Square, Stripe, Lyft against SF Proposition C

Apple / Eng Marijuana
Oct 19, 2018 70 Comments

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1053312149815091200?s=21

Jack Dorsey of Square saying that the revenue tax is unfair to payment processors and fintech, they will pay twice what Salesforce does. Patrick Collision of Stripe said something similar. Lyft’s reasoning is unclear but they donated against it.

I am against Prop C, but I don’t say that IRL.

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 70 Comments
  • Square / Eng SQ
    We had an internal discussion about this. I'm against prop c as well. Comparing between SF and NYC spending on homelessness is actually eye opening. Similar COL but we spend something like 31% more per capita than NYC while having less homeless per capita. Given that SF doesn't have extreme weather conditions for half the year that NYC does, it's embarrassing how much we're spending.

    I'd be ok with it if it wasn't just a black hole of wasted money. But it is and everyone immediately says that you hate homeless kids if you're against it.

    Prop C isn't going to fix the issue. It's just a band-aid fix that will help mask our incredibly inefficient spending. I'd rather us get our shit together first and understand the actual issue. But you can't do that without a bunch of people yelling about how you're an awful human being. San Francisco is a great example of how being too liberal is not a way to run a government.

    Edit: 40% -> 31%
    Oct 19, 2018 6
  • Credit Karma EllisDee25
    People in this thread have argued that “throwing” resources towards people without resources will not solve a problem of lack of resources. I think this is a bad argument because it’s just turning a priority (less government spending) as some kind of absolute without explaining why or how: “programs just can’t fix it-any program-you just can’t!”

    Stepping out of this specific prop question, what in your view would solve homelessness in SF?
    Oct 20, 2018 27
    • Pure Storage vyFi37
      The most important question that nobody is asking. How do you repair San Francisco’s broken political structure? SF can’t implement any of these great ideas for the homeless because its totally broken. How can we heal its political structure?
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Salesforce cold brew
      Well put Ellis. I understand your moral and humane approach, the ideal situation for most blue voters in this town. However, look at the SF homeless from an outsiders view. We are really accommodating here. Perhaps to a fault. You’re going to get career homeless in this town because the government here uses compassion first and foremost. It’s endearing, but as you can see, quite ineffective. The city has thrown so much money at this problem. Throwing more, to house the chronically homeless... it’s not going to solve it. And as far as those who are local... I don’t mind increasing minimum wage, but that’s not going to cut it here without more public housing... and there’s nowhere to build it. Just because you were local and lost your job...doesnt mean that taxpayers are required to support you to continue to be a San Franciscan. It may mean that the city will give you a one-way bus ticket.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      ViFi, imo we fix it with a left-wing populist challenge to the local Democrats who’ve overseen the housing crisis and have not - as opposed to the media stereotypes and myths about “crazy liberal Bay Area” - treated the homeless with compassion (well maybe in words, but not deeds), but have treated the homelessness crisis with inaction.

      Cold Brew, morality is not really my concern getting to the root of the issue. The city governments have mostly responded with a “sweep under the rug” approach. Bay Area cities deal with homelessness by literally buying them bus tickets out of town. Harass them in parks and so on to make them keep moving but allow them to camp in clusters under a bridge or in a poor neighborhood where no one powerful or important will see them. Clampdown at civic center for a few days, everyone just moves to Market st. Until recently, they spent most of the last decade thinking: maybe it will just work itself out as the economy recovers.

      Other cities are no different. In LA ambulances and cops just dump people they don’t know what to do with onto skid row.

      Conservatives see this thumb-twiddling approach as “going easy” on homeless. But policing policies and crackdowns also do nothing, so the conservative “get tough approach” (which liberal city governments already do to some degree - just not enough for conservatives) won’t solve homelessness any more than the neoliberal approach.

      Your view, the liberal view, and conservative view all share the same assumption: that homelessness is individual, not economic/social.

      To get to the root of homelessness, we would actually need to take portions of housing off the market and create robust public housing like in other countries; we would need to increase minimum wages and reinvest in services for the sick, mentally ill, or other people who can’t work a steady job for any reason. For addiction, we would need to look at what Portugal has done and decriminalize all drugs and destigmatize addiction and make rehab services decent and available.

      This would mean going up against the landlords and developers, chamber of commerce, basically the whole mainstream ideology of Democrats and Republicans for the last 30-40 years, and all the experts and technocrats who studied or built their careers pre-recession on neoliberal policies and ideas.

      So it’s not going to come from the Democrats willingly.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Pure Storage vyFi37
      I don’t think you can fix SF with more left wing populism. I think they need more checks and balances. I.e they need some right wing politicians to balance out the stupidity. The need to be middle stupid, not left stupid or right stupid. I don’t think populism is a good thing, I think it’s a symptom that something has been wrong for a long time.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      There’s no left wing populism in official politics here. Just pro-business neoliberalism for the past few decades. Oh sure, they like their symbolic progressivism, but the real meaningful governance is worked out with developers and major industries like tech and tourism etc.
      Oct 22, 2018
  • Uber bаgel
    San Fran spends more than enough money on homeless. Taxing and throwing more money at this problem isn’t going to solve it, smart politicians who are willing to fix it is the real solution. The politicians that get elected in San Fran are the worst bunch.
    Oct 19, 2018 0
  • Pure Storage vyFi37
    San Francisco can’t fix the homeless problem with more money. It can’t fix the housing crisis unless it opens up its market & tells historic areas that new development is more important. There’s a lot of cronyism in the bay are if you ask me.
    Oct 19, 2018 6
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      The market has zero solutions for homelessness - you need below-market rate housing for that to happen - as long as a walk to the FiDi is a lot nicer than the freeway or trains, then no amount of additional units would create enough of a glut in homes in SF that working-poor, let alone outright homeless could afford it.

      NYC has a pretty good public housing program from what I heard. That would be a start.
      Oct 20, 2018
    • Uber / Eng
      kBfU5h

      Uber Eng

      PRE
      Google
      kBfU5hmore
      Build self sustainable labor camp. Put homeless there to work and live.
      Oct 20, 2018
    • Pure Storage vyFi37
      Did I say they should be building new houses? They can’t build anything in SF at the price they need to be able to build it at. They can’t even hardly make new apartments because everything is “historic” in the city.
      Oct 20, 2018
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      Hmm, not enough space for rentals in the market... but yet there was space for thousand of rental units to become Airbnbs?

      Developers don’t invest to keep the local market prices low, large developers hope that their new condos, rentals, and homes increase the value in the immediate area.

      This will literally do nothing to stop homelessness and would likely result in more people being pushed to living in cars or moving to Stockton or whatnot.
      Oct 20, 2018
    • Salesforce cold brew
      NYC has good public housing? That’s a stretch... if you like rats infesting your kitchen, maybe. But where are you going to put public housing in SF? Pray tell.
      Oct 21, 2018
  • Microsoft tessla
    I love watching liberals destroying themselves with utterly stupid laws 😂
    Oct 20, 2018 0
  • Square / Eng SQ
    Yikes, as expected that Twitter thread has a lot of people who can't come up with a better argument than "YOU LIKE KILLING HOMELESS PEOPLE". As a liberal that's just a disgusting amount of ignorance.
    Oct 20, 2018 0
  • Salesforce cold brew
    Great... YOU should pay 66k for your own homeless person. I’ll help out when there’s a plan that will actually work.
    Oct 22, 2018 4
    • Salesforce Astro9
      Or come to your senses when an epidemic breaks out in the city 🙄 . It’s sad really how a bunch of so many smart people can’t come up with a better plan .How do you expect your government to do better ?!
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Square / Eng SQ
      It's not an epidemic. It's an issue because we coddle them so they don't want to leave. Would you say NYC has an epidemic? No? Because they have more homeless per capita. And they only pay $20k per homeless person per year.

      Stop justifying high costs despite obvious logic.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Salesforce cold brew
      Thank you, SQ
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Square / Eng SQ
      I'm sorry you have to put up with Marc overcompensating for the transbay terminal :(
      Oct 23, 2018
  • Facebook Skeleton
    She's right about relaxing regulations for developers. The way to do affordable housing that actually works is to give people money to buy housing on the same market as everyone else, just like we do with "affordable food".

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/10/24/what-works-and-what-doesnt-in-low-income-housing
    Oct 20, 2018 0
  • Salesforce Astro9
    @Square : Everthing is not a Big(O) notation problem .I agree wasteful spending needs to decrease .
    However my argument here is that we have a bigger more pressing problem than inefficiency and average spending to solve here. Also if efficiency was really the focus wouldn’t you want to invest in the city ,an organization that has the power to make policy changes and influence a long term strategy vs a random charity ?
    Oct 22, 2018 10
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      I posted the abstracts of two studies, not news articles.

      From your article: “The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.”

      “The paper's conclusions contradict years of research on the minimum wage. Many past studies, by contrast, have found that the benefits of increases for low-wage workers exceed the costs in terms of reduced employment -- often by a factor of four or five to one.”

      “the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations.”

      So they basically looked at restaurants and small shops that run on a small margin, but left out Walmart and warehouse workers, significant portions of fast food and retail etc.

      Your science is as weak.

      Lol “supply and demand”? That’s like saying you can build a jet because you kinda generally understand the theory of gravity. Do you mean the marginal productivity theory of wages?

      “If the base of everyone's pay goes up then that means commodities go up appropriately.”

      Is this why food prices have risen even though wages have remained stagnant? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/?user.testname=none

      Even if we assume the total increase is passed onto consumers (which may not happen in all cases due to competition):
      “Remember that farmworkers’ share of each U.S. household’s annual grocery bill is $45. If farm worker wages go up by 47 percent, grocery bills would go up just $21.15 a year, or $1.76 a month.”
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Square / Eng SQ
      I'd like some help on a math problem.

      You pay someone $10/hr now and need to then pay them $15, an effective 50% increase. You own a restaurant which operates on low margins. In order to maintain the same exact profits, how much would you need to raise your prices?

      Same with grocery stores and fast food places. So what happens with all that effective money gained through minimum wage?

      I'm asking about the minimum wage employee at Taco Bell selling $2 items and needing to pay their employees 50% more. Given that food costs are the universal basic way of living, this is where it'll hit people the hardest. Then what about retailers? The clothesmakers have to pay their tailors 50% more (assuming made in USA), which then the retailer has to cover that increase in cost + the increase of cost for their own workers.

      You're intentionally skewing your argument by glossing over the actual places costs will increase. Your source also was about farmworkers in isolation. What about those people working at the grocery store making more? What about the dairy companies also paying more for their employees before they sell milk to the store? No let's ignore that because a study only on farmworkers told me this number. Let's ignore all the costs that will go up for a store. The costs for a store are much, much higher when you factor in everything: electricity company raising rates, plastic makers raising rates for the bags, delivery truck drivers making more, stockers making more, the meat vendor paying their employees more.

      Like I said before you rudely interrupted me with feelings, raising minimum wage doesn't mean the people get to keep all that money. Everything will raise rates proportionally. It might not be a 1:1 rate, but people like you that say "Hey you get to keep all the extra $$$!!!!" are intentionally misleading or just plain ignorant.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Square / Eng SQ
      And to answer your question: why are food prices higher in SF and NYC than other parts of the country? Could it be because the minimum wage is higher so they need to charge more to cover costs?

      People also need to afford a place to stay and that gets factored into the minimum wage. But saying food prices aren't correlated to minimum wage is ignorant too. Food prices will go up in isolation because of cost of living (lease increases, food vendor increases, etc). But they'll also increase with minimum wage increases because it's literally a cost for the restaurant it needs to offset.

      I love how you keep asking about things in isolation to try to make a point. This time it was about "food prices went up with stale salaries, therefore minimum wage won't increase costs! Let me just ignore literally all other expenses a restaurant might have because I want to make a point!".

      Pathetic.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      SQ, .6% price increase according to the UC Berkeley study.

      “Businesses could absorb the remaining payroll cost increases by increasing prices by 0.6 percent through 2023.”

      But yes, the ratio of surplus wealth created going to business has steadily increased since the 70s. This arrangement has worked well for major businesses but not so much for the majority of the population. So - through strikes or minimum wage movements - imo that trend, that arrangement needs to change.

      $15 is too modest anyway. If the 1960s federal minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be something like $17-18/hour.
      Oct 22, 2018
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      “And to answer your question: why are food prices higher in SF and NYC than other parts of the country? Could it be because the minimum wage is higher so they need to charge more to cover costs?”

      LOL, that wasn’t my question at all. You are talking about store prices, I mean food prices generally. Farm workers only average $7 an hour and it’s heavily centralized and automated... so there are obviously more factors at play than wages if the price has risen above inflation even as labor costs have been steadily kept low... even under the minimum wage.
      Oct 22, 2018
  • Salesforce Astro9
    I wish the city at least built more restrooms and bathing facilities. I know a few homeless people that live around and its heartbreaking to see their state .They are too embarrassed to even interact with normal society . People in Indian slums have better hygiene than the homeless people here . I believe as humans we are responsible to maintain the basic human dignity of people around us . I can’t believe people with over 200k TC not wanting to support Prop C by saying it’s 30% above average spending of other states .
    Oct 22, 2018 1
    • Square / Eng SQ
      30% per capita more, 50% total spending per homeless more. And it's not of "other states", it's against NYC which has equivalent COL and should cost more to shelter homeless against freezing to death and dying from heatstroke. Neither of those are concerns here.

      It's like giving to charity a million dollars but the organization takes a 50% administrative fee. You want to double the money you're giving to charity so you up it to 2 million. But only 1 million is actually doing any good as the rest is going to admin fees. Isn't the right answer to give to a charity that passes though 90+% of donations? Why do you have to give 2 million for 1 million to go through? Through another charity, this will cost you 1.1 million.

      This is literally the argument you're making here. I don't care how inefficient it is, let's just throw more money at it and increase wasteful spending.

      We already spend 33k per homeless person in SF. NYC only spends 20k. So we want to now spend 66k per homeless person? No fucking way. It's literally mathematically better to become homeless than work any job that pays less than $30 in SF.
      Oct 22, 2018
  • Why is fintech Particularly targeted by prop c?
    Oct 19, 2018 1
    • Apple / Eng Marijuana
      OP
      Because Prop C taxes revenue, not profits. Stripe/Square’s revenue is every transaction at every random store/website, even though a majority of that goes straight to the card companies (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, Amex etc).
      Oct 20, 2018
  • Salesforce Astro9
    First Awesome ! Let’s put a price on human dignity . By calculating average spending per homeless person we are misrepresenting the actual amount that is spent on them . Like you said 50% goes into administration. I actually believe we should be spending more than 66k .(So should NYC ) Also comparing homeless to people who have jobs is ridiculous. It obviously requires much more upfront investment to level the playing field for them initially.

    Second ,Like I said then I see them as two different problems . 1) Homelessness 2) Inefficiency of administration . I would not try to optimize them both at the same time . Sure it’s a huge thing to solve for ,but not more of a priority than people suffering. Don’t you address an S1 first before optimizing your code /infrastructure?

    Third ,solving any problem is iterative . We know this works but is ineffective. We keep at it till we find something better . You manually test your code till you find a way to automate .
    Oct 22, 2018 1
    • Apple / Eng Marijuana
      OP
      Why should Square, which is much smaller and not profitable, pay twice as much as Salesforce?
      Oct 22, 2018
  • Oracle champa
    Make another city for homeless need money
    Oct 20, 2018 0
  • Oracle champa
    Why they conservative with money? I thought liberal
    Oct 19, 2018 0