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

Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 595 posts

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#201

Post by ghaff »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #88
reaperducer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a great time for Amazon or Google to buy Lyft Or maybe Apple. Apple has been pouring millions into improving its street views in Apple Maps. It should buy Lyft. Pay the drivers an extra $x/mile to clamp the Apple Maps image gathering device to the roofs of their cars. The drivers win because they get a bump in income in an industry that's already hurting. Apple wins because it gets up-to-date informat…

Apple would only buy Lyft if they could control the brand experience to a level that just isn't possible at scale with humans as the primary service delivery ( cough ) vehicle. Consider the Apple retail experience. Retail is relatively easy to train for, there's a big labor pool to pick from, and with Apple's revenue/sq.ft. they can afford to compete for good staff. Now consider the sum of your Uber/Lyft experiences…

>Is it reasonable to expect an Apple retail level experience in the ride app space? Even with a tolerable up-charge?

They're called limos. And Uber already does them. Most people won't pay the premium though and that means, in part, that I imagine they have a fairly limited network outside of some dense metros.

Of course black cars are available for many companies if you pre-book. It's what I use for my home airport--or at least did when I was flying.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#202

Post by Frost1x »

skybrian wrote: post #135
Frost1x wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This case sounds like an unfortunate mistake, I’m sure they intended to present the material in a somber manner. That said, it begs the question on if what should be expected behind closed doors. Which OP sort of implied the sentence right after. I'm pretty sure if most people heard the discussions that go on in management meetings, especially at high levels, they'd be pretty irate. I've been in a few at different…

Is this based on actual experience or are you just imagining villains here? I don't have that experience, but my suspicion is that the cartoon bosses in peoples' heads might not be an accurate picture of actual bosses? Laying people off doesn't seem to be easy for most managers, or at least those who talk about it.

Runs contrary to meetings I've been in. YMMV.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#203

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tenpies wrote: post #193
Loughla wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real questions. I'm not a history buff. Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? Current question - what is the endgame for those who what blue states to go bankrupt? What do they get if that happens, outside of talking points?…

> Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? To be honest the most interesting thing to me is the US media. I don't think it has ever been so openly hostile towards one party and so hungry to cause a civil war. They're not even h…

Depends on the channel you listen to.

This comment is just more of the hate-mongering. "I saw an article I didn't agree with: I'm being attacked!" In the same threads, we hear of the bubbles people build by reading only agreeable news. How can all that be true at the same time? It cannot.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#204

Post by chrisseaton »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #191
chrisseaton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The judge gets to decide which debts are paid, meaning that pensions are very likely going to be chopped, hurting union members. I don't understand this. What is the connection between pensions and union members?

Those with pensions tend to be union members; the pension being a benefit insisted upon in negotiations between unions and their (government) employers. If a state declares bankruptcy, lists pensions as a debt, and the federal discharges the pension debt, the GOP can thumb their noses at unions in a very big way.

> Those with pensions tend to be union members

I still don't understand. Surely almost every professional has a pension, but few people are in unions.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#205

Post by eranima »

huevosabio wrote: post #181
mikepurvis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an interesting piece in this week's Atlantic on the motivation for having states declare bankruptcy: "Under the Constitution, bankruptcy is a power entirely reserved to the federal government. An American bankruptcy is overseen in federal court, by a federal judge, according to federal law. That’s why federal law can allow U.S. cities to go bankrupt, as many have done over the years. That’s why the financia…

This is a pretty grim path to follow. If States are to go bankrupt and subject to federal imposition of what debts must be paid, then it may push States to seek further sovereignity. An example being pressure to mint their currency. This is currently banned in the constitution, but if things get dire... they could simply ignore?

The constitution only has power if people are willing or motivated to enforce it.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#206

Post by Loughla »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #188
nightsd01 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of California is actually in a pretty decent financial position. In fact, the blue states are net contributors to the federal budget while red states are net negative (they take more resources than they provide back in federal taxes) If there weren’t any blue states around to sign the red state welfare checks, they’d be in a pretty poor position.

According to Mercatus Center fiscal rankings, 4 out of 5 of the bottom 5 fiscal performers are run by democrats: illinois, new jersey, conneticut and massachusets. Kansas, a red state, is the outlier. https://www.mercatus.org/publications/urban-economics/state-...

Mercatus is not exactly the most unbiased source that exists.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#207

Post by bilbo0s »

wonderwonder wrote: post #172
eropple wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government was attacked to touch off the Civil War. Like, by men with guns. That's a rather critical distinction.

Sure, but look at the recent protests. Armed men protesting state level governments openly egged on by the whitehouse and organized by rich political dark money.

Armed men with guns were militarily consequential during the Civil War. Today, they are a danger only to civilians.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#208

Post by cpursley »

cpursley wrote: post #176
Loughla wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real questions. I'm not a history buff. Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? Current question - what is the endgame for those who what blue states to go bankrupt? What do they get if that happens, outside of talking points?…

> overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments It might be straight-up politics. But there is a real situation where state governments have been financially mismanaged. Should the "working class" person in Alabama without any retirement prospects be forced to bail out (via the Federal Gov't) the state of California's very generous pensions that were not fiscally sustainable in the first place?

Edit: Apparently a lot of users on hn in Cali. I'm just throwing random states names out there.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#209

Post by anoonmoose »

tenpies wrote: post #193
Loughla wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real questions. I'm not a history buff. Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? Current question - what is the endgame for those who what blue states to go bankrupt? What do they get if that happens, outside of talking points?…

> Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? To be honest the most interesting thing to me is the US media. I don't think it has ever been so openly hostile towards one party and so hungry to cause a civil war. They're not even h…

Voting predilections in the US are strongly correlated with the highest attained educational level of the voter. "The Media" as a monolithic structure has a higher average attained educational level than the country at large.

The "why" is obvious; I find a better question would be, are they wrong?

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#210

Post by TrackerFF »

Loughla wrote: post #157
wonderwonder wrote: post #121

Layoffs are mounting, alternative work is limited, and the unemployment systems in many states are either broken or running out of funding. Add the federal governments indicated desire to let blue states go bankrupt and we are looking at a good combination to enter a depression. Its a pretty sobering time.

Real questions. I'm not a history buff. Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? Current question - what is the endgame for those who what blue states to go bankrupt? What do they get if that happens, outside of talking points?…

End game is:

GOP knows they're gonna lose the election. They want to hand the dems the worst economy possible.

Then, 4 years down the road, they can start campaigning against "do-nothing-dems" and point to the horrible economy they had to start fixing.

Post reply on HN