Why People Hate The Google Bus

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Really? People HATE the Google bus? I like to kick Google in the nuts as much as the next guy but "bus envy" is just ridiculous.

Commuters who struggle with the crowded municipal bus service openly envy the spacious tech shuttles filled with their iPad-tapping passengers. The San Francisco Chronicle recently swelled the chorus with an op-ed denouncing the private shuttles as symbols of alienation and division: "San Franciscans feel resentful about the technology industry's lack of civic and community engagement, and the Google bus is our daily reminder."
Click to expand...
 
Microsoft also has a private bus line for employees near their Washington campus and people are upset that they operate independently while the municipal bus system in the area is failing horribly because of low usage.
 
wow, that has to suck...the bus has to be depressing enough watching people who can afford cars drive by, but then you see a different group of bus riders who are riding a bus too but still at a higher level than you?
 
That article is just a sad, sad, sad joke. So, you're upset that someone else worked hard and is now working for a giant company that invests back into it's workforce by providing reasonable amenities? My advice to the original article author, get lost.
 
lol sounds like a bunch of people are super jelly....


i would suggest they not label their buses.... just make them nondescript and unmarked...
 
Bus envy isn't that ridiculous, Steve. Especially given the laughable excuse for public transit that already exists in the USA.
 
Civic and community engagement? What? How does a bus have anything to do with that? We haven't had over the fence conversations with neighbors in years. People don't get involved in their community as much and that has nothing to do with Google's buses.

(Though, I have heard that Google tracks everything you do on their bus and is using it to summon evil demons and that ilk.)
 
Why don't people just get upset with the people who they should be blaming ... their local politicians ... there is no reason why city buses couldn't have more amenities for the people who use them ... Personally I am happy the companies offer commuting options like this for their workers

This also highlights the sheltered nature of many Americans ... I lived in Malaysia for a year back in the 90s and the Bas Kilang (or Worker buses) were everywhere ... they were special buses that only took workers from their dormitories or homes to the factories ... they were much nicer than the local buses (depending on the company) and had such amenities as TVs, Aircon, and nicer seats

:(
 
maybe instead of complaining and bitching -- the people that are envious or jealous would apply themselves when it comes to education/science/programming... you know... like the people riding the sweet google bus did.

Attention poor ignorant people: it is not the job of highly educated people who work hard to support you. If you don't like your living situation - make smarter choices.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
At the end of the day, they are all still riding the bus. :D
Click to expand...

Given the awful hourly parking rates, in addition to the hassle/money-drain of car ownership...If I couldn't commute by bike, and the bus service was remotely viable I'd sure as hell consider riding the bus a step up over driving a car.

Ofc, out here, the city bus service has awful coverage, with awful time tables that are highly irregular....making it at best a massive inconvenience to try to use.
 
goodcooper said:
i would suggest they not label their buses.... just make them nondescript and unmarked...
Click to expand...

They are unmarked, but they still stand out quite clearly. Google, Apple, etc... use those nice, large, clean tour buses - they are very distinct from your average muni buses.
 
Skripka said:
Given the awful hourly parking rates, in addition to the hassle/money-drain of car ownership...If I couldn't commute by bike, and the bus service was remotely viable I'd sure as hell consider riding the bus a step up over driving a car.

Ofc, out here, the city bus service has awful coverage, with awful time tables that are highly irregular....making it at best a massive inconvenience to try to use.
Click to expand...

I'll guess from this that you likewise don't own a house..a yard and things like that which make having a car a very worthwhile expense. Before you talk about hassle/money-drain of a car, lets talk about all the money you are throwing away renting and not building equity. :rolleyes:
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I'll guess from this that you likewise don't own a house..a yard and things like that which make having a car a very worthwhile expense. Before you talk about hassle/money-drain of a car, lets talk about all the money you are throwing away renting and not building equity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It can actually be a lot more profitable to not bother owning a house. Property values don't increase much except in relationship to inflation so the house someone buys in 1970 for $30k and then sells in 2013 for $200k didn't really earn them $160k over 40 years if you factor in inflation, upkeep costs, and the interest paid against the original loan. Buying a house is nice, but its not really the great investment people make it out to be. Sometimes, the best way for a common person to make money is to invest early and with as much as possible into something that will leverage compound interest in their favor. Homes simply don't do that.
 
Sounds like a bunch of whining Commies with penis envy. It's Goggle's bus and they can do what ever they want with it. If they choose to carpool their employees via the bus, a van or urban assault vehicle it's a great perk, more power to them. But then I also use Startpage not Google as a default for a search engine, along with Do Not Track Me and Block Google Tracking in the add ons. Remember that song with the lyrics, "Paranoia strikes me, into your heart it will creep."
 
I am all for blaming the tax dodge these companies do (so long as you blame the tax code and not those using it) but to bemoan the perks is just stupid. If your company wants to lessen traffic and get more work outta their people, they too can provide private shuttles or free meals or easy access to quality of life improvements.

Silicon Valley has the money and the mindset to try to make their employees lives nice while working them to the bone.

FB, Apple, Google, etc have money to get top talent and money to ensure their top talent is happy, I don't see the problem.
 
God I couldn't get through half that article, it's just beyond retarded, people really hate the Google bus? What about the Genebus for Genetech workers?

The buses have no markings or logos, no advertised destinations or stops.

It doesn't matter. Everyone knows what they are. "Transport for a breed apart. For a community that is separate but not equal," said Diamond Dave Whitaker, a self-professed beat poet and rabble-rouser.
Click to expand...
Ah... a self professed leech on society! "Why can't I get on your bus man, we like should all be equal and share"

The buses ferry workers to and from Apple, Facebook, Google and other companies in Silicon Valley, an hour's drive south. They hum with air-conditioning and Wi-Fi. They are for the tech elite, and only the tech elite.
Click to expand...
This is what tech buses way. BART doesn't go to the South Bay/Silicon Valley, so these companies provide a perk to THEIR WORKERS, that puts up pick up points at various stations so that THEIR WORKERS can get to work and not drive.

Could they take public buses? Ehhh, it gets complicated there. San Francisco's buses (MUNI) don't leave San Francisco, San Mateo county's buses (SamTrans) do but San Francisco charges them a fee to pick up anyone in SF (and drop them off) so you'll get charged twice over. You could take BART farther south into San Mateo county and not pay the fee, but then you pay more for the BART fare. It's just easier to have your hubs me in the larger stations, and since they're already in the large city where many of it's workers are why not. And don't you mistake anything, you can be damn sure the city of San Francisco charges all these corporate buses for pickup fees just like they would any other county's buses, just instead of their workers paying the city the company picks up the tab for the buses.

The point of mass transit is to get people out of their cars and into buses, trains, etc... IMO they're succeeding above and beyond the call of duty. I drive to work because my company (the City of San Francisco) doesn't provide me with transit, or even a discount of transit, and it really is much MUCH easier to drive.

So in conclusion not everyone hates these buses, in fact I get a little smile on my face when I see one, because here's a company that cares enough to get thousands of cars off the road and makes it CONVENIENT for their workers.
 
For many people who work in the city of SF, they commute to the city via Bay Area Regional Transit other means. This doesn't mean that they don't own cars or houses, its just that it's more convenient to take mass transit rather than incur the expense of having to not only gas up their cars for the commute, but pay for parking in the city. The idea that many of these people don't own homes or cars is ridiculous and presumptuous.
 
I remember a time when if you saw something you desired or wanted, you would assume it was on you to bust your ass to work harder and attain it.

Now, we whine it isn't given to us. Stick a fork in America, we're done.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It can actually be a lot more profitable to not bother owning a house. Property values don't increase much except in relationship to inflation so the house someone buys in 1970 for $30k and then sells in 2013 for $200k didn't really earn them $160k over 40 years if you factor in inflation, upkeep costs, and the interest paid against the original loan. Buying a house is nice, but its not really the great investment people make it out to be. Sometimes, the best way for a common person to make money is to invest early and with as much as possible into something that will leverage compound interest in their favor. Homes simply don't do that.
Click to expand...

Uh, no? It doesn't even have to be an investment that makes much of a return to be worth it over an apartment, if you get ANY money back it's a better decision than renting. A mortgage for a decent house can easily be comparable to renting a comparable 1 bedroom. Renting really is throwing your money away.
 
Steve said:
Really? People HATE the Google bus? I like to kick Google in the nuts as much as the next guy but "bus envy" is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think the issue has at least as much to do with the taxes they companies pay (or perhaps it's really about the tax breaks they get) as well as the fact that the employees drive up housing costs (one need only look at what's happening in the tenderloin district of SF) to the point that nobody that's not in a high paid position can afford to live anywhere.

The bus itself, doesn't seem like a big deal to me. As noted in the article, it reduces the # of cars on the road. From a company perspective, it means their employees can start working while they're going to work. It just makes sense for these companies to do it.
 
Next you will have people complaining about other perks like good health insurance...
 
"This month Whitaker, 75, and a few dozen other activists smashed a model Google bus piñata to pieces. They cheered each blow."

Chill out...
 
Skripka said:
Given the awful hourly parking rates, in addition to the hassle/money-drain of car ownership...If I couldn't commute by bike, and the bus service was remotely viable I'd sure as hell consider riding the bus a step up over driving a car.

Ofc, out here, the city bus service has awful coverage, with awful time tables that are highly irregular....making it at best a massive inconvenience to try to use.
Click to expand...
Let's face it, its more about internet addiction than hassle of car ownership.
 
beltaine said:
Next you will have people complaining about other perks like good health insurance...
Click to expand...
People do complain about other people getting health insurance through their companies.

Usually 50% of their complaint is unfounded and 50% is legitimate but their solution is based on sour grapes. The part that's legitimate is the tax break the person receiving health care gets because it isn't included as imputed income (yet).

But instead of asking for their benefit for themselves on privately purchased healthcare, they'd rather have company healthcare stripped from the people who do have it. Because ultimately even if the government did give them a tax break on it, they wouldn't get it because they don't want to make the sacrifices to buy it. So they'd rather you share the same fate.
 
if I was any where near one I would hack the hell out of the buses wifi just to screw with them. follow them in a car in range.
 
Microsoft does the same thing in Seattle with the cooperation of the local transit authority. The transit center near the main campus was built on what was originally (IIRC) MSFT property with an eye towards eventual rail service. It is shared between MSFT and King County Metro.

It's faster than the regular bus because it runs directly from where folks live to main campus, with connecting shuttles to other destinations. In my case It is twice as fast as King County Metro.

Sounds like the Bay Area dropped the ball with transit and now are whining about Google and others filling in the gaps. The key is to not whine about, but to work with the companies to make transit better for everyone. That's how we roll up north.
 
Some people complain to try to improve the system ... some complain to try and tear other people down. Guess which part we're dealing with here.
 
I don't know. Elitism aside, it reduces the amount of cars going around, reducing traffic and pollution, that's a good thing.

Now if we could just improve our public transit systems so they didn't suck the tail end of a colostomy bag...
 
TheFlosser said:
Uh, no? It doesn't even have to be an investment that makes much of a return to be worth it over an apartment, if you get ANY money back it's a better decision than renting. A mortgage for a decent house can easily be comparable to renting a comparable 1 bedroom. Renting really is throwing your money away.
Click to expand...

It may be throwing your money away but there is a reason that home ownership tends to stay in the high sixty percent range ... there is a large portion of the population that doesn't qualify for home ownership (bad credit, low income, etc) ... when the government tried to force that percentage higher by encouraging more home ownership they just ended up granting lots of bad loans that caused the real estate collapse ...

also, in captive real estate markets like New York it might not be financially feasible for even people with good credit to own a home ... in Japan at one point the real estate prices got so high that they were granting 80 year mortgages that crossed generations ... it is great if someone has the credit or is in the financial situation to buy rather than rent but it shouldn't be a badge of shame to rent either :cool:
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It can actually be a lot more profitable to not bother owning a house. Property values don't increase much except in relationship to inflation so the house someone buys in 1970 for $30k and then sells in 2013 for $200k didn't really earn them $160k over 40 years if you factor in inflation, upkeep costs, and the interest paid against the original loan. Buying a house is nice, but its not really the great investment people make it out to be. Sometimes, the best way for a common person to make money is to invest early and with as much as possible into something that will leverage compound interest in their favor. Homes simply don't do that.
Click to expand...

Afraid this is completely false.

Let us eliminate inflation for a moment to keep this simple and easy to follow. Using your example, you bought a house in 1970 for 30k. What you forgot to include was the 30 year mortgage where it was paid off in 2000. So as of 2000 you have effectively 30k in the bank, in 2013 you still have 30k in the bank even if the house and property never increase in value one penny. The difference is a Renter who has been in an apartment for that 40 years has been outputting the same amount of money and they don't own a thing. All they get is Pay next months rent or you are on the street. Where the homeowner owns a house and land that hold value.

Let's make this more complex to drive the point home even further.
Bought house for 100k.
Paid off during 30 year mortgage at 3.5% interest.
Now without getting into a huge spreadsheet on how interest works. Lets just assume the $3500 per year interest is going to flatly add another $105k to the price paid. You still are paid off in 30 years as this is all calculated in. Obviously it wouldn't be $3500 per year as if you are paying more than just your interest that value will decrease with the amount of the loan.
so 30 years or 360 months comes out to a monthly output of $569/mo.

So the home owner pays $570/mo for 30 years and owns a home worth 100k with zero inflation or increase in value. The home owner has a loss of $105,000 due to interest.

Now the Renter.
Lives in Various apartments, townhomes, condos etc for the same 30 years.
Assuming a similar rent (unlikely unless you like living in a shithole).
$570/mo for 30 years.
Renter has paid $205,000 and has Absolutely nothing to show for it. A total loss of $205,000.

That isn't even getting into inflation and the very real chance that your property will be worth more at face value after 30 years than not. That is assuming the typical worst case of zero increase in value over the life of the loan. No matter how you try and spin it, the renter is never going to come out ahead.
 
kbrickley said:
It may be throwing your money away but there is a reason that home ownership tends to stay in the high sixty percent range ... there is a large portion of the population that doesn't qualify for home ownership (bad credit, low income, etc) ... when the government tried to force that percentage higher by encouraging more home ownership they just ended up granting lots of bad loans that caused the real estate collapse ...

also, in captive real estate markets like New York it might not be financially feasible for even people with good credit to own a home ... in Japan at one point the real estate prices got so high that they were granting 80 year mortgages that crossed generations ... it is great if someone has the credit or is in the financial situation to buy rather than rent but it shouldn't be a badge of shame to rent either :cool:
Click to expand...

It isn't a badge of shame to rent. This is just pointing out the extreme flaw in the logic of declaring a car a waste of money when it is an essential for a home owner. Also that attempting to call a car a waste of money while being a renter which is a far bigger waste of money is just a unbelievably stupid statement.
 
kllrnohj said:
They are unmarked, but they still stand out quite clearly. Google, Apple, etc... use those nice, large, clean tour buses - they are very distinct from your average muni buses.
Click to expand...

That picture looks far from unmarked. But why the hell should they have to unmark their buses. It's another form of advertisement, I don't see why they have to.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It isn't a badge of shame to rent. This is just pointing out the extreme flaw in the logic of declaring a car a waste of money when it is an essential for a home owner. Also that attempting to call a car a waste of money while being a renter which is a far bigger waste of money is just a unbelievably stupid statement.
Click to expand...

Oh, I would agree (remember that our Uncle Google there isn't above Trolling now and again ;) )... I am not a car driver right now but that is more because of a pending $10,000 repair ... it actually makes more sense to buy a new car (which isn't financially viable right now) ...

car ownership (or lack of) is really more of a question of location and lifestyle ... owning a car in New York City might very well be a luxury (owning one here in Texas is much more of a necessity) ... although biking and walking makes me significantly more healthy than lots of folks it has shrunk my world tremendously

To stay more on topic I would love the option of a company bus (I bicycle commute right now) ... although I find the fitness aspects of biking give me a moral high ground over lots of folks it would be nice to have an alternative between biking and public transportation

As to the protesters ... TFB ... Google engineers and Apple engineers actually are better than you and most of the normal population ... c'est la vie ... if you want to be better than everyone else then go to school and get a job with a preeminent company also :cool:
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Afraid this is completely false.

Let us eliminate inflation for a moment to keep this simple and easy to follow. Using your example, you bought a house in 1970 for 30k. What you forgot to include was the 30 year mortgage where it was paid off in 2000. So as of 2000 you have effectively 30k in the bank, in 2013 you still have 30k in the bank even if the house and property never increase in value one penny. The difference is a Renter who has been in an apartment for that 40 years has been outputting the same amount of money and they don't own a thing. All they get is Pay next months rent or you are on the street. Where the homeowner owns a house and land that hold value.

Let's make this more complex to drive the point home even further.
Bought house for 100k.
Paid off during 30 year mortgage at 3.5% interest.
Now without getting into a huge spreadsheet on how interest works. Lets just assume the $3500 per year interest is going to flatly add another $105k to the price paid. You still are paid off in 30 years as this is all calculated in. Obviously it wouldn't be $3500 per year as if you are paying more than just your interest that value will decrease with the amount of the loan.
so 30 years or 360 months comes out to a monthly output of $569/mo.

So the home owner pays $570/mo for 30 years and owns a home worth 100k with zero inflation or increase in value. The home owner has a loss of $105,000 due to interest.

Now the Renter.
Lives in Various apartments, townhomes, condos etc for the same 30 years.
Assuming a similar rent (unlikely unless you like living in a shithole).
$570/mo for 30 years.
Renter has paid $205,000 and has Absolutely nothing to show for it. A total loss of $205,000.

That isn't even getting into inflation and the very real chance that your property will be worth more at face value after 30 years than not. That is assuming the typical worst case of zero increase in value over the life of the loan. No matter how you try and spin it, the renter is never going to come out ahead.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is completely false. You're just coming up with numbers out of your ass that do not reflect reality. In a period of strong increase of real estate value, you'll make money owning a house. In a period of weak/no increase of real estate value (like the last few years), you'd be better off taking the difference between the mortgage and the rent and putting it into the stock market. If you buy a house for $1m and sell it it 5, 10, 30 years later for $1m, then you would have been much better off renting and investing the difference.
 
Envy is the most evil and destructive of all the seven deadly sins.
 
ianken said:
Microsoft does the same thing in Seattle with the cooperation of the local transit authority. The transit center near the main campus was built on what was originally (IIRC) MSFT property with an eye towards eventual rail service. It is shared between MSFT and King County Metro.

It's faster than the regular bus because it runs directly from where folks live to main campus, with connecting shuttles to other destinations. In my case It is twice as fast as King County Metro.

Sounds like the Bay Area dropped the ball with transit and now are whining about Google and others filling in the gaps. The key is to not whine about, but to work with the companies to make transit better for everyone. That's how we roll up north.
Click to expand...

Well first, there's a SHITTON of difference between the two regions, King county covers a large area, and quite a few cities that are relevant. The Bay Area has 6 different counties in one area (or 9 depending how far out you want to count).

That said, basically no one here is bitching about the Google (or any other company) shuttle buses except those people who like to bitch just to bitch...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top