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

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#51

Post by refurb »

megaman22 wrote: post #6
1996 wrote: post #2

> tech companies like Twitter and Airbnb, which are widely known to have access to dining in their own buildings, depriving nearby restaurants of the dollars usually spent by nearby worker Only in Soviet Russia... and Silicon Valley can you see nonsense like that.

It's funny, but sad, watching people trying to kill the golden goose by a thousand cuts.

This is the thing. If they succeed in fixing the "problem" of tech workers, SF will end up like it did in the 1970's where people were more people moved out than moved in.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#54

Post by nerfhammer »

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.

The board of supervisors doesn't have a cafeteria and yet they have no problem ignoring it

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#55

Post by toomanyrichies »

mbgaxyz wrote: post #43
jonny_eh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Replace "people" with "politicians" and I'll give you an upvote.

At the risk of nit-picking the humor out of your comment, I'd say the city's politicians already do run that gauntlet. City Hall is adjacent to the open-air drug market known as the Tenderloin, and many members of the city's transient population frequent the park in front of City Hall. Also, the closest BART stop (Civic Center station) is arguably the stop in SF with the most persistent hygiene issues.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#56

Post by adventured »

themagician wrote: post #47
seibelj wrote: post #22

SF should ban private cars, because it deprives public and commercial transportation of customers. SF should ban owning your own apartment, because it deprives landlords of rent. SF should ban e-commerce purchases, because it deprives local retail stores of sales. SF should ban cleaning your own home, because cleaning companies need more business.

The first three would create a pretty interesting urban space.

Banning home ownership so that landlords benefit is not interesting, it's extremely regressive and morally wrong.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#57

Post by bsimpson »

WallWextra wrote: post #25

The bit about local restaurants losing business seems like a pretty thin fig leaf over a law that's really about taking tech employees down a peg. I don't live in the bay area, so maybe someone can fill me in. How is it supposedly so gentrified that nobody but software engineers can survive, yet local politicians feel comfortable doing things like this? Who actually lives in the city?

Rent control has bifurcated housing costs. Those who have lived in the same spot for 15+ years and/or who own their property have housing costs much lower than people who have moved this decade. A new lease on a 1 bedroom probably costs $3500 now, but could be "Progressive" SF politicians like Aaron Peskin pander to low-income renters and kowtow to NIMBY homeowners who don't want new housing built, while vilifying newcomers. "These evil techies are gentrifying your neighborhood - elect me to stop them."

(Of course, the cost of living isn't just housing, but it's also the biggest factor in your assumption that "nobody but software engineers can survive.")

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#58

Post by themagician »

adventured wrote: post #56
themagician wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first three would create a pretty interesting urban space.

Banning home ownership so that landlords benefit is not interesting, it's extremely regressive and morally wrong.

There are other cities around the world that do 99-year leases or where the state owns the land and it seems to work okay.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#59

Post by bsimpson »

kernoble wrote: post #44

Isn't this the same as the Broken Window Fallacy? They want to force people to use economically inefficient services, small restaurants versus large cafeteria, to create more economic "activity". Which would be analogous to celebrating the waste of breaking a perfectly good window, because fixing/replacing the window generates economic activity. Is that fair? This is under the (I think reasonable) assumption that a c…

I trust that I have access to higher quality, healthier food at work than I would if I had to buy lunch at a restaurant. Employers have a stronger incentive to prioritize long-term health in conjunction with short term satisfaction. Restaurants have an incentive to overuse unhealthy but addictive/inexpensive ingredients like salt/sugar/fat to maximize short term pleasure.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#60

Post by bsimpson »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #53

Get Aaron Peskin voted out in 2020, and half of this city's problems will go away. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/3... If you live or work in that district, you should actively support whoever his opponent is.

I'm very much looking forward to his departure, but isn't he term-limited again anyway?
Post reply on HN