Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 754 posts

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#741

Post by jelliclesfarm »

swiley wrote: post #708
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen rents drop due to high density. If anything, rents are cheaper in sparsely populated areas. Examples abound. Rents won’t become cheaper if we build more. However, building more will certainly mean more property taxes for the government. San Francisco gets several millions of dollars to spend from which they spend a measly amount on the homeless(and that’s over 350 million/annum)..where is the rest?…

I live in one of the most wealthy counties in the US and rent here stays low because they push for building high density housing constantly.

which city?

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#743

Post by runarberg »

loco5niner wrote: post #731
runarberg wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question why are you blaming the homeless for fucking up things for the rest of us? In my experience the rich are far more guilty (as a generalized group) of fucking things up for me. The rich have polluted the planet, raised the global temperature up a whole degree. The damage is that now I can’t go outside in late summer, if it doesn’t rain the week before, because the air is poisoned by soot from forest fir…

I don't fear for my families safety just walking outside our front door because of rich people, I fear a homeless, drugged up person assaulting them.

Seriously? Do you have reason to be afraid of the homeless or are you simply experiencing prejudice? If the former is the case I recommend you move somewhere where there are fewer homeless.

But this dichotomy of homeless vs. the rich is really silly. You have less to fear around the rich because they are rich, the homeless might be in a desperate situation and behave accordingly, or as put in the Movie Parasite:

> Ki-taek: They are rich but still nice.

> Chung-sook: They are nice because they are rich.

The danger the rich pose is not something they do to you as you are walking home. It is something they do to the planet (like spilling oil or emitting massive amount of carbon), what they do through the legal system (like evict you), or even just fire you, paying you unfairly, stealing from or influencing your government, etc.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#744

Post by kortilla »

mrits wrote: post #634
kortilla wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can purchase a 5K sqft lot outside of Austin for $2,200 and we still have a growing homeless problem. But not actually near Austin enough for it to be a sane place to live and commute to Austin from (especially if you depend on public transit).

30 mins east of downtown is farmland

Not with traffic. Takes 30 mins just to get to the airport from downtown around rush hour.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#745

Post by throwaway2245 »

cody3222 wrote: post #324
throwaway2245 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies may now have a direct incentive to have their lowest income earners be outsourced/contracted The median was presumably chosen because it's relatively harder to shift in this way. Although this depends on the exact pay distribution of your company, you'd expect getting rid of people from the bottom to change the median person but not typically change the median value. (This is also a mature enough problem…

I bet it's actually easier to change the median. Often you'll scale a sales or support team (much lower cost than engineer) and these teams can often balloon especially if the company has a direct positive margin on their work (generally the case in sales). Now, 30% of the company is sales/support and there are quite a few options for outsourcing your sales team to a "professional sales company."

I created a salary distribution as an example, with 30% of employees at half the median pay, that get "outsourced":

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 6 60

median moves: 2 to 2 (+0%)

mean moves: 8 to 11 (+72%)

(You can make your own example.)

Usually, you expect the median to be pretty stable when you remove (or add) outliers. That's often the reason it's used in formal statistics.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#746

Post by macspoofing »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #724
macspoofing wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have never seen rents drop due to high density. You think housing is somehow immune to supply and demand? If that's the case, you can't claim rents are rising due to increase demand from young professionals. Which then raises the question: "What does affect rental prices?"

I am questioning the claim that we need to build more affordable housing by going high density.

Yes you did. You wrote: "Rents won’t become cheaper if we build more." ... If Rent rates are not a result of supply and demand, then where do they come from?

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#747

Post by scottlocklin »

rmk wrote: post #736
scottlocklin wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're missing is the "left" has long since transferred its affections away from poor people who are not wards of the state. "Woke" politics magically appeared in 2008 when leftists were manning occupy wall street, which pretty much immediately degenerated into escalating virtue signalling instead of, you know, making some reforms to wall street. I'm sure that was a total coincidence.

Well, it did appear to result in the CFPB (the thing that Elizabeth Warren was heading?) and Dodd-Frank, perhaps (one can never attribute these things to some particular movement or event, I feel). I don't know if they have been defanged already. Anyhoo, so what is the pet constituency of the left? They do appear to be falling over themselves to regularise illegal immigrants (perhaps the Latinos in Texas handing Trum…

Related: a "stirring" defense of child labor from a Gates foundation apparatchik that got published in the left-leaning guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/06/c...

Pretty sure Gates is a Democrat! Yeah, man, Child Labor laws are so 19th century.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#748

Post by notSupplied »

It pains me to see that well-meaning people fail to do a basic pass on 2nd order effects of this tax:

- Since "high CEO pay" is defined as 100x multiple of average pay, the first unintended incentive is for companies to cut back on hiring low-end labor, or 1099/outsource so that they do not drag down the average pay. This directly harms the employment prospects of people at the bottom.

- If it succeeds in reducing CEO pay, it's not clear that the money is redistributed to other employees, as opposed retained to by the company as capital, or returned to shareholders. And not that this matters much. Even if you were to redistribute, say Bobby Kottick's $30M compensation, it would result in a net-gain of ~$270 per month per employee at Activision. That is assuming the CEO's pay goes to ZERO. If this tax only results in a net -10% change in CEO pay, it's actual economic benefit to other workers is a rounding error.

- This arbitrarily favors companies of certain structure vs others. For example, a VC firm or Law firm has an extremely high average pay, while any operation that likely involves "real economy" employs a legion of low-pay workers. The CEO of a large, meat-and-potatoes kind of operation is far more likely to be dinged by the 100x rule than the head of a high end professional partnership. Why are VC firms special in the eyes of this law?

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#749

Post by selectodude »

hevelvarik wrote: post #471
subsubzero wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me. You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps: camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society. camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening…

It’s not so simple. 1 and 2 are either your largest groups or at least very large groups. Getting addicts ‘clean’ is a sub problem at least almost as hard as the general, and it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to keep someone in a rehab or a mental facility against their will, and I doubt Reagan is to blame for that. Basically, a large proportion of 1 and 2 are effectively in camp 4.

Reagan is to "blame" for it, but the unbelievable condition of homes for the involuntarily committed didn't make it a hard decision to make for him.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#750

Post by amadeuspagel »

> Under a newly approved law, any company whose top executive earns 100 times more than its average worker will pay an extra 0.1% surcharge on its annual business-tax payment.

This is a great way to incentivize CEOs to fire their lowest paid workers, outsource parts of the business that involve low-skilled labor.

Post reply on HN