Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
I mean examples of laws . Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.
Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
151–160 of 448 posts
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the whole reason why this situation took place is because people in red states are fed up with the influx of blue voters, that end up bringing in the exact problems that made them relocate. This is how empires fall. As people with different political views no longer depend on each other economically, they drift more and more into opposite directions, until they do not want to share the same government anymore.
Look at national opinion polls. The US is incredibly united right now. 70% want medicare for all (53% want single payer health care). Strong majorities object to overturning Roe v Wade and rolling back gun control laws. The issue is that the senate can be filibustered with 5% of the US population's backing. A majority vote requires 8%. A fillibuster-proof majority requires 12%. This implies that it would not take man…
Which polls are you looking at? Do they have the sampling data or provide limiting factors for their assessment?
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#153Why only US states? I don't remember this for Google's offices in Mexico, Ireland, et al.
Both Mexico and Ireland allow abortion.
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#154I wonder if this is a business decision that has shown it could be profitable. I can imagine people without kids work more hours. Then again, they have a lot less to lose. Interesting business decision. The question I have, some states are going to call abortion murder and charge it as such. Is Google aiding and abetting a homicide?
wrt. business decision. I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too. Even may be some forms of contraception. That will have more and more negative impact on that group of employees who would need such services. Also family planning becomes very dented at the "planning" part as getting pregnant one would have to accept the much hig…
> I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too.
do you have an actual reason for thinking this will happen? this is detached from reality, both of these procedures are meant to create babies which are carried to term, which is the fundamental goal of pro-life policies
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so
Personhood simply isn't a scientific question. There's no objective scientific criteria for personhood. Maybe it's purely a legal question, but that's a problem given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. If it's not scientific, not legal, and not axiomatic, then what is it?
I'd argue mostly emotional, us projecting our different emotional experiences on each other and wanting them to feel how we feel regarding the same things.
I also believe it has scientific and legal and axiomatic components, just feel quite confident it has to do more with the fear, anger, guilt, shame, and other emotions we feel and attach to things.
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see that being smart, but even after the influx of tech Austin is still a way lower cost of living than CA and their campus is close to a few good stem universities. Plus, if everyone educated leaves the place it will just perpetuate. Then again, climate change will probably make it unlivable anyway.
> their campus is close to a few good stem universities From Scott Aaronson's blog today: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6518 "Most obviously for me, the continued viability of Texas as a place for science, for research, for technology companies, is now in severe doubt. Already this year, our 50-member CS department at UT Austin has had faculty members leave, and faculty candidates turn us down, with abortion being th…
This strikes me as wildly implausible. The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe, but I have never once heard of anyone migrating to the US over greater abortion access. It's always economic/opportunity concerns. Going further back, during the Soviet era when abortion was widespread (i.e. 2-3 abortions per live birth in the 60s-70s), did anyone want to migrate to the Eastern bloc for it? My understanding is that it was overwhelmingly the other way around, again for economic reasons.
I think if people turn down jobs in states because of restrictive abortion laws, it's because they have so much choice in desirable employers that they can select on issues that almost everyone else would live with, whether they personally approve or not.
And lastly, if anything is going to undermine Austin universities in terms of science research and education, it's the rampant devaluation of academic standards, excessive bureaucratization, grade inflation, and churning out of degrees in exchange for tuition money. Abortion will have little if anything to do with it.
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#157Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#158Google should let their employees work wherever they want. Why constrain people. Just go remote.
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#159Earlier 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…
Take a look at the voting numbers for Austin, TX. It's overwhelmingly democrat. 71% of Travis County votes were for Joe Biden[1]. The people moving to Austin are no different from the people that moved to San Francisco or Seattle in the first place.
[1] https://countyclerk.traviscountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/el...
Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's odd how many corporations have policies to help their employees escape the laws of places like Texas and Florida, but they're more than happy to relocate their offices to those states for small tax reductions. If they're truly against these policies, gutting those states of thousands of high earning jobs and refusing to build any new offices is the most effective way to do it. The Russian sanctions actually surp…
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…
> Companies either pulled out because they were legally obligated (That's what sanctions are)
AFAIK, there were no sanctions regarding multinational corporations. McDonalds etc. were not legally obligated to pull out.