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

181–190 of 595 posts

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

#181

Post by huevosabio »

mikepurvis wrote: post #165
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.

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?

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

#183

Post by viscanti »

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?

>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?

Multiple citations needed. Alabama takes back a lot more than they pay into the federal government (CA not so much). It's easy to appeal to the "working class" people, but those people have been getting much more federal support relative to what they pay in, while states like NY pay in substantially more than they get back.

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

#184

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

johntiger1 wrote: post #30

Crap, I was scheduled to go on internship with them this summer, but I feel like that might quickly no longer be an option..

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 since announced massive layoffs (Toast, TripAdvisor, etc), some mere days after I've applied.

I'm fortunate to have a lot of liquid saved but I'm feeling for engineers with families and not as much saved.

Stay positive!

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

#185

Post by bilbo0s »

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?

As a mathematician I can tell you that game theoretically, Alabama is not able to bail out anyone. They use more money than they contribute to the country. I think a better example would be should Texas or Massachusetts be obliged to bail out California.

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

#186

Post by viscanti »

usaphp wrote: post #139
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…

> Pay the drivers an extra $x/mile to clamp the Apple Maps image gathering device to the roofs of their cars. Scenario 1 (buy Lyft): So if Lyft has around 1 million drivers in USA [1], and Apple will pay them an average of $50/month to use the device + the cost of the device/installation (around $100) that would cost around $150,000,000 on top of the acquisition price. And you cant really be sure that they covered al…

Presumably there's more valuable data than just maps. I would imagine that Lyft could give valuable real-time data like areas of the city where there's traffic congestion and slower drive times. It's unclear how you'd value that, but it seems like an acquiring company would get more than just raw map data for all available streets.

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

#187

Post by ForHackernews »

chrisseaton wrote: post #178
wonderwonder wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End game for people like McConnell is that it puts downwards pressure on unions. A bankruptcy if a law is passed actually allowing states to go bankrupt would be a process overseen by federal courts, many of which are chaired by Trump appointed judges now. The judge gets to decide which debts are paid, meaning that pensions are very likely going to be chopped, hurting union members. There are other reasons. Bottom li…

> 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?

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.

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

#188

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

nightsd01 wrote: post #179
cpursley wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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-...

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

#189

Post by wonderwonder »

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?

Alabama gets ~$3.50 form the federal government for every $1 it contributes in federal taxes. California gets ~$0.97 for every dollar it gives. So the real question is should Californians be bailing out Alabama all the time. Should states like South Carolina, Alabama and North Dakota just be left to die? I mean they are takers in even the best economic situation.

The answer is of course not, they are states populated by real people who live under the laws and economic system of the United States Federal government. The government should ensure that all people are entitled to enough funding to provide opportunity, health and justice. We don't just leave people to suffer regardless of who they vote for. At least we didn't used too.

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

#190

Post by ivalm »

chrisseaton wrote: post #178
wonderwonder wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End game for people like McConnell is that it puts downwards pressure on unions. A bankruptcy if a law is passed actually allowing states to go bankrupt would be a process overseen by federal courts, many of which are chaired by Trump appointed judges now. The judge gets to decide which debts are paid, meaning that pensions are very likely going to be chopped, hurting union members. There are other reasons. Bottom li…

> 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?

State worker pensions are generally product of union negotiation.
Post reply on HN