4 ms·

That's a silly argument. The point of the ad is that the hotel taxes allow the city to offer better public services. Of course if your analysis only considers 1

by davmre 11y ago

That's a silly argument. The point of the ad is that the hotel taxes allow the city to offer better public services. Of course if your analysis only considers 1.4% of the tax money you'll find the benefits aren't that impressive. But then you have to account for what the other 98.6% of the money is doing: presumably providing other public services! If SF spent the whole $12 million on libraries, that would be $55/employee/day, which seems plenty to keep libraries open for an extra few hours. Even if SF only spent "some" of the money on libraries, as the ad suggested, even spending $3 million would come to $14/employee/day which seems enough for a meaningful expansion of services.

talaketu 11y ago
That "silly" argument is directly refuting the silly specificity on the silly poster.
scintill76 11y ago
Maybe I'm the one confused here, but your response doesn't make sense to me -- it's like you're almost agreeing with the librarian but you don't think you are. Airbnb "started it" by focusing on one specific service (libraries) and humble-brag-whining about how it better improve because they/customers are paying so much. It makes perfect sense then to show how that one specific service Airbnb singled out will not be able to achieve what Airbnb says it should, because it doesn't get nearly as much money as Airbnb implied by tossing around a huge number. As to hypothetical numbers at the end, why? The percentage the libraries get is fixed by the city, presumably... P.S. Apparently they have variations of the ad for other services. Maybe on some, however they phrased it makes more sense, but not really in the libraries' case. P.P.S There is actually a small fallacy/glossing-over in the librarian's argument: the $12MM (or 1.4% thereof) is (presumably) an increase that Airbnb can claim credit for. But theoretically the library could have other sources of income that together would allow for more opening hours. I guess the assumption is that they don't have a lot of surplus.
Steko 11y ago
That's an incoherent argument when Air B&B has other ads touting their support of other government services. Splitting them up with arbitrary large amounts makes their contribution to the tax coffers seem larger than it is. If they're suggesting they are paying so much taxes that (among other things) the library can now offer longer hours the librarian's post is a pretty straightforward approach of how you should analyze it.

by davmre 11y ago

talaketu 11y ago

That "silly" argument is directly refuting the silly specificity on the silly poster.

scintill76 11y ago

Maybe I'm the one confused here, but your response doesn't make sense to me -- it's like you're almost agreeing with the librarian but you don't think you are. Airbnb "started it" by focusing on one specific service (libraries) and humble-brag-whining about how it better improve because they/customers are paying so much. It makes perfect sense then to show how that one specific service Airbnb singled out will not be able to achieve what Airbnb says it should, because it doesn't get nearly as much money as Airbnb implied by tossing around a huge number. As to hypothetical numbers at the end, why? The percentage the libraries get is fixed by the city, presumably... P.S. Apparently they have variations of the ad for other services. Maybe on some, however they phrased it makes more sense, but not really in the libraries' case. P.P.S There is actually a small fallacy/glossing-over in the librarian's argument: the $12MM (or 1.4% thereof) is (presumably) an increase that Airbnb can claim credit for. But theoretically the library could have other sources of income that together would allow for more opening hours. I guess the assumption is that they don't have a lot of surplus.

Steko 11y ago

That's an incoherent argument when Air B&B has other ads touting their support of other government services. Splitting them up with arbitrary large amounts makes their contribution to the tax coffers seem larger than it is. If they're suggesting they are paying so much taxes that (among other things) the library can now offer longer hours the librarian's post is a pretty straightforward approach of how you should analyze it.