8 ms·

I recall a story (that I'll probably recount incorrectly) about a daycare business deciding that too many parents were arriving late to pick up their children (

• gr3yh47 9y ago
  >Just pay the toll especially when the cost of doing the right thing is higher. i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor
  • tedunangst 9y ago
    If HSBC was making profits of $4 trillion, they were also lying on their financial statements.
    • kbenson 9y ago
      If ever you need evidence that people see really large numbers and lose perspective, look to this conversation and how many people completely glossed over the use of trillions instead of billions, a mistake so small it puts HSBC revenue in the realm of well developed nation states...
      • kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
        Apparently, when wielding numbers for outrage, the quantitative details are merely a trivial annoyance.
  • 21 9y ago
    > laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money While I agree with your sentiment, there is no need to use such inflated and hilarious numbers.
    • saganus 9y ago
      Edit: Thanks for the corrections. I definitely messed up the magnitudes here. Was doing some other calculation on another topic and somehow I mixed them both. Sorry about that. Please disregard this comment as it it way off :( While "trillions" is definitely inflated and hyperbole, I don't think it's THAT far off. According to this The Guardian article [0] "At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts." So 0.88 Tn. Definitely not "trillions" but definitely much more than I would've expected if they said "billions laundered". Also, it says "at least", which I take it to say that the investigation was not complete so a final number couldn't be calculated and only a "lower" cap is given. Potentially it could still be "trillions" as in e.g. "1.3 trillions" (if that final figure is ever calculated or even published of course). So inflated, yes. Hilarious... not so sure. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-u...
      • kelnos 9y ago
        > So 0.88 Tn. You mean 0.00088 Tn.
        • colejohnson66 9y ago
          Well, it’s 0.88 percent of a trillion...
          • StavrosK 9y ago
            0.088.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • 9y ago
  • panarky 9y ago
    And they say we need less regulation of corporate behavior.
    • alexanderstears 9y ago
      Less regulation would be better than the system we have now - where large and connected corporations can buy get out of jail free cards.
      • panarky 9y ago
        Please tell me more about how even less regulation would have held Uber accountable.
        • alexanderstears 9y ago
          It wouldn't. But I'd wager that Uber isn't going to be held accountable (or not very accountable) for this, so why not write the rules so that everyone gets to be as cavalier? It'd save a lot of companies the headaches that go along with I.T security.
          • panarky 9y ago
            Some drivers don't stop at stop signs. Let's remove the stop signs so all drivers can be as cavalier. It'd save a lot of drivers the headaches that go along with traffic laws.
            • alexanderstears 9y ago
              I don't dispute your logic though I would prefer more traffic law enforcement. But the uber situation would be closer to this - the parking meter costs $20/hr and a parking ticket costs $5. We're creating a situation where people who break the law get ahead of those who obey it. Either we can ramp up enforcement (good luck with that happening) or we can level the playing field.
  • fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    HSBC did not make trillions from those transactions and they were fined $1.9bn in 2012.
    • Scoundreller 9y ago
      Did you ask any families with a family member killed by a cartel if a fine seemed reasonable?
      • CyberDildonics 9y ago
        Why would you respond like this to someone putting forward plain facts.
        • Scoundreller 9y ago
          Because it was in response to a post about how low the fines were: "i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor" $1.9b may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of blood attached to it.
          • fauigerzigerk 9y ago
            Perhaps you should start reading this thread once more, starting with untog's daycare story. Then you might see why the financial facts are important. It's not because any specific fine can ever be adequate compensation for all the suffering caused by the cartels. It's because you want the fine to be large enough to actually deter bad behavior in the future. In this particular case I believe the fine (perhaps in combination with the threat of other regulatory action) has changed HSBC's behavior as there are many stories about erroneously frozen HSBC business accounts. I just wonder if any number of deaths will ever change the behavior of the politicians who designed the disastrous war on drugs policies that have so utterly failed. I fear that won't happen as long as voters don't care about facts.
  • dsacco 9y ago
    > laundered trillions of dollars > 400m dollar fine > isnt even .01% of what they made ...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify things, if you're just going to use utterly incorrect ones? HSBC did not launder trillions of dollars over a decade, that figure is three orders of magnitude too high. HSBC is being fined $1.9B, not $400M.[1] HSBC also did not earn 19 trillion dollars over the course of a decade, which is what would make $1.9B your 0.01% figure. Even a $400M fine would still constitute earnings of $4 trillion. Not only are your numbers incorrect factually speaking, their relationships with each other are entirely out of whack for measuring HSBC's profit, even in an absurd hypothetical scenario in which HSBC did launder trillions of dollars. _________________________________________ 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judg...
    • StanislavPetrov 9y ago
      You are confusing profit, earnings, and the amount of money laundered, each of which is distinct and very different. If you give me a million dollars in counterfeit bills, and I launder them for you, I might get paid only $10,000. My laundering efforts might have cost me $9,000. In this case my profits are $1,000 even though my earnings were $10,000 and I laundered $1,000,000. I'm not saying that HSBC laundered 19 trillion, but the earnings and/or profits of HSBC have absolutely no relation to the potential amount they laundered.
      • dsacco 9y ago
        Sure, but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.
• Swizec 9y ago
  > The reason being that the parents effectively considered the fine a "late pickup fee", and one they were more than willing to pay. The real question in this story is this: If you find that you have customers who are willing to pay you more for providing more service ... why not provide that service? You get more money, your staff gets paid overtime, parents get peace of mind, everyone's happy.
  • untog 9y ago
    I... don't really think that's the point of the story. Certainly not in any way that involves keeping this conversation on the topic of Uber being fined.
  • watwut 9y ago
    Because those more money may not be enough to pay for more people that would need to be hired? While existing stuff may be wiling to stay 30 minutes more occasionally, they might not like the idea of having even longer shifts all the time.
    • munk-a 9y ago
      You can scale the price to find a point where it's economical to offer to stay open while maintaining good relations and if the demand is consistent and heavy then scale that price appropriately or, alternatively, simply refuse to service repeat offenders if it's becoming a serious headache. It's a bit of a hard question because the daycare may not have a legal way to stop holding the child, unlike fedex they can't simply return it to sender, so these sorts of contingencies might not be expected on opening your center, but you'll need to scale into them.
      • derekp7 9y ago
        They can always call child services, and have DCFS pick up the kid. I think that is what one of the local daycares by me does, after a certain cutoff time (i.e., they can't be expected to stay open all night).
  • deleted 9y ago
• lanius 9y ago
  Here's an article about that: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomics.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomic...
• amesen 9y ago
  This is mentioned in Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational.
• euyyn 9y ago
  It's in the book Freakonomics, when talking about economic, social, and moral incentives. The day care changed what was a social incentive for an economic one, and then couldn't reverse the consequences: Not fining the parents anymore didn't reduce the number of late ones to previous levels.
  • pilsetnieks 9y ago
    The story also appears in Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-irrational-economic-impulses https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-...
• tomashertus 9y ago
  I know about day care in Bay Area which is charging $20 per 5 minutes delay. I guess that's the reason:)
• secfirstmd 9y ago
  Wait until the EU GDPR kicks and in fines of up to 4% of annual turnover or 20 million kick in...
  • peteretep 9y ago
    I suspect they don't even need to wait for that. EU watchdogs have serious teeth and take privacy seriously.
• mtgx 9y ago
  And the fine should always be bigger than whatever the company pocketed from the "crime" during that time. I think it was AT&T or Verizon that got fined the "record" $3 million by the FTC for tracking users' browsing behaviors for like 2 or 3 years. The FTC should have asked (subpoena I should say) the company for reports on how much money it made per user from that tracking for the whole period, and then charge it a multiples of that. Did it make $1 billion? Charge it $2 or $3 billion. And do this sort of stuff across industries with a regular occurrence, so that companies can "expect" such audits, and so they don't just think it's a one in a decade fine that maybe one company in the industry will get. I think you'll see abusive behavior drastically reduce.
  • colejohnson66 9y ago
    How does the EU calculate fines? And is there a reason we can’t just copy that?
• foxhop 9y ago
  The way you fix this is by making each 5m late cost 2 gallon of milk. If you are late for 15m that's 6 gallons of milk, an operational burden has been passed to the late parent. It's embarrassing to bring in 6 gallons of milk, an inconvenience to buy and deliver it, and an effective deterrent.
  • jogjayr 9y ago
    > If the parents were fined a day's daycare fee for being ten minutes late you can bet their attitude would change. I think upping the pain works better. What's a daycare going to do with so many gallons of milk?
    • foxhop 9y ago
      That amount of milk would last a couple days if snack is included in tuition. 20-40 glasses of milk, twice a day. If for some reason you have too many gallons of milk, you can also use toilet paper, 10 rolls per 5 minutes. You can never have too much toilet paper, some late parents even buy the soft stuff too! lol A huge fine isn't always the best deterrent and it makes people generally mad at your child care center. Everyone gets a chuckle out of seeing a dad walk in with three jugs in each hand... It's a light hearted walk of shame and it really works to deter late pickups which is the real goal.
      • jogjayr 9y ago
        It's not so great for the staff either. Instead of waiting an extra 10 minutes for a parent that's 10 minutes late, they now have to wait 30 minutes because the parent had to make a 20 minute detour to the grocery store to buy milk. > A huge fine isn't always the best deterrent and it makes people generally mad at your child care center. EDIT: You can make this revenue neutral. Give parents a discount at the end of every month out of the money they collect in late fines. People on time at a better-than-average rate will come out ahead.
        • foxhop 9y ago
• sbuttgereit 9y ago
  Well, day care operators have since learned... ... as I sit in my home office, just over an hour away from day care closing time I assure you I'm watching the clock like a hungry hawk watching a mouse. See, my kid's day care charges a mere $600 per hour late (billed in 1 minute increments). I don't see kids parents late that often :-) and we've come close to missing it, but haven't in two years.
  • tostitos1979 9y ago
    Surely you are joking?? Why would you agree to such a thing?
    • hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      If you know you can show up on time, why not? My guess is that day cares do this to basically mean "show up on time, we're not f'ing around."
    • sbuttgereit 9y ago
      There's a lot of things we as adults agree to where the consequences can be steep. This is one of the easier ones: we just show up on time. We plan accordingly and we, as responsible adults, manage to pull it off. That's not hard: so why not agree to such a thing? Another perspective on this is why should we expect someone else to bear the consequences of our failing to meet our responsibilities? If we're late picking up our kid, they staff at the day care leave late to see their own families, they incur higher operational costs, etc. Their request that we show up prior to their closing time is completely reasonable and that there are stern consequences for failing to meet our responsibilities doesn't seem unreasonable either... especially in light of the comment I was responding to.... I assure you the day care really doesn't want to collect that fee.
      • yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        So you're in a car accident on the way and wake up in the hospital with a few thousand dollars in fines. Or better yet, pass out at home (in spite of being in good health; blood pressure can do weird things) with no witnesses and come to a few hours later.
• quickthrower2 9y ago
  our daycare calls the police ... quite a deterrent I'd say