3 ms·

I'm in the US so I have no clue about other countries. Like I said in my post, the doctors visits while carrying the baby, the PVT due to stress and other fact

I'm in the US so I have no clue about other countries. Like I said in my post, the doctors visits while carrying the baby, the PVT due to stress and other factors, and the maternity/paternity leave (at companies I've worked they allow 6-9+ months maternity and 2-4 months for paternity). Companies know they will offer these leaves, but the in the lead up to that there is a lot of OOO and unrealized effort. There are people at every company and at large who are crunching efficiency numbers while we sit there hammering out features and fixes.

zdragnar 3y ago
I think you're missing the obvious - paternity leave is expanding. It wasn't even a thing in the US when I started my career. The idea that the only reason artificial wombs are being investigated is "corporate greed wants workers to take less time off for pregnancy" is so far fetched it might just be the silliest conspiracy theory I've heard in awhile. The amount of money going into the design, research, regulatory hurdles etc will not be paid off by decreased PTO usage. If anything, it'll just get used up again when the infant inevitably gets sick or a care worker isn't available to watch them. Thanks for the chuckle.
- moomoo11 3y ago
  you're welcome! whatever makes you happy, making up whatever conclusion from what you read! FWIW I did not mention paternity/maternity in my post at all... 10/10 reading comp..
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    You claimed all health and other benefits to investing in artificial wombs are purely bad faith marketing gimmicks. The "real" reason is to keep employees in the office working. From your first post: > In this case, their thinking is along the lines of how can they can get women to stay in the office longer while the kid bakes at homes. Maybe offer a short leave after it’s ready. But the economy grinds harder since the woman employee didn’t have to take time off for doctors visits or to recuperate post birth. I argued that is an absurd justification, citing the rise of paternal leave (both availability and increased duration) as an example. I later argued that any PTO saved by not visiting the doctor would end up used as soon as the kid gets sick, needs someone to stay at home, etc. To repeat myself, it will take an obscene amount of money to get an artificial womb to market. The payoff in doing so is certainly not going to be in the form of people taking less PTO.
    - moomoo11 3y ago
      I was talking about the reasoning behind it man.. "We are too generous with how much leave we offer". Look at the context of the whole discussion.. who I replied to.. what they said. But sure. The fact that someone literally said that, and was serious about it, was kind of f'd up to me. There are people like this everywhere, who think like this. I don't personally think of "micro-optimizations" of people this way, code sure. That's probably why I'm could be a better entrepreneur lol.. This person probably thinks cool I save 1-2 weeks PTO per year x 1 million people is a lot of time saved. Again, I am not talking about leaves, but rather the type of "vibe" that was given off by that statement.. I personally found that person's line of thinking objectionable and so I posted about it.

zdragnar 3y ago

I think you're missing the obvious - paternity leave is expanding. It wasn't even a thing in the US when I started my career. The idea that the only reason artificial wombs are being investigated is "corporate greed wants workers to take less time off for pregnancy" is so far fetched it might just be the silliest conspiracy theory I've heard in awhile. The amount of money going into the design, research, regulatory hurdles etc will not be paid off by decreased PTO usage. If anything, it'll just get used up again when the infant inevitably gets sick or a care worker isn't available to watch them. Thanks for the chuckle.

moomoo11 3y ago
you're welcome! whatever makes you happy, making up whatever conclusion from what you read! FWIW I did not mention paternity/maternity in my post at all... 10/10 reading comp..
- zdragnar 3y ago
  You claimed all health and other benefits to investing in artificial wombs are purely bad faith marketing gimmicks. The "real" reason is to keep employees in the office working. From your first post: > In this case, their thinking is along the lines of how can they can get women to stay in the office longer while the kid bakes at homes. Maybe offer a short leave after it’s ready. But the economy grinds harder since the woman employee didn’t have to take time off for doctors visits or to recuperate post birth. I argued that is an absurd justification, citing the rise of paternal leave (both availability and increased duration) as an example. I later argued that any PTO saved by not visiting the doctor would end up used as soon as the kid gets sick, needs someone to stay at home, etc. To repeat myself, it will take an obscene amount of money to get an artificial womb to market. The payoff in doing so is certainly not going to be in the form of people taking less PTO.
  - moomoo11 3y ago
    I was talking about the reasoning behind it man.. "We are too generous with how much leave we offer". Look at the context of the whole discussion.. who I replied to.. what they said. But sure. The fact that someone literally said that, and was serious about it, was kind of f'd up to me. There are people like this everywhere, who think like this. I don't personally think of "micro-optimizations" of people this way, code sure. That's probably why I'm could be a better entrepreneur lol.. This person probably thinks cool I save 1-2 weeks PTO per year x 1 million people is a lot of time saved. Again, I am not talking about leaves, but rather the type of "vibe" that was given off by that statement.. I personally found that person's line of thinking objectionable and so I posted about it.