3 ms·

Sure. Plenty of its employees live in SF.

refurb 2y ago
Wait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad? So new jobs and high pay are bad? That sounds incredibly anti-worker.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".
  - refurb 2y ago
    Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      > Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? > Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?
      - refurb 2y ago
        > Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? Yes > No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society. Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Or if they switched from a lower paying job to a higher one? That's a societal benefit. > No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? You missed my scenario. If a new drug comes out, is it bad that someone benefits when the people who didn't get the new drug (because it wasn't available) don't benefit?
        dventimi 2y ago
        >> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Yes This ought to be good. Let's hear it. > these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. > Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. > You missed my scenario No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along
        refurb 2y ago
        > Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. Please provide a source. Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. > Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? > No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?

Wait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad? So new jobs and high pay are bad? That sounds incredibly anti-worker.

dventimi 2y ago
> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".
- refurb 2y ago
  Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? > Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?
    - refurb 2y ago
      > Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? Yes > No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society. Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Or if they switched from a lower paying job to a higher one? That's a societal benefit. > No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? You missed my scenario. If a new drug comes out, is it bad that someone benefits when the people who didn't get the new drug (because it wasn't available) don't benefit?
      - dventimi 2y ago
        >> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Yes This ought to be good. Let's hear it. > these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. > Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. > You missed my scenario No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along
        refurb 2y ago
        > Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. Please provide a source. Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. > Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? > No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?