As if companies determine the price for housing. With Sillicon Valley wages, you could easily afford housing within 5 years somewhere else. It is not companies' fault that housing prices have gone up - it is politics preventing building of available housing. It is also an example that shows that no matter how much you pay the employees, housing prices will simply adapt if more housing is not being built.
The companies are at least partly culpable for choosing to aggregate themselves in these insanely high CoL areas, contributing to the rent jumps, and failing to engage in the proper corporate social responsibility of working with their ambient communities to alleviate these living situations for both their employees and their neighbors.
Well the people living there can vote, can't they? I don't see how it is corporate responsibility. Corporations can't vote.
Yes, the corporations are contributing to rent jumps, but that was part of the point: by paying higher salaries, as is being demanded by the pro union crowd here, they also increase the rents. So they can't simply pay enough so that "people can buy a house within 5 years", because housing prices rise along with salaries.
The union crowd isn't unilaterally asking for higher salaries. Hell, the Kickstarter employees in the OP aren't even focused specifically on compensation. There are issues at stake such as toxic environments, anti-age/race/gender discrimination, open offices, etc.
Even on matters of comp it needn't simply be "give raises to all the engineers", as pro-tech unionization efforts tend to also support non-technical workers such as the custodial and cafeteria staff, who would be in higher need of pay raises. The pay for engineers is usually more directed towards addressing unpaid overtime, which is more of a work-life balance/anti-death march measure more than a monetary one anyway.
Corporations can't vote, but they do have free speech when it comes to political expression, and tech companies already do plenty of lobbying. Perhaps they could have spent some fraction of those efforts on influencing the housing shortages in the places they set up camp in. Being a good, responsible neighbor should be part of CSR.
We are in a thread about the claim that "As long as annual compensation doesn't let you own a house outright in 5 years in the same area as your place of work, then there is more work to do."
That is what I was referring to.
I think companies are already trying to alleviate the housing issues. But their influence is not as high as you think. Google buses were attacked by locals, for example - they would have enable Google employees to live farther away, alleviating pressure on prices in the immediate neighborhood.
Corporate buses are helpful to their workforce (and at this point normalized to the extent that such backlash is far less common) but are also just a bandaid that can lead to extreme commutes [0]. Ultimately, the faults of development in the Bay Area, Seattle, and other high-growth/high-CoL areas are mainly on local governments and residents, but large employers share part of the responsibility because their presence is what drives up the desirability of a region in the first place, as well as prices.
Yes, you can't ask Google to solve everything themselves (even if their PR likes to paint them as being in the business of doing that), but they could at least explore more policies like opening larger offices in regions with more housing, embracing more remote work, working more closely with local communities, etc. You'd think megacorps with the resources and supposed strategic foresight that FAANGM possess would be more proactive about addressing an issue that impacts their workforce. Is it no wonder then that their workers will seek desperate measures like unionizing?
If they would open offices elsewhere, they would drive prices up there, too. In fact here in Berlin they cancelled their plans after protests by the locals.
You assume it is as effective as onsite work, just like that? If that was the case, why haven't remote work companies trounced on site work companies en masse?
We're not debating the efficacy of the practice, but whether or not it can help prevent rising costs of living caused by tech agglomeration. Certainly "taking remote work more seriously" would include investing in pilot programs, experiments, and innovating processes/technologies to make it better and better. And it's something that large megacorps could work with, if they cared about rising CoL.
Turns out that the average consumer of $40k+ EVs doesn’t give a shit about minor cosmetic issues if the rest of the car is years ahead of the competition. Maybe there is a lesson in there about always questioning priorities to ensure they are inline with the market.
There are other good EVs, and more in the pipeline. I think it would be more accurate to say that Tesla fans don't care much about minor cosmetic issues, because ... they're fans. This makes sense.
Drive a Tesla, I bet you'll find things you like that are way more important than minor cosmetic issues, which seems unlikely.
Sure when making cars at 5k a week or more, there's some mistakes. A friend had a piece of trim misaligned. Tesla came out, on site, and fixed it. He's pretty happy.
This is a brand new car company that has built manufacturing from scratch. 10 years ago, car companies had been manufacturing cars for decades. This stuff doesn't happen overnight.
I don’t plan on buying a Tesla anytime soon, but the amount of critics that seem to hate everything they do is stunning to me. They are producing an electric car you can buy. They basically forced other companies to produce electric cars you can buy. It’s awesome. Be a little kid again for just a minute...
"They are producing an electric car you can buy. They basically forced other companies to produce electric cars you can buy. It’s awesome. Be a little kid again for just a minute..."
This seems like a proverbial "reality distortion field" to me. The Tesla model 3 came out about 7 years after the Nissan Leaf, didn't it? And given a reasonable budget, it's arguably still not an example of a car "you can buy".
Yes, there were Teslas before the model 3, but there were also electric cars from other manufacturers for many years.
TBH, I think the idea that the Leaf from 7 years ago is in the same segment requires some distortion of reality. The Leaf is not nearly as sporty, had a much lower range, and also had a much less reliable battery.
The modern Leaf fixes these problems by being as expensive as a Model 3, and its still slower.
At $31k, the Leaf does not have fast charging and has a range of 149 miles. Want "Quick" charging at a peak rate of 50KW? That's the $34k Leaf, which still has a range of 149 miles. Granted, this comes with a tax break, but comparing MSRP to MSRP, the SR Model 3 looks like the better deal at 220 miles of range.
To get to 226 miles of range with the Leaf puts you at $38k. To also get intelligent cruise (standard on the SR+ Model 3 at 40k), you will need another couple thousand dollars on the Leaf.
The tax break and dealer negotiation do make the Leaf cheaper, but the list price alone really doesn't.
It's absolutely an early-adopter surcharge. At luxury prices, because that's the only way to start a completely new car manufacturer at this scale.
Most new car companies are small affairs that hand-build fairly simple cars at luxury prices from their garage. They get away with it because they offer something unique. So does Tesla, only they try to do it at scale.
Roadster 1.0 definitely was not a luxury car. It was just a proof of concept to show that an EV could be made that doesn't suck. It got attention and investors to fund the development of the Model S.
It’s in the same price range as an Audi A4, Mercedes C300, BMW i3, Audi TT, and Lexus ES. It’s an entry level luxury car. It’s twice as expensive as a Volkswagen Jetta, Toyota Corolla, or Honda Civic.
Yes, true. But generally electrics are much cheaper to own. Assume 12k miles a year and figure the cost to own for 10 years. Might be higher than the corolla or civic, but similar or better than the accord or camry. Generally it will be quicker, quieter, and safer than the competition and most (that can) would rather plug in at home than regularly visit gas stations.
So model 3 might be a luxury car, but the cost to own is clearly lower than any of the luxury cars you mention, except the BMW i3.
A Camry costs around $24,000. $16,000 worth of gas, at $2.4 per gallon, times the EPA 34mpg combined gas mileage of the 2020 Camry, is good for over 200,000 miles. And that's assuming that the power to charge your car is completely free--it isn't, even though it's less than the price of gas on a per-mile basis.
Around $24k, good luck finding one of those on the lot. At toyota.com the Camry pictured is $35,555.
Over 200k miles How much will you spend on brake pads? Brake Discs? Gas? How about the scheduled 40 Oil changes?
How about things outside of the regular maintenance? Belts? Catalytic converts? Timing chain? Engine mounts? Head gaskets? Spark plugs? Clutch?
How many miles will you burn driving to/from gas stations?
How much of your time worth finding, using, and returning from gas stations? Do you really want to visit a smelly gas station covered with signs about the cancer it causes (in California anyways)?
Sure a Tesla over 200k miles will burn a fair amount of power around 50,000 kwh (75 kwh per 300 miles or so). But the other consumables are few. Sure wipers, tires (replacement and rotation), cabin filters, windshield fluid, etc. But generally the electric motors have few parts, are extremely reliable, and don't require any regularly scheduled maintenance.
I've had 2 Subarus and a low end Acura Integra. And most maintenance I've had (except tires/and wipers) was for something that didn't exist on an electric car. Timing chains, spark plugs, oil changes, head gasket, catalytic converter, engine mounts, clutch, etc.
And the Model 3 can run up to almost $60k so let’s be fair and talk about the base model for each, okay? We’re talking about a price difference of $16,000 over a $24,000 car, and if you think a Toyota of all brands is going to require $16,000 worth of maintenance more than the Model 3, I would really like to know what that number is based upon.
So ignore performance, leather, safety, nav, 15" screen, and related improvements? Doesn't seem fair, the model 3 is a crazy more capable car, but ok. Maybe at least the hybrid ($28,430)? Or at least add some of the safety stuff like blind spot monitoring and cross-traffic alert? Keyless? Upgraded backup camera? v6 to get the 0-60 close to the Tesla?
Also ignoring the federal, state, PG&E, and similar incentives?
Even ignoring all the above I think the Tesla is still cheaper to own.
AAA claims that the average car costs $0.592 per mile. For above mentioned 200,000 miles that's $118k. Not sure there's a more "average" car than a camry. No oil changes, brake changes, gas, engine mounts, timing chain, belts, etc is going to significantly decrease that number for the Tesla. Sure electricity isn't free, but it is way cheaper than gas. There's a target I visit often in my town that allows 2 hours of free charging per visit, and where I work charging cost $10 per month. I could easily spend less than $200 per year for the Telsa electricity. Since June 2019 I've spent a total of $30.00 (5 visits) at superchargers despite numerous road trips to Stanford, Reno, SF, Napa, Tahoe, Downieville, etc.
Additionally it's looking like Tesla's last a fair bit longer than the equivalent ICE car. So at 200k miles you could just keep the model 3, or sell it for a non-trivial amount of money. Already hearing reports of Model S's making it to 1M km and the taxi service is switching to model 3's. Should have an ideal how well the model 3 does near 1M km soon.
So the $40k model 3 lost 5.5% after 1 year ($2,200). Presumably the camry is worse than the honda fit (#5 on the list). So it lost at least $3,000 in value in the first year. Amusingly the worst depreciation numbers are many of the Tesla competition (BMW, Audi, Jaguar, and Volvo).
So yes, I think keeping a Tesla for 200k miles will be cheaper than a Camry. More fun to drive, safer, and cheaper. Doubly so if you count wasting an hour or two on weekend for an oil change.... 40 times.
Having had ICE cars over 10 years old and over 100k miles I can say first hand that the maintenance costs can add up quickly.
What is your time estimate for a company to fix their assembly alignment and paint issues versus the technologies being years behind in a car? That’s the point here.
I don't know much about cars manufacturing, but it sounds easier to source powerful/recent chips than ensuring all of your factories produce high quality mechanical parts.
"On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences."
Yeah sorry, but it is a barter economy. They only frame it differently to get their papers published.
Yes, it may work not exactly like described in the economics textbooks (and gift economies have some interesting specific properties). But I am really tired of people claiming everything in economics textbooks is to be taken absolutely literal, and if the real world is not like that, then classical economics has been refuted.
Of course they use idealized models in the textbooks, including the rational actor. The economists are well aware that they are using simplified models.
When you do a favor for a friend (like giving a referral for a job), do you see it as a transaction where you expect them to pay you back at some point?
>When you do a favor for a friend (like giving a referral for a job), do you see it as a transaction where you expect them to pay you back at some point?
To some limited degree.
If you were later in your life in need of a job, and your friend could refer you to their new company, but they refuse to because of arbitrary reasons.
Would you not think they are being a poor friend? Even more so because you did a very similar favor for them in the past?
Possibly, but some expectation of reciprocity does not equal debt and an 'internal ledger'. That some aspects of some human interactions can be modelled by a transaction model doesn't mean that they are inherently transactional. We may well find that there are important differences and that the actual internal human model is different.
Even your example only really works because you have constructed it in a specific way. Of course if your friend could do you a small favor that helps you greatly, and that you have performed for them in the past, you would expect that they owe it to you, as if you had a mental ledger. However, if the situation is slightly different, say, their father is ill and they are caring for them in hospital, would you still expect them to call their office to recommend you? If they were out of a job at the moment as well, but happened to have some extra money, would you expect them to provide you a loan so you could fund a start-up instead of getting a job?
I don't believe human relationships and gift economies reduce to a kind of barter. There are barter-like aspects to it, but I think they stem from different internal impulses. I may well be wrong, but I don't think we can assume they are not simply because some mutual exchange is taking place.
Again, economic theories don't need to be taken literal, they are simplified models. Just because somebody helps somebody else in need without immediately expecting a carrot in return, doesn't mean bartering is refuted.
Even in our today's world with money, people help other people in need. I don't think it defies economic reason, either. It is "pay it forward" or a kind of social insurance, as people can expect the same being done for them. Also perhaps it is simply a different kind of interaction, who says EVERYTHING has to be modeled as a trade? Or maybe it is the price for belonging to society, or to a certain circle of people, who would shun you if you would display antisocial behavior. Not every exchange good has to be a carrot.
Maybe the insurance model explains it quite well, now that I think about it.
Rational actors also work out in the long run, because by evolution the more rational strategy prevails. So people may not be aware why they help others (they don't do a calculation in their head every time), but it can still be the rational thing to do.
This idealized barter economy contains a the same rather specific notion of value (as something countable, comparable, fungible, etc.) that is like the idea of value that a monetary system rests on. The article suggests that historical evidence fits better with the idea that money actually precedes that notion, rather than the other way around. This should impact the way barter economies are analysed and compared to monetary systems.
I'm sorry, but it seems like you also have, if not an agenda, then at least some preconceptions you don't want to adjust. "I'm sure of X" really isn't much of an argument.
I remember a story of a linguist (Dan Everett, probably) working in the Amazon. He tried to convince a speaker of the language he was studying to sit with him for a few hours to help him with his grammar. He offered some fishhooks in return. The guy asked, "do you fish?", to which he replied no, and then the guy looked puzzled and said "then why don't you just give me the fishhooks?"
There are all sorts of societies, or were, throughout history. I remember reading about one where they didn't have the concept of ownership of things. But it was very logical for their environment, where most things would only have been a hindrance. In such a society, for example, maybe people would be wondering why somebody would want to hold on to fish hooks.
So sorry, some anecdotes don't cut it.
Me having an agenda: I have an opinion, obviously. Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. My whole point was that you should also take what Graeber says with a grain of salt.
That's exactly my problem with him, he is always in salesman mode. He has the conclusion figured out and works backwards to find the arguments he wants to see.
Just because people barter or keep scores, it doesn't mean they can't do other things, like be nice or give gifts occasionally.
Honestly, to cut the discussion short: do you have kids? I have two kids. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but they are really not all that naturally generous and giving to each other. Must be the toxic capitalist environment they grew up in? How can I activate their socialist genes and make them want to share all their toys with each other?
So they simply found a way to operate more efficiently, allowing them to pay their workers more (as they earn more per worker). Why does that need to be framed as "fair"? According to the article, they can afford to pay their warehouse workers more, because they need fewer of them. is that "fair" or "unfair"? How do the people who need a job but don't get a job at Costco because they are not needed anymore feel about it?
Also, shoppers beware. I don't know Costco, but here in Germany there is also a company that is famous for its good prices, Aldi.
Legend has it that they deliberately used wooden shelves in their stores because they looked cheaper, even though actually metal shelves would have been cheaper. Was reminded of that story when I read in the article that at Costco you shop off shipping pallets.
Also Aldi is being criticized for using its market power to demand low prices from suppliers. How does Costco fare in that regard? (I personally don't share the criticism, but I suspect people who are in the business of worrying about "fairness" would).
