3 ms·

That implies that there are job openings in those "more profitable" areas. Indeed, wouldn't every company love to just reallocate all of its employees to the a

That implies that there are job openings in those "more profitable" areas. Indeed, wouldn't every company love to just reallocate all of its employees to the areas that are most profitable. But alas, adding eight more women to the project of birthing a baby does not reduce pregnancy time to one month.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>That implies that there are job openings in those "more profitable" areas. if they are more profitable, they probably have more space and budget by defauly. Outside of these strange times, it's not like Tech has historically been oversaturated and companies shy away from hiring new talent.
- wavemode 2y ago
  > if they are more profitable, they probably have more space and budget by defauly Not sure what you're basing this assertion on. I've never been at any tech company where the fact that a project is profitable somehow inherently means that we can just keep adding engineers to it and those additional engineers will magically increase the revenue the project generates. In fact there's almost no industry where such an assumption would be logical. Even if your work has a very straightforward financial model, like manufacturing where you simply make Y dollars for every X parts you produce, that still does not imply you can just keep adding assembly line workers. At a certain point you have to consider whether there are even enough purchase orders to cover the volume of goods you're creating, or if they are just going to become wasted surplus sitting in a warehouse.
jodleif 2y ago
No but you could get 1 baby / month on average
- wavemode 2y ago
  What you're suggesting is the equivalent of the eight other mothers not working on the same most profitable project, but instead on other projects of their own. So you're agreeing with my point.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    And then you have 9 mouths to feed when you really wanted one very healthy baby. The corporate analog would be sustaining dozens of projects, partnerships, and business areas that never really took off and had the results you hoped for.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>That implies that there are job openings in those "more profitable" areas. if they are more profitable, they probably have more space and budget by defauly. Outside of these strange times, it's not like Tech has historically been oversaturated and companies shy away from hiring new talent.

wavemode 2y ago
> if they are more profitable, they probably have more space and budget by defauly Not sure what you're basing this assertion on. I've never been at any tech company where the fact that a project is profitable somehow inherently means that we can just keep adding engineers to it and those additional engineers will magically increase the revenue the project generates. In fact there's almost no industry where such an assumption would be logical. Even if your work has a very straightforward financial model, like manufacturing where you simply make Y dollars for every X parts you produce, that still does not imply you can just keep adding assembly line workers. At a certain point you have to consider whether there are even enough purchase orders to cover the volume of goods you're creating, or if they are just going to become wasted surplus sitting in a warehouse.

jodleif 2y ago

No but you could get 1 baby / month on average

wavemode 2y ago
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of the eight other mothers not working on the same most profitable project, but instead on other projects of their own. So you're agreeing with my point.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  And then you have 9 mouths to feed when you really wanted one very healthy baby. The corporate analog would be sustaining dozens of projects, partnerships, and business areas that never really took off and had the results you hoped for.