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

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

#571

Post by notyourwork » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #438

notyourwork wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As sad as it is, I hope all those who voted for this are willing to accept the fate bestowed upon us from our 2016 election and the political stonewalling from both parties.

Did I miss the news item that confirmed Trump cause covid-19?

No you didn't. Though there appears to be some ignorance in your question regarding the handling of the situation by the current administration. Misleading the public, making false claims, punting all decisions to states, all will be used as a scapegoat to not assume any responsibility for the state of things today. Claiming your inauguration was the biggest ever is funny, misleading the public during a pandemic is unacceptable.

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

#572

Post by clivestaples » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

pbourke wrote: post #524

dantheman wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generational wealth transfer from the young and poor to the old and relatively rich. It should be called fraud and theft, because that's what it is.

While we're throwing rocks at teachers and firefighters, would you consider the trillions of dollars that the GOP made off with during the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" smash and grab job fraud and theft? What about the pensions of workers (many unionized) which were obliterated by corporate restructurings during the financial crisis?

Fraud is fraud. I'll throw rocks at any grifters stealing from me and my family.

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

#573

Post by diebeforei485 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #560

diebeforei485 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

Any tax break being taken away makes people feel like they're paying "extra" with nothing new in return.

There is no reason for people in other states to subsidize your California state tax payments with a federal tax break.

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

#574

Post by illumin8 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

chao- wrote: post #556

grappler wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) distri…

The challenge is that our founding fathers unwittingly created a gerrymandered situation due to both the electoral college and the senate, where 40% or less of the population is able to control the entire federal government. Now that they're stacking the judiciary with political judges, they control all 3 branches of government, and the only democratic check on their power is 50% of the legislative branch (the house).

I'm not a political scientist, but at some point the increasingly larger 60% of the population is going to take this country back. I hope they're able to do it without a war.

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

#575

Post by illumin8 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

burner831234 wrote: post #484

notyourday wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they also need to have a lot more sovereignty over things like (in this case) being able to close their borders to neighbouring states Commerce Clause of the US Constitution stands in a way. It (the Commerce Clause) has been a bedrock of the federal government pushing through progressive policies onto the states.

The analogy to keep in mind is very simple. If you live in a house of five and each person buys their own groceries and cooks their own dinner, it does not matter how you scrimp and save. It is still cheaper on the whole to buy raw ingredients for dinner and make it for five people. The cost goes down dramatically> Yes there is a CDC in every state. It would be utterly ludicrous spend of cash to have an independent,…

Not only that, if you had to buy groceries through a blind auction, and price gougers knew that you needed the exact same items and were willing to pay whatever price it took, rampant profiteering would happen.

The current system is effectively all 50 states in an eBay-style bidding war over the same limited resources.

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

#576

Post by klipt » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 8:04 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #555

klipt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Exactly it means juicing the stock market, which the fed can do by lowering interest rates etc.

> If you happen to reach retirement age in a down market, you're kinda just screwed.

That's why you're supposed to allocate more of your money to bonds as you approach retirement.

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

#577

Post by cortesoft » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #562

pbourke wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they should comb through auditor's reports, and recognize when the funding entity has been improperly seconding pension contributions over to the general fund such that it will run dry in 23 years instead of the mandated 42? If we're lucky, we find out about these things when a government changes hands and an audit is conducted - typically years after the fact. Also, one can start one's career under a sound system…

It's in the news all the time - it takes a minute to do a google search. Also, you have a union - if it screws you, well that's on you for being in the union.

It's in the news years after the pensions are granted. A lot of people choose the jobs before the news started coming out.

A lot of the people who have these pensions took the jobs before google even existed, so telling them they should have googled this is ridiculous.

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

#578

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Fri, May 01, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

csmiller wrote: post #506

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quit a job in defense software in October, took a couple months off, and now this shit. Many companies took down their job boards entirely and some don't even render correctly with no items listed. Many in-progress interviews I had got put on hold, and now the job market is about to be flooded with out of work talent, raising competition and lowering the salary I'd probably get. Many places I've applied to have sin…

Yeah Boston area hit pretty hard

How did you doxx me?

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

#579

Post by Acrobatic_Road » Fri, May 01, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

james-mcelwain wrote: post #563

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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) Do they? I'll grant you that nobody wants to live in Kansas. It had a net migration of −4.32% between 2017-2018. But California doesn't fair much better at −3.95%. People are also fleeing Illinois, Connecticut and…

People are leaving California because of the housing crisis, which is undoubtedly a huge issue, but is an indicator of massive demand to live in California, not that people are fleeing the state due to fiscal mismanagement

Late reply, but the housing crisis is actually a major problem of supply, not demand. It's very time-consuming and costly to get anything built in California. Texas is experiencing positive net migration, and presumably those migrants demand Texan homes, yet Texan housing is much more affordable than California. Ditto for Florida.

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

#580

Post by alkibiades » Fri, May 01, 2020, 4:46 AM UTC

adrr wrote: post #560

diebeforei485 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

why should you have gotten a federal tax break in the first place just because your state decided to have high taxes?

maybe think before electing politicians who raise them if youre upset