Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

businessinsider.com

511–520 of 533 posts

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's not about the money. It's about slavery. Tech giants want their workers to spend as much time as possible near their working places. Even during their lunch time when people are supposed to get some rest from their jobs, walk to the nearby restaurant, maybe meet some new people instead of those faces they see every f'ng day. NO! Facebook, etc. don't allow any distraction. They wrap slavery in shiny candies…

What words would you have left if you ever encountered real slavery?

yes, wrong word, should have been used "exploiting" instead.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build an office in the middle of a city, sometimes you need to be part of the city... The employees can always bring a lunch to work if they don't want to spend money going out to restaurants. Yes, it would suck if you expected free food and got stuck at this FB office. But, it would also suck if Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale became full of offices and private cafeterias and lost all essence of a "do…

Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale residents start frothing at the mouth when development threatens to make any part of their city look like a downtown. They are deeply committed to preventing any hint of such a thing. At most, they want a 1950s small-town Main St.

San Antonio Center is very much starting to look like a downtown, complete with the dense apartment blocks over street-level retail, underground parking garages, 11-story apartment buildings, and pedestrian-only alleyways. It's still sort of a hybrid development, because the Walmart side of the block hasn't been redeveloped yet and features a giant parking lot and all around them are tiny 1950s-style strip malls and small apartment complexes that literally were built in the 60s, but you can see in both the zoning codes and satellite photos of the area redeveloped that they were going for a real city in density & usage.

I remember thinking, when initial development started around 2010/2011 and all the news was about traffic on 101 and Google shuttle buses making life hell in the Mission, that it looked like the solution was to bring the City to Mountain View rather than bring all the workers from the City.

They get away with this because the area was basically barren strip mall & parking lot before redevelopment - it was the old Sears store, plus Shockley Semiconductor (which I think had been turned into a small grocer that nobody except tech tourists visited), plus a few other old-economy retailers that were going bankrupt. There weren't actually any neighbors to get mad, plus I doubt they'd shed a tear.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the private corporation didn't like the conditions of the city zoning and development laws, they could build their office elsewhere.

Or instead we could vote these politicians out of office. There are more techies moving to the bay area every day. Sooner or later those numbers add up and we've got ourselves a real voting bloc.

These were the politicians that techies voted into office. The politicians that techies voted out of office opposed all development whatsoever - they were the folks that opposed the San Antonio Center development as a whole, and that blocked the North Bayshore redevelopment for over a decade until Googlers actually did form a voting bloc and voted the supervisors opposed to redevelopment out en-masse.

There are a surprising number of tech employees who actually do favor smart urbanization, community engagement, and mixed-use developments instead of holing themselves up in their employers and writing code. Tech (and particular Big Tech) has become a lot more extroverted than the days when it was kids who got bullied at recess because they spent all day playing with computers rather than learning social skills. (And IMHO, this is one reason why the industry has become less innovative lately - there are fewer programmers willing to hole themselves up with a computer for years until they solve a hard technical problem, and fewer managers willing to sponsor that kind of work. The Erlich Bachmans are outnumbering the Richard Hendricks.)

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, we don't want everyone to stay poor. At the same time, we don't want certain people to be so low on the dominance hierarchy, that they think violence is their only alternative.

i don’t believe it has to do with position on a dominance hierarchy. i think it has more to do with dignity.

i don’t believe it has to do with position on a dominance hierarchy.

i think it has more to do with dignity.

Those two are the same thing. Dignity == not being at the absolute bottom end of a dominance hierarchy.

Since human society is very complex, there are many somewhat orthogonal dominance hierarchies. That revered old statesman in your esoteric music fandom might be a school janitor somewhere. Those local-star music scene musicians might get ushered into a billionaire's party through the back door of the kitchen, then be strictly warned not to touch any of the food.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#515
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a company that doesn’t provide lunch, and we still manage to go out together and “bond”. Miracles do happen.

Why were you under the impression that nobody here knew that was a possibility and needed an exceptional anecdote? The upstream comment even said free lunch "promoted" camaraderie, not "is the only way it can happen."

The original comment regarding “bonding” was equally anecdotal - you just agree with it, and therefore perceive it to be an argument.

Rationally, there’s no inherent reason that free lunches promote “bonding”, and no inherent reason that teams that go out to lunch won’t bond. It’s just cargo culting and post hoc rationalization for people liking free food.

Intellectual rigor is alive and well on HN.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it turns out, poverty doesn't cause crime. It's relative poverty that causes crime. Basically, if people are low down enough on the dominance hierarchy, they feel like they have no hope of getting anywhere, then why shouldn't they start acting up? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE (On the other hand, in societies where everyone is poor, there can be peace.)

If you're in a society where everyone is poor, there is not peace, there's extreme violence being applied by a government that is responsible for everyone being poor (it's not just a subtle thing for everyone to be poor, that requires an incredible amount of persistent violence and rights denial by a central authority with overwhelming power). You're just swapping one type of violence out for another.

If you're in a society where everyone is poor, there is not peace, there's extreme violence being applied by a government that is responsible for everyone being poor

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. To have oppression, there has to be enough of a surplus for a ruling class to extract. For many 10's of thousands of years, our ancestors didn't have the means to have a surplus.

Also, we have many examples of local societies which are egalitarian, but embedded within a larger, distant feudal hierarchy. In some of those cases, there can be very little violence directed locally, though in other cases, people can be so low in society, again, their only hope for advancement is violence.

Where there have been increases in the general standard of living, it has been through the adoption of new technology and the increase of trade.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or instead we could vote these politicians out of office. There are more techies moving to the bay area every day. Sooner or later those numbers add up and we've got ourselves a real voting bloc.

These were the politicians that techies voted into office. The politicians that techies voted out of office opposed all development whatsoever - they were the folks that opposed the San Antonio Center development as a whole, and that blocked the North Bayshore redevelopment for over a decade until Googlers actually did form a voting bloc and voted the supervisors opposed to redevelopment out en-masse. There are a sur…

Indeed.

As bad as the current supervisors are, the former ones were a hundred times worse as they opposed ALL development.

And because of the changing demographics of the city, the worse politicians were voted out. Which basically proves my point.

And as demographics continue to change, the political power of this voting Bloc will continue to improve as well.

Maybe in another decade this increase in voting power will allow us to vote in politicians who are actually decent, as opposed to merely being less horrible than previous ones.

Yes, techie voting power has fought off the worst of the problems, but we can still continue to improve.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#518

This is one of the most stupid policy I have ever seen in the bay area (and there are a lot of stupid ones over here). As much as I dislike some of the big tech cos and the TechBros working there bragging about the free food all the time, I still believe a company should be able to decide if they want to offer food or not. Restaurants were unable to turn a profit, so they lobbied successfully and now everyone beside…

The economy 101 angle here is that this is a tax write off for most businesses, so these free meals not only disrupt local food markets but are subsidized to do so.

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this card be used at the company cafeteria, or at local restaurants? If it's the former, then I think it's still "free food". If it's the latter, then it removes much of the benefit of the company providing the meal -- keeping employees on-campus and near their desks longer. I like my company's free food since it's easy to walk down the hall and eat a quick lunch between meetings, no need to take an hour to hea…

Convenient for the company.

And for the employees. I don't want to pack a lunch or go seek out a restaurant every day to pick up food. I know that eating at work means I'm spending lunch time in the office, but by spending less time at lunch, I can leave the office earlier. I'm sure it's a net-win for the company -- if an employee is in the office for an extra 15 minutes since they got a "free" lunch, then the meal is more than paid for (assuming tech-worker salaries)

Re: Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

#520

Honestly the most offensive part of this is the tired Silicon Valley stereotype that tech workers don't "participate in the local economy" or "interact with their community". The people I know in SF tech take BART, grocery shop, buy coffee, go to bars, go out for dinner, buy clothes, buy and sell on craigslist, hang out in parks, play soccer, bike, go dancing, date, have kids, etc, all in their city just like everyon…

This! When tech workers make up more than an eighth of the city's population and are some of the biggest local tax contributors as well.
Post reply on HN