Depending on your definition of 'success' he may be one of the most successful. After all, he apparently managed to profit off a business that was worth little to nothing.
You want to know the actual reason they’re doing this? It’s not because some restrictive laws were passed or to keep the physical toll low on the mom, etc. maybe it is, but that would be found in the marketing slide.
“We are too generous with how much leave we offer”
Everything is to extract as much value out of everyday things as possible. 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.
90% of the ideas and products that come out of here have a solid dystopian underpinning to them.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jl2mm
I don't know if it's the best intro to the series, it was the final episode in fact.
"It's an off switch. She'll get years for that".
https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2017/03/30/max-headroom-...
Mine was supposedly to be… hmmmmm, let me see now… the fourth episode of the series. My title was “Mister Meat.” Now, TV writing in those days was a two-step process: “story with option to teleplay,” they called it. You wrote a ‘story,’ a short plot outline with all the major beats and characters. Then, when the showrunners, studio, and network all approved it, you went on to write the teleplay.
“Mister Meat” never got that far, alas. The showrunners and my fellow Maxxies loved it, as I recall, but when ABC saw the story they reacted with horror. Way too disturbing and offensive, they announced, driving a spike firmly through my concept and sending me on my way. Which I why I never got hired onto MAX HEADROOM and wound up on staff on BEAUTY AND THE BEAST instead.
I got a second chance when MAX was picked up for a second season, however. As a freelancer, I got the choice assignment of writing the Christmas episode. And this time I went to town. Wrote the story, rewrote the story, wrote the teleplay, revised the teleplay. “Xmas” was the title of the episode, and it got as far as pre-production…
And then the show was cancelled. Rather suddenly and unceremoniously, I must say. America was spared from celebrating Xmas with Max.
Parental leave is about bonding with the child and providing care for it while it is especially vulnerable. That's why it is called parental leave- some countries and a growing number of companies offer it to fathers as well.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
for starters none of the companies mentioned did that themselves, train company didnt build infrastructure, supermarket didnt grow food, internet company didnt lay cable. Sure they provide some value I suppose in logistics or whatever but lets be real its not that hard given some capital. If they didn't someone else would gladly step in and do it instead, theres no world in which the customer is forced to actually go without.
You might say "but these are all distorted markets", and to that i'd say: they are pretty much the main points of interaction I and a lot of people have with the economy (and we can think of dozens more examples). If these are all exceptions, the market is one big exception.
I feel like making the world a better place requires a much greater standard than just "someone paid you for some resource/commodity you hoarded". I grant you sure, in a simplified model where there are countless competitors & perfect information available to all consumers, buisnesses would have to compete on providing good services, but thats not the world we live in.
It's frankly ridiculous that it's not enough reward to be richer than croesus, people want us to believe that they are moral because they got all that wealth.
I don't think conversations like this can ever progress when this constant misrepresentation takes place. No one is talking about hoarding. If I get paid to write someone some software, what hoarding happened?
And you're right that a market transaction is the best measure of "good" that we have. To get some sense of "what society might pay" to limit or eliminate such a market, an analyst must resort to more difficult methods like cost-benefit analysis. It's a huge topic and is used by major governments.
It's all about getting the larger personal high score. Building a viable business is secondary.
With that said, remember the following. While the economy is not zero sum and we can increase the amount of wealth in the world, power is zero sum. Power is finite and very scarce. You can create tremendous wealth and later find out it ended in the hand of a single person. And that person is not willing to share.
My wish is to die without a single penny in the bank. As I get older it gets clear how much time is worth. We have so little time to actually do what we want before we get too old.
As technology[1] increases power increases. It is social capital to convince others that is zero sum (holding the number of people constant).
[1] - and here I mean all technology, not what's commonly called 'tech' today.
> You can create tremendous wealth and later find out it ended in the hand of a single person. And that person is not willing to share.
Having a lot of money doesn't mean people have to do business with them. Undoubtedly some will, but you don't have to. It also doesn't prevent others from doing business with made-up currencies (e.g. Ithaca Hours, cryptocurrencies) or through barter.
But what if I own all the productive land? What if I own a corporation that manufactures a product you depend on? This is wealth.
If people won't take your money to defend your wealth, then your wealth belongs to whoever takes it. It's only the rule of law that allows material wealth to exist.
This is a very strong force, and is effectively insurmountable in most circumstances in lands with well-functioning governments. But things like the following do, very rarely, happen even in them: https://morbidology.com/the-town-that-got-away-with-murder/
He clearly set out to make a lot of money with his scheme, and he did that successfully. Then he failed.