Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by proxyon » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #165

carrionpigeon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe According to Wikipedia: "Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden and the Netherlands having more extended time limits." That's the same as what was once guaranteed in the US under Roe.

Incorrect. Roe guaranteed till viability (e.g. the day of birth). Very different and most people completely disagree with it.

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

#192

Post by itza1 » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

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…

Sure we believe in the ‘monoculture.’

Every tech worker I know who moved to Austin is here in spite the fact it’s in a conservative state, not because of it.

What it comes down to is the south has nice weather and is relatively underpopulated for historical reasons. Nothing else.

And frankly, having moved from Seattle, ‘powerhouse’ is an overstatement. Austin is a nice place, but has a long way to go in terms of engineering talent.

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

#193

Post by carrionpigeon » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #165

carrionpigeon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe According to Wikipedia: "Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden and the Netherlands having more extended time limits." That's the same as what was once guaranteed in the US under Roe.

It's still like that in most of the US. And until today, abortion into the 2nd trimester was legal in the entire US, minus some delta in one state as this case reached the Supreme Court. Also, some consideration is needed for lack of abortion access in some states though abortions themselves were technically legal.

Still, 2nd trimester abortions are very uncommon to be legal in Europe. Is there any evidence to suggest that the liberal abortion laws in the US up until today attracted people from Europe to take jobs in the US instead of their home countries with more restrictive abortion laws?

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

#194

Post by kgwxd » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:42 AM UTC

fumar wrote: post #41

JKCalhoun wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, Apple should be dialing down investment in Texas.

I recently declined an Apple role that required Austin relocation. I like Austin and considered the move, but ultimately my family is my priority. We can't risk moving to a tech hub in a blistering red state with growing regulation on personhood. I told the recruiter Apple needs to reconsider where it plans to do long-term business.

I moved to Fort Worth a long time ago for work, we had a 1 year old. I didn't really like the idea of him going to school with kids... lets say, of the "Texas mentality", but was really just using the job as a stepping stone to get out of my home state and hoped to be in CA before he'd reach school age.

The first week there we met a family that had also just moved from a northern state and ended up hanging out with them all summer. The kids were super nice, they played with our 1 year old, who had no one else to play with, being new to the area, for hours on end without any fighting whatsoever. Their son, maybe 7, had long red hair "like Shawn White" who he idolized. A few months later, school started. The first week the family showed up at the pool in our complex and he had cut his hair short. We mentioned it and he ran off, clearly holding back tears. His mom said he doesn't want to talk about it, the kids at school had bullied him so bad he wanted to get it cut.

Never made it to CA but left TX to go back home within just a few months. That story wasn't the only reason but there are plenty of others that made it clear to us TX wasn't a good place to raise a kid.

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

#195

Post by tommica » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:42 AM UTC

alfor wrote: post #182

anon9001 wrote: post #130

This is the n'th tech company today that's made an announcement similar to this. Even Disney is going to transport workers to abortion-legal states as needed as "health benefit". It's certainly a perk and good on Google for this one, but we're headed to a dark place if your best shot at human rights is to retain employment by a big tech company.

Quoted post unavailable.

1) probably since people started carryind them inside themselves, they've had that right towards themselves

2) does it matter?

3) does it matter?

4) does that matter?

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

#196

Post by _gabe_ » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:42 AM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #55

koolba wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

So the state should force them to make the choice you’d prefer?

I know, it's almost like when it comes to harming other people the state has some sort of power over us. I'm sure there are some people that would love to murder their neighbors. I mean, if that's their preference, why should the state intervene at all?

If you're engaging in some activity that doesn't harm other individuals, go for it, who cares. In the case of an abortion, there's at least some gray area. I hope we can agree that aborting a child that's going to be born tomorrow is much different than aborting a child that's 2 weeks into development. When does a human life start? If we truly believe that all men are created equal, then we need to answer the question when does a life begin?

Put another way, I'm sure many slave owners preferred to keep their slaves. Doesn't make it right, and it's a disgusting perverted belief, to believe somebody is less of a human because of their skin color. In the same way, who are we to say that an unborn human is less of a human than us?

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

#197

Post by unmole » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:43 AM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #146

unmole wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, corporations act in their rational self interest. Sure, industry specific regulation and abortion access are both political . But conflating them is not particularly useful.

I also act in rational self interest, so I guess that makes all of my positions apolitical. With that being said, abortion should be legal at the federal level. By your logic, this isn't a political statement.

Most people also support political positions that are orthogonal to or even against their self interest. That is what makes them different from corporations.

Literally nobody will benefit from a ban on abortions. That doesn't stop people from taking such a position.

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

#198

Post by nradov » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:44 AM UTC

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #138

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but Thomas opened up, in his opinion explicitly, the line to legally challenge same sex marriage and legal contraception. Same sex marriage only recognized in one state but not another opens all sorts of issues when it comes to interstate travel as far as communal assets, marital rights during hospital visits and death rights, and insurance claims.

I think there are (at least) two things on this topic. The majority opinion didn't agree with Thomas (no one signed on to it). Second, event under Thomas' opinion, the question becomes one of shaky Constitutional footing. If these "rights" are not really Constitutional, the issue needs to move to Congress. There is nothing that prevents Congress from crafting a law to explicitly allow anything you listed. Also, it co…

While I support marriage equality, it seems like fundamentally the wrong issue. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people.

Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.

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

#199

Post by caconym_ » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:45 AM UTC

carrionpigeon wrote: post #156

kibwen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe

a) I assume you're talking about the past, and not the future.

b) The issue is less that our laws are restrictive, and more that they're written in a capricious, illogical, incomplete, and ignorant way. What do you think is going to happen to people with emergency reproductive conditions (e.g. late stage ectopic pregnancies) when doctors have a prison sentence hanging over their heads if they accidentally terminate a viable pregnancy?

If I was a woman trying to get pregnant, I'd be getting the fuck out of these redstate shitholes because I don't want to die.

EDIT: You seem to have written a reply to this comment and then deleted it. I composed a counter-reply in my head on my walk home from the bar, before seeing that your reply had vanished. That counter-reply was: "Your flippant disregard for human life is as astonishing as it is disgusting."

This decision is going to kill real people with hopes and dreams and loved ones and people who depend on them. If you support it, or publish apologia for it, you are some combination of a moron and/or a monster.

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

#200

Post by KMag » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 3:45 AM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #155

KMag wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd agree with that, but unfortunately, that makes it even harder for maximalists on either side to communicate.