San Francisco looks to ban free lunch at tech companies

[Jimmy Higgins]

More common, but those lavish free lunches are probably more expensive per individual (not sure why it would be related, but if it's really so bad, maybe that's worse?). Anyway, (from your article),


So, it seems they are going after cafeterias, at least in new buildings.

Why wouldn't the same logic apply to free office coffee? Isn't it hard for local coffee shops to compete with free office coffee? Full disclosure: I am typing this while drinking free office coffee.

What logic?

dismal extrapolated logic. dismal feels that any thing he doesn't agree with can be extrapolated to the googol-th degree and successfully make the issue look as dumb. What... free school lunches? Why not treat all students to $100 a plate lunches?

See, lunch is a single event that people partake in. Going to lunch isn't unheard of as lunch breaks are a part of the work day.

Coffee is a beverage that people drink often in the morning or all day. Going out of the office to get a coffee every hour would be rather disruptive to the work day.

 

[scombrid]

San Francisco looks to ban free lunch at tech companies

Lavish free lunches are the stuff of Silicon Valley legend, and a treasured perk in the roster of on-campus benefits that tech companies use to lure workers. But two San Francisco legislators are looking.

San Francisco

Two San Francisco legislators

Same thing

edit: Edit to clarify that this post was a swipe at the article title.

 

[scombrid]

San Francisco looks to ban free lunch at tech companies

Lavish free lunches are the stuff of Silicon Valley legend, and a treasured perk in the roster of on-campus benefits that tech companies use to lure workers. But two San Francisco legislators are looking to do away with the practice, saying it hurts local businesses who can't compete, reports CBS San Francisco.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-looks-to-ban-free-lunch-at-tech-companies/

One of the first rules of economics is: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). But it turns out sometimes there is, and it's super bad!

Fortunately, we can use government force to stamp out this practice and ensure employees pay more for lunches.Next perhaps government can go after free coffee, snacks and/or drinks in the employee kitchen. This appears to be a far more common blight.

Maybe they can place a tariff on the free lunch companies and use the money to subsidize the nearby restaurants.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What logic?

dismal extrapolated logic. dismal feels that any thing he doesn't agree with can be extrapolated to the googol-th degree and successfully make the issue look as dumb. What... free school lunches? Why not treat all students to $100 a plate lunches?

See, lunch is a single event that people partake in. Going to lunch isn't unheard of as lunch breaks are a part of the work day.

Coffee is a beverage that people drink often in the morning or all day. Going out of the office to get a coffee every hour would be rather disruptive to the work day.

Making them leave the building and go somewhere else also seems disruptive, even if to a lesser extent. At any rate, I think this is a bad idea. It restricts freedoms and is likely not to accomplish its goal, but rather, to give incentives to companies to avoid places where this policy is in place (if it's implemented, which it might not be).

 

[Keith&Co.]

A significant number of my coffee-drinking coworkers show up in the morning with coffee they purchased on the way in. Their anecdotes are littered with events that happened 'when I stopped for coffee this morning.'

So a big fraction of the people employed here are spending money at businesses off of the GD campus. If they were promised increased custom due to GD having X hundred employees, they're already seeing it.

So the same 'logic' would apply to San Francisco, but further action is not necessary.

 

[scombrid]

Irrelevant. Many of those companies do get massive tax breaks,

It was speculation on my part. But whether it was tax breaks or something else, it's very likely the city did something to make the company want to open an office there. It's happened many other times for many industries. No property taxes for five years, no water bill for ten, an exclusivity deal so certain competing companies can't build a facility within ten miles, whatever.

I mean, you draw people to housing and hotels by saying 'close to shopping, great restaurants.' That may have been part of the presentation they made, "And look at all the great places your people can go for lunch," but it wouldn't have been the clincher for the business.

So since the city is the one that drew a direct line between failing restaurants and on-campus kitchens, it seems likely, to me, that they had expected hordes of tech workers to be filling those restaurants, and likely they'd have used that as an excuse if anyone complained 'Why does the tech company not have to ______ like we do?'

This is along the lines of my thinking on the topic. Hey, give us a big break and we will make your downtown thrive. Only it doesn't happen. City thinks it will get the revenue from restaurant or other commerce. But it doesn't and it has given all this free stuff to company XXX. Now it can't afford to fix the potholes or clean up the poop.

But I think trying to force employees to leave the office for lunch is misguided. Having a good cafeteria is good for productivity in my opinion. And me personally? I'm a brown bagger. I always eat at my desk or at the table outside. Somebody in that city is making money by providing the lunches anyway.

Perhaps we should be complaining about these huge expensive Faustian incentive packages local and state governments are forced to make to attract big businesses (FoxCon in WI, some big defense contractors here where I live, etc...), or maybe tariffs that fuck over farmers and then using tax funded bailout to try to keep the farmers from making too much noise... Nah, government directly tinkering in the economy is only bad when a couple of San Francisco libtards suggest it for their city.

 

[dismal]

Irrelevant. Many of those companies do get massive tax breaks,
Whether the idiots (aka "journalists") of specific article grasp the fact or not, many of those companies get massive tax breaks that are rationalized on the assumption that the employees of those companies will consume products produced or sold by the communities giving the tax breaks.

Do you have a lot of experience negotiating tax breaks? I'm going to guess no.

A "tax break" is a form of legal agreement. If there are conditions to the tax break, guess what? They put them in the agreement.

So, if for example, one of the conditions is "you won't make free lunches magically appear from the aether" because you want to spur local lunch production this can be drafted into the agreement.

Of course, since this is not one of the stated motivations of the law, this seems somewhat irrelevant.

If you don't grasp how thousands of new people coming into a community and spending money on consumer goods produced by that community can help the economy of that community, then you might want to take an intro econ course.

No, I'm pretty good on the old "took economics classes" thing. That's why I'm suspicious of any argument that banning a voluntary activity to incent the production of a less desirable product that otherwise not exist improves the economy. I would not, for example, argue that banning excavators for use in digging ditches and requiring hand shovels "helps the economy" even if it did help the local shovel business. The point of an economy (this is usually day one stuff in that intro econ course you are so fond of) is to allocate limited resources to human want and needs. You don't generally do this better by banning things that more efficiently map resources to human wants and needs.

 

[Derec]

See, lunch is a single event that people partake in. Going to lunch isn't unheard of as lunch breaks are a part of the work day.
Coffee is a beverage that people drink often in the morning or all day. Going out of the office to get a coffee every hour would be rather disruptive to the work day.

And how does that justify San Francisco banning free lunches?
Whatever your issues with me or dismal, all reasonable people should be able to agree that that's government overreach. Just like when they gutted the tech bus program because some idiots protested.

What is with San Francisco government being so hostile to the tech sector? Don't they like tax revenues?

 

[dismal]

A significant number of my coffee-drinking coworkers show up in the morning with coffee they purchased on the way in. Their anecdotes are littered with events that happened 'when I stopped for coffee this morning.'

So a big fraction of the people employed here are spending money at businesses off of the GD campus. If they were promised increased custom due to GD having X hundred employees, they're already seeing it.

So the same 'logic' would apply to San Francisco, but further action is not necessary.

Again, I didn't see anything in the articles that this has anything to do with tax abatements or that anyone was promised anything.

This is from the SF chronicle article:

Anthony Myint, co-owner of the Perennial, said he was drawn to opening a restaurant in the neighborhood because of the number of companies — and, potentially, customers — that he thought would flood the streets at lunchtime. While he knew about the private cafeterias, he said he didn’t think they would impact his business this much. On an average day, he said, he sees only a handful of people during lunch.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...-coveted-office-cafeterias-could-13101014.php

This appears to be nothing more than a business judgement error on the owner's part.

 

[RVonse]

If this legislation is enacted, the incentive to build a new office building or to rent space in a new office building is reduced. Over time, one would expect firms to move out of the areas affected by this legislation.

And, of course, this legislation gives an advantage to existing buildings and firms.

I totally agree with your logic. I'm pretty sure Dismal and Derec would too.

Yet if one actually observes the real world we see exact opposite results. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the US, yet look at the revenue and productivity that come out of that city! Homes are so expensive now in San Francisco, only the most wealthy can even afford to buy them. Looking at the price of a home in San Francisco versus the price of a home in conservative Mississippi it is more than obvious liberal government works much better than conservative local government. Clearly San Francisco wins in pretty much every way; new high tech business flock to be located there. And the best and smartest come to live there too. Hands down.

I honestly don't understand why it is so.... but you simply can not argue with real world reality. Liberalism wins over conservatism when it comes to technology, productivity, wealth, and GNP.

 

[dismal]

If this legislation is enacted, the incentive to build a new office building or to rent space in a new office building is reduced. Over time, one would expect firms to move out of the areas affected by this legislation.

And, of course, this legislation gives an advantage to existing buildings and firms.

I totally agree with your logic. I'm pretty sure Dismal and Derec would too.

Yet if one actually observes the real world we see exact opposite results. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the US, yet look at the revenue and productivity that come out of that city! Homes are so expensive now in San Francisco, only the most wealthy can even afford to buy them. Looking at the price of a home in San Francisco versus the price of a home in conservative Mississippi it is more than obvious liberal government works much better than conservative local government. Clearly San Francisco wins in pretty much every way and new high tech business flock to be located there. And the best and smartest come to live there too. Hands down.

I honestly don't understand why it is so.... but you simply can not argue with real world reality. Liberalism wins over conservatism when it comes to technology, productivity, wealth, and GNP.

Taking free food from the mouths of noble employees to prop up greedy business owners is "liberalism"?

I did not know that.

 

[RVonse]

If this legislation is enacted, the incentive to build a new office building or to rent space in a new office building is reduced. Over time, one would expect firms to move out of the areas affected by this legislation.

And, of course, this legislation gives an advantage to existing buildings and firms.

I totally agree with your logic. I'm pretty sure Dismal and Derec would too.

Yet if one actually observes the real world we see exact opposite results. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the US, yet look at the revenue and productivity that come out of that city! Homes are so expensive now in San Francisco, only the most wealthy can even afford to buy them. Looking at the price of a home in San Francisco versus the price of a home in conservative Mississippi it is more than obvious liberal government works much better than conservative local government. Clearly San Francisco wins in pretty much every way and new high tech business flock to be located there. And the best and smartest come to live there too. Hands down.

I honestly don't understand why it is so.... but you simply can not argue with real world reality. Liberalism wins over conservatism when it comes to technology, productivity, wealth, and GNP.

Taking free food from the mouths of noble employees to prop up greedy business owners is "liberalism"?

I did not know that.

Yes. In general, liberalism supports big government and big government regulation getting into all the little decisions of business. Government is better because government always knows better. To make it more fair for everyone.

 

[Axulus]

Irrelevant. Many of those companies do get massive tax breaks,
Whether the idiots (aka "journalists") of specific article grasp the fact or not, many of those companies get massive tax breaks that are rationalized on the assumption that the employees of those companies will consume products produced or sold by the communities giving the tax breaks. Thus, if the companies thwart this by incentive's their employees not to spend money in those communities, then it can make sense for those communities to take countermeasures, even if this particular approach is misguided. Such tax breaks are the epitome "government helping some businesses over others". So, where is your outrage over tax breaks to companies? The bottom line is that unless you declare that you are equally opposed to tax breaks for businesses, then you have no principled basis to oppose this legislation and your rationale is hollow and disingenuous.

Also, you have a strange concept of what "helping the economy" means.

If you don't grasp how thousands of new people coming into a community and spending money on consumer goods produced by that community can help the economy of that community, then you might want to take an intro econ course.

How are the food service employees hired to work at the office cafeteria and the local food products purchased for these cafeterias not helping the economy of that community? Furthermore, have you considered that the employee lunch cost savings can be spent on other products from the community?

 

[dismal]

Taking free food from the mouths of noble employees to prop up greedy business owners is "liberalism"?

I did not know that.

Yes. In general, liberalism supports big government and big government getting into all the little decisions of business. To make it more fair for everyone.

So, liberalism just requires meddling? It does not require a specific type of meddling? Like, if they passed a law saying CEOs must get at least 1000 the average employee's salary that's liberalism? If they passed a law saying employees must grovel and avert their eyes when corporate officers enter a room that would be liberalism?

 

[RVonse]

Taking free food from the mouths of noble employees to prop up greedy business owners is "liberalism"?

I did not know that.

Yes. In general, liberalism supports big government and big government getting into all the little decisions of business. To make it more fair for everyone.

So, liberalism just requires meddling?

Yes. In general liberalism is do gooding meddling in the private unregulated market.

It does not require a specific type of meddling? Like, if they passed a law saying CEOs must get at least 1000 the average employee's salary that's liberalism? If they passed a law saying employees must grovel and avert their eyes when corporate officers enter a room that would be liberalism?

That is an example of liberalism AND corporate fascism at the same time. Yes, you just showed how they can both exist at the same time.

 

[jonatha]

My thought is that the only thing that needs to be done is that the value of the lunches be included on the employees W-2 forms for tax purposes since it is a form of compensation.

I would be willing to bet Google is arguing that the meals are for "the convenience of the employer" and that, since they are provided on the employer's premises, they are not taxable. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5137.pdf page 44.

 

[dismal]

That is an example of liberalism AND corporate fascism at the same time.

Not the way most people define "liberalism" and "fascism".

But that sign would look great on your street corner.

 

[RVonse]

That is an example of liberalism AND corporate fascism at the same time.

Not the way most people define "liberalism" and "fascism".

But that sign would look great on your street corner.

Lets take whatever your definition of liberalism is then. If San Francisco passes a law regulating lunch at a tech firm, what do you call that? Conservative? Libertarian?

 

[dismal]

That is an example of liberalism AND corporate fascism at the same time.

Not the way most people define "liberalism" and "fascism".

But that sign would look great on your street corner.

Lets take whatever your definition of liberalism is then. If San Francisco passes a law regulating lunch at a tech firm, what do you call that? Conservative? Libertarian?

Well, I tend to lean toward the classic definition of "liberalism" which means the government does the opposite of meddling. It focuses on liberty(as in freedom) of individuals to do things like offer and eat free lunches.

This strikes me as special interest politics. Puttng the thumb on the scale to favor one group over another.

 

[RVonse]

Lets take whatever your definition of liberalism is then. If San Francisco passes a law regulating lunch at a tech firm, what do you call that? Conservative? Libertarian?

Well, I tend to lean toward the classic definition of "liberalism" which means the government does the opposite of meddling.

So classic liberal democrat FDR was against meddling during the great depression? That FDR wanted small government and individuals to have the freedom to line up in soup lines? Is that what you are telling me Dismal?