Work in Silicon Valley

The funny thing is they are voicing opinions like
>I guess we're not welcome here anymore
>We should just take our big tech salaries somewhere else
Anymore?
They haven't been welcome for years
And they think they're going to move somewhere else in the US
Somewhere else? Like where?
Like somewhere that has more than pellet guns to shoot at their pic related?
Great idea guys!
I have an even better one
Maybe try not being the most hated assholes in the US for a while

Attached: google-bus-attacked.jpg (722x836, 161K)

Who will pay for the bombs and puppet governments overseas to make natural resources and slave labor cheap?

I love seeing autists flap their arm and gurgle this argument over and over again when every private road I have ever driven on is infinitely better maintained than public roads

>>Work in Silicon Valley
>>Make $350K starting salary
lolno. Even google starts at $170k + some unimpressive stock package.

I’d give my left nut for 170 starting and an “unimpressive” stock package. NEETs are so fucking delusional

Land of the _________

If I'm Facebook, I make every lunch cost 1 penny or some other loophole. Fuck these whiny fags, offer a better product instead of relying on government.

>hate the government for harassing people with real jobs and wish this shit would stop
>but also hate Facebook for being tremendous niggers and wish it would get worse
Is there a political ideology that supports my hatred for everyone and everything except myself and the select few things I personally approve of?

Attached: speak_with_beasts.png (383x522, 201K)

www.levels.fyi
>when you only make $140K starting salary
>because you are in Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
>now they take away my tax free lunch too
feelsbad.jpg

Amazon did this with free shipping in France. The government there banned free shipping because won't someone think of muh small business, Amazon imposed a uniform shipping fee of one Euro cent wherever shipping was formerly free.

As much as I normally hate Big Tech, I have to admire anyone who sticks their thumb in the eye of a meddlesome government like that.

-40% ultra high taxes
-50k/y cost of living

Yes. That would be fascism. You're a fascist.

Agreed.

>these tech companies are disrupting traffic
>let's attack mass transit
No wonder they don't work in tech

Cost of living in California is mad expensive. Plus most millennials eat out for at least breakfast and lunch, most likely all 3 meals. They easily spend $40 between coffee, breakfast and lunch.

Also it's funny how the most liberal, pro government group of people is crying about government intervention lmao. They want the government to provide everything for them, but get upset when the government doesn't let them do something.

Facebook, Google, etc will look backward and start making New Towns for their employees only.
All they have to do is throw some money at a corrupt state official somewhere and they get they'll get the Disney treatment like in Celebration or the 'Reedy Creek Improvement District'

I'll actually laugh when SF loses their meal tickets.

So no roads unless they're privately made, got it. Nice civilization you guys want

There is a different between utility and private intervention.

Me being a social democrat do not care what someone spends their money on. The govt should provide healthcare because its cheaper to provide better care. This is a fact. If you disagree, thats fine; but it's not on factual basis.

>most millennials eat out for at least breakfast and lunch, most likely all 3 meals
A. Fuck your avocado toast bullshit
B. Being born the 80s doesn't make you GenX you fucking poser

Fucking leave that place. Lunch here is 20 bucks if i splurge at a nicer place.

My favorite part is when people want these "private" companies doing all the infrastructure is that:
1. They are subsidized by the govt.
2. They cost more because they aren't operating at cost.
3. They charge a "subscription" AND get govt handouts.

Yea, corporate welfare. Fuck that and fuck corporations.

If you're in Silicon Valley and have enough money to open a restaurant, then you have enough money to open another type of business. They need to stop whining and learn to adapt.

Open a restaurant that isn't a generic coffee place and serves food different to the cafeterias.
Open an electric skateboard store to cash in on the 'last mile transport' nerds.
Sell neon coloured rollerblades for the gays.

Just learn to adapt. Retailers whining about having to compete and lobbying with the government has completely destroyed Australian retail.

SF would shed a burden if that happens
These companies are non-contributing members of society
Moving out and building their own towns would cost them a lot of money
Much more than leeching off of SF
That's why they stay

Attached: eric_schmidt.jpg (594x405, 102K)

>infinitely better maintained than public roads
DO YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE TRUE LEVEL MORTY?!

Oh yea. Weird how most fast food joints and plaza's I go to parking lots are falling apart. If they cant do parking lots properly how can you expect them to do bridges or roads?

>Moving out and building their own towns would cost them a lot of money
Tax offset/deductible, a new town would literally cost $0 since they'd just repatriate cash from outside US and use the construction to offset the taxes of repatriating the money.
>SF would shed a burden if that happens
lel, this is what idiots think. Enjoy your ghost town.

that's not what their selling; pizza places sell pizza, not a good parking lot experience.

>mfw drive on Turnpike and is smooth as butter
>mfw go across state lines and turns into pothole shit

it's san francisco. a ham sandwich is 15 dollars plus tip

actually, pizza places are leasing space from a landlord. The landlord is responsible for the parking lot. The landlord uses a private contractor to update/fix the parking lot.

You must be retarded? You just admitted that since private organizations cannot take care of parking lots, why would you trust them to take care of roads?

>$350k/yr is par for silicon valley
>$80k/yr is par for a similar job in a low col area
there has to be some huge arbitrage opportunity here

>The govt should provide healthcare because its cheaper to provide better care.
If that were true Vets wouldn't be dying because of the truly rancid practice that is govt controlled health care

how can one person be so delusional?

Dominos

pavingforpizza.com/

taxation is theft, government is just a giant bully that needs to be bitch slapped

So the roads have a cardboard base?

again, as long as you can get into the door, why do they need to have a smooth parking lot? as long as your tires aren't poppin', you can still get your pizza.

and as I said, private corporations like the Turnpike I drive is smoother than the federally funded interstate.

this shit is hilarious

You have no idea what arbitrage means

Thats because the US doesn't have universal healthcare, so your amazing military has to provide what it can. With that being said, military healthcare should be shit; last thing I want is for people who join the military getting benefits that the common people do not. Its ridiculous that they "serve" and get out with a free "education" ticket that is not given to anyone else. All or none; stop making war a jobs program.

>I can just remove my dependence on government handouts by using government handouts

Attached: mathlady.jpg (681x445, 36K)

> as long as you can "drive" on the "road" that has "holes" in then why do they care?

THE FREE MARKET HAS GONE TOO FAR

more like 90 vs 60

>Assumes all government is a single entity.
kek.

This is starting to sound like the first few dozen pages of Snow Crash.

once it gets shitty, i drive on another branch of the road. but in 25 years it's always been the nicest road to drive on.

i've never avoiding visiting a restaurant because of their parking lot.

>t.Bootlicker

> assumes govt "contracts" arent welfare

Why are you talking about completely separate issues to what I was discussing?

Why is/g/ full of ancaps?

wow, we should all live like you then

Am curious how you rationalize:
1. Roads cost more if its private (overhead of private organization)
2. The company is subsidized by your govt (I've yet to see any "private" contractor not living off the govt).

All you've done is privatize the roads and create a monopoly. You justify this how? "bidding"? Where there is a rush to the bottom and they cut corners? Meanwhile, the govt is AT COST; it will always be cheaper for the govt to do infrastructure than it will be to have a private entity to do it.

define welfare - you can't

>Meanwhile, the govt is AT COST; it will always be cheaper for the govt to do infrastructure than it will be to have a private entity to do it.
bootlickers actually believe this

have you seen Amtrak? NASA?

It's not about the free food you stupid boomer. It's about the company cafeterias. Apple has company cafeterias but it costs money to eat there. The jewish government wants people to stop eating inside the company and spend money on overpriced hipster street cafes.

>republicans sabotage and ruin public services
>you see the whole government can't do public services???

>i've never avoiding visiting a restaurant because of their parking lot.
I've seen this happen.

I was on a road trip with a girl and pulled into the lot of a Chinese restaurant. She made me leave because it "seemed sketchy".

It was a totally normal looking parking lot in the outskirts of course, but it still happened.

it's two guys, they reply to themselves too

please give an example of a government program done correctly

NASA doesnt make what they use. There are PRIVATE govt contractors. Aka corporations that suck on the gov tit. This is what you want.

USPS

>overhead of private organization
It's measurably lower than overhead of government. Actually this is true by principle too, size of an organization and lack of mobility correlates directly to overhead and governments are always the worst offenders in those regards

please explain how their budgeting issues are an example of a good program? they are hemorrhaging money because they aren't sustainable.

Thanks to republicans

people who steal money

LMAO

What part of for profit do you not understand? Are you retarded?

USPS still costs money, is only marginally cheaper up front than UPS in most cases, and it's also a drain on taxes despite false claims (lies) that it's fully sustainable. Just last year it shed billions and that's with very unique tax breaks and special interest rates because it's virtually a government monopoly that's still so inefficient and garbage it can't dominate the industry.

Actually it is fully sustainable and pays for itself. It operates at cost. If you don't believe this just another retard who doesn't know how to look at the data.

That's not an overhead in any sense of the term. An overhead is a cost incurred DOING business. I shouldn't have to explain that but it's clear you're an underaged monkey so here we are

She made you leave because she knew someone who worked there.

Attached: 1518370677054.jpg (960x960, 30K)

The mere business model is the overhead. One is FOR PROFIT. One is AT COST. How stupid do you have to be to not see this?

>be Amazon
>don't pay taxes
>use that advantage to bankrupt tax paying businesses
>still not leeching enough
>send all packages that go on unprofitable delivery routes by USPS who is obliged to take it, at a loss
>local government strikes back
>outlaws tax free lunches
It really is David (local government) vs Goliath (big tech)

>income is only from Amazon packages and shoving bulk mailers in everyone's mailboxes
>sells off billions in assets to stay afloat
>self sustaining
you are delusional

Yeah.
Privatise the libraries too while we're at it.
Police and IRS need to be privatised to, they don't make any money.

This. We need worldwide communism.

Attached: tilly.jpg (1280x720, 329K)

It posted a $3 billion loss just last year, twice that the year before with nearly a billion in just . It's an incredibly inefficient organization and the only profitable department in it is mail carrying, which only happens because the US government literally granted it a monopoly on that service.

Let me concede to your argument. Your solution is what? Privatize USPS? It'll cost me what? $5 to send an envelope instead of $0.80? Yea, no thanks. It costs $20-25 just to send "ground" via FedEx/UPS. We already have your way, and its a nightmare.

> profitable
it should never be profitable; it's a fucking national mail delivery service. Are you stupid?

the poster i'm replying to said the USPS is self-sustaining, when they are definitely not. the base argument is that there is no example of efficient government

in reality, USPS's usability is shrinking. no one really sends envelopes anymore thanks to email, so they deliver packages. their infrastructure is not built for it.

but it shouldn't lose money either. as people above are saying, it should be self sustaining but it isn't.

Exterminating the poor and dumb would literally be more a more realistically feasible model. Contrary to expectations in the 80s and 90s 3rd worlds ended up exploding in population despite having hundreds of billions of aid poured into their economies, and have lower productivity than consumption, which is why rich nations still have to prop up economies of poor nations across the world. The same applies at a smaller level where poor regions like the midwest and ghettos in cities are basically unproductive and a net drain on society and by any objective means are a complete waste.

No government is so fucking retarded when you also want a capitalist society.

Attached: 1517192559900.png (643x480, 332K)

Are you retarded? The USPS would have even greater losses if their mail carrying wasn't profitable. They use the profit from one service to subsidize the rest of their services but it's still not enough so the organization posts a net loss every year.

>USPS's usability is shrinking
and yet its used like crazy for mailing packages

> it should be self sustaining but it isn't.
I disagree with it "should be self sustaining". Some of its operating cost should come from its business; but it should be funded via the federal govt through taxes anyways as, like you point out people may not use and therefore not contribute to a NATIONAL service. Everyone should pay, and so that comes from TAXES that have NO LOOPHOLES.

>companies are using "free" food as part of their tax games
>by law, the employees consuming the food are supposed to be the tax
>said tax money is never collected from the employees paycheck
Technically, the governments are right to go after these companies.

I'm sick of all the sophistry that allows these stupid games to go on in the first place.

Attached: 1376174879423.jpg (400x307, 28K)

>and yet its used like crazy for mailing packages
yes, but it's not built for packages. they have not been able to scale appropriately to handle this increasing load. from the get-go, FedEx and UPS were built to handle packages.

my neighbor's wife is a mail carrier. she drops leaflets in mailboxes while the rest of the truck is filled with amazon boxes. can't carry them all in a bag and walk the neighborhood anymore, gotta drive up to every house now.

While we're at it, let's tax "free water" and "free restrooms". I'm tired of these welfare queen companies stealing money from the taxpayers.

>tech companies do efficient, environmentally friendly thing
>cities say no, you have to drive around lookng for something to eat every day

> does not scale appropriately
and yet my packages are delivered when they say they are going to be delivered and my mail is always delivered at the same time

sure, until peak holidays. and as we have been saying, they are hemorrhaging money just to pull off your deliveries and can't sustain themselves.