61–70 of 448 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Okay think about the population of the state and population of Google and then re-examine this statement.
Have you?
Also, note that this strategy has worked in the US in the past. Go read up on the carpetbaggers.
This makes sense. I fully agree with Google on sticking to this one. Do NOT fund states that suppress our rights.
Does that include gun rights? I'm empathetic to the sentiment, but I think we have to be a bit proportional about this kind of stuff, because 'our rights' is a really, really broad thing, and every issue is different. For example, if this were more of a perfunctory argument about state vs. federal rights, and SCOTUS was really consistent about it, and this was a social issue that got caught up in a legal issue ... an…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier 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…
Texas didn't look quite as insane a decade or so ago when Apple began ramping up their Austin offices. I wonder how Apple feels now though.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, Apple should be dialing down investment in Texas.
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…
> 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.
Corporations do not and I'd argue should not take political positions in the way people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google cares about attracting and retaining smart people. Smart people generally respect reproductive rights. So I guess in some ways you are correct, but not in the way your response to the person you are responding to would imply. What is interesting is that I guess the average google employee is in a good enough position in life to either afford birth control, get an abortion if they need one, or simply figure out…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google cares about attracting and retaining smart people. Smart people generally respect reproductive rights. So I guess in some ways you are correct, but not in the way your response to the person you are responding to would imply. What is interesting is that I guess the average google employee is in a good enough position in life to either afford birth control, get an abortion if they need one, or simply figure out…
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.
It’s not 50/50 at Google or any of the big tech companies.
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…
I 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…