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

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#81

Post by thr0waway5678 »

mertd wrote: post #30
bcx wrote: post #13

It seems that ultimately this just subsidizes the commercial real-estate owners. 1) Force companies to not have free cafeterias 2) Workers have to buy lunch from local businesses 3) Restaurant Location becomes more valuable given the large number of workers forced to find lunch and buy it. 4) Raise rents on restaurants because space is now more valuable, since it is basically subsidized by nearby tech companies. 5) R…

Regulations almost always cause some sort of rent seeking behavior. Sometimes they are negligible in comparison to the greater good gained from the regulation. I don't think this is the case here.

There would never be rent seeking behavior without regulations. The natural state of mankind is perfect harmonious cooperation without the spectre of rules agreed upon by communities.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#82

Post by fiter »

kangnkodos wrote: post #46
pliny wrote: post #19

Banning workplace cafeterias is a good start, but really the solution they should be discussing is banning workplaces. The workers at tech companies like Twitter and AirBNB are known to have access to working in their own buildings, which deprives nearby cafes of the dollars they could be spending buying a single espresso and then working for 9 hours.

Don't joke. Local politicians can decide to take private land and buildings. See Kelo v. City of New London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Further reading at that Wikipedia link leads to the fact that California has outlawed such takings covered in the Kelo v. City of New London case.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#83

Post by mkempe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #77
mkempe wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > Howev…

You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency.

When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#84

Post by thr0waway5678 »

The responses to this are genuinely some of the funniest posts I've seen on this website. The amount of gymnastics people are doing to avoid mentioning that these large companies have gotten millions/billions of handouts from the state and city and are therefore in a different class/category of business than your average brick and mortar shop.

So I'll clarify 90% of the detractors comments here: "To the people of San Francisco: Fuck you, got mine. The fact that i lied about the nature and value of our economic contribution to the community and you bought it puts you at fault. I won my ivory tower through any means necessary, and therefore it's immoral to suggest that I in any demonstrable way cooperate to improve anything outside if it. Again. Fuck you. Got mine. "

You can skip all the comments now! :)

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#86

Post by dogma1138 »

themagician wrote: post #58
adventured wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In virtually every case those leases are “customary” only and can and are extended and renewed often on a rolling basis often without even charge.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#87

Post by dogma1138 »

They should just tax employees like any other benefit, most countries do that if you have subsidized meals you pay the value of the meal in tax.

E.G. if you ate $400 worth of meals in a month and you have an income tax of 25% you pay $100 in additional income tax. It shouldn’t be any different than getting a company car or any other material benefit.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

mkempe wrote: post #83
dragonwriter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > Howev…

You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency. When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper…

> You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism

Thank you.

> the rejection of principles

Pragmatism does not in general, or here in particular, involve rejection of principles. It may reject arguing about abstract principles when there is a simpler and less divisive means of addressing an issue.

> When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)

We could argue all day about whether you are right or whether it is, despite not being a legitimate independent power of the executive under the Constitution, nevertheless a statutory power of the Executive under laws duly passed by Congress under unquestioned commerce clause power—this isn't regulating intrastate transactions that might distant impact interstate or foreign trade, but directly regulating foreign trade—and, as such, a legitimate executive power.

Or we could just agree that it's an idiotic counterproductive policy regardless of whether or not it's within the President's legitimate scope of legal power.

Re: SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias

#90

Post by mkempe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
mkempe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency. When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper…

> You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism Thank you. > the rejection of principles Pragmatism does not in general, or here in particular, involve rejection of principles. It may reject arguing about abstract principles when there is a simpler and less divisive means of addressing an issue. > When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, o…

Natch.
Post reply on HN