arnoldwh

I think the "backlash" is a symptom, not the cause.

The cause likely has a lot more to do with an unnatural supply constraint imposed previously as well as very little in the way of a public transportation infrastructure that would better enable workers (both tech and other) to live where they would like, at a price they want to pay.

As a power-excel user I agree with you that Sheets isn't quite there yet. Trying to use the same shortcut keys that I'm used to often makes me want to bang my head against a wall, either because they don't work at all or because even if they do, it's not as responsive.

However, the pace of improvement is one that I think you should definitely consider before saying "never." Excel hasn't fundamentally changed for me since 2003 (outside of being able to more easily handle larger datasets from 65K+), so it seems like a fixed target while sheets continues to move closer (still with large gaps ahead!).

If I need to do financial modeling, I'll likely continue to use excel. However, for many low-touch projects, I've almost completely switched over to sheets, which wasn't the case even a year ago.

Hopefully, people can work together to what I think could be 2-3 good outcomes that help alleviate some of these very real problems:

1. Public Transportation: both inter & intra-city transportation is very poor. It's extremely hard to travel between neighborhoods in San Francisco, and it's a huge reason people rely so much on Lyft and other providers in the city. Also, it's really difficult to travel between SF and Oakland (as well as other cities). Creating better / more infrastructure that connects these two should help ease supply constraints that cause these price spikes in the first place. Not sure how feasible this is...especially looking at other cities experience in public transportation (example: bay bridge).

2. More supply. One of the effects of previous legislation to keep the SF "neighborhood feel" was that it constrained new supply coming into the market. Unfortunately, it takes a few years for new units to come into the market, and it's obvious it's not keeping pace with demand. There of course needs to be a balance vs. keeping SF's historic appeal, but maybe the previous compromise leaned too heavily against putting up new units.

3. Government subsidies / rent control to help ease rapid price hikes. I'm not as big of a fan of these, but largely because I don't quite understand all the economic/social effects.

“My primary motivation,” Thoman said, “is because I don’t like playing games at low resolution.”

I thought that quote was great. The modding community always amazes me for their frequent dedication without any kind of financial reward or recognition.

It looks like how it lets you claim your money without your bank account details is by processing a refund. Don't know how they did it, but it's very cool.

I hate to say it, but if I ran an art stand, I'd put up a few around central park right now.

Wouldn't be surprised to see some stands going up to make money off the "halo effect" here.

"I am struck by just how many people there are working there on the floor. There seem to be too many whenever I'm there."

Maybe that's more more of a load problem? They are probably there for the peak rush periods, and I would imagine forecasting those accurately is almost impossible, so you operate with a buffer. Lower wages enable them to be more flexible in handling these peak loads.

In terms of your point about the financial impact, a quick look at the SG&A of Walmart (20%) shows a big difference vs. Costco's (~9%). I don't have the breakout of employee wages, but it does seem like it's definitely a more labor intensive model. Then again, they probably could afford to pay higher wages, but the problem is that customers haven't given them a financial incentive to do so. I feel like the point the author was trying to make was a good one...many people that write about these issues should acknowledge the different business models instead of just quickly pointing at Costco and saying the model works with higher wages.

It's a bit like a game. It's the investors job to eliminate false positives and vs. a first time founder, investors will typically have an advantage in that they've been through this many times before.

Trying to "beat the system" is like trying to beat investors at what they would on average be the best at doing and potentially sending inadvertent false positive signals caused by the nervousness of being new to fundraising.

If you focus on what PG recommends, you eliminate a lot of that friction since you eliminate the nervousness.

My tl;dr: In the fundraising lottery, it's easier to sell investors a ticket than trying to convince them you have the winning combination.