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

Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

governance.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#281

Post by phlakaton »

buellerbueller wrote: post #72
phlakaton wrote: post #32

Please do not use the occasion of the death of thousands of Iranians in a war we launched against them as some sort of illustrative point about return to office and birth rates in the West.

Yes, ignore the natural experiment that is unfolding before our very eyes, and gain nothing at all from the war that is causing it. Like the saying goes: lemons -> lemonade

There's no lemonade to be found here at this time. What there is to be found are a bunch of tone-deaf people who seem utterly ignorant and indifferent to the war's reality.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#282

Post by krupan »

budududuroiu wrote: post #244

It's clear that post-COVID, white collar employees had the upper hand over their employers. Quiet quitting and other stupid acronyms, lengthy LinkedIn posts about "this generation doesn't get their hands dirty" was the canary in the coal mine for what's coming. Interest rate hikes, increased unemployment, austerity (...sorry fiscal prudence), are all tools that can be deployed to reduce the bargaining power of labour…

I think white collar employees generally always have had and always will have the upper hand over their employers, they just don't realize it. We make enough money to save/invest for a "rainy" day, our jobs are continually giving us paid training (learning as we go), we don't get physically beat down by our work, we are exempt employees with flexible time off, paid salary not hourly, etc., etc. It's so much easier for us to simply go find another job while still working out current job, than for anyone else. We can also easily run a side business (as long as it's not too similar to our "primary" job). We have so much power, but a lot of fear (and possibly too much debt). We just need to be a little smarter about our situation and a little more prudent with our money

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#283

Post by subpixel »

pllbnk wrote: post #263
subpixel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually paying someone to take care of your child 7-5 is easier, it's just wildly unaffordable and therefore less attractive.

I don’t understand the reasoning to have children if you don’t want to spend time with them and rather would pay someone to do that for you (not addressing directly at you). Being able to spend time with your child is a gift which passes by very quickly.

I don't disagree that parents should just roll around on the floor with their child until age three. My creditors feel otherwise, I presume.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#284

Post by showerst »

showerst wrote: post #40
jagged-chisel wrote: post #16

The one thing I can't find a quick is a definition for "pronatalist." The obvious definition without the scare quotes is "those in favor of families having children." But we have scare quotes and references to men who definitely desire extreme levels of control over others. It looks like "pronatalist" policy is "say you support increased birth rates while simultaneously being against any economic policy that would su…

Pronatalist also usually implies a racist/nationalist angle, some of the reason you want more births is because your people are genetically better than immigrants in some way. This isn't universal, but it's often true.

I think I phrased this poorly. Obviously nobody is genetically "better" than anyone else, but that's what many Pronatalists think.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#285

Post by palmotea »

tootie wrote: post #254
palmotea wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pronatalists are outwardly concerned with birth rates while simultaneously railing against immigration while simultaneously begging for more H1-Bs. The implication is really "we need more white babies"... No, and I think that's a slander. If you look at the numbers, birth rates are falling everywhere . There's no fecund area pumping out babies at a rate to use immigration to solve the labor component of the birthra…

I mean Elon Musk is not really subtle about his white supremacy and how it dovetails with his calls for more babies. I don't think he'd even be upset by reading this. I'm well aware that birth rates are falling in the rich world. It's a universal problem across all wealthy countries regardless of immigration or social policy. I'm also not certain that this is some kind of urgent issue we need to do anything about. It…

> I'm well aware that birth rates are falling in the rich world. It's a universal problem across all wealthy countries regardless of immigration or social policy.

It's not just the "rich world". China is deeply below replacement rate (for unique reasons), and even India has dropped below replacement rate (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rural-indias-total...). Those aren't wealthy countries.

> I'm also not certain that this is some kind of urgent issue we need to do anything about. It seems like a natural cycle. And maybe we're better off letting the global population taper off.

Denial is certainty a response people can have to difficult or ideologically inconvenient problems.

> I think you're also off base on immigration policy but that's a separate topic.

How so? Liberals/progressives can be parochial and ignore of misunderstand the world outside their borders, falling back to their own little dogmas. Today, the math just doesn't work out for immigration being the solution for declining birthrates globally. And it'll just get worse as sub-Saharan Africa follows the trends of other regions.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#286

Post by darkwater »

surgical_fire wrote: post #225
myrmidon wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It is completely irrelevant if you can "afford" raising a child. Your children are not gonna die because you "can't afford" them in ANY western democracy once you have them. Actual affordability of children has zero direct effect on fertility, the only thing that really matters here is "perceived affordability" (=> and by implication, effect on lifestyle)! So if you can "trick" people into having more sex…

I can't speak for anyone else. Me and the wife only decided to have a child after finances were in order. If finances were not in order we wouldn't have had a child. Affordability was definitely a factor.

I don't think anyone is denying that here. What we are saying is that, all the other parameters equals, being together more time gives you more time and chances to have sex and get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it also increases in some couples the chances of potentially deal-breaking conflicts, but that's another topic...

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#287

Post by Cthulhu_ »

softwaredoug wrote: post #51

If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. But housing, transportation, daycare costs make that impractical. If they really want me in the office, companies need to engage on these issues in the metros they live in. They need to clear NIMBY barriers to urban housing, support transit, and good parental leave.

This is it; cost and quality of living is proportional to distance to employment, especially in services and tech. I made a tradeoff, I could buy a reasonably comfortable and -priced house, but access to public transit and / or time spent commuting increased by at least half an hour.

And that was a few years ago now, that option no longer exists; I might be able to get an apartment if I pay 2x as much as what I did for my house.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#288

Post by Cthulhu_ »

bombcar wrote: post #228
softwaredoug wrote: post #51

If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. But housing, transportation, daycare costs make that impractical. If they really want me in the office, companies need to engage on these issues in the metros they live in. They need to clear NIMBY barriers to urban housing, support transit, and good parental leave.

Companies could also do this the way they used to - satellite offices and similar. In fact, I've never actually commuted into the city for a job, it's always been suburb to suburb commutes - part of the problem there has been it's not worth moving for a job that lasts on average 3-5 years.

This would be ideal, I live right next to an industrial / office estate with plenty of flexible office space available.

But in my line of work I'm often put next to people from all over the country, and / or on assignments where most the employees already do live close.

I did get a job close to home once, but one, the job was a bit bleh, and two, the pandemic started three months in so we were all asked to work from home for the next 2+ years.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#289

Post by pllbnk »

subpixel wrote: post #283
pllbnk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the reasoning to have children if you don’t want to spend time with them and rather would pay someone to do that for you (not addressing directly at you). Being able to spend time with your child is a gift which passes by very quickly.

I don't disagree that parents should just roll around on the floor with their child until age three. My creditors feel otherwise, I presume.

I commented specifically regarding your wording about what's easier. I support the view that daycare is something you have to do reluctantly, not that it's the easy way out. Over the years I had seen too many of my colleagues who "prefer working from the office" because there are small children at home. That implies that the other spouse (every time it's the mother) who is staying at home taking care of them.

Re: Silicon Valley's "Pronatalists" Killed WFH. The Strait of Hormuz Brought It Back

#290

Post by pllbnk »

rainsford wrote: post #280
pllbnk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the reasoning to have children if you don’t want to spend time with them and rather would pay someone to do that for you (not addressing directly at you). Being able to spend time with your child is a gift which passes by very quickly.

Unless you're independently wealthy, even the most traditional two parent nuclear family with a married mom and dad requires at least one parent to spend a significant portion of their day away from their children earning a living. I'm not sure why you would so strongly object to both parents doing that when you would presumably not object to just one doing the same.

WFH kind of solves that. Instead of taking coffee breaks or going to lunch with the colleagues presumably one of the working spouses can spend those breaks with the family. Now, I am looking at this problem from the European perspective where one of the spouses receive childcare payments and is allowed not to go to work for 1-2 years. I know about American system (12 weeks off) and it's beyond insane to me.
Post reply on HN