Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more • Hacker News Board

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

#551

Post by manigandham » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:08 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #368

kortilla wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has gotten significantly worse over the last 10 years or so for residents though, even if some debt has been paid off. Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. Nothing has been done to address the education system and huge pension liabilities either. The issue with Democrats in charge without any meaningful opposition is that none of the Dem…

> Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. The question is if California is soooo bad. Why are smart, intelligent people coming here? Why does capital still invest here? Part of the answer is other places in the US are slowly failing. So many of the problems have to due with California serving as a refuge from failed economic and social policy in other…

They're not. California has a net egress of people with about 200k more leaving the state last year, along with lots of businesses.

The state is bankrupt. It funds healthcare for illegal immigrants while being the only state that forces a fee for lack of health insurance for US citizens. It has the highest homeless population and wealth inequality with declining economic mobility, ballooning cost of living, and generally worse overall quality of life compared to other major metros.

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

#552

Post by clintonb » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:12 AM UTC

jlbnjmn wrote: post #492

clintonb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An advertising campaign to attract drivers is probably a lot cheaper than buying Lyft.

A simple press release would do the trick.

True. Also, given the number of customers they have, a few banner ads on their own site might work, too.

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

#553

Post by manigandham » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:13 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #350

rauchp wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Single party rule in California has been an improvement." I just moved to California so I don't have too much of a personal opinion yet but that sounds like a bold claim. From what I've seen, people over the age of 30 seem split on whether or not it's an improvement. You look at mismanaged cities like SF where there's insane homeless budgets but very little action and results and wonder if the monopoly on political…

You are choosing really bad examples, because Republicans are even more extreme than the Democrats on them. Homelessness is an infinite money sink coupled with very problematic civil rights issues. It takes a unified effort at the federal level when states are willing to just ship their problems to other states. It also requires a unified effort at healthcare--both physical and mental. Nobody has come up with a good…

> "As for Texas, it isn't as uniformly Republican as you think. The major cities are gaining significant Democratic representation"

This is because of Democrat-voting people leaving Democrat-led states and cities that are no longer functioning well. If their policies worked, why would they leave (for example) CA in record numbers to move to TX?

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

#554

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:33 AM UTC

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...

You're right that they did not specifically bail out Carnival. They bailed out the entire junk bond sector, which allowed companies like Carnival to raise money much more easily.

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

#555

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:37 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #197

ForHackernews wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, pension benefits were one of the main benefits unions fought for (and won) so that their members could have an income in their old age and retire. Today, very few workers still have pensions, but the few that do tend to be those represented by a union. In many states, this includes government employees: teachers, firefighters, police, etc.

And everyone else has 401ks which also suffer in a crisis, but the federal government can't bail out red state 401ks without also helping blue state 401ks, so in that sense 401ks are safer than pensions.

I don't even know what it would mean to "bail out" a 401(k). By definition you, the employee, are exposed to all the market risk. If you happen to reach retirement age in a down market, you're kinda just screwed. Should've made better investment choices 15 years ago.

This is why traditional pensions were usually a better deal for most employees.

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

#556

Post by chao- » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:52 AM UTC

grappler wrote: post #511

huevosabio wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 train of thought I'm on now is: why was keeping the Union together back in the civil war such a great thing? Now we have this bloc of red states in the South who are backward, racist, intolerant science deniers, and they've managed to get just enough on the winning side of the electoral map to make the advanced, multicultural, cosmopolitan science-respecting blue states' lives miserable. That chunk of states shou…

The resolution you choose has some stark effects on the narrative that you will allow yourself to be convinced of. The idea of "red state, blue state" is a peculiar consequence of a winner-take-all presidential election system, and does not adequately represent reality. An underlying truth, viewed at another resolution, is that there are red and blue densities moreso than states [0]. The current (and changing) distribution of densities across the states has currently led to what you perceive as the "red state, blue state" situation, when zoomed out and with a blur filter applied

For example, take a useful look at CityLab's Congressional Density Indicator [1]. There are zero "pure urban" districts that are represented by Republicans, regardless of the state (red, blue, purple), and there are nearly none among the "urban-suburban mix" districts (again regardless of state).

Viewed through yet another lens, by percentage of landmass, Alabama is more is more "blue" than Illinois and Oregon [2]. Your characterization could use a little more thought and refinement.

[0] https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Wi... (see section beginning page 12)

[1] https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/citylab-congressional...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-201...

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

#557

Post by marcusverus » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:08 AM UTC

adrr wrote: post #470

alkibiades wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

That Atlantic article is citing an editorial from a personal finance website, written by a journalist. Does that qualify as data?

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

#558

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:08 AM UTC

SeeTheTruth wrote: post #540

dkdk8283 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why only let blue states go bankrupt?

Because Trump is petty and destructive, and his voters love him for "hurting the right people". What none of them realize or care about is when power shifts the other way - there will be calls to stop funding red states. Red states take and take, and hurt blue states whenever they can. Look at the hurricane in NY and NJ and the response to it, and the response in LA. We're tired of always pitching in to help and do t…

[deleted]

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

#559

Post by g981ms2 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:38 AM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #85

corporateslave5 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been calling software engineering wages a bubble for 20 years, and trying to call “the end of tech”. I just don’t see it, highly proficient software engineers are more valuable than ever. The wages are higher than ever. Going forwards, tech is really the only engine of growth in the American economy. Trying to say tech will be under for years is like saying the USA will be in a massive recession for years…

When you've got 100s of thousands of unemployed talented engineers on the market, you're not going ot be able to sustain $200k salaries for people who know how to write a yaml file for long.

yaml's are sometimes difficult to write.

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

#560

Post by adrr » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 12:06 PM UTC

diebeforei485 wrote: post #537

adrr wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Texas was and still is a net contributor to the union. California is no longer a net contributor to the union[1], since SALT reform. 1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mc...

I don't think you understand that article or how the new tax bill ripped off a million Californians by making them pay tens of thousands extra in taxes. I paid an extra $30k in taxes this year because of that bill. Only being able to deduct $10k taxes made Californias pay more federal taxes. We didn't get anything in return. Thanks for making my point how California pays for everyone else but get nothing in return.

Also for 4 of the 5 top employers in Texas are oil companies. Oil production is subsidized by the feds. Texas is a taker. They also will all go bankrupt unless bailed out with California tax money.