Especially since (despite the constant barrage of Zume ads I get for living 5 miles away from their "HQ") they are currently only available in ONE CITY. Who the hell needs multiple robots making and delivering a couple hundred pizzas a day?
Not to mention Mountain View has one of THE BEST overall quality and variety of pizza of possibly any medium sized town I have seen (FJ&L, Tony & Alba's, Amici's, Doppio Zero, Blue Line, Napoletana, Maldonado's, etc). Hell, even the mediocre local chains like Mountain Mike's, Round Table, and Pizza My Heart aren't half bad. And of you go a few miles further out you get Paxti's, Slice of NY, Terún, Delfina, Howie's, etc.
Seems like the WORST place to start up an unvetted pizza delivery service advertising their robots and delivery methods over their QUALITY that I could think of. You know, Domino's also brags more about their "patented" trucks than their taste...
If the home is declared as your primary residence with the IRS, you don't pay the tax on it. There could even be a provision for a second home used for vacation/office/etc provided it is not rented out.
Eh, not really. You still pay property taxes on your primary residence, I can guarantee you that. You can *deduct* your property taxes from your income tax, so it's less of a tax burden, but not zero. So "secondary" homes already have more tax burden. But the idea is rental costs cover interest + taxes (and interest in most cases dwarfs taxes). So, really, imposing extra property taxes might not be as effective since it could raise rents. Imposing extra tax on rental *income*, on the other hand, might keep rent down...
Of course, another thing to consider strongly is to heavily tax/limit foreign investment in US properties. In the Bay Area, a lot of the competition is newly rich Chinese, etc who want a place to stash their US dollars given the artificially propped up exchange rate with the Yuan...
So, what's really needed are laws that impose extra taxes or restrictions on people who own land but are using it primarily as rental properties
But, if you make that too onerous...then you will have fewer folks having rental properties and fewer people that cannot afford to buy and need to rent...where will they go? The rents will go up as that the landlord will pass that onto the tenants.....
I'm going to assume that was a solid bit of ironic satire. If I was mistaken (/. has made me jaded)... just don't tell me.
Something has chained the supply down so it can barely increase.
True, but in some cases that's just the fact that it's just at reasonable capacity! In SF, sure, they could build higher, in Manhattan, kind of hitting some limits - the point being SF doesn't want to hit those limits (and maybe living in a 50+ story apartment in an earthquake zone, you don't either...)
As people move in, there are plenty of greedy developers who would build to satisfy...if they could.
Yes, of course you rent out housing for more than the cost of the interest on your mortgage, otherwise nobody would do it as it would cost them money.
That's totally UNTRUE (at least in the NY and Bay Area market, which is what most people in this article seem to be talking about).
Rental price needs to be above the cost of interest + appreciation to make money. Maybe that sounds pedantic, but in many of these markets appreciation is currently 10-20% per YEAR. So, it's still entirely possible to be underwater on the interest but make a shit-ton on the investment.
Problem with that is for the regions of the country where the land is most of the value, it basically prices out the people who have lived in a "hot" market (ie. you should NOT be forced to move just because your neighbors pay idiotic prices for their houses).
So, what's really needed are laws that impose extra taxes or restrictions on people who own land but are using it primarily as rental properties, so they pay their fair share. There are many ways to do that (don't give tax breaks, tax the rent at higher levels, levy extra property taxes, etc).
But in the end if they own the property and someone wants to pay to stay there, why the hell shouldn't they be able to make a business out of it? The real issue isn't to let them make money, it's to make sure they aren't skirting laws and taxes that hotels (which is what they are at that point) already have to pay. Capitalism is fine, competition is fine, the goal should be to make sure it's FAIR.
Nope. Totally the opposite, the OP has it reversed. So if that's your argument you haven't been following the issue so pay more attention before posting maybe?
Of course the hotels are lobbying for this. Because it doesn't affect single unit owners renting over the occasional weekend (which is what Airbnb pretends is their model), it's about large scale owners renting all of their units as a full-time business - which is basically a small (possible distributed) hotel, which should be regulated as such...
Bullshit, you said this: "The store would get sued for false/deceptive advertising".
Intentionally advertising a lower price and then changing is is a form of false advertising, and in fact is the DEFINITION of bait and switch. Duh.
I said misleading/deceptive, and for such a thing INTENT is not necessarily required
Deception: something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Bait and switch (called "Bait Advertising" by the FTC) would be the specific law broken, but it very specifically requires INTENT (go look it up, or don't, I really don't care but there is no debate there).
I suggest you learn all the elements of the crime before running off at the mouth
I suggest you get a fucking dictionary before posting this crap. Oh, and unlike you, I don't use need to use my mouth when I type.
I haven't seen any store having a self-checkout in quite a while.... the experiment with having self-checkout lanes obviously did not work out.......
Wait, wha? Just because you personally haven't seen them doesn't mean they failed. A half dozen stores around me have self-checkout - Safeway, Lucky, CVS, Lowe's - these are not small-time operations. Maybe it's your neighborhood...
Nope, untrue in general. CA is the same as anywhere else in the US when it comes to obvious pricing mistakes where the consumer should know that it's not a reasonable price. Maybe if your supermarket Tide detergent was $4 instead of $8, you have a shot. But if that iPad at Fry's was $8.99 instead of $899 sue away, you will LOSE.
Except yes, anyone who would buy Fallout 4 with all of the DLC is obviously a fairly hardcode gamer and knows the most popular game of the year is not going to be given away for free for no reason.
If that happened in THIS particular situation, on XBox Live, Microsoft would immediately offer a refund. So it's a poor analogy. They are not trying to screw anyone here, new release video games have pretty set prices and anyone on either side who recognizes the pricing mistake pretty much immediately knows it wasn't intentional. Duh.
You have somewhat of a point, but size is not the same thing as fashion.
Sure, the iPad Air is "sexy", but it's also amazingly compact and lightweight - I can take it on short trips instead of my laptop without carrying a backpack. And I can hold it up to read for extended periods without making my arms tired.
I just don't see the need for a tablet having most of the specs of my laptop (minus decent graphics, I guess) without the usability of a real keyboard, mouse, Ethernet, etc.
Hah, WORKING at a store it pretty much the worst qualification for claiming to know consumer law I have hear (well, maybe besides "I have bought lots of stuff!")
The court would almost definitely find for the store in any lawsuit - because they HAVE. Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch. Like many legal definitions, bait and switch requires INTENT.
To be honest, the packet switching invented for ARPA was atrocious.
So something that significantly progressed the state of the art 50+ years ago (I'm gonna guess before you were born) was "atrocious"? Yeah...
Far superior protocols exist, including generic protocols. Fuck, UDP with error-correction is still better than TCP is!
No, it's not. As to why don't care to elaborate since you didn't (and I assume can't).
For a brief moment I thought I might completely trash all of your other points. But they were mostly so stupid or dismissively second-guessing things that were revolutionary years ago that it wasn't worth it...
I'm the principal software architect at a major streaming service and have over 25 years of experience. I just don't call what I do "architecting" any more than a a building architect calls what they do "architecting"...
Slashdot Mirror
Especially since (despite the constant barrage of Zume ads I get for living 5 miles away from their "HQ") they are currently only available in ONE CITY. Who the hell needs multiple robots making and delivering a couple hundred pizzas a day?
Not to mention Mountain View has one of THE BEST overall quality and variety of pizza of possibly any medium sized town I have seen (FJ&L, Tony & Alba's, Amici's, Doppio Zero, Blue Line, Napoletana, Maldonado's, etc). Hell, even the mediocre local chains like Mountain Mike's, Round Table, and Pizza My Heart aren't half bad. And of you go a few miles further out you get Paxti's, Slice of NY, Terún, Delfina, Howie's, etc.
Seems like the WORST place to start up an unvetted pizza delivery service advertising their robots and delivery methods over their QUALITY that I could think of. You know, Domino's also brags more about their "patented" trucks than their taste...
Amazon. Duh. https://fresh.amazon.com/
If the home is declared as your primary residence with the IRS, you don't pay the tax on it. There could even be a provision for a second home used for vacation/office/etc provided it is not rented out.
Eh, not really. You still pay property taxes on your primary residence, I can guarantee you that. You can *deduct* your property taxes from your income tax, so it's less of a tax burden, but not zero. So "secondary" homes already have more tax burden. But the idea is rental costs cover interest + taxes (and interest in most cases dwarfs taxes). So, really, imposing extra property taxes might not be as effective since it could raise rents. Imposing extra tax on rental *income*, on the other hand, might keep rent down...
Of course, another thing to consider strongly is to heavily tax/limit foreign investment in US properties. In the Bay Area, a lot of the competition is newly rich Chinese, etc who want a place to stash their US dollars given the artificially propped up exchange rate with the Yuan...
But, if you make that too onerous...then you will have fewer folks having rental properties and fewer people that cannot afford to buy and need to rent...where will they go? The rents will go up as that the landlord will pass that onto the tenants.....
I'm going to assume that was a solid bit of ironic satire. If I was mistaken (/. has made me jaded)... just don't tell me.
Something has chained the supply down so it can barely increase.
True, but in some cases that's just the fact that it's just at reasonable capacity! In SF, sure, they could build higher, in Manhattan, kind of hitting some limits - the point being SF doesn't want to hit those limits (and maybe living in a 50+ story apartment in an earthquake zone, you don't either...)
As people move in, there are plenty of greedy developers who would build to satisfy...if they could.
Yes, but is that REALLY the best idea in SF?
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Yes, of course you rent out housing for more than the cost of the interest on your mortgage, otherwise nobody would do it as it would cost them money.
That's totally UNTRUE (at least in the NY and Bay Area market, which is what most people in this article seem to be talking about).
Rental price needs to be above the cost of interest + appreciation to make money. Maybe that sounds pedantic, but in many of these markets appreciation is currently 10-20% per YEAR. So, it's still entirely possible to be underwater on the interest but make a shit-ton on the investment.
Problem with that is for the regions of the country where the land is most of the value, it basically prices out the people who have lived in a "hot" market (ie. you should NOT be forced to move just because your neighbors pay idiotic prices for their houses).
So, what's really needed are laws that impose extra taxes or restrictions on people who own land but are using it primarily as rental properties, so they pay their fair share. There are many ways to do that (don't give tax breaks, tax the rent at higher levels, levy extra property taxes, etc).
But in the end if they own the property and someone wants to pay to stay there, why the hell shouldn't they be able to make a business out of it? The real issue isn't to let them make money, it's to make sure they aren't skirting laws and taxes that hotels (which is what they are at that point) already have to pay. Capitalism is fine, competition is fine, the goal should be to make sure it's FAIR.
Nope. Totally the opposite, the OP has it reversed. So if that's your argument you haven't been following the issue so pay more attention before posting maybe?
Of course the hotels are lobbying for this. Because it doesn't affect single unit owners renting over the occasional weekend (which is what Airbnb pretends is their model), it's about large scale owners renting all of their units as a full-time business - which is basically a small (possible distributed) hotel, which should be regulated as such...
Also, I said NOTHING about bait and switch
Bullshit, you said this: "The store would get sued for false/deceptive advertising".
Intentionally advertising a lower price and then changing is is a form of false advertising, and in fact is the DEFINITION of bait and switch. Duh.
I said misleading/deceptive, and for such a thing INTENT is not necessarily required
Deception: something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Bait and switch (called "Bait Advertising" by the FTC) would be the specific law broken, but it very specifically requires INTENT (go look it up, or don't, I really don't care but there is no debate there).
I suggest you learn all the elements of the crime before running off at the mouth
I suggest you get a fucking dictionary before posting this crap. Oh, and unlike you, I don't use need to use my mouth when I type.
I haven't seen any store having a self-checkout in quite a while.... the experiment with having self-checkout lanes obviously did not work out.......
Wait, wha? Just because you personally haven't seen them doesn't mean they failed. A half dozen stores around me have self-checkout - Safeway, Lucky, CVS, Lowe's - these are not small-time operations. Maybe it's your neighborhood...
Nope, untrue in general. CA is the same as anywhere else in the US when it comes to obvious pricing mistakes where the consumer should know that it's not a reasonable price. Maybe if your supermarket Tide detergent was $4 instead of $8, you have a shot. But if that iPad at Fry's was $8.99 instead of $899 sue away, you will LOSE.
There's a reason you don't let people working at stores handle stuff like this- you're a fucking idiot.
There's a reason you posted this as an Anonymous Coward. You have no idea what you are talking about, and are a fucking idiot...
Except yes, anyone who would buy Fallout 4 with all of the DLC is obviously a fairly hardcode gamer and knows the most popular game of the year is not going to be given away for free for no reason.
If that happened in THIS particular situation, on XBox Live, Microsoft would immediately offer a refund. So it's a poor analogy. They are not trying to screw anyone here, new release video games have pretty set prices and anyone on either side who recognizes the pricing mistake pretty much immediately knows it wasn't intentional. Duh.
You have somewhat of a point, but size is not the same thing as fashion.
Sure, the iPad Air is "sexy", but it's also amazingly compact and lightweight - I can take it on short trips instead of my laptop without carrying a backpack. And I can hold it up to read for extended periods without making my arms tired.
I just don't see the need for a tablet having most of the specs of my laptop (minus decent graphics, I guess) without the usability of a real keyboard, mouse, Ethernet, etc.
Welcome to 2016! The major providers have for the most part abandoned lock in contracts for cell phone discounts already.
Hah, WORKING at a store it pretty much the worst qualification for claiming to know consumer law I have hear (well, maybe besides "I have bought lots of stuff!")
The court would almost definitely find for the store in any lawsuit - because they HAVE. Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch. Like many legal definitions, bait and switch requires INTENT.
GO look it up. Even Consumerist doesn't think it's bait and switch: https://consumerist.com/2014/0...
Really, slippery slope argument for an obvious pricing mistake? Sigh.
To be honest, the packet switching invented for ARPA was atrocious.
So something that significantly progressed the state of the art 50+ years ago (I'm gonna guess before you were born) was "atrocious"? Yeah...
Far superior protocols exist, including generic protocols. Fuck, UDP with error-correction is still better than TCP is!
No, it's not. As to why don't care to elaborate since you didn't (and I assume can't).
For a brief moment I thought I might completely trash all of your other points. But they were mostly so stupid or dismissively second-guessing things that were revolutionary years ago that it wasn't worth it...
that they are somehow especially insightful and not unlike great historical figures
Sadly, having money and power is pretty much the best way to insert yourself into the history books.
They are not, they are filthy rich and should display some humility if they are not to be mocked as philistines.
Eh, kind of losing you there. Are you trying to claim that Mark Zuckerberg is uncircumcised? I'm pretty sure based on his heritage that's not true.
Worked for Shakespeare circa 1600, not so much for any technical or scientific terms in the 400 years after that.
I'm the principal software architect at a major streaming service and have over 25 years of experience. I just don't call what I do "architecting" any more than a a building architect calls what they do "architecting"...
If anything, it's mostly about the almost unreadable hyperbole and purple prose of a disgruntled former Facebook employee who seems to hate everyone.
"architecting"!?
To adopt a phrase from a generation or two past me... I can't even.