We provide a wealth safety net to insure against large loss of capital, think TARP, so then some portion of benefits from large increases should also be shared.
It is unfair to ask a country to socialize your losses, but not benefit from your wins.
337 karma · joined April 30, 2010
It is unfair to ask a country to socialize your losses, but not benefit from your wins.
Tesla and Alameda County agreed to a plan to re-open on May 18th.
Elon Musk should have stuck with that plan. Now he has increased the odds of his employees catching a deadly virus, getting the factory shutdown for longer, all while putting the company at increased legal risk.
Of course, taxi drivers are employees of taxi companies. What other industry are the primary workers not considered employees?
This is not true of my 32 bit apps.
For some reason people were still releasing 32 bit apps as late as this year. Maybe it was because Apple didn't warn users about this until Mojave was released, which was barely a year ago.
Apple orchestrated a much smoother transition from OS 9 to OS X and RISC to x84 than from 32bit to 64bit.
This law is not targeted at SF per-se because SF already has strong rental protections, this law offers the bare minimum of protection for everyone in the state. The bay area should, and must, pass stronger protections than this statewide law.
This under provision is not because building new homes isn't profitable, it is because realtors, landlords and homeowners are actively blocking new supply in order to extract above market rents from desperate people.
Adding a rent cap of MORE THAN DOUBLE inflation will have no affect on supply, it is ridiculously profitable to rent out your property right now.
CA would have to do something like cap rents at less than $500 per bedroom before profit margins would affect supply.
Lack of profit incentives is NOT what is blocking housing construction in CA right now.
This very minor, way above inflation, rent cap will not affect housing supply.
Take your "I've got mine so screw everyone else" attitude out of the bay area, we don't have room here for people with so little empathy for their neighbors.
When school is over your kids walk safely back home by themselves because there aren't cars out there threatening their lives.
This sounds way less stressful than your kids being dependent on you and your car for everything they need.
This is an abuse of market position in one market to expand in another, and has a long term negative effect on the health of the industry if only the large players that own the ecosystem can profit from it.
You can argue it is unethical to build tech for the military. But you have a really broad definition of unethical if it includes improving a product so the default is what most users want, and you need to adjust some things to make it the way you want.
People come to SF to visit the attractions at the high density parts e.g fisherman's wharf, union square, chinatown, ghirardelli square, coit tower, etc.
Look at a standard tourist map of SF: https://www.sftodo.com/sanfrancisco/wp-content/uploads/2018/...
No one comes to SF to visit the vast tracts of suburbia in the sunset: https://goo.gl/maps/p91HMQTcXBQ2
Many companies, like Uber, have a hostile work environment for 50% of the workforce, and that is bad for everyone!
If you are not a target of the hostility, and you want to think about it selfishly, We are losing out on millions of our best minds until we solve this.
Visit Switzerland and you'll see that it is superfluous to build all this expensive infrastructure just to stick your personal car on a train.
Riding in a train is bigger, way more comfortable, and much cheaper.
As to your other points, I'll refer you to my original post.