8 ms·

The facebook character had the right answer. These companies have products that create more value than running a paid parking lot... why would you trade an empl

The facebook character had the right answer. These companies have products that create more value than running a paid parking lot... why would you trade an employee on a product like that for a few dollars in parking fees.

johnhess 9y ago
The point of the article is that by making something scarce free, the company was in effect "rationing by the queue", an inefficient way to handle things. Those unwilling to get there early had a bad time. Instead they said, "Hey, we were giving the average employee $100/mo in parking. We're gonna keep doing that in the form of cash. But, to fund that extra 100 you're now getting in cash, anyone who wants to use the lot has to pay its market value." In short, instead of providing a "flakey parking availability" they provided cash. It's a lot (a lot... get it?) like selling the lot and giving the proceeds to employees. This isn't always the best idea (sometimes, similar schemes can be socially unjust), but from an efficiency standpoint, it's hard to beat. I hear what you're saying about pissing people off, but this should do the opposite. Sure, some folks might irrationally like jockeying for position or be early risers. But the company never intended to say "this benefit is for early risers". The intended it as a benefit to all employees and now it is.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  yes, I read the cartoon. There's nothing new in it -- these are all well known things (like 100 year old things). It's not clear that the companies they shopped the idea around to had a shortage of parking. Queuing costs are costs that the employees who are trying to park are imposing on themselves. A parking fee is a cost that is being imposed on the employees by the employer. It's reasonable for employees to react differently to those costs. If you're building a widely profitable business (like facebook), the better answer is to just build a larger parking lot. Just like lyft eventually did, and abandoned this bad idea.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    There's already too much damn parking. Stop driving to work. Live too far away? Convince your company to move to a place with sane housing costs. Facebook has the advantage of building in the burbs where there's already a glut of parking and people expect more.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Certainly under the prevailing moralistic view on HN that life is too comfortable and people ought to suffer more & have less free time, there is too much parking.
      - throwaway91111 9y ago
        No, parking is a terrible use of land and encourages bad practices like commuting in a personal vehicle using 1/5th of available seating. If you choose to view that as a masochistic world view, that is entirely your choice. However, i would hate to live near you.
        closeparen 9y ago
        We have a middle class in this country because it's reasonable to participate in productive economic activity while living in housing whose price doesn't completely swallow your productivity. Parking is what makes that possible. It's a fucking great use of land. (I say this as a carfree renter in an urban high-rise. This is fun, but in no way sustainable - I have no hope of owning an analogous condo, let alone one big enough for a family, and that's as a well-compensated professional. When it comes time for stability and child-raising, it will be imperative to chose a city with enough parking that I can commute from an outer suburb where prices are accessible to mere upper-income salary workers. Far as I can tell, cities with your view of land use only work for longtime incumbents, international oligarchs, and twentysomethings living together like they're still in college).
        icebraining 9y ago
- revicon 9y ago
  The parking spots were not "free", employees were paying for them with their time, leaving their homes extra early and risking circling the neighborhood looking for extra spots if the lot was full. That time was worth money to the drivers and the growing price of a spot was evidence of that. As they increased their employee count, the time cost would have increased as well and employees unwilling to spend that time on trying to get parking would take another mode of transportation. From the linked comic it sounds like the employees that spearheaded the program were trying to prove a larger point that cities could raise public transit funds by charging for all parking spaces in a city. I don't think this program was at all about making things more efficient at Lyft.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - surfmike 9y ago
    It was also about making things more efficient at Lyft. Some people really needed cars (mostly because they had kids) but couldn't find spots unless they arrived super early. This change pushed some people to stop using their cars.
xapata 9y ago
Easy solution. The company could give every employee a $300 raise and the charge $300 for parking. Those who want to keep the spot stay the same. Those who don't, gain $300.
- craftkiller 9y ago
  That difference is just a psychological one. The end result is still people with a parking spot have $300 less than people without a parking spot. It doesn't matter which side you call the baseline.
  - decker 9y ago
    Nope, people that choose the $300 are now earning an extra 3600 per year. Explain to me how that's just a psychological difference.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      The psychological difference is that people react differently depending on whether the fee is seen as "not receiving a bonus that other people got", or "taking a pay cut when others didn't." If that doesn't make sense to you, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of "The Paradox of Choice," a book that lays out neatly how the human brain can be manipulated by simple restatements like this.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    Yes, but psychologically it _does_ matter which side you call the baseline. Loss aversion is a real thing. People _hate_ losing a thing they have. So if you make parking a reservation system and then give a $300 credit to all employees who don't make a reservation you'll get much less blow-back than if you raise everyone's pay by $300, and then charge $300 to reserve parking. I think saying it's "just" a psychological difference really undervalues that aspect. After all, the goal is to create market efficiencies _without_ upsetting people. Solving the psychological problem is really the key to keeping people happy with the new system.
- 9y ago
mahyarm 9y ago
Facebook is a big pain in the ass to get to other than by car or some other motor vehicle. A lyft office in SOMA has a lot more options.

johnhess 9y ago

The point of the article is that by making something scarce free, the company was in effect "rationing by the queue", an inefficient way to handle things. Those unwilling to get there early had a bad time. Instead they said, "Hey, we were giving the average employee $100/mo in parking. We're gonna keep doing that in the form of cash. But, to fund that extra 100 you're now getting in cash, anyone who wants to use the lot has to pay its market value." In short, instead of providing a "flakey parking availability" they provided cash. It's a lot (a lot... get it?) like selling the lot and giving the proceeds to employees. This isn't always the best idea (sometimes, similar schemes can be socially unjust), but from an efficiency standpoint, it's hard to beat. I hear what you're saying about pissing people off, but this should do the opposite. Sure, some folks might irrationally like jockeying for position or be early risers. But the company never intended to say "this benefit is for early risers". The intended it as a benefit to all employees and now it is.

rgbrenner 9y ago
yes, I read the cartoon. There's nothing new in it -- these are all well known things (like 100 year old things). It's not clear that the companies they shopped the idea around to had a shortage of parking. Queuing costs are costs that the employees who are trying to park are imposing on themselves. A parking fee is a cost that is being imposed on the employees by the employer. It's reasonable for employees to react differently to those costs. If you're building a widely profitable business (like facebook), the better answer is to just build a larger parking lot. Just like lyft eventually did, and abandoned this bad idea.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  There's already too much damn parking. Stop driving to work. Live too far away? Convince your company to move to a place with sane housing costs. Facebook has the advantage of building in the burbs where there's already a glut of parking and people expect more.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Certainly under the prevailing moralistic view on HN that life is too comfortable and people ought to suffer more & have less free time, there is too much parking.
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      No, parking is a terrible use of land and encourages bad practices like commuting in a personal vehicle using 1/5th of available seating. If you choose to view that as a masochistic world view, that is entirely your choice. However, i would hate to live near you.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        We have a middle class in this country because it's reasonable to participate in productive economic activity while living in housing whose price doesn't completely swallow your productivity. Parking is what makes that possible. It's a fucking great use of land. (I say this as a carfree renter in an urban high-rise. This is fun, but in no way sustainable - I have no hope of owning an analogous condo, let alone one big enough for a family, and that's as a well-compensated professional. When it comes time for stability and child-raising, it will be imperative to chose a city with enough parking that I can commute from an outer suburb where prices are accessible to mere upper-income salary workers. Far as I can tell, cities with your view of land use only work for longtime incumbents, international oligarchs, and twentysomethings living together like they're still in college).
        icebraining 9y ago
revicon 9y ago
The parking spots were not "free", employees were paying for them with their time, leaving their homes extra early and risking circling the neighborhood looking for extra spots if the lot was full. That time was worth money to the drivers and the growing price of a spot was evidence of that. As they increased their employee count, the time cost would have increased as well and employees unwilling to spend that time on trying to get parking would take another mode of transportation. From the linked comic it sounds like the employees that spearheaded the program were trying to prove a larger point that cities could raise public transit funds by charging for all parking spaces in a city. I don't think this program was at all about making things more efficient at Lyft.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- surfmike 9y ago
  It was also about making things more efficient at Lyft. Some people really needed cars (mostly because they had kids) but couldn't find spots unless they arrived super early. This change pushed some people to stop using their cars.

xapata 9y ago

Easy solution. The company could give every employee a $300 raise and the charge $300 for parking. Those who want to keep the spot stay the same. Those who don't, gain $300.

craftkiller 9y ago
That difference is just a psychological one. The end result is still people with a parking spot have $300 less than people without a parking spot. It doesn't matter which side you call the baseline.
- decker 9y ago
  Nope, people that choose the $300 are now earning an extra 3600 per year. Explain to me how that's just a psychological difference.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    The psychological difference is that people react differently depending on whether the fee is seen as "not receiving a bonus that other people got", or "taking a pay cut when others didn't." If that doesn't make sense to you, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of "The Paradox of Choice," a book that lays out neatly how the human brain can be manipulated by simple restatements like this.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  Yes, but psychologically it _does_ matter which side you call the baseline. Loss aversion is a real thing. People _hate_ losing a thing they have. So if you make parking a reservation system and then give a $300 credit to all employees who don't make a reservation you'll get much less blow-back than if you raise everyone's pay by $300, and then charge $300 to reserve parking. I think saying it's "just" a psychological difference really undervalues that aspect. After all, the goal is to create market efficiencies _without_ upsetting people. Solving the psychological problem is really the key to keeping people happy with the new system.
9y ago

mahyarm 9y ago

Facebook is a big pain in the ass to get to other than by car or some other motor vehicle. A lyft office in SOMA has a lot more options.