3 ms·

A couple of thoughts: 1. Apple's 'job' is to do what it needs to do to ensure that its business prospers. If the housing 'crisis' in the Bay area is a risk to

by mft_ 7y ago

A couple of thoughts: 1. Apple's 'job' is to do what it needs to do to ensure that its business prospers. If the housing 'crisis' in the Bay area is a risk to how it wants to conduct its business, isn't it reasonable that it invests to mitigate that risk? (This is barely different to Apple making large investments in manufacturers, to support them in turn being able to supply what Apple needs to buy from them.) 2. From what I read and see when I visit SF, and also more broadly in the US, the government (be that national, state, or city?) is doing a pretty poor job of tackling housing-related issues - from affordability to homelessness. Can you directly attribute this widespread failure to a lack of funding, due to insufficient taxation of Apple and others? 3. Isn't $2.5bn (+/- new approaches?) to try to combat these issues better than $0, irrespective of where it comes from?

eptcyka 7y ago
The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as far as I can see. From where I'm sitting, they'll still have to deal with the existing home-owners and speculators who want to maintain the value of their assets. I don't think waterhosing them with money will necessarily help.
- thecopy 7y ago
  > do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?
  - eptcyka 7y ago
    > $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
    - thecopy 7y ago
      I still don't understand, I feel you are making elusive claims requiring some inside-knowledge to fully understand. Im not American so maybe I'm missing why loans are "just so wrong"
      - vectorEQ 7y ago
        imagine your government neck deep in debts with privately owned companies. ok ok you got me... , now imagine that's not banks :'D ... ok not much changes :D, government giving out their powers and money to some companies. its what they do i guess
- conanbatt 7y ago
  The problem is the "public" spend. San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Inefficient spending by democratically-elected bodies is still better than inefficient spending by corporations. Do you really want to live in a society that only receives public works when a corporation decides it's good for business? There's this fantasy that corporations are somehow much more efficient than government, and I haven't found that to be the case. The major difference is that corporate spending isn't transparent to the public, so it's subject to decreased criticism. > San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone. I assume you're referring to Salesforces Transit Center[1]. "Bus station" is a misleading way to describe it. It's huge (~235,000 sqft), includes a large public park, and will connect to high-speed rail. There are public benefits to having a large transit station with green space in a central urban location. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
- jswizzy 7y ago
  Yes I don't see how making more money available is gonna cause prices to go down. Isn't it simple supply and demand? Now there is more money that housing investors and realtors can grab.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That the public would have that 2.5B is a false assumption even if it is a complete tax write off for Apple. The money was already theirs for better or worse.
  - caseyf7 7y ago
    Exactly. The benefits largely accrue to the employees of the donor company rather than the public.
melvinroest 7y ago
Not parent but 1. Agree 2. Good question 3. I see what you mean but I can't help but think "isn't Facebook's internet better than no internet?" The corporate social responsibility of companies isn't all that great IMO. And even if it is, when you have a new king, oh I mean CEO, that can change. Well, at least the CEO position is based on merit, some of the time, sort of, hopefully.

by mft_ 7y ago

eptcyka 7y ago

The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as far as I can see. From where I'm sitting, they'll still have to deal with the existing home-owners and speculators who want to maintain the value of their assets. I don't think waterhosing them with money will necessarily help.

thecopy 7y ago
> do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?
- eptcyka 7y ago
  > $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
  - thecopy 7y ago
    I still don't understand, I feel you are making elusive claims requiring some inside-knowledge to fully understand. Im not American so maybe I'm missing why loans are "just so wrong"
    - vectorEQ 7y ago
      imagine your government neck deep in debts with privately owned companies. ok ok you got me... , now imagine that's not banks :'D ... ok not much changes :D, government giving out their powers and money to some companies. its what they do i guess
conanbatt 7y ago
The problem is the "public" spend. San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone.
- smt88 7y ago
  Inefficient spending by democratically-elected bodies is still better than inefficient spending by corporations. Do you really want to live in a society that only receives public works when a corporation decides it's good for business? There's this fantasy that corporations are somehow much more efficient than government, and I haven't found that to be the case. The major difference is that corporate spending isn't transparent to the public, so it's subject to decreased criticism. > San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone. I assume you're referring to Salesforces Transit Center[1]. "Bus station" is a misleading way to describe it. It's huge (~235,000 sqft), includes a large public park, and will connect to high-speed rail. There are public benefits to having a large transit station with green space in a central urban location. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
jswizzy 7y ago
Yes I don't see how making more money available is gonna cause prices to go down. Isn't it simple supply and demand? Now there is more money that housing investors and realtors can grab.
Nasrudith 7y ago
That the public would have that 2.5B is a false assumption even if it is a complete tax write off for Apple. The money was already theirs for better or worse.
- caseyf7 7y ago
  Exactly. The benefits largely accrue to the employees of the donor company rather than the public.

melvinroest 7y ago

Not parent but 1. Agree 2. Good question 3. I see what you mean but I can't help but think "isn't Facebook's internet better than no internet?" The corporate social responsibility of companies isn't all that great IMO. And even if it is, when you have a new king, oh I mean CEO, that can change. Well, at least the CEO position is based on merit, some of the time, sort of, hopefully.