San Francisco Officials to Tech Workers: Buy Your Lunch | Hacker News Reader

San Francisco Officials to Tech Workers: Buy Your Lunch

nytimes.com

82 pointssciurus119 comments

Open articleView on HN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17619658

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17621174

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17613614

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17611770

Sorry! I'd missed the previous discussion on businessinsider.

SF should ban private cars, because it deprives public and commercial transportation of customers.

SF should ban owning your own apartment, because it deprives landlords of rent.

SF should ban e-commerce purchases, because it deprives local retail stores of sales.

SF should ban cleaning your own home, because cleaning companies need more business.

Exactly this. This is the beginning of a nanny city. I’m hoping Breed nixes this in the bud.

Telling people where to get their sustenance is really a bad start. Bad policy.

The irony is San Francisco is considered a 'liberal' city, but "ban this, ban that" attitude is quite conservative/reactionary and not liberal at all

San Francisco liberals are not liberal in the sense of promoting liberty. "Leftist" would be more accurate. In fact in America, neither the mainstream left nor the mainstream right is particularly liberal: both want things to stay more or less the same and are afraid of change, both are conservative in that sense.

I know you're joking but this is CA we're talking about. Everything's fair game for a ban. If you saw a headline that says "Sen. Fienstien calls for ban on water guns" it's a legitimate tossup as to whether it's satire or legit. Banning things is kind of their specialty.

And of course she'll be allowed to have water guns because she's a senator and therefore above our mortal notions of "law".

She doesn't have to have water guns because she can afford to hire people to spray water at other people for her.

But don't forget that free trade and efficient markets are the cornerstone of the American way, and protectionism is tantamount to economic suicide (only when discussing Trump's tariffs).

I see where you’re coming from, but all of these are standard things done in a way or another for the public good. But always in a partial manner, not in the absolutes you mention.

> ban private cars

The standard move is to retire parking lots, increase tax on car ownership in a variety of ways. That helps finance reworking the streets, building better infra.

> ban owning your appartment

You get zoning laws.

> e-commerce purchases

Local tax on online goods.

> cleaning your own home

Shoet of cleaning, the city can impose landscaping standards and mandate registered companies for dealing with building maintenance and architecture change.

That’s the contract you have for living in a society; giving up a fair amount of control in exchange of a community.

From Bastiat's classic candlemakers' petition against the sun:

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

SF should ban continental breakfasts. If you're staying at a hotel and they provide breakfast, we're depriving local businesses of the opportunity to serve them.

So, two things:

1. This proposal is for all new offices, which as usual, creates an amazing unfair advantage to established companies. The old companies will have an old office that can offer the perk of free lunch, whereas new companies cannot.

2. I have yet to go into some random restaurant and not have to wait an absurd amount of time in line. This city constantly feels like it does not have nearly enough restaurant or activity capacity, everything is just constantly crowded, all the time. So now I guess we will exacerbate that artificially? Lunch times will take 1.5x as long without any actual enjoyment from the extra time since it will just be spent waiting around in line for (probably) unhealthy food.

I think 1 is more of the prime motivator rather than driving business to the nearby shops.

This gives existing companies that extra perk because if you work for them, you won't have to deal with 2.

1. Why is it such an 'amazing unfair advantage' to be able to offer 'free' lunch to your employees? Because the lunch is not really free, it is paid indirectly from the salary of the employee; new companies can simply offer more salary instead.

2. Can't companies simply order lunch for their employees? Or pay a third party to serve lunches for their employees in a company canteen?

> pay a third party to serve lunches for their employees in a company canteen

That's what happens today that they want to ban.

1. By taking a lower salary in exchange for lunches, you indirectly save on food expenses during the day. Additionally, you could save large amounts of money on taxes.

2. They could and probably do already, however that doesn't get citizens into local restaurants, which is what I'm assuming is this law's goal.

1. Free lunch may not be free but while it may cost $X for the company to offer that lunch and while they may deduct that $X from my salary, the value of that lunch to me is not $X but, say, 10 x $X because it saves me time going to and searching for places to eat, waiting in line, waiting for meal to be prepared, paying more per meal, including the tip...etc

2. Sure, they can. For example, Google will hire "Totally Unrelated To Google, Catering Inc".

If someone joins a company solely because of free lunch then I would venture to say that's not an employee you want. Salesforce has never offered free lunch and continues to be voted as "the best place to work." The employees are incredibly happy and love the culture / leadership.

You can also order catered lunch to an office.

(I am an ex Salesforce employee)

I doubt anyone joins a company solely because of free lunch, but I'm sure it's one of many important factors in an area with a ridiculously-high cost of living.

This "solution" seems like a combination of regulatory capture by local restaurants that want to avoid competing, and the usual SF Supervisor cravenness / refusal to deal with the root cause of the issue. The restaurants mentioned in the article (Udon place under 1455 Market and The Market) are both expensive and mediocre, which is no recipe for success. Instead of attracting customers through serving a better product, they are trying to eliminate competition.

Around my office in SoMa by Montgomery, there are numerous thriving lunch places. The Bird, an affordable fried chicken sandwich spot, has 40 people lined up outside every weekday, because it is delicious, cheap, and fast. There are plenty of other examples.

The quantity of open air drug use, sales, and other low-level criminality around Civic Center is shocking - it's not an area where you want to spend more time than absolutely necessary. The same group of heroin & crack dealers do business at the top of the BART steps every single day, and the police do nothing about it. The city needs to deal with that first. Perhaps they can spend some of the tremendous tax revenues coming from tech companies, tech workers, and local restaurants on solving that issue.

More people exposed to open air drug use and crappy restaurants puts more pressure on there being good restaurants and an end to open air drug use.

At the risk of being glib, how? You do not raise standards by reducing competition.

You’re not reducing competition, you’re increasing profit margins and supply of customers. The market incentivizes more competition to reduce profit margins.

The irony is that while the Bay area is screaming for globalization and free trade, against rising nationalistic trends, city-level protectionism is the norm now and only expanding.

> Two San Francisco supervisors introduced an ordinance last week that would forbid employee cafeterias in new corporate construction.

Yeah, we could use some more traffic and pollution from everyone driving 10 miles for lunch.

As a progressive liberal, california democrats confuse me all the time.

This is not Scranton, Pennsylvania no one drives 10 miles for lunch in San Francisco, city is only 7 miles wide

You could drive diagonally across town. What if I work in SOMA and want to have lunch in Park Merced?

Hope you can get away with taking 3 hours for lunch

You eat in SOMA, I guess. I'm not familiar with San Fransisco, but is it an area with no restaurants or cafeterias?

Yes, there are plenty of restaurants in SOMA. Eating there is a much better plan than traveling the maximum distance while staying in San Francisco.

Now I'm not defending SF officials here, but c'mon. This is San Francisco we're talking about - there are restaurants aplenty within walking distance of most tech offices.

True, but Mountain View implemented the same ban for Facebook.

Again, the Mountain View ban is for a one particular location which has lot of restaurants in the complex. Search for The Village, Mountain View. There are a lot of things wrong with these bans but having to drive to restaurants in not one of them.

(no way in favor of the ban, I like my free lunch very much)

Yes. In the middle of a shopping area https://goo.gl/maps/5AC7tTfhNvs surrounded by lots of food choices with a Safeway, Trader Joe's, Milk Pail and Walmart all within a 3 minute walk!

If all cafeterias were immediately closed I imagine the lines would be insufferable.

I've seen a few comments in this thread from people who seem to be arguing that every employee who would otherwise get a free lunch at work would suddenly be flocking to the streets.

First, this doesn't eliminate existing cafeterias, it just bans new ones. Second, cafeterias exist for two reasons - pricing and convenience. If, as you hypothesize, cafeterias closed (which is not what's happening here) and everyone was forced to find other options, I would imagine that a good portion of these people would opt to bring their own lunch from home, for those same two reasons - pricing and convenience. After all, why spend 40 minutes in line for a $15 lunch when you can make a damn good one at home for ~$6 and eat it virtually whenever you'd like?

Disclaimer: I do not support the city's decision here, but I also don't think it's as big of a travesty as people are making it out to be.

Not necessarily supporting this motion, but it would cause no one to drive to lunch. There are dozens of good options within a block or two of most tech companies in the city. It would probably cause an uptick in Uber Eats, Grubhub, Eat24 orders though.

In mid-market? There is no where near the capacity in local restaurants to support Uber/Twitter/etc dumping all their employees out. There is the Burger King that plays classical music I suppose...

Companies wouldn't be required to "[dump] all their employees out" at lunch. Plenty of people bring their own lunches to work every day, so it's incorrect to assume that every office-based employee would be simultaneously hitting the streets for food.

Next Headline: "SF Residents Frustrated with Traffic From Big Tech Lunch Outings"

Subsequent Headline: "San Francisco Officials Require Tech Companies to Use Postmates"

At some point, San Francisco needs to accept what it's allowed itself to become. I've no affinity for tech companies or Silicon Valley, but if it wasn't for the wealth tech companies, nobody would want to go to San Francisco and it'd be a wasteland. I've never seen more feces or smelled more piss in a single area in any other city. If tech moved out, we'd be hearing about complaints about how "if only big tech invested in poor SF neighborhoods."

You mean SF wouldn't be an iconic West Coast City for 100 years if tech moved out ?

It'd still be iconic and garner tourism, but in an economic sense, it'd be a shadow of its 20th century self. Nearby cities like Oakland would be even worse off as a result. Housing would be much cheaper, but the city wouldn't be as bustling or generating that much wealth.

Again, I'm not defending tech companies, but San Francisco seems to lack a ton of foresight into the potential side effects of its decisions; its actions seem mostly reactive rather than proactive.

This won't even solve the problem they're trying to solve. These companies will just order catered lunches. So now you'll have extra traffic in the morning for the extra food deliveries, and the tech workers still won't go outside.

The anecdotal example of a local restaurant seeing a big uptick in business on the day a cafeteria is closed seems to suggest you might be wrong!

Every workplace I've had in SV where we had catered lunches, people were pretty likely to walk a few blocks for a meal instead. It wasn't like working at a place with a cafeteria since you were being offered a choice of 1-2 catered items instead of a huge cafeteria menu.

Presumably if this was a permanent rule, rather than a temporary issue like the cafeteria being closed, the company would bring in more variety in catered food.

Do people really think that providing free catered food is in any way, shape, or form the norm (much less an expectation) for companies--even those in urban locations employing well-paid professional workers?

I am familiar with one medium-sized tech company in downtown Mountain View, which used to provide catered lunches from individual restaurants three days of the week, and now uses the EAT Club service three days of the week instead.

That's my reaction but I've actually asked this question of some people who work in the Bay Area and been told it's table stakes in a lot of cases. Hard for me to comprehend and anecdotal, but there you are.

But was that closed cafeteria replaced with catered lunch or with nothing? If they company pays for the catered lunch then you won't see the uptick.

I too have anecdotal evidence -- when reddit moved and no longer had access to a kitchen, they started bringing in catered meals, and pretty much everyone just stuck around for lunch.

Why should we prefer that we support people who work at restaurants vs people who work at tech company cafeterias?

That’s what this legislation is effectively doing.

The biggest issue here is the cost it takes to run a business like a restaurant in this city. It’s too damn high. Even right near Salesforce in Soma there is not really that great of a selection of food.. I wouldn’t blame tech for that. I would blame the city and it’s awful regressive anti-housing legislation that has driven up the costs of everything to near unsustainable levels.

Which is exactly the kind of bullshit that Aaron Peskin supports. Hes literally causing a problem, then trying to blame someone else for dealing with the fallout of that problem. Truly a terrible politician for most of the residents of this city.

> Why should we prefer that we support people who work at restaurants vs people who work at tech company cafeterias?

Because restaurants bring a lot of value to the city and area itself. Vibrant restaurant scenes are a key component of a city's atmosphere and an area's walkability.

Then the city should make it cheaper to own and operate restaurants and make the city less shitty to walk around in by cleaning up its streets of shit and syringes. A lot of these areas that have tech cafeterias are just plain awful to walk around in.

You can’t create a vibrant restaurant scene in these areas just by attempting to force people to eat lunch out at overpriced restaurants that aren’t even open on weekends

Sure it will!

Q: Where will those catered lunches come from?

A: Local businesses charge sales taxes on the catered food.

Just start a subsidiary company that just does catering.

Yeah but the caterers are all outside of SF because they can get warehouses and kitchens.

"Two San Francisco supervisors introduced an ordinance last week that would forbid employee cafeterias in new corporate construction."

In all the tech companies I've visited in the Bay Area (all <1000 employees, not the big campuses) they've only ever had kitchen areas and not cafeterias anyway. You can't ban kitchens or refrigerators, surely, so maybe larger campuses being built could just have more small kitchens local to the employee areas?

Also, if their goal is what they claim, why not just use the tax code by disallowing deductions for food and snacks? That'd stop many companies subsidizing lunch overnight.

> In all the tech companies I've visited in the Bay Area (all <1000 employees, not the big campuses) they've only ever had kitchen areas and not cafeterias anyway.

There's no point having a cafeteria (or even space to spare for it!) if it will only serve a couple hundred people.

> Open drug use is still common on the streets around Twitter’s headquarters.

This should be the first priority. If I can't get food from a cafeteria and this is the environment surrounding my office, then I'm just packing my lunch, which defeats the purpose of the ordinance.

It's a little naive to suggest that techies are all going to make lunches at home and bring them to work because of some needles on the street. Many techies don't even cook on a regular basis when they're at home.

Bringing food from home doesn't have to mean cooking.

Just buy some pre-cooked packaged food from the supermarket and bring that into the office.

(and specifically from the supermarket in whatever suburb you live in, not one that's in SF)

Or mail-order things like these:

https://www.mealsquares.com/

https://soylent.com/

I wonder if this ordinance will cause an uptick in their business.

Where Twitter is located is especially awful however.

I could really see something like France's "tickets restos" / meal voucher system benefitting everyone. Fitting for smaller companies who want to provide a perk w/out an on-site cafeteria, puts some money into the local economy, a little tax relief for employees who are normally buying food for lunch...

I'd love it if tech workers, as a protest, would use Uber Eats or Grubhub or Doordash to start buying food from national chain restaurants and having them delivered to the office en masse.

"OK, sure, we're buying our own food, but we're sending cars all over the roads at peak lunch hour, we're only buying food from large corporations that are headquartered out of state, and we're paying paying other tech companies to deliver. Local restaurants won't get a dime."

Uber and Doordash are both headquartered in San Francisco, are they not?

So is San Francisco actively trying to kill their golden goose?

Well the "Golden Goose" has been doing its best to kill San Francisco, so,

I saw an article about this where the author lamented that "SF has plenty of Michelin-star restaurants". Yeah, that's what I want for lunch, fancy restaurant food.

The last thing I'd want is to waste time going to restaurants, day after day. That's what, 30-40 min wasted every day? I could be spending that in the gym! I work with computers all day, every minute of exercise is precious.

It's cool to go out with coworkers and socialize sometimes, maybe once a week, but other than that I just want to gobble down the food and be done with it.

(I don't live in SF or US but I visit every now and then)

The rational provided for these measures is very indirect, and, as such, it almost ensures the interpretation that it is retaliatory. If the concern were truly "integrating" tech workers into the community, perhaps the city would move to provide building permits for large urban housing complexes. Employer owned cafeterias create service industry jobs and are likely more sustainable than catering (with take-out waste). The goal seems more to punish tech workers and compromise a significant benefit to their employment.

It's retaliation, yes, because these workplaces were supposed to bring benefits for their surrounding neighborhoods (and in some cases got tax breaks/etc on that basis) but they're actually bubbles that don't enrich the area very much while contributing to traffic (as employees commute in from far away).

The result of this nitpicking might end up being a bad middle ground in terms of the scope and efficacy of such a proposed regulation.

The knee-jerk response might be to argue against this based on exactly the non-blanket nature of such a policy (i.e. it does not apply to all companies with in-house cafeterias, tech or not, subsidized or not).

The more practical option that takes advantage of the same sliver of regulation is for a few high paid workers to simply incorporate their own eatery or buy out a midsized one and serve X tech company directly for a good rate. Business as usual, as it were.

This second option may seem malevolent but it doesn't skirt any existing business laws, and once they fine tune their selling points (menu, proximity to company, delivery, perks, billing, credit, etc) it wouldn't be infeasible for them to gain the full on contract with those edges over the existing mom+pop competition.

In a grand backfire someone then gets into a multi-branch cafeteria/catering business that just happens to have big tech as their only clients, etc.

At all the offices I've been to without cafeterias, most people end up just bringing lunch and eating at their desk on most days. The hassle and cost of going out for food isn't worth doing everyday, and it's hard to find healthy options other than salad. Because of this, the actual impact of this for local restaurants is probably ~20% of what the naive estimate would be.

There are dozens of solutions to this. City officials are never going to outsmart Google, et al.

My favorite, courtesy of Heinlein:

On each side of the door was a huge brass bowl — filled with money. More than filled — Federation notes of various denominations spilled out on the floor. He was staring at this when Patricia returned. “Here's your drink, Brother Ben. Grow close in Happiness.” “Uh, thanks.” His eyes returned to the money. She followed his glance. “I'm a sloppy housekeeper, Ben. Michael makes it so easy, cleaning and such, that I forget.” She retrieved the money, stuffed it into the less crowded bowl. “Patty, why in the world?” “Oh. We keep it here because this door leads to the street. If one of us is leaving the Nest — and I do, myself, almost every day for grocery shopping — we may need money. We keep it where you won't forget to take some.” “Just grab a handful and go?” “Why, yes, dear. Oh, I see what you mean. There is never anyone here but us.”

These people want workers to spend more time in line and less time with their family.

Workers are not going home to eat lunch with their family.

But they could spend time finishing work earlier instead of standing in-line for lunch?

Sorry, I think I'm missing something: did those employees bring family to the company cafeteria to eat with them?

They can finish lunch quicker and leave work earlier.

Sorry, I'm coming from the perspective that here in Italy you normally have one hour for lunch between 1 PM and 2 PM anyway.

Here in the USA there is no set time for lunch. I've found taking lunch in the office as opposed to spending extra time traveling to a restaurant and back lets me recharge in less time.

Most workplace cafeterias have lines too. Google's did unless you arrived late or early.

And webcams that show how long the line is. There's an art to waiting out the line but getting the entree before it runs out.

I worked at Amazon in FiDi for almost 2 years and we never had free lunch. It was all part of the "Frugality" core value but I never felt like it was that bad. My current job has lunch onsite and it is better from a productivity standpoint. I probably get 30 minutes to 1 hour more working in because our team doesn't have to do mental gymnastics of picking a restaurant and commuting there and back, but sometimes that's fun. That being said, there are other things San Francisco officials should prioritize over this.

A large amount of company provided free food is catered from local restaurants. I suspect this will cause a decrease in net business because many people will just bring their own lunch instead of eating the free food that the company paid for.

For most food-service workers, working in a cafeteria preparing food is generally much better than doing the same job in a restaurant.

Other than virtue signaling about how much they love local business and small business (this happens on both sides of the isle) what does this accomplish?

What makes these people think this is a good idea?

This is a prime example of how lobbying will favor a very visible small group of people and slightly disadvantage everyone else.

In the end, when you calculate the economic value of the advantage to the restaurant and the economic loss for everyone else (worker's time, benefit to the company, etc etc), this is a net loss in the system.

An additional related article, from today: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-proposed-em...

And when employees bring their lunch to work?

Will they ban bagged lunches?

This is defying logic.

I want to know what restaurants are paying off what politicians.

Watch the next ban be on home kitchens- ha!

The bigger issue politicians should be addressing is an adequate housing supply.

High rent depletes any surplus income that otherwise would be spent eating out at restaurants.

Petition to ban kitchens from the houses of San Francisco Supervisors:

https://www.change.org/p/san-francisco-government-ban-kitche...

Context:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/07/30/links-7-18-url-mountain...

"Two San Francisco supervisors move to ban free workplace cafeterias, obviously directed at tech firms. They argue free cafeterias are denying business to local restaurants and (as per Supervisor Peskin) “depriving [techies] the pleasure of mingling with the rest of The City”, which is impossible for me to read in anything other than a cloying sarcastic bully voice. @theunitofcaring has a typically thoughtful and compassionate take on this. I am less thoughtful and compassionate and my take is wanting to start a petition to ban San Francisco City Supervisors from having kitchens in their house. It’s literally stealing from the restaurant industry! [EDIT: Commenter “Jeltz” has made the petition]."

Taxing these workers isn’t enough?! Now CA wants to mandate where they eat? Hard pass.

With some restaurants apparently giving up on waitstaff, I guess people can now put more work in their lunch hour serving themselves.

I really do hope those serverless restaurants are cheaper, because otherwise, what’s the point?

People who have more experience navigating SF politics than I do:

What's the most effective thing readers of this thread can do to make sure this doesn't pass?

call your supervisor and tell them to vote no, I did it, if you don't know who your supervisor is, look here to find your district:

http://www.sfmoderates.org/district-maps/

then google search for "district N supervisor san francisco" and they will have contact info

The tech companies had no problem taking the tax breaks. Twitter pitched the benefits to SF as revitalizing an area of the city. Twitter, et. al. didn't deliver on their end of the deal.

I see this as a renegotiation of the deal when one party (SF) has realized that they are getting shafted.

Twitter, Uber, etc can always leave if they have a problem.

Everyone else that works in SF has to pay for their lunch on lower salaries. If the lunch cost is so unreasonable - bring a microwaveable meal or leftovers from last night.

I really don't get why anyone is acting like this is so horrible.

Mid market has come a long way from 10 years ago when it was a coin flip whether or not you'd be a crime victim going there.

Because (as someone entirely uninvolved) it looks like an absurd bit of overreach, something akin to mandating that locally-sourced toilet paper be used at all businesses in the city.

Go right ahead, but don't mind a bit of sensible chuckling elsewhere in the country.

Just bring a lunch from home! problem solved.

Stop telling people how to eat lunch.

> I really don't get why anyone is acting like this is so horrible.

For me... it's not really about the cost. It's about the time and convenience, and having healthy options.

If I have back to back meetings or a deadline, I can grab and eat lunch from an employer cafeteria in 10-15 minutes. If I have to go out to a restaurant, I'm going to be gone for 30-60 minutes.

Instead, I'd just end up bringing lunch from home. But I can't cook as well as the cafeteria staff, so I'd probably end up bringing in something pre-packaged that's not as healthy. But I sure as heck wouldn't be going to outside restaurants on a regular basis.

That said... the employer provided meals are part of the compensation package for these jobs. So while I don't mind paying for food, salaries would have to adjust to compensate for a lost perk to stay competitive.

And on top of that, it just feels like legislative overreach, without clear benefit, that's just going to make SF even less competitive for tech companies.

> Everyone else that works in SF has to pay for their lunch on lower salaries.

Keep in mind not everyone in tech companies is on a senior engineer's salary. There are lots of lower paid positions.

I enjoy the example of Kagawa-ya Udon. I've been there and it has nothing to do with free food. Their udon is just not that great.

This protects restaurant owners and some cashier jobs. Maybe cooks and other workers would be better off working for tech companies?

There are more important priorities for the SF Supervisors’ time and the law could cause more harm than good (unintended consequences).

More important priorities would be the ones mentioned in the article: the conditions of the street.

Possible unintended consequences: tech company cafeteria workers suffer, people bring food from home, tech companies choose to locate elsewhere, among many others.

> “These tech companies have decided to leave their suburban campuses because their employees want to be in the city, and yet the irony is, they come to the city and are creating isolated, walled-off campuses,” said Aaron Peskin, a city supervisor who is co-sponsoring the bill with Ahsha Safaí. “This is not against these folks, it’s for them. It’s to integrate them into the community.”

So, app developers face the difficulty of having high wages but higher costs, and in every single direction, greedy people are trying to get every dime out of them. I mean $3,258 for 1-bedroom apartments is outrageous! And now, while they're trying to cut some of the few costs they have control over (food), the local government is openly and brazenly trying to force them to spend more money on local lunch shops? Didn't we just read a few months ago about a high profile developer who lives in his car because he can't afford rent? Capitalism with rules that favor greed is pure evil. I'm all for looking for ways to monetize, but you're literally stealing from people living out of their cars.

Virtue signaling on non issues is much easier than dealing with the sea of shit and needles on the sidewalks.

Who would benefit from this?

Only the restaurant owners that believe they have earned business by simply opening shop in the area.

Hopefully companies find a workaround or people start packing though.

If you didn't realize it, you've also been hellbanned for awhile. I had to vouch for this comment to show.

Yes, HN is not exactly subtle about it. But there's not much I can do

I've seen arguments that some believe techies are becoming the new societal "elites," and that on-site cafeterias reinforce the divide between elite techies and the rest of society.

To me this seems like yet another poorly thought-out and aspirational gesture with minimal practical effect, but this is San Francisco.

Hahaha, the small town capitalists are fighting the international monopolists and the workers everywhere lose.

I'm of two minds on this.

1) There's no obligation for anybody to integrate with the community around them and forcing them to is absurd, especially with the bigger problems San Francisco faces

2) I fucking hate the people that get free food in SF because they think they're better than me and I would absolutely love to see them suffer in the most petty ways possible. I think this hits the optimal level of annoying.

> because they think they're better than me and I would absolutely love to see them suffer in the most petty ways possible

Why do you hate them so much? They work at a company that provides them a free perk. There's nothing here about thinking they're better than you.

> There's nothing here about thinking they're better than you.

I can guarantee that most people at Facebook, Google, etc. look down on people with my pedigree and employer.

I think you're projecting–unless you job is doing something unethical?

Well no.

But I do make 80% or less of what they make out of school.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com