I don't consider FDR to have been a liberal in the classical sense of the word. Far from it. The classical liberal was concerned with individual freedom. In more recent times the word liberal started to be used more for people who were concerned with equality through redistributionism and a more narrowly constrained version of liberty (i.e., "civil" liberties.) Now, as the people we used to call liberals abandon free speech, due process, etc, I think it best not to use the word at all. Fortunately, in this case, I think it's largely irrelevant. I don't see how banning free lunches for noble employees to benefit greedy business owners is consistent with any current or historical use of the word "liberal". Except yours, of course. I agree it is meddling.
-
Features
San Francisco looks to ban free lunch at tech companies
- Thread starter dismal
- Start date
I don't consider FDR to have been a liberal in the classical sense of the word. Far from it. The classical liberal was concerned with individual freedom. In more recent times the word liberal started to be used more for people who were concerned with equality through redistributionism and a more narrowly constrained version of liberty (i.e., "civil" liberties.) Now, as the people we used to call liberals abandon free speech, due process, etc, I think it best not to use the word at all. Fortunately, in this case, I think it's largely irrelevant. I don't see how banning free lunches for noble employees to benefit greedy business owners is consistent with any current or historical use of the word "liberal". Except yours, of course. I agree it is meddling.
Yeah. It's a form of compensation, a case could be made to add it to income. I can't see any other justification, though. This is just anti-elite crap.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Nonsense.
They would only put such a condition into the agreements if they foresaw the company acting to prevent the normal natural consequences that would benefit the existing community. It is a rather uncommon and new thing for companies to create self-contained communities where there is no need or incentive for employees to spend money on the existing business in the town they work. And unless a company does such a thing, then the natural consequence of bringing new workers into an area would be to increase spending at the existing businesses. Your argument amounts to saying that if the government expects the employees of the new company not to rape local townspeople, then they would put that specifically into the tax break contract. Basic things like that are just assumed. What this situation illustrates is that companies getting these tax breaks are now acting in ways that make such assumptions about benefits to existing businesses invalid.
Why are you avoiding the simple question of whether you oppose tax breaks? You claim the central principle that makes this proposed law a problem is that it is "government helping some businesses over others". Thus, it is highly relevant that many of the companies that would be impact by laws like the one proposed are getting tax breaks, because tax breaks are an extreme example of this problem.
phands
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,976
- Location
- New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
- Basic Beliefs
- Hardcore Atheist
It'll never happen. I lived and worked in SFO for Google and other tech companies....they will never stand for it. Too many companies will scream, and the politicians in SFO depend on them.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Even if they're grandfathered in?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
So using work time to drink work coffee while complaining about removing free stuff justifies a sarcastic sentence?
fast
Contributor
I would be against the ban but without invoking anger at the tax breaks. That's a different issue. Bringing jobs to the community is of a higher pressing prioritizing concern with benefit to the community with the influx of dollars still being a concern but not to the extent it's being made out to be. It seems highly unlikely that no one is spending money in the community, even if fewer food businesses are reaping the rewards they might otherwise have.
As far as the business providing free lunches, then more power to them. In fact, even if one wants to assess their activity as not helpful to local food shops uniformly, so long as it's not against the law, I'm okay with that. I also have great qualms with people's strange predilection to confuse, conflate, and contort "not helping" with "harming."
If I take my business from you and give it to someone else, it may have a negative effect; hell, it may have an overall negative effect, but unless there's a legal obligation to help ensure that some concentrated local businesses are protected from others legally following the law, i'd be hard pressed to scream foul.
If this wrongful ban is passed, it'll be just another thing for others to contend with, and when things are done wrongly, lofty as their reasons might be, I won't be shedding any tears when such cases become the straw that breaks the camels back and large businessness that bring paychecks to people and families say screw you to the townships that would dare infringe upon people's freedom to shrewdly interact within the boundaries of the established ordinances and laws.
As far as the business providing free lunches, then more power to them. In fact, even if one wants to assess their activity as not helpful to local food shops uniformly, so long as it's not against the law, I'm okay with that. I also have great qualms with people's strange predilection to confuse, conflate, and contort "not helping" with "harming."
If I take my business from you and give it to someone else, it may have a negative effect; hell, it may have an overall negative effect, but unless there's a legal obligation to help ensure that some concentrated local businesses are protected from others legally following the law, i'd be hard pressed to scream foul.
If this wrongful ban is passed, it'll be just another thing for others to contend with, and when things are done wrongly, lofty as their reasons might be, I won't be shedding any tears when such cases become the straw that breaks the camels back and large businessness that bring paychecks to people and families say screw you to the townships that would dare infringe upon people's freedom to shrewdly interact within the boundaries of the established ordinances and laws.
crazyfingers
Meow
Seems like a stupid bill. Will probaby die. It's particulary stupid to ban company cafarerias, free or not. Let the people who want to save time to use it. Let those who want to go out do that. I've only worked in relatively small office buildings but if there was a caf, i'd probably have used it frequently provided the food was fine.
It all reminds me though of my trips to Japan. To Canon Inc's headquarters in Tokyo in particular. They probably have on the order of 10,000 people working at that campus. They have company cafaterias. Floor go down on a schedule to keep the lines in order. They pay but most people use the caf. 10,000 people flooding the streets for lunch would overwhelm the local neighborhoods.
Every time I've been there for lunch, like 20 times now at least, we go to a special reserved room with our hosts. And we pay for lunch for our hosts too. Things are different in Japan.
It all reminds me though of my trips to Japan. To Canon Inc's headquarters in Tokyo in particular. They probably have on the order of 10,000 people working at that campus. They have company cafaterias. Floor go down on a schedule to keep the lines in order. They pay but most people use the caf. 10,000 people flooding the streets for lunch would overwhelm the local neighborhoods.
Every time I've been there for lunch, like 20 times now at least, we go to a special reserved room with our hosts. And we pay for lunch for our hosts too. Things are different in Japan.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,975
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
I wonder if those 2 idiots (legislators?) get free lunches provide for them?
Can't help thinking they are jealous and want to make sure that others cannot have what they do not have.
Can't help thinking they are jealous and want to make sure that others cannot have what they do not have.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
But meddling is exactly the same thing as regulation. And regulation is exactly what the liberals generally want for business and what the consevatives generally dont want. Take the environment for example. Is it the liberals or the conservatives who believe in climate change? Is it the liberals or is it the conservatives who want to regulate (meddle) with business to reduced pollution to the environment?
Do you think Ronald Reagan was a liberal? You must if you think that he generally wanted to act like San Fransisco with more power to government. Reagan was the person who famously said "more government is not part of the solution but part of the problem"
But the fact you are confused what a liberal really is makes no difference anyway. Its irrelevant to the original point I made (and you have ignored). That a red location like Mississippi is generally unsuccessful compared to a blue location like San Francisco. We can argue all day whether we agree San Francisco is a liberal or conservative government . But what you can not deny is that blue San Francisco is more successful than red Mississippi. The same red Mississippi that meddles less with business.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
They bring a bag lunch.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
So Hoover was the liberal?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Doesn't have to be all that good to be competitive.
I can walk a distance to the caf, and bring food back to my desk, and surf the net during my lunch 1/2 hour, OR I can go three times the distance to the gate, another distance unit to my car, drive someplace, lunch, drive back, probably lose my 0640 parking space to end up in the Outer Darkness parking, and return...
It can be a little worse and a little more expensive, and still be more attractive than going to Wendy's, if only because of the parking shuffle...
Might be time to up the meds.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
What ever improves your use of free work resources.
Let's hope not. Bag lunches have got to be more of a scourge on the economy than free cafeterias. They should obviously be banned too.
Zing, wow, you got me on the whole drinking free work coffee thing. Twice. Such a powerful line of personal attack because it's true.
Thankfully I didn't mention the free work diet cokes and open myself up for your withering criticism on that front.
It's easy to paint this as an overbearing government trying to tell business what to do, when it's actually a particular segment of business getting government to favor its business model over that of another business.
Does anyone really believe a City Supervisor thought this up on their own?
Based on some of the articles there is a a restaurant lobbying group involved and they appear to be leveraging a climate of resentment against tech companies.
I found it somewhat amusing that the headline even says "looks to ban free lunch at tech companies". Not free lunch in general.