3 ms·

It was impossible to get a spot so not a huge deal imo

by google234123 3y ago

Noughmad 3y ago
Ah yes, it was too crowded so nobody went there anymore.
- fullshark 3y ago
  Daycares don’t scale like other perks. It’s possibly hugely impactful but for very few employees.
  - clutchdude 3y ago
    Yogism strikes again!
elaus 3y ago
There was too much demand, so it's no problem that it's closed now? Can't really follow that logic to be honest.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The logic seems pretty easy: it was so limited in availability that it benefited very few workers. So very few people will miss it. It would be a totally different situation if this were a perk where there had been plenty of supply, so that it actually met employee demand.
- google234123 3y ago
  It probably annoyed the huge majority that got rejected - probably created a lot of resentment
- rmk 3y ago
  What's hard to grok? Its capacity was 300 children, so fewer than 300 families at a location where there could have been thousands of families that could have benefited. It served an insignificant fraction of the employees at Google who could have used it.
jakderrida 3y ago
Not to sound like I know better, but wouldn't that imply it to be hugely successful? When the demand exceeds supply, my first assumption is that an increase in supply, if possible, would reap high marginal benefits. Again, I know nothing of Google's inner workings.
- jldugger 3y ago
  No inside knowledge but: day care everywhere in the Bay Area is in high demand but is so very expensive and needs to be _more_ expensive. Caretaker ratios are fixed by law, so your main expense is labor, of a relatively low skill variety. And that is where workers have seen impressive gains in wages lately, putting a real squeeze on daycare businesses. It's a real "losing money but making up for it in volume" squeeze.
  - gretch 3y ago
    > Caretaker ratios are fixed by law genuine question as a bay area resident: which laws are you referring to? do you have a link to something?
    - liveoneggs 3y ago
      every state has these: (weird url but it was first result) https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-education-code/title-1-general-education-code-provisions/division-1-general-education-code-provisions/part-6-education-programs-state-master-plans/chapter-2-early-education-act/article-3-administration/section-8241-staffing-ratios-for-center-based-programs https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-edu...

It was impossible to get a spot so not a huge deal imo

Noughmad 3y ago

Ah yes, it was too crowded so nobody went there anymore.

fullshark 3y ago
Daycares don’t scale like other perks. It’s possibly hugely impactful but for very few employees.
- clutchdude 3y ago
  Yogism strikes again!

elaus 3y ago

There was too much demand, so it's no problem that it's closed now? Can't really follow that logic to be honest.

crazygringo 3y ago
The logic seems pretty easy: it was so limited in availability that it benefited very few workers. So very few people will miss it. It would be a totally different situation if this were a perk where there had been plenty of supply, so that it actually met employee demand.
google234123 3y ago
It probably annoyed the huge majority that got rejected - probably created a lot of resentment
rmk 3y ago
What's hard to grok? Its capacity was 300 children, so fewer than 300 families at a location where there could have been thousands of families that could have benefited. It served an insignificant fraction of the employees at Google who could have used it.

jakderrida 3y ago

Not to sound like I know better, but wouldn't that imply it to be hugely successful? When the demand exceeds supply, my first assumption is that an increase in supply, if possible, would reap high marginal benefits. Again, I know nothing of Google's inner workings.

jldugger 3y ago
No inside knowledge but: day care everywhere in the Bay Area is in high demand but is so very expensive and needs to be _more_ expensive. Caretaker ratios are fixed by law, so your main expense is labor, of a relatively low skill variety. And that is where workers have seen impressive gains in wages lately, putting a real squeeze on daycare businesses. It's a real "losing money but making up for it in volume" squeeze.
- gretch 3y ago
  > Caretaker ratios are fixed by law genuine question as a bay area resident: which laws are you referring to? do you have a link to something?
  - liveoneggs 3y ago
    every state has these: (weird url but it was first result) https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-education-code/title-1-general-education-code-provisions/division-1-general-education-code-provisions/part-6-education-programs-state-master-plans/chapter-2-early-education-act/article-3-administration/section-8241-staffing-ratios-for-center-based-programs https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-edu...