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

461–470 of 595 posts

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

#461

Post by ryan93 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #355
jgwil2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you going all up and down this thread trying to pedantically show that people are using the term "pension" slightly differently to Wikipedia's definition? It's not contributing anything to the discussion.

Well I just don’t get it. People say ‘nobody gets a pension anymore’ but a 401(k) is just a different type of pension. My defines benefit savings plans literally say ‘pension’ in the product names.

The state pensions have no risk. They get a guaranteed payout regardless of stock market performance. The difference comes out of taxpayer pockets. With a 401k if the stock market crashes you are out of lock. The taxpayers won’t chip in the difference

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

#462

Post by james-mcelwain »

drak0n1c wrote: post #401
james-mcelwain wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mercatus is a Koch funded think tank -- hardly unbiased and a poor source here.

It would be better if you countered the statistical method used in the analysis. Otherwise your point is no better than someone saying "Soros donated to this think tank, therefore invalid".

Their "list" is basically just a list of states with debt, that completely ignores their ability to issue new debt and generate revenue (i.e. that people actually want to live in California and not Kansas), while ignoring the fact that many of these states with "balanced budgets" provide basically no services and are liable to getting wrecked in times of crisis. I mean, the fact that Kansas is so high on this list should tell you all you need to know.

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

#463

Post by sanp »

alkibiades wrote: post #459
cactus2093 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, in SF for example the median income is $96,000. And I think that's take-home salary, so the median cost to the employer with benefits is well over $100k. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that important city workers should make at least the area median wage. Having all of the local government employees be the lowest paid people in the city doesn't seem like a good thing. It is also kind of shocking to s…

so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard

And why should NY or CA residents fund most of the federal budget?

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

#464

Post by hjonb »

alkibiades wrote: post #459
cactus2093 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, in SF for example the median income is $96,000. And I think that's take-home salary, so the median cost to the employer with benefits is well over $100k. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that important city workers should make at least the area median wage. Having all of the local government employees be the lowest paid people in the city doesn't seem like a good thing. It is also kind of shocking to s…

so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard

They aren't paying for pensions. They are paying for a massive lack of tax revenue due to COVID.

Funny I never hear the argument from red states "We don't want your federal money for all the poor, sick, disabled, in our state!" considering CA and NY pay WAY WAY more out than they get back in federal money

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

#465

Post by SamReidHughes »

eldavido wrote: post #335
Shivetya wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His unwillingness to not solve the state's pension problems should be applauded. the amount of unfunded liabilities is in the hundreds of billions of dollars and approaching a trillion if it has not passed that already. This all happened because the number of public servants who are pulling in over 100k has skyrocketed... 100k+ in retirement.. with millions past 50k! Think about that 50k in pay plus medical. These pe…

People need to understand, the value of a 100% of final-salary pension for people earning 100K retiring at 55-60 is likely millions . It's even worse with the games people play with PTO and other benefits (where they bump pay 20-30% in their last year to get that pension benefit for the rest of their lives). Look at the average retiree's 401(k) balance for comparison and it gets pretty clear how unfair this is. There…

The thing is, this can only happen federally because of the Contracts Clause, and fixing certain states' problems isn't a national issue.

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

#466

Post by hjonb »

RestlessMind wrote: post #455
hemantv wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just crazy to me, this public servants takes unprecedented risks and take lower pays so they can take stable retirement. Now it comes time for due, we don't want to fund these anymore. The entitlement in HN is just too much.

> Now it comes time for due, we don't want to fund these anymore. The people who agreed to this never wanted to fund them in the first place. If they had, they would have increased taxes or reduced benefits. Instead, we are seeing guaranteed 3% pension increases annually when inflation is <2% and rosy projections about 8% stock market returns when in practice it's more like 5%.

Literally no one is asking for the fed government to pay for those pensions, this is a GOP talking point.

They are asking for help due to hundreds of millions lost in tax revenue.

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

#467

Post by skybrian »

ashtonkem wrote: post #378
cmurf wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already tried that, the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The founders quickly discovered the federal government was too weak. But alas, one of those founders, Jefferson, argued we should rewrite the constitution every 19 years. And another founder, Hamilton, argued that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. And that government is a reflection on human nature, most directly its citizens. http…

Jefferson’s opinions on political processes changed drastically after the French Revolution, by the by.

What's an example?

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

#468

Post by hjonb »

coderintherye wrote: post #444
mrnobody_67 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Carnival Cruise Lines... which doesn't even pay any taxes in the US as a corporation since it flies a flag of convenience and doesn't employ many Americans.

Carnival did not get a bailout: https://thepointsguy.com/news/carnival-did-not-receive-bailo...

The president and leader of the GOP wanted to give cruise lines, who are NOT paying federal taxes and fly foreign flags to dodge US taxes a giant bailout but give US cities some help? Hell no!

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

#469

Post by SamReidHughes »

rayhendricks wrote: post #432
TrackerFF wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Romney is already positioning himself to run in 2024 with the vote to convict over abuse of power.

He's not. He'll be 77. He just DGAF.

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

#470

Post by adrr »

alkibiades wrote: post #459
cactus2093 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, in SF for example the median income is $96,000. And I think that's take-home salary, so the median cost to the employer with benefits is well over $100k. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that important city workers should make at least the area median wage. Having all of the local government employees be the lowest paid people in the city doesn't seem like a good thing. It is also kind of shocking to s…

so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard

Texas is a taker state so California has been paying to support texas for a very long time. Why the moral hazard now? I’ll be fine if we distribute federal expenditures based on tax collections by state. Means California could lower taxes.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/

Post reply on HN