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

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#71

Post by mkempe »

ibeckermayer wrote: post #64
mkempe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a legitimate power if the people who form the government consented to give the government the power to write zoning laws. The real question is — when did we consent to be governed by these dopes?

In the US zoning laws are an early-20th-century creation, initially ruled unconstitutional but eventually unleashed by the Supreme Court in 1926 under the cover of police power. [1] However police power was not conceived so broadly at the time the first 13 States consented to the US Constitution (zoning regulation would have been seen as covertly taking one's property without compensation).

As for elections, they are not unusual; the crux is what kind of powers are properly delegated by the electoral body to people in this local/city government? unlimited use of zoning laws for any purpose?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#72

Post by mc32 »

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…

I don’t think Breed is okay with this display of overbearing government. This outlsndish and hope it wakes people up to the misalignment between govt and the needs of the population at large.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#73

Post by mkempe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #67
mkempe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question “is this a good way of serving the overt goal” is easier to answer without running into clashes of first principles than “is it a proper role of government to internalize externalities”. It may be the case that “do in office kitchens produce a net negative externality” may be as easy to answer as the first question, but it at least seems to me that the answer is less obvious.

False alternative.

Maybe it is none of the city government's business whether a corporation provides on-premise food to their employees, regardless of what you may imagine consequences might or might not be to the aspirations of other people and corporations.

However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" then anything goes. There would be no limits to interference by local government.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#74

Post by thr0waway5678 »

bsimpson wrote: post #59
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.

Yes I too trust the clearly defined category of "employers", with their uniform set of values and practices with regard to employee health and safety.

Why on earth would a person trust somebody who was elected by a community for the job of helping its citizens over a corporation that has to generate value for shareholders?

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#75

Post by thr0waway5678 »

bahmboo wrote: post #41

What if I make my own lunch and bring it to work?

Depends on if you're buying your groceries from Airbnb or Twitter honestly, the economic impact of buying produce and meat from them over a local grocery store really varies between the two tech companies.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#76

Post by cirgue »

ibeckermayer wrote: post #64
mkempe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a legitimate power if the people who form the government consented to give the government the power to write zoning laws. The real question is — when did we consent to be governed by these dopes?

Vote in local elections. If you want your voice heard, you have to take the time to speak.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

mkempe wrote: post #73
dragonwriter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question “is this a good way of serving the overt goal” is easier to answer without running into clashes of first principles than “is it a proper role of government to internalize externalities”. It may be the case that “do in office kitchens produce a net negative externality” may be as easy to answer as the first question, but it at least seems to me that the answer is less obvious.

False alternative. Maybe it is none of the city government's business whether a corporation provides on-premise food to their employees, regardless of what you may imagine consequences might or might not be to the aspirations of other people and corporations. However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" then anything goes. There would be no limits to interference by local government.

I think you just illustrated my point that it is much easier to answer the question “is the proposed policy a reasonable way of acheiving the stated goal” without running into clashes of moral first principles than it is to answer “is the proposed policy a legitimate function or government”.

Which answers your upthread question about why answer the former question without first addressing the latter question.

> However, if the standard is "internalize externalities"

I'm not saying that is the standard, I am saying that this policy can readily be rejected without even reaching that question.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#79

Post by thr0waway5678 »

mkempe wrote: post #28

What are the effective limits on these local tyrants? I've heard many people watch movies at home instead of going to the theaters. Surely these home screens could be eliminated with some clever zoning restrictions.

You're totally right. All of those movie theaters that were heavily subsidized by billions in public money or tax cuts based on the promise of providing foot traffic and value to adjoining businesses should have their day!

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#80

Post by snerbles »

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.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Post reply on HN