Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gabrielrotbart 2876 days ago
Because we can be better human beings by helping each other. Those private medallion holders made a mistake by putting all their eggs in that one nest, sure. But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?

I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.
1 comments
bogomipz 2876 days ago
>"Because we can be better human beings by helping each other."

There have been 3 restaurants on my block that have opened and failed inn the last 18 months. Shouldn't we help them too by your logic? Should the city council pass legislation?

>"But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?

Yeah that's a false equivalence. Empathy and bailouts are not the same things at all. I can have empathy and be against a bailout and that doesn't amount to me saying "screw you" to anyone.

link
bbeonx 2876 days ago
No, of course not. Most restaurants fail. This is expected. There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them.

If the restaurant industry collapsed next year I'd say the same thing for them too. But there is a qualitative difference between ad hoc business failures and a systematic change.

But I agree that bailouts != empathy. Still, bailouts aren't the only option, and as a society it is in our interest to help a sector when it goes under. It may happen to you or me next.

EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about owner-operated cabs.

link
bogomipz 2876 days ago
>" There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them."

The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars.

The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

link
bbeonx 2872 days ago
Semantics. What I should have said is "when the valuation of a wide percentage of peoples earnings and assets who belong to an industry suddenly decreases from unforeseen outside forces caused by rapid technological advances..."

Or how about "when about 18% of taxi drivers nest egg devaluates and their retirement evaporates..."

To claim there is no difference between a restaurant failing and all independent taxi cab drivers in NYC simultaneously taking a giant hit that they did not see coming based on an (admittedly bad) policy of protectionism, is intentionally missing the point and I would say is intellectually dishonest.

Is a bailout the best way to fix this? I have no idea, seems like a relatively low cost way to fix what the city did but these things are complicated. I'm open to that discussion.

Are failure rates of the restaurant industry totally incomparable to this singular situation? Most definitely, and any argument based on this is flawed IMO.

link