Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#31

Post by ThrustVectoring »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14

To the extent that discouraging this practice is useful, a tax seems more sensible than a zoning ban; a zoning ban, by effectively grandfathering incumbents, is basically a barrier to new entrants competing (if on-site cafeterias didn't have a business function, firms wouldn't spend money on them) with incumbents (whether for talent, or on productivity if food in-house contributes to that.) A tax can internalize what…

The entire point of the law is to extract economic rents for incumbents at the expense of newcomers. It's been the modus operandi for the Bay Area for a long time. Adding a tax to incumbents doesn't do that. Besides which, I doubt that the legislators involved even know what deadweight losses are, let alone why they're an important part of the argument for Pigovian taxes.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#33

Post by mkempe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14

To the extent that discouraging this practice is useful, a tax seems more sensible than a zoning ban; a zoning ban, by effectively grandfathering incumbents, is basically a barrier to new entrants competing (if on-site cafeterias didn't have a business function, firms wouldn't spend money on them) with incumbents (whether for talent, or on productivity if food in-house contributes to that.) A tax can internalize what…

Instead of quibbling about the choice of means in social engineering, maybe the first question to consider is whether such interference is a legitimate power of government.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#34

Post by baybal2 »

masterleep wrote: post #10

Incredible... a meaningful risk of doing business in SF is the exposure to socialist / progressive extremists in the city government.

Not an SF only phenomenon. Things equally disruptive of property rights happen all around US. America actually scores less on property rights than most hardcore "socialist" countries.

Many Chinese coming to USA are astonished to see a "capitalist" nation being so dirigistic and dismissive of property rights.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#36

Post by jonny_eh »

mbgaxyz wrote: post #23

Maybe office workers prefer not to have to run the gauntlet of feces and hypodermic needles, just to buy a sandwich. "San Francisco Man Steps on Hydodermic Needle, Demands Action" https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on-air/as-seen-on/SF-Businesses-W... "Junkies Take Over Corridors Of San Francisco Civic Center BART Station" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gT5NULvRSk "SF Crime, Squalor Scares Away $40 Million Medical Conventi…

Maybe those things will get addressed once people have to run a gauntlet to buy a sandwich. It's much harder to ignore in an ivory tower.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

To the extent that discouraging this practice is useful, a tax seems more sensible than a zoning ban; a zoning ban, by effectively grandfathering incumbents, is basically a barrier to new entrants competing (if on-site cafeterias didn't have a business function, firms wouldn't spend money on them) with incumbents (whether for talent, or on productivity if food in-house contributes to that.) A tax can internalize what…

The entire point of the law is to extract economic rents for incumbents at the expense of newcomers. It's been the modus operandi for the Bay Area for a long time. Adding a tax to incumbents doesn't do that. Besides which, I doubt that the legislators involved even know what deadweight losses are, let alone why they're an important part of the argument for Pigovian taxes.

> The entire point of the law is to extract economic rents for incumbents at the expense of newcomers.

While I don't (as indicated in my other comments in this thread) disagree with the idea that that is a probable ulterior motive, the overt purpose is to deal with negative externalities imposed by in-office cafeterias. I'm pointing out that, to the extent that the overt purpose is a real issue, there are much better ways to address this.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#39

Post by akira2501 »

jonny_eh wrote: post #36
mbgaxyz wrote: post #23

Maybe office workers prefer not to have to run the gauntlet of feces and hypodermic needles, just to buy a sandwich. "San Francisco Man Steps on Hydodermic Needle, Demands Action" https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on-air/as-seen-on/SF-Businesses-W... "Junkies Take Over Corridors Of San Francisco Civic Center BART Station" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gT5NULvRSk "SF Crime, Squalor Scares Away $40 Million Medical Conventi…

Maybe those things will get addressed once people have to run a gauntlet to buy a sandwich. It's much harder to ignore in an ivory tower.

Maybe the city should directly address those things instead of hoping that a bought-out law crafted for special interests will magically fix it for them.
Post reply on HN