4 ms·

Google is fighting tooth-and-nail to build 10,000 housing units: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-calls-for-10000-unit-housing-planaf

Google is fighting tooth-and-nail to build 10,000 housing units: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-calls-for-10000-unit-housing-planafter-city-cuts-proposal-to-as-low-as-1500/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-c... Facebook isn't Google, but they have the same incentives: Zuckerberg's wealth is not in his house, so he shouldn't care if his property values sink a bit. It'd be far more useful to him to have 10,000 extra employees. Housing is something every potential employee would ask about, so I'm surprised you think the company doesn't care about it.

rubyn00bie 9y ago
It's not that I think they don't care, I just think with companies like this caring is proportional to their investment in it. We often see how much SV company X is investing in lobbying, R&D, etc but we see very little how much their investing into their local municipalities to make living better. Perhaps I'm being ignorant, it wouldn't be the first time, but it seems like, to me, that they don't care proportional to their capital. When companies have $30-40 billion plus in cash holdings, it makes issues like these seem rather... baffling. Not to say money solves all problems, but it sure does help. Though getting anyone to invest in the long term is something unlikely to please investors, financial analysts, or executives protecting their jobs.
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  The argument the politicians gave was that Google is already the largest employer, and adding an extra 10,000 people means that Google could swing the elections by telling their employees who to vote for. How would you turn an unlimited amount of money into a counterargument for those scared politicians? There should be an Amdahl's law for lobbyists: If you have 12 politicians and it takes 9 months per politician to convince them, increasing the number of of lobbyists loses effectiveness once you have 1 lobbyist in every politician's office 24/7.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Please identify a couple of the politicians who said this.

rubyn00bie 9y ago

It's not that I think they don't care, I just think with companies like this caring is proportional to their investment in it. We often see how much SV company X is investing in lobbying, R&D, etc but we see very little how much their investing into their local municipalities to make living better. Perhaps I'm being ignorant, it wouldn't be the first time, but it seems like, to me, that they don't care proportional to their capital. When companies have $30-40 billion plus in cash holdings, it makes issues like these seem rather... baffling. Not to say money solves all problems, but it sure does help. Though getting anyone to invest in the long term is something unlikely to please investors, financial analysts, or executives protecting their jobs.

MichaelBurge 9y ago
The argument the politicians gave was that Google is already the largest employer, and adding an extra 10,000 people means that Google could swing the elections by telling their employees who to vote for. How would you turn an unlimited amount of money into a counterargument for those scared politicians? There should be an Amdahl's law for lobbyists: If you have 12 politicians and it takes 9 months per politician to convince them, increasing the number of of lobbyists loses effectiveness once you have 1 lobbyist in every politician's office 24/7.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Please identify a couple of the politicians who said this.