9 ms·

>Relatively few people were able to take advantage of the on-site daycare because of long waitlists I might be parsing this incorrectly, but isn't this sentenc

>Relatively few people were able to take advantage of the on-site daycare because of long waitlists I might be parsing this incorrectly, but isn't this sentence saying "too many people used the daycare (long waitlist), so not many people could use it"?

medler 3y ago
But the people on the waitlist are not using the daycare. I don’t know the numbers in this case but you could imagine a daycare with 10 slots and 1000 people on the waitlist.
dfxm12 3y ago
"Nobody Goes There Anymore. It’s Too Crowded" - Yogi Berra The point isn't about popularity (or not) of the daycare. The point is that on-site daycare isn't a competitive advantage for Google, because it is understood that the perk is rarely available.
- ziddoap 3y ago
  >The point is that on-site daycare isn't a competitive advantage for Google, because it is understood that the perk is rarely available/convenient. Except for the people who filled up all of the slots of the daycare, right? Surely it was seen as an advantage to those people, it was available, and it was convenient. Which I think was the point of the original poster. Implying that dry cleaning and daycare have the same level of importance is just kind of silly. However, nostrademons worded it in a way (on another comment here) that my smooth brain was able to parse better, and makes sense/resolves the contradiction I was pointing out.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
nostrademons 3y ago
A better model is "The daycare was supply-constrained and never expanded at the same rate as Google's employee base, so it ended up having little influence on the overall population." That resolves the contradiction while still being an accurate representation of reality. It's the same phenomena as the housing market or California's population today. Both are super expensive and not growing. The reason they are super expensive is that they are not growing, while the pool of potential buyers is.

medler 3y ago

But the people on the waitlist are not using the daycare. I don’t know the numbers in this case but you could imagine a daycare with 10 slots and 1000 people on the waitlist.

dfxm12 3y ago

"Nobody Goes There Anymore. It’s Too Crowded" - Yogi Berra The point isn't about popularity (or not) of the daycare. The point is that on-site daycare isn't a competitive advantage for Google, because it is understood that the perk is rarely available.

ziddoap 3y ago
>The point is that on-site daycare isn't a competitive advantage for Google, because it is understood that the perk is rarely available/convenient. Except for the people who filled up all of the slots of the daycare, right? Surely it was seen as an advantage to those people, it was available, and it was convenient. Which I think was the point of the original poster. Implying that dry cleaning and daycare have the same level of importance is just kind of silly. However, nostrademons worded it in a way (on another comment here) that my smooth brain was able to parse better, and makes sense/resolves the contradiction I was pointing out.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

nostrademons 3y ago

A better model is "The daycare was supply-constrained and never expanded at the same rate as Google's employee base, so it ended up having little influence on the overall population." That resolves the contradiction while still being an accurate representation of reality. It's the same phenomena as the housing market or California's population today. Both are super expensive and not growing. The reason they are super expensive is that they are not growing, while the pool of potential buyers is.