The solution to poor people not having enough money is to give them more money (if you really want to help them).
It's not to make random consumer goods like parking free for all. If you do this, most of the goods will be used by people who are not poor, so it's very inefficient at helping you achieve your goal of helping poor people.
In addition, many poor people won't want the thing you are making free. In the case of parking that could be because they don't own a car, so this plan doesn't help a portion of the population you are trying to help. Even more inefficient!
When people think we should have free parking to help the poor, it's mostly just status quo bias at work. Most people would never say that we should make bread free. Or that we should make milk free. Parking isn't any different.
I know this probably doesn't add a lot to the conversation but for me it articulated and cleared some inconsistencies I was failing to square up in my mind. So, nice, thanks. Do you have any books or articles that helped you in your analysis, I wonder?
>If you do this, most of the goods will be used by people who are not poor,
Why does it seem as though some people believe there is an infinite supply of rich people?
Income disparity is so great that the cost of parking is irrelevant to the mythical army of rich people waiting off to the side for parking prices to come down.
I'm not even in the 99%, I'm in the 97% and I don't give a fuck about parking. I'm driving downtown to buy a $600 Barbour jacket from Orvis. I don't care about $20 for parking and I'm not coming downtown more often if parking is $0.
>Most people would never say that we should make bread free. Or that we should make milk free.
If you are poor milk and bread should 100% be free.
Support for SNAP (food stamps) routinely and consistently polls at >70%.
People who assert what you just did are in the extreme minority.
SNAP doesn't make food free in the sense of free parking, it gives money to poor people to buy food. The equivalent for parking would be market-rate parking with means-tested parking vouchers, which would be a much, much better solution than what we have now.
You're missing the trade-off between time and money (and how it differs based on wealth).
"Free for all" parking spaces allow you to trade your time (hunting a spot) for parking, the same way coupon-clipping trades time for a discount on food.
You can say "eliminate coupons, all food should be at market price", but coupons really are an effective way of helping people. They segment the market by being too time-consuming for wealthy people to bother with, and are a job for people who don't have a higher-paying one.
You can trade your time for goods, but others might trade money for time. Something to think about maybe.
Free Shakespeare in the Park is a New York City civic tradition dating back to the 1950s. It is, as the name suggests, free to the public, but because Central Park’s Delacorte Theater has a finite number of seats, tickets are given out on a first come, first served basis. Some folks, who either can’t or don’t want to stand in line to get tickets, have taken to employing line-standers to do the waiting for them. According to Sandel, the price for a line-stander in 2010 was “as much as $125 per ticket for the free performances”
That's not why coupons exist, though, it's just a side effect. If coupons didn't exist and your goal was to help poor people eat, coupons would be a weird way to do it.
Why is it weird? It's a lot like the 10c can and bottle levy. Ostensibly for recycling, but also gives homeless people a job. Sneaks under the radar of regular-sized market forces, and gives them some agency in their lives.
It’s pretty badly targeted. Lots of poor people don’t have much time, and lots of better off people have lots of time and enjoy things like screwing around with coupons to get a discount. It also doesn’t do much for extreme poverty. If you have no money, it doesn’t matter if you can get a coupon for half off a loaf of bread or whatever, you still can’t afford it. So you end up giving more help to people who need it less.
If you want to help poor people buy food, give them money to buy food.
Would argue for getting rid of SNAP and replacing it with a convoluted system where poor people could get free food but they had to spend hours hunting for just the right coupons to exchange? I would hope not. It might help the poor, but would be a really crappy way of doing so.
Free parking certainly might help the poor a teensy bit. But it's an incredibly bad way of doing so that comes with all kind of other bad side effects.
If helping the poor is our goal, that is not a good way of doing so. You're better off charging a market rate for parking and then taking that money and giving it to poor people.
> Would argue for getting rid of SNAP and replacing it with a convoluted system where poor people could get free food but they had to spend hours hunting for just the right coupons to exchange?
That makes a lot of sense, but (mostly conservative) politicians still criticize many innovations because of their supposed effect on the (more or less) poor. Recent example: the 2023 reform of the Gebäudeenergiegesetz (Building Energy Law) in Germany, which sought to promote energy efficient ways of heating and decrease heating using fossil fuels, was met with furious opposition (including a lot of disinformation) from the conservative press and parties because of the poor poor building owners who can't afford a heat pump (which is more expensive to install, but already has much lower operating costs, which are likely to become comparatively even better in the future).
> Homeownership rate over time has moved around within a fairly narrow range.
I don't think your graph says what you think it says.
The graph shows a time series of the rate of homes which are owner-occupied to those that aren't. When the average Joe buys a house, they tend to stick with it for life. However, the graph you linked clearly shows this rate plummeting from 2004 to 2016, with the nosedive amounting to around 6%.
This means that in a short span of a decade, the amount of home owners living in their own home dropped 10%.
You have a small spike around 2020 which I bet was caused by WFO allowing people to live in places cheap enough that they could finally afford their home, but that stagnated already.
Also, it's interesting how such a meteoric drop happens in an indicator that tracks home ownership, which is something people do for life. You need a very radical change in the people's ability to afford a house to see so many people stop affording them in such a quick timespan.
Brockman is off the board but not fired. Which is weird right? You'd think if he was involved in whatever the really bad thing is then he would be fired.
No, that sort of thing isn't that weird, in relatively young companies. Think of when Eric Schmidt was CEO of Google. Larry Page and Sergei Brin reported to him as employees of Google, and he (as CEO of Google) reported to himself-and-also-them (as the board), and all of them (as the board) reported to Larry and Sergei (as majority owners).
For another example, imagine if OpenAI had never been a non-profit, and look at the board yesterday. You'd have had Ilya reporting to Sam (as employees), while Sam reports to Ilya (with Ilya as one member of the board, and probably a major stakeholder).
Now, when it gets hostile, those loops might get pretty weird. When things get hostile, you maybe modify reporting structures so the loops go away, so that people can maintain sane boundaries and still get work done (or gracefully exit, who knows).
Median household income on its own is an irrelevant fact. It is only relevant in context of median household expenses. By the fact that household debt has never been higher, I think my point stands - even people earning $70k/year are living hand to mouth because their expenses have risen to $69,500/year, if not higher.
1) Note that I indicated that the 20% increase was a real increase and not a nominal one. That means that to the extent that household expenses have increased, it's because households are using their newfound wealth to purchase more/better stuff! That's not a hollowing out of the middle class, that's a prospering one.
2) Household debt has declined significantly over the past 15 years:
> - Companies aren't required to pay severance when doing layoffs.
The WARN act requires advance notice of 60 days. I think most companies prefer to pay severance, but it's pretty much equivalent. California has more strict rules (mostly excluding a bunch of excuses to skip complying).
So yes, Stripe would technically not be required to give severance in the case of a layoff. But they'd be required to keep the people employed for 60 days after telling them they're going to be laid off. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction?
I'd be surprised if they did a meaningful staff reduction without hitting 50 employees at their main office in south SF. A 5% reduction (alleged in the tweet) is something like 400 people for Stripe.
Furthermore, the DOL has already described what this means for employees without a clear single site:
> a home base from which work is assigned
> a home base to which workers report
Which arguably will make it worse for a remote team, because all the remote workers may count towards the main hub. This is all vague though, I think there are colorable arguments either way.
Fair point about Canadian law being different than US law. For the < 5% of Stripe employees there, that does appear to be true. Though I would again point to my 2nd bullet point:
- There is no evidence that Stripe isn't paying severance when firing for performance (I'd be shocked if they aren't)
Stripe operates a single office in Toronto, Canada. No one would be qualified for severance since severance is only eligible after 5 years of employment and Stripe's office has only been open for 2 years.
That’s a feature, not a bug. If we all had the same number one ; then things would not be loaded anything close to evenly. There is some command to find out what the unique ID number is for your particular zones with your naming.
Clarification: 1/3 of sites will go down (those using the AZ that went offline), but my point is the same. Most companies aren't using multiple AZs, let alone multiple regions.
It's not to make random consumer goods like parking free for all. If you do this, most of the goods will be used by people who are not poor, so it's very inefficient at helping you achieve your goal of helping poor people.
In addition, many poor people won't want the thing you are making free. In the case of parking that could be because they don't own a car, so this plan doesn't help a portion of the population you are trying to help. Even more inefficient!
When people think we should have free parking to help the poor, it's mostly just status quo bias at work. Most people would never say that we should make bread free. Or that we should make milk free. Parking isn't any different.