Square, Stripe, Lyft against SF Proposition C

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
    • Microsoft / Eng yayssa
      Vote those clowns out, it’s the only way to fix this.
      Oct 20, 2018
    • Bloomberg / Eng iVX372
      Yeah, and spread awareness about the issue. The average knee-jerk liberal has no concept of the SF city government's ineffectiveness. The reality is that they are swimming in more tax revenue per capita than almost any other city government in the US (excluding NYC), with embarrassing results.

      (I say this as a moderate liberal.)
      Oct 21, 2018
  • Credit Karma / Other 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 19, 2018 27
    • 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 / Other 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 / Other 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 20, 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 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 / Other 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 / Other 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

Salary
Comparison

    Real time salary information from verified employees