.

Because the company decided that the risk of reputational damage was smaller than the value of their Russian operations? The fact that they decided to stay put doesn't mean they support the invasion.

Don't anthropomorphize corporations.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#120

Post by mch82 »

imgabe wrote: post #58
jleyank wrote: post #25

Ignoring abortion, I suspect that states without contraception, IVF or gay rights will be of less interest to a significant portion of the tech workforce. Companies would have to provide alternatives unless they want to limit their hiring to red state natives. Good argument for wfh to get talent that just won’t go there. Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both…

> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime. Do you have any examples of specific laws of in any states that would make contraception or IVF illegal? Most pro-life people are very supportive of IVF as they are all about people having more babies. Many states with anti-abortion laws also have laws explicitly making surrogacy legal…

> Do you have any examples

These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc”

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

Post reply on HN