3 ms·

Demand is a fallacy because they compel you to come into the building. If they allowed everyone to choose to work from home, or from another location, then it

Demand is a fallacy because they compel you to come into the building. If they allowed everyone to choose to work from home, or from another location, then it would have something interesting to say about it. But the demand is artificial in that context, forcing people to exist at that office, and yet not allowing them the means to do so with their mode of travel of choice by not providing sufficient parking.

revicon 9y ago
I didn't see anything on the linked page that Lyft compelled employees to come into the office. Did I miss something that you read?
- AndyNemmity 9y ago
  Most companies do by default, apologies if I'm incorrect, but does Lyft allow unlimited work from home?
friedman23 9y ago
Wow, you didn't even take econ 101 did you? Do you know what substitutes are? "Demand is a fallacy" Probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you think there is no demand for food? Is demand for food a fallacy? Jesus.
dbaupp 9y ago
> yet not allowing them the means to do so with their mode of travel of choice by not providing sufficient parking They also don't provide a runway and hangar space, nor a marina, and probably not a SpaceX landing pad either! People can't commute with their mode of travel of choice! Jokes aside, even ignoring the broader impacts of more driving and just focusing within the company itself, providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive (the company is spending resources/opportunity cost on something they don't use), and even on those who have to drive on certain days (they're pushed to getting to work at ridiculous hours to be able to park). With offices where it is actually feasible to commute by public transport (like Lyft's office which seemed to be ~0.5 mile from the nearest BART station and less from many bus routes) and when working at a transportation company, there are alternatives to driving one's own car, so putting a price on parking encourages people to treat it as the scarce resource it is.
- drivingmenuts 9y ago
  > providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive This doesn't seem right - it assumes that the resources going toward parking would be otherwise spent on employees. If money was taken from employees as a payroll deduction, then "stealing" might apply, but until the money is promised to employees, its not employee money, it belongs to the company. There is no theft that I can see.

revicon 9y ago

I didn't see anything on the linked page that Lyft compelled employees to come into the office. Did I miss something that you read?

AndyNemmity 9y ago
Most companies do by default, apologies if I'm incorrect, but does Lyft allow unlimited work from home?

friedman23 9y ago

Wow, you didn't even take econ 101 did you? Do you know what substitutes are? "Demand is a fallacy" Probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you think there is no demand for food? Is demand for food a fallacy? Jesus.

dbaupp 9y ago

> yet not allowing them the means to do so with their mode of travel of choice by not providing sufficient parking They also don't provide a runway and hangar space, nor a marina, and probably not a SpaceX landing pad either! People can't commute with their mode of travel of choice! Jokes aside, even ignoring the broader impacts of more driving and just focusing within the company itself, providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive (the company is spending resources/opportunity cost on something they don't use), and even on those who have to drive on certain days (they're pushed to getting to work at ridiculous hours to be able to park). With offices where it is actually feasible to commute by public transport (like Lyft's office which seemed to be ~0.5 mile from the nearest BART station and less from many bus routes) and when working at a transportation company, there are alternatives to driving one's own car, so putting a price on parking encourages people to treat it as the scarce resource it is.

drivingmenuts 9y ago
> providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive This doesn't seem right - it assumes that the resources going toward parking would be otherwise spent on employees. If money was taken from employees as a payroll deduction, then "stealing" might apply, but until the money is promised to employees, its not employee money, it belongs to the company. There is no theft that I can see.