San Francisco looks to ban free lunch at tech companies

[dismal]

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.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Interesting. Something I never thought about.

I recently stayed in Shenandoah National Park for a few nights. I learned that 100 years ago when people lived there and when the wealthy stayed at lodges and resorts, that everyone had to eat in a common area. Kitchens were not even built into homes simply because people were made to mingle with the masses.

So it isn't like there is no precedent for this kind of thinking.

 

[dismal]

Interesting. Something I never thought about.

I recently stayed in Shenandoah National Park for a few nights. I learned that 100 years ago when people lived there and when the wealthy stayed at lodges and resorts, that everyone had to eat in a common area. Kitchens were not even built into homes simply because people were made to mingle with the masses.

So it isn't like there is no precedent for this kind of thinking.

Seems like there would be more masses at a big company cafeteria than at a local Subway.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

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),

San Francisco Supervisors Ahsha Safai and Aaron Peskin introduced legislation Tuesday prohibiting in-house cafeterias in new office buildings and tech campuses.

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

 

[zorq]

IMHO, This is a stupid law. But is there a good reason we should be encouraging people to travel larger distances to buy their own food from organizations unaffiliated with their employer? What is the motivation here?

Does McDonalds and Starbucks really need more customers? Why should we care if small businesses serving food chose their location unwisely?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

IMHO, This is a stupid law. But is there a good reason we should be encouraging people to travel larger distances to buy their own food from organizations unaffiliated with their employer? What is the motivation here?

Does McDonalds and Starbucks really need more customers? Why should we care if small businesses serving food chose their location unwisely?

We care if we are the people that seduced Amazon or Google or Kinky Karrie's Prophylactic Emporium to the area with tax breaks, simultaneously convincing the taxpayers that we'd more than make up the loss by increasing jobs, increasing the number of wallets/block, increasing foot traffic in their area businesses, spreading the wealth.
If they are not seeing the promised benefits, we can try to force people to spread that wealth at lunchtime...

 

[dismal]

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.

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),

San Francisco Supervisors Ahsha Safai and Aaron Peskin introduced legislation Tuesday prohibiting in-house cafeterias in new office buildings and tech campuses.

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.

 

[dismal]

IMHO, This is a stupid law. But is there a good reason we should be encouraging people to travel larger distances to buy their own food from organizations unaffiliated with their employer? What is the motivation here?

Does McDonalds and Starbucks really need more customers? Why should we care if small businesses serving food chose their location unwisely?

We care if we are the people that seduced Amazon or Google or Kinky Karrie's Prophylactic Emporium to the area with tax breaks, simultaneously convincing the taxpayers that we'd more than make up the loss by increasing jobs, increasing the number of wallets/block, increasing foot traffic in their area businesses, spreading the wealth.
If they are not seeing the promised benefits, we can try to force people to spread that wealth at lunchtime...

Yes, but instead they make free lunches magically appear. So no one gets paid to make these lunches. No wealth gets spread. This reminds me of the candlemaker's petition.

 

[thebeave]

SF needs to start cleaning all the poop and drug needles off the streets first, before they get their panties in a wad about tech company free lunches. People are avoiding SF all together because its such a shithole city now.

 

[dismal]

SF needs to start cleaning all the poop and drug needles off the streets first, before they get their panties in a wad about tech company free lunches. People are avoiding SF all together because its such a shithole city now.

I guess I'm still struggling with the reason tech company free lunches are a problem at all, let alone a problem for government to solve.

I can understand that the local Subway or McDonalds owner may benefit from banning them (in the same way Subway would benefit if McDonalds were banned, and McDonalds would benefit if Subway were banned). But is it government's job to help one business owner over another?

It is interesting, however, that SF is so messed up they have managed to twist themselves into believing the freedom to shit in the street is so overarching they are willing to turn the city into a shithole, but they can't withstand the freedom to offer employees a free lunch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounds like one of those 'seems like a decent idea without any additional thought to it' things. Oh, this will help local eateries, let's ban lunch at work.

Wait... is this a good idea?

No time to think about it, we are helping local businesses... you know, maybe we should ban meat at lunch too, that'd help Vegan eateries a lot!

 

[Artemus]

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.

 

[dismal]

Sounds like one of those 'seems like a decent idea without any additional thought to it' things. Oh, this will help local eateries, let's ban lunch at work.

Wait... is this a good idea?

No time to think about it, we are helping local businesses... you know, maybe we should ban meat at lunch too, that'd help Vegan eateries a lot!

It seems like the logic would directly make you want to ban people cooking meals in their own home.

 

[ronburgundy]

SF needs to start cleaning all the poop and drug needles off the streets first, before they get their panties in a wad about tech company free lunches. People are avoiding SF all together because its such a shithole city now.

I guess I'm still struggling with the reason tech company free lunches are a problem at all, let alone a problem for government to solve.

I can understand that the local Subway or McDonalds owner may benefit from banning them (in the same way Subway would benefit if McDonalds were banned, and McDonalds would benefit if Subway were banned). But is it government's job to help one business owner over another?

No it isn't. But as Keith pointed out, the problem starts with tax breaks, which are nothing but "government helping one business over another". Such tax breaks are only justifiable on the grounds they wind up helping the economy in general and thus everyone, by bringing more people who will consume products produced and sold by the larger community. This misguided legislation is merely an effort to balance out the benefits that otherwise only going to specific companies getting tax breaks.

IOW, what you should be most upset about is tax breaks for companies.

 

[dismal]

SF needs to start cleaning all the poop and drug needles off the streets first, before they get their panties in a wad about tech company free lunches. People are avoiding SF all together because its such a shithole city now.

I guess I'm still struggling with the reason tech company free lunches are a problem at all, let alone a problem for government to solve.

I can understand that the local Subway or McDonalds owner may benefit from banning them (in the same way Subway would benefit if McDonalds were banned, and McDonalds would benefit if Subway were banned). But is it government's job to help one business owner over another?

No it isn't. But as Keith pointed out, the problem starts with tax breaks, which are nothing but "government helping one business over another". Such tax breaks are only justifiable on the grounds they wind up helping the economy in general and thus everyone, by bringing more people who will consume products produced and sold by the larger community. This misguided legislation is merely an effort to balance out the benefits that otherwise only going to specific companies getting tax breaks.

IOW, what you should be most upset about is tax breaks for companies.

Neither the article I linked nor the SF Chronicle article it links even suggests this has anything to do with tax breaks.

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

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

Don't panic! it is a proposal by 2 legislators which will probably go nowhere in the end.

 

[ronburgundy]

No it isn't. But as Keith pointed out, the problem starts with tax breaks, which are nothing but "government helping one business over another". Such tax breaks are only justifiable on the grounds they wind up helping the economy in general and thus everyone, by bringing more people who will consume products produced and sold by the larger community. This misguided legislation is merely an effort to balance out the benefits that otherwise only going to specific companies getting tax breaks.

IOW, what you should be most upset about is tax breaks for companies.

Neither the article I linked nor the SF Chronicle article it links even suggests this has anything to do with tax breaks.

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?'

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?