Twice as Many Mobile News Readers Prefer Browsers to Apps - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/twice-many-mobile-news-readers-prefer-browsers-apps-000021527.html <comment><USER2> Well I don't really understand why everyone jumped on the 'app bandwagon' and spent millions if not billions of dollars developing said apps.

If I could have a regular mobile reading experience using my browser, pray tell why I would want to switch to your awesome app (TM) ? I detest "download our app" popups with a passion. The worst part is that most of these 'apps' just have the same experience packaged into them but are located under yet another icon on my iPhone/iPad. It just doesn't make any sense.

The only other place that I read besides the browser is Pocket.

With responsive design and HTML5 (Geolocation, Canvas, etc.) there really isn't that much more that an app can do - that a browser cannot.

Also, asking to me repeatedly download your app (tripadvisor, you're guilty!) is probably going to alienate me even more from it.

A good example of an app doing less than the website: Until recently I couldn't use the hotels.com app to score/redeem welcome rewards. Yet, when I would go to the site I would either be:

a) Limited to the mobile site

b) Treated to a heinous app download popup.

Way to go!

<comment><USER3> 1\. File upload

2\. Offline access

File upload is only _now_ coming to iOS6, and wasn't in Android for a long time. It used to be in Windows Mobile, and was apparently pulled last year, IIRC.

Offline access - being able to function properly when no network is around is important for a lot of functionality required by applications. Some of this could be done with browser-side caching, but probably at a performance cost (at the very minimum).

<comment><USER2> When you load up Gmail on a mobile device it does some pretty aggressive browser side caching. Works really well! But file upload is definitely an important reason to have apps. However, the article is talking about reading the news and those don't have much to do with file upload..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are interested in this are I recommend reading the actual study and not a yahoo republication of an article from mashable about a study on Pew's website.

"The Future of Mobile News" (The actual study) <http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/future_mobile_news>

PDF: [http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/Futureo...](http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/Futureofmobilenews%20_final1.pdf)

"The Future of Mobile News – A PEJ Infographic" [http://features.journalism.org/2012/09/30/the-future-of- mobi...](http://features.journalism.org/2012/09/30/the-future-of-mobile-news- a-pej-infographic/)

<comment><USER5> Yes. And subscribe to PEW, as you'll get Mashable's news before they do. They frequently republish PEW research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> News is a particularly good fit for a mobile browser. Structured text + images is actually much easier to render with HTML than with native APIs and the limited interactivity most of these apps require can be added easily enough with JS.

The whole HTML vs native thing is another one of those false dichotomies we waste so much time debating. They both have their place and neither of them are going anywhere.

<comment><USER7> HTML5 and all that can be used for games etc., but I think its real future is in stuff like mashups. We're basically creating the best open multimedia mashup platform, and it's insanely powerful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So please don't put a popup asking me to install your shiny app between me and the actual news.

<comment><USER9> The worst was cbs who (used to?) forward me to the main mobile site instead of the article. I still completely avoid cbs on my phone.

I don't get why mobile has to be so complicated for publishers. I realize they may be struggling to monetize but they shouldn't make the experience so much worse that users will leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The whole native mobile app kind of parallels with Flash on the web back in the day (funny how I could say "back in the day" with Flash). Flash -- from what I understood -- used to give a richer UX that HTML/CSS couldn't. The only problem was that Flash was one more thing that needed to be installed on top of the browser.

However, as JS frameworks matured and HTML5/CSS3 was introduced, the browser offered comparable UX, which ultimately lead to Flash losing relevance. I still think mobile browsers have a long way to go in terms of performance. However, this article suggests that native apps are experiencing the same market resistance as Flash once did. Once mobile browsers catch up, we might just experience another tech renaissance ala Web 2.0.

</comment><comment><USER11> 1\. Why do a survey when you could measure user behavior directly?

2\. It sounds like the survey was concerned with the various newspapers' first party apps, but what about third parties? For instance, I read most of my news on my iPhone via Twitter (app), Reddit (app) and Hacker News (app). Oh, and let's not forget Instapaper (app).

If I had to bet, I'd say that these results have nothing to do with HTML5 or the capabilities of the mobile web, and everything to do with the rise of aggregators and social networks.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yeah, if you're going to put up a Pop-Up touting your app, it had better be a heck of a lot better than letting me browse your news site and not just all about _your having an app_. What that sort of thing tells me is that you're not about your customer first.

And the same goes if you're going to have a "mobile" version of your site for my iPad: it had better be darned good and not a crippled, controlled experience.

</comment><comment><USER13> I upvoted the article but can we please take a second before submitting to ensure that we are posting from the original source?

[http://mashable.com/2012/10/01/mobile-tablet-news- consumptio...](http://mashable.com/2012/10/01/mobile-tablet-news-consumption- study/)

Oddly, I cannot find the Pew study it is referencing, can anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER14> Its interesting that the article was purely observational and most of the HN comments are highly technical or individual app UI oriented. I agree most app UIs are awful and none are consistent with other apps.

One point not mentioned is the Meta issues. I've got one main screen 4x4 icons and 5 total screens and I do a heck of a lot more with my phone than read one site's news. I do not have the screen space for an app for every website I've ever visited plus all the base load of apps (runkeeper, doggcatcher, kindle app, a dozen or so others). So a "bookmark" app needs to be important enough for me to delete another app or spend a long time scrolling the list to find it. The browser, on the other hand, is always and easily available.

The other issue is I have limited memory on my phone. Some people do not. But for some of us, its a constant battle to remove stuff. To install "really big app thats basically a incredibly bloated bookmark" I need to delete something else. Will it be runkeeper? Will it be doggcatcher? Don't think so.

Finally some apps have a smell about them. Go to "manage apps" "Running" and why, oh why, is my bank app running? To screw me over I assume, or waste my battery, or spy on me? After enough "problems" like this I distrust apps. Why does "tune in radio pro" waste ram and battery and probably do something nefarious by running 24x7? I can justify dropbox syncing in the background. I can justify doggcatcher polling my favorite podcasts periodically in the background. Why is google googles running 24x7, how does that benefit me? I mean benefit in reality, not marketing speak? This mis-behavior gives apps in general an icky repellent smell. If I install this app, how much battery life and privacy am I giving up?

Reminds me of the old days when people used to buy retail software, so to "gain market share" you would have giant boxes on the shelf with a tiny little CD and one sheet of paper inside the mostly empty box... literally push the competition right off the shelf... In the modern era a site is so desperate they need to use the same strategy on my phone, that site probably is not worth visiting, if it had value it wouldn't depend on dirty tricks to gain market share.

</comment><comment><USER15> This isn't a big surprise. Who wants their browsing experience fragmented across a mish-mash of apps each with their own interface?

One thing I would like to see is more sites supporting Google currents. Currents gives you offline caching, etc. and pretty much everything the best website apps out there do, but it does it in a slick consistent interface. Supporting Currents evidently does take some effort because some news sites screw it up so badly (Forbes, I'm looking at you.). Broken links, truncated stories, missing pictures, etc.. I like Currents so much I'm actually finding that my reading time is starting to skew towards sites with good support for it.

<comment><USER16> For those who had no idea what this Currents thing was: <http://www.google.com/producer/currents>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you recall the interview mark zuckerberg did at techcrunch he described how many more people use fb mobile than the app, but clearly apps have value. News apps deliver much the same media as fb, but they chose native for a reason. Until the mobile web offers the same feature set and comparable performance to native apps, they will always have a place.

This is coming from a fan of phone gap and web apps.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's more shocking to me that half of these news readers actually preferred apps to browsers.

</comment><comment><USER19> It would be cool if the developers of iOS and android did a better job at integrating the web onto their devices instead of trying to convince us for the opposite (Oddly, iOS has a better overall browsing experience over google's android)

</comment><comment><USER20> guardian has a great app (at least on android), the text is super-readable, and it downloads stuff for offline usage, so I open it when I feel like it, and it's one news app where I can sincerely tell an app can gives a lot of added value instead of being a slow reader with another layout.

the rest I read mostly through pocket or through a link on twitter, which lauches [drumroll] a browser, where I'm almost always pissed off as they work poorly on a small mobile screen. first they don't care about a good mobile experience, then they complain that tools like pocket exist and strip off their ads.

</comment><comment><USER21> A case for FirefoxOS

</comment><comment><USER22> > _News organizations have invested significantly in native apps for iOS, > Android, WP7 and even, for a time, webOS -- yet nearly three times as many > tablet owners and twice as many smartphone users access news primarily > through browsers rather than apps, according to a Pew Research Center study > released Monday._

Sorry, but the interpretation of this as "mobile browsers trump apps" is BS.

Of course MORE readers "access their news primarily through mobile browsers".

For one, there are THOUSANDS more news sites that are only available through the browser, compared to news sites that have native apps (and have them on both major mobile platforms).

A relevant question would be "what is the breakdown for a news site that has BOTH an app and a website?". The New York Times, for example.

And this is also focused on "news". What is the breakdown for non-news sites that also have an app. E.g Facebook?</comment>


A model for CEO excellence - <AUTHOR> https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-mindsets-and-practices-of-excellent-ceos <comment><USER2> What I am not seeing in this discussion is any calculations showing how much of these outcomes are down to dumb luck, sample bias and correlation.

For example:

> _Furthermore, research using our CEO database found that the top decile of > high performing CEOs are 35 percent more likely to dynamically reallocate > capital than average performers._

Maybe they stumbled into an opportunity that the rest didn't. That's luck.

> _To move "boldly" is to shift at least 30 percent more than the industry > median. Making one or two bold moves more than doubles the likelihood of > rising from the middle quintiles of economic profit to the top quintile, and > making three or more bold moves makes such a rise six times more likely._

So if your random walk takes you upwards, you wind up having walked upwards. Brilliant.

> _In the largest research effort of its kind, McKinsey found that CEOs who > insist on rigorously measuring and managing all cultural elements that drive > performance more than double the odds that their strategies will be > executed._

Measured number rises, unmeasured number remains unmeasured. Scientists baffled.

Remember: these are the best and the brightest. They are taken extremely seriously.

Edit: they do give a source for their 45%-explained-by-CEO claim ... and it's a pop-business book written by the same authors. Oh well.

<comment><USER3> I've seen nothing to convince me that most C-level management "experts" care about confounders, selection bias or, generally, the quality of any data they come up with. Nor have I seen evidence that others in a position to call them on it care to. They either do not care, or do not know, how to reasonably use data to support a point or to make a decision. To include folks from the big-3 management consultants.

Though to be fair, it's not like people down the org chart are usually much better at it.

<comment><USER4> I can second this. Everybody wants to be "data driven", but hardly anybody wants to adhere to the rigorous standards necessary for sound data analysis.

I think it's a bit unfair to point the finger at "C-level management" in particular though. The same kind of thinking can be observed in government agencies, in the legal system, even in academia. Statistics is just hard, and a lot of people are simply not interested and cognitively capable enough to get it right, sadly.

<comment><USER5> One piece of data is that there's an inverse correlation between CEO pay and company performance: [https://cooleypubco.com/2016/07/25/new-study-shows- inverse-c...](https://cooleypubco.com/2016/07/25/new-study-shows-inverse- correlation-between-ceo-pay-and-performance-over-the-long-term/)

<comment> barry-cotter Obvious confounds that should be adjusted for

(1) Long periods of success lead to raises for the incumbent CEO and then the long period of success ends

(2) The company is failing and needs a turnaround. No external person is willing to take the job for normal CEO pay for the company's size because they know they'll likely fail and that makes getting another CEO job substantially harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife's company (large pharma in SSF starting with G) consulted with Mckinsey for "strategy and innovation". Mckinsey recommended

a) the company G move to Agile except that they didn't say how. So now every meeting/townhall/1:1 is filled with buzzwords. It is clear from the way she describes it, no one in the company understands what Agile means. Everybody talks about collaboration but they don't do any of the Agile rituals.

b) All of G's employees should move to an open office plan with non dedicated seats. You come in the morning and have to hunt around for a desk. If you have to go for a meeting in a conference room, you have to pack up all your stuff in your bag and go. When your meeting is over, it is time to start hunting again.

Morale amongst the rank-and-file is quite low.

<comment><USER7> Did the Mck guys handle any of the implementation? Because that sounds like the client took potentially valid recommendations and half-assed the implementation. Plus if the name ends with g, well, morale was already kinda low from what I heard from ex employees.

<comment> barry-cotter McKinsey don't do implementation. Not doing implementation is what _strategy_ consulting means.

<comment><USER7> Implementation of strategy. I.e. change management, strategy program management, follow on work from original strategic planning, etc. They do it all the time. But should have clarified between system implementation.

Also McKinsey, Bain and I think BCG have actual system implementation or at least integration offerings now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Had a lot of experience with McKinsey doing projects at my company at different levels I've been in throughout it the years. When it's highly technical things like implementing a new technology or creat8!( a new manufacturing footprint, they do really good work. Anything "Strategic" or fluffy like this I find a waste of time. They are excellent salespeople and do a lot to calm the C-suite but I rarely see these fluffy items like this article driving employee happiness or the bottom line after spending millions.

<comment><USER9> Agree but many of the issues at the top of the food chain are like solving Family Dysfunction. Dad is the problem. Dad doesn't listen to anyone. Dad pays the bills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm sympathetic to the CEO position.Not because of the overly glamorised picture of what it entails but because of how lonely it can feel sometimes. Most people can make decisions knowing that there's someone above them who can advise/change or cancel it all together.For CEOs that's often not the case and whatever you decide,you have to live with it.

<comment><USER11> I think the board plays that role of checking the CEO.

<comment><USER10> Only if the company is big enough,which is not,in most cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > What the CEO controls—the company's biggest moves—accounts for 45 percent of > a company's performance.

What do executives think numbers are for? Why does the author find this metric meaningful? How does this number have any meaning at all? The fact that a CEO is important was not one that I questioned until I read this.

<comment><USER13> I heard that changing the CEO doesn't really change the performance of a company, which made me skeptical right away.

I am not sure if the statistics I heard had any basis whatsoever though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I truly despair for the world. The "advice" offered is just so devoid of content.

What if some things can't be learned, packaged into a Powerpoint, and then taught and instantly absorbed?

It is like the economist who spends his whole life ensconced in his little office telling investors how to invest, or policy makers how to manage an economy...despite having no actual experience of those things himself.

I don't know how we got to this point.

</comment><comment><USER15> After a number of years in the space I've come to the sad conclusion that many (not all) companies succeed despite their leadership rather than because of it. There are often a large number of true believers involved in keeping the ship sailing straight and they often get little credit for it.

</comment><comment><USER16> What I like in a CEO: takes no salary, and keeps the hell out of the way.

And never, never hires McKinsey.

</comment><comment><USER17> Very impressive. Language-generation models have really come a long way.

</comment><comment><USER18> Current McKinsey, not associated with this report but kind of close. Yes, this one is very fluffy. There's a few high level things that are important though around Org. Lots of companies just don't have a good strategy for org, and there's a lot of low hanging fruit for things like talent, culture, etc.

<comment><USER19> So do you admit that McK occasionally acts as a fluffer?

<comment><USER18> I would say every business and the vast majority of individual people occasionally act as fluffers (as I believe I am to interpret that term) so sure.

My point is not to reveal a gotcha that McKinsey is not the word of God. You will find nobody at the firm thinks this way.

Many people have strongly negative perceptions of consulting firms, and I'm sure some people have strong anecdotes to justify their beliefs. Yet I'm brought in to address certain problems and it's very clear that help is needed. Sometimes the solution is something that could have come from someone inside, or is perhaps something that someone on the inside is already saying beforehand, but the consultant gets communicated better to leadership because they have more political capital and credibility on the issue. If this happens, then you're already experiencing some of the problems highlighted in this article. Political and organizational friction is real. If that is the "only" thing preventing an organization from solving a problem, then they are still incapable of solving the problem on their own. I think a lot of people would benefit from seeing how things are from the consultants point of view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> McKinsey's advice on what makes a great CEO is like my advice for making it through menopause. They know absolutely nothing about it and their expertise is mainly in creating CYA documents for executives and assisting corrupt governments and regimes.

</comment><comment><USER21> _> Of the 50 most value-creating roles in any given organization, only 10 percent normally report to the CEO directly. Sixty percent are two levels below, and 10 percent sit farther down. Most surprising of all is that the remaining 10 percent are roles that don't even exist._

This is very insightful analysis, using the method called "I made up all the numbers".

And somehow we're supposed to trust the rest of the article?!

<comment><USER22> The source they're referencing was talking about asking companies to prioritize roles by value creation. Ten percent ended up being roles that didn't exist in the organization, but should. Also, the source said 20% were three levels below the CEO (as opposed to the quote above, which says 10% "sit farther down").

I agree this is pretty sloppy writing.

<comment><USER23> It's still what I like to call "lie with statistics". Take a topic that is pretty much inherently unmeasurable ("roles by value creation"), and then assign numbers to it in a pseudoscientific attempt to sound like you've done your research.

<comment><USER24> You would be amazed at the amount of inherently unmeasurable things The Big 4 can come up with pseudoscientific assessments for measuring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm pretty impressed from the content quality level at Mckinsey

Most enterprise don't know how to write content people like to read for some reason

</comment><comment><USER26> Great content/analysis. Shame the PDF is not optimised to read on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER27> Coming next on HN: _A model for ladders strength (stanleytools.com)_</comment>


Can co-living solve the housing crisis? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/coliving-housing-wework-pure-house?utm_content=bufferdf13a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Is it just me or is the title a completely ridiculous question?

This is already how poor people live. This is already how young people live - with roommates. There's absolutely nothing new here.

To solve the housing crisis we need better transit and more housing to increase supply and/or development of new areas that people actually want to live and work to decrease demand.</comment>


Things You Didn't Know About Antimatter - <AUTHOR> http://dsc.discovery.com/space/top-10/anti-matter/

<comment><USER2> I thought particle/anti-particle pairs were one theory re: black hole emissions: a virtual particle pair cones into existence at the edge of the event horizon. One of the pair goes left and gets swallowed. One goes right and is left outside, becoming a real particle. The black hole loses just a tiny bit of energy and off it goes...

The emitted particles can be matter or antimatter, as the pair production is random. Unless some new physics says that antimatter particles "roll downhill" better to explain the currently-observed universe ratio.</comment>


How to Get Started in the Consulting Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.thejuliagroup.com/blog/?p=1380 <comment><USER2> Not particularly relevant to tech consulting. Going to grad school probably harms your ability to consult professionally. You don't have to pay referrals (I don't know that we ever have). It does help to think big-picture about the business outcome you're providing to clients, though, instead of getting shoehorned into $/loc --- which is death.

</comment><comment><USER3> Working on several teams before going into consulting helps a lot. Most of the work I've gotten has just been word of mouth. People I've worked for/with in the past have come across a project they needed help on, and immediately contacted me to do the work. All because I've worked with them before and they liked what I did.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's funny...the one thing she didn't mention is probably the most important: Actually BE an expert in something and know it, inside and out. The tangible product part is good, but you kind of also need to know what the hell to do in the first place.

Accenture can put a tangible product in your hands, but whether they know what the hell they are doing is another story.</comment>


Instagram Initially asked for $2 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/you-think-1-billion-was-expensive-for-instagram-they-originally-asked-for-2-billion-2012-4?op=1

<comment><USER2> Interesting. This article is entirely derived from the one the WSJ just published. I feel like this is the limit (in the math sense) of paywalls.

<comment><USER3> Business Insider also gets away with phrasing the story in a more authoritative tone. The original in WSJ was littered with phrases like _according to several people familiar with the matter._</comment></comment>


How Some Places Fare Better in Hard Times - <AUTHOR> http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/how-some-places-fare-better-in-hard-times/ <comment><USER2> The reasoning in the article is flawed. It is possible that smaller towns like Ames, IA, and Logan, UT, are faring better because no one expects to find work there and people looking for work quickly leave and gravitate to larger metropolitan areas. Also these are college towns. So the unemployment statistics are skewed because of the disproportionate number of college students who spend money without necessarily competing for jobs.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find upcoming tech conferences? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a conference virgin, never been to any conferences, let alone anything technology related. (Actually, that's a lie. When I was about 8 I went to a "Better Homes and Garden" conference with my parents) I always hear about cool conferences happening out in California, they all seem really cool (such as CodeConf). Except they might as well be on Mars, there's no way I can afford the time or the money to go to one.
Is there a website that keeps track of tech conferences happening, even those that, while smaller, happen outside of Silicon Valley?
I'm in Florida, if it matters. <comment><USER2> Plancast is more than just conferences, but you can find out a lot about what's going on through the site. Especially if you follow the right people:

<http://plancast.com/>

There are also various public Google Calendar calendars that specialize in different industries, etc. For example, there's one that is just AI/Machine Learning conferences.

</comment><comment><USER3> Funny you should ask: <http://lanyrd.com/>

YC11

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I found a conference in April in a nearby city that looks legit, and I'm signed up to attend.

:)</comment></comment>


Linux Gamers' FAQ - <AUTHOR> http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/

<comment><USER2> A little outdated but always good to see how far linux has come (although to this day I still have to compile sound card drivers)...</comment>


Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/schwab-leaves-san-francisco-for-texas-11574900348?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> This is part of Schwab's merger with TD Ameritrade. Relevant bits from Schwab's FAQ [1]:

 _Q: Where will the combined company be headquartered?_

 _A: As part of the integration process, the corporate headquarters of the combined companies will eventually relocate to Schwab's new campus in Westlake, Texas. Both companies have a sizable presence in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. This will allow the firm to take advantage of the central location of Schwab's new campus as the hub of a network of Schwab branches and operations centers that span the entire U.S., and beyond._

 _Q: What does the headquarters move mean for the future of Schwab's presence in San Francisco?_

 _A: Schwab was founded in San Francisco and has maintained a longstanding commitment to the Bay Area, which will continue. A small percentage of roles may move to Westlake over time, either through relocation or attrition. The vast majority of San Francisco-based roles, however, are not anticipated to be impacted by this decision. Schwab expects to continue hiring in San Francisco and retain a sizable corporate footprint in the city. Any additional real estate decisions will be made as part of the integration process, over time._

[1] [https://www.aboutschwab.com/announcement](https://www.aboutschwab.com/announcement)

<comment><USER3> TD Ameritrade is headquartered in Omaha. The HQ location choice is not driven by existing Ameritrafe footprint, or by the merger itself. The FAQ is simply addressing what will be, not starting that there was a cause and effect because of the proposed merger. Also, Schwab was already reducing SF headcount for years.

Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review.

All this being said, the merger likely gives a tactical opportunity to move HQ out of state without triggering a governmental review of some kind by pairing it with the merger event.

<comment><USER4> Why would the government review a headquarters move?

<comment><USER5> It sounds like they'll be keeping a sizable amount of staff in SF still. SF has a gross receipts tax on certain companies with HQ's in the city. As such auditors will want to ensure this isn't just a tax avoidance gimmick. By pairing this move with an acquisition Charles Schwab has a stronger defense against such an accusation.

<comment><USER6> When will the people of SF learn you cannot tax yourself to prosperity

<comment><USER5> The City & County of SF has the seventh highest median income of all U.S. counties [0]. The GDP of the Bay Area ranks ahead of all but 16 countries [1]. If taxes are correlated with prosperity it'd seem as though SF had found a way to tax itself to prosperity. (Of course in reality economics and tax policy are far more complicated than this).

0: [https://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/lapi_newsrelease....](https://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/lapi_newsrelease.htm) 1: [https://web.archive.org/web/20171208145551/https://www.bea.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171208145551/https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf/gdp_metro0917.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Your argument assumes the correlation, but you're arguing that the causation exists without even establishing the correlation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a San Franciscan, I am so happy to see this. SF needs negative feedback on the poor choices it makes, and so far the tech boom has somewhat obscured the consequences.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. The longer you live in SF and the Bay Area, the more apparent it becomes how much it skates on tech, history, and intrinsic advantages like the weather and beautiful geography. SF in particular has such incredible resources that it should be the most advanced city in the world.

<comment><USER9> But the people in San Francisco have got what they wanted. Maybe in 20 years SF will be able to change but right now the majority of people are actually in favor of the way the city is being run: to stay stuck in time as long as possible

<comment><USER10> If I had most of my net worth tied to my SF house, I would be a NIMBY as well. Don't blame them though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > The company said Monday that "a small percentage of roles may move from San > Francisco to Westlake over time, either through relocation or attrition. The > vast majority of San Francisco-based roles, however, are not anticipated to > be impacted by this decision. Schwab expects to continue hiring in San > Francisco and retain a sizable corporate footprint in the city."

Doesn't sound like they are leaving San Francisco, just building a new office in Texas (suburb north of Fort Worth).

<comment><USER12> From what I have read in the Local News, it is just the first phase. I am assuming they will eventually move entirely but don't want to spook their existing workforce in SF.

<comment><USER3> They'll keep outside facing functions here for the local markets, clients, partners, etc.

Corporate back office operations will move entirely

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is better both for San Francisco and Texas, from a load-balancing perspective. Unless housing can catch up, large companies shouldn't be expanding in San Francisco.

<comment><USER14> Housing and taxes in CA are close to oppressive. The housing situation will not change unless CA voters agree to a change in property taxes and they won't.

I would also bet that the move will come at the expense of Texas tax payers and to the benefit of Schwabb.

<comment><USER15> Part of the problem with housing prices in California is that property taxes are too low. Prop 13 means existing homeowners are shielded from higher property taxes, so growing property values are only good for them, no matter how high. Thus, there's no incentive to increase housing supply, which could lower prices.

<comment><USER16> Whoa! Didn't even know about Prop 13 - that basically means no house can currently have a higher taxable value than basically double what it was worth in 1978. Insane!

<comment><USER17> It's worse than that. Those people with the very most equity gains, are paying the least taxes relative to their house value. Those with the least equity gain (like recent buyers), are paying the very highest taxes relative to their house. It's basically like saying the person who earned over 1 million dollars in equity gain pays far less taxes than the one who earned 10k in equity gain. It's extremely regressive.

And, since home owners are incentivized to stay in the houses that they bought a long time ago (whether or not it's convenient for them or not), it means there's far less housing turnover, less supply and less opportunities for everyone, and longer commutes which is terrible for the environment. It's a disaster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For anyone interested here is the build out of their HQ on the Circle T Ranch (Hunt Brothers owned it once) then Perot Jr bought it about 25 years ago and is turning into a financial hub. Fidelity is there along with Deloitte and TD Ameritrade just built a brand new complex about 1 mile away.

[https://goo.gl/maps/whA2nM9YYGka55P5A](https://goo.gl/maps/whA2nM9YYGka55P5A)

Schwab owns the whole corner there with plenty of room to expand, the Circle T Ranch is around 2500 acres.

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one who thinks nobody is talking about the elephant in the room ? i.e. the cause and effect. Fintech companies like Robinhood have popularized the concept of (a) zero fee trading and (b) better UI/UX and just better service/offering on highly scalable platforms that allow them to introduce new products/services, which are virtually impossible for legacy providers like Schwab. Seems like that is the single most important cause of Schwab and TDAmeritrade merger. Much like ~15 years ago when "Internet" based trading companies forced the traditional "phone calling" brokers to either merge with Internet upstarts or go out of business. Schwab survived the first wave of disruption as it aggressively embraced into Internet based trading. There was a wave of consolidation with other purely online trading companies e.g. Datek, Scottrade etc. merged into what is now TDAmeritrade.

Seems like the traditionals haven't been able to survive the second wave of disruption. This is what is prompting the merger i.e. if you can't grow like the fintechs then cut costs using merger cost synergies. A side effect of this is move from extremely high cost locales to lower cost ones. It's PR couched in terms like "Any additional real estate decisions will be made as part of the integration process, over time."

Good for San Fran and the bay area, it seems. Some prime corporate space being vacated should take a little pressure off real-estate prices (I hope).

<comment><USER19> [https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/active_trader](https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/active_trader)

I don't think Robinhood can even compare to the tools offered by Schwab's brokerage accounts. It's like r/wallstreetbets vs r/investing

I do agree that Robinhood was the first to make trading accessible to the masses and pushed for zero-fee trading.

<comment><USER18> What percentage of the users at Schwab use the premium tools, my guess is somewhere between 1-10% ? Does Schwab earn disproportionate revenue from them ? If yes, then I can see your point but as someone below points out most brokerages make money off balances carried in the brokerage accounts. That makes Robinhood (and the likes of it ) valuable since it's more about monthly active users. My point is user base growth has been stagnant with traditional brokerages, whereas fintech upstarts are on a tear. That combined with other revenue vectors e.g. crypto trading, SIPC insured bank accounts etc. make it difficult for traditional brokerages to compete

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I just moved to the Bay Area and I have no good opinions about living here. It's a 3 trillion dollar neighborhood that has broken infrastructure, an abysmal housing situation, crime through the roof, homeless people everywhere, traffic, outrageous costs and just generally an awful place to live. I don't know about the business side, but from an employee standpoint, fuck the Bay Area. Oh, and my car got broken into twice, and someone asshat stole my license plates.

<comment><USER21> Sometimes I wonder if there's a funded campaign against the Bay Area online. Where do you live, and where did you come from? I just moved to SF and yes it has homeless people, traffic and is extremely expensive, but these are things that every other big city I've lived in has. The costs and homelessness are worse than Seattle or NYC but not to the point that it's a reduction in my quality of life. To say you have "no good opinions" is so extreme. The area is beautiful, has a rich history, amazing culture, food and art, and if you work in technology has the best availability of jobs in the world.

<comment><USER22> > Sometimes I wonder if there's a funded campaign against the Bay Area online.

By whom and to what end? Has it occurred to you that some people just don't like living there? Not everyone you disagree with is a paid shill.

<comment><USER21> It's not just a matter of disagreement— take a look on here, Reddit and Twitter and you'll find a swarm of people making it seem like the Bay Area is a dystopian hellhole. I was legitimately concerned about my move before I got here.

<comment><USER23> I agree that there's lots of people online who make exaggerated negative claims about San Francisco, and my best guess as to why is that it's part of the coastal/inland, liberal/conservative cultural divide/war. It's easier to put others down than to fix your own mess, and frankly, California's economy and social services are the envy of almost every other state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Once upon a time, "Go West, young man" was advice for "growing with the country": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man)

Now with California's anti-housing, anti-commerce policies & government deeply captured by incumbent interests, better advice may be:

"Go East, growing company."

<comment><USER25> California companies capture >50% of VC investment. So, there are big headline moves, but the underlying truth is California destroys every other state when it comes to growth

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> SF Bay Area gets so expensive that even financial giants gets gentrified.

<comment><USER27> I would be curious to see the ROI for someone like Schwab for staying in the Bay Area.

Does the reduce capital costs of people, taxes, and buildings outweigh the talent pool in the area? Makes me wonder what the numbers look like.

<comment><USER28> Yes. I'm building a distributed engineering team now (hiring people both inside and outside the bay area). Everyone underestimates how much talent there is outside the core hubs (Bay Area, Seattle, NY, etc). Yes, talent does cluster in those cities, but they don't have a monopoly.

There are lots of smart, driven people outside the talent hubs. Also as a sweeping broad generalization that I frankly can't back up with data, they are a lot less entitled and don't job hop as frequently.

<comment><USER29> Why do I have the feeling that "entitled" is being defined as "they ask for lower salaries that allow the company to keep more of the money they make."

<comment><USER28> Well they do ask for lower salary (their cost of living is lower), and in my case it's less about "keeping more of the money" and more about having a bigger chance at building a successful product with the runway we have (being an early-stage startup and all).

But that's not what I mean by entitled. Entitled is an attitude of thinking one is special and thus deserving of special treatment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Welcome to the Lone Star State! Cheap real estate and friendly folks. And BBQ, metric tons of BBQ...

<comment><USER31> >"Cheap real estate"

And the highest property tax rate in the nation.

<comment><USER32> High property taxes are one of the most liberal policies of Texas. It's a progressive tax that is largely shouldered by rich landowners and the revenue form a large part of budget for public school systems.

I'm not sure why people in California love our regressive Prop 13 tax rebates that largely benefit the wealthy and are a cause of huge budget deficits. Prop 13 is the most Republican policy we have in our state.

<comment><USER29> If high property taxes are liberal - why wouldn't high taxes on other forms of wealth be beneficial?

<comment><USER32> When did I say high taxes on on other forms of wealth wouldn't be beneficial? I totally support taxes on wealth to build social programs.

<comment><USER29> Does that include taxing employee equity based on how it is valued based on each round of funding?

Would you also be okay with taxing someone based on how much they had in savings and mutual funds?

<comment><USER33> > Does that include taxing employee equity based on how it is valued based on > each round of funding?

This already happens, except as a tax on income rather than wealth. Exercising options in a private company that has increased in value will result in a tax bill. And you can't sell shares to pay that bill (usually) because the company is private.

<comment><USER29> That's exactly my point. Property tax is a tax on wealth. You are not taxed on options until you exercise them. You also can't sell part of your house to pay taxes on it. You also aren't taxed on the increase in your stock portfolio until you sell it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The largest US drug distributor said it's doing the same thing:

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/McKesson- bigges...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/McKesson-biggest-U-S- drug-distributor-to-move-13435748.php)

</comment><comment><USER25> Companies move. HQ move all the time. This is a leverage that corporations employ to maximize tax gains all the time. Don't know why it always makes some sort of headline. Schwab and its leadership has been saying how they hate California for a long time. So not surprising. And any HQ move out of CA is often dressed as a political success story of a low tax state. Weirdly, I would never see a story that says "$1 trillion worth of new wealth created in CA, zero in Texas". I mean, this last year alone, with IPOs of Uber, Lyft, Pinterest, Slack etc. we probably had $200bn worth of wealth generated. Now taking into account the stock price inflation of Google, Apple, Facebook over the last decade, and not to forget Tesla, Netflix, Nvidia etc. Nobody ever uses those gains to comment on why a high tax state was able to generate this much new business and wealth. Over the last decade, CA companies have generated 50% of all VC capital in the US and Texas companies have generated <5%.

</comment><comment><USER35> For some added perspective. Schwab already had several buildings in Westlake before building the new campus, which is still under construction. TD Ameritrade used to have a building in Westlake as well, but I think they gave that up when they built their new campus in Southlake, about 3-5 miles away, a couple years ago.

That is a huge finance footprint in one area. Consider also that one of Fidelity's largest corporate campus is also located in Westlake. Westlake is a tiny dot on the map with less than a 1000 people.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake%2C_Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake%2C_Texas)

New Headquarters: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.2120872,724m/dat...](https://email@example.com,-97.2120872,724m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Ameritrade campus: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.1618883,512m/dat...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.1618883,512m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Fidelity campus: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.1885764,609m/dat...](https://email@example.com,-97.1885764,609m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Also, the Deloitte campsus right new door is amazing. Its a 5 star hotel only available for visiting Deloitte employees under going management training and the food there is chef prepared and free to employees. I used to have a subordinate in my part-time side job that worked there as a corporate purchasing analyst.

For extreme shits and giggles look at the houses in Westlake either on a map or in something like Zillow. While I understand a $3 million house around San Fransisco is about 200sqft its quite a bit of purchasing power in Texas.

</comment><comment><USER36> To where in Texas are they moving? The non-paid version of the WSJ article doesn't say. I keep hearing that in massive influx of tech companies to the Austin area has driven up housing rates and congestion to absurd levels. Probably won't be long before tech companies skip Austin for cities like Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

<comment><USER37> Companies won't skip out on Austin. They would be missing out on top tier talent from UT and surrounding schools.

Reason why Schwab is moving to Dallas (specifically Westlake) is because this is determined to be the next financial district (a majority of financial companies have satellite corporate offices in this specific area)

FYI: Schwab has had an existence in the 512 for some years now and in the recent years expanded/consolidated to a new office

<comment><USER38> A large chunk of the kids who go to UT are from houston and dallas. Austin is a really small city if you have been there. It would fit like in a quarter of Houston.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "The brokerage giant heads for a state that doesn't punish finance"

opinion, indeed!

<comment><USER40> Square is still in SF.....for now.

Stripe left/is leaving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Posted four days ago when it was announced: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21633593](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21633593)

</comment><comment><USER42> And who would want to live in some podunk town? Top talent live and work in destination cities.

</comment><comment><USER43> Some others articles which may not have a paywall:

[https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2019/11/30/schwab-is- the...](https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2019/11/30/schwab-is-the-latest- company-leaving-california-for-texas-and-it-wont-be-the-last-expert-says/)

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Charles- Schwab-...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Charles-Schwab-to- lose-SF-headquarters-in-26-14860683.php)

[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/11/25/sch...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/11/25/schwabs- moving-its-headquarters-will-other-s-f.html)

[https://riabiz.com/a/2019/11/28/schwabs-headquarters- shift-t...](https://riabiz.com/a/2019/11/28/schwabs-headquarters-shift-to- texas-amid-td-ameritrade-merger-seems-to-please-nobody-outside-the-dallas- chamber-of-commerce-omaha-feels-especially-omitted)

</comment><comment><USER44> I heard they have water and electricity out there.

</comment><comment><USER45> You probably didn't hear a few weeks ago that Visa will vastly expand it's SF headquarters. Since San Francisco is despised by conservatives we get this constant schadenfreude highlighting of any SF bad news by people who need their partisan views reinforced.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's said Texas vs California is like Capitalism vs Socialism. Clearly Texas has won landslide and CA is on its way to hell, just thinking about breaking into your car and stealing from store for under $900 will not be deemed as crime makes me sick.

So many CA residents are moving to TX, in the hope of what?

Their first to-do item is to turn TX into CA, all those socialism and liberal bullshit. They did the same to Oregon, Colorado, etc. It's epidemic.

I wonder why they stopped the initiatives to separate from US? I can't wait to support their efforts. Please go away and leave us alone.

At least stop coming to TX please, we're doing fine, just don't come here and ruin what we had.

<comment><USER47> Why do people leave CA? Because they don't like what it's becoming. So they move somewhere else. But it's not really what they want, either. What they want is maybe 75% Texas, 25% California. So they try to move Texas, not all the way to California, but in that direction. To the people in Texas, that feels like "trying to turn Texas into California".

<comment><USER46> People make the state as it is today, so those people are exactly the reason what made CA is becoming. No they don't want to do just 25%, they want to own it and do 100+% their way wherever they migrate to, it's called Stockholm Syndrome. After they destroy a new place, they will move on to yet another state, which is why I call epidemic.

<comment><USER47> You're assuming that, in bulk, the people who leave are the same as the people who stay. That's possible, but I suspect that it is not actually true.

<comment><USER46> I deduced it based on all the people I know who moved from CA to TX, I can tell you there are quite a lot of them. The pattern is quite obvious to me. Over time I adapted to it somehow by reminding myself to stay absolutely politically correct when I communicate with them, which also means, there is no way to develop any friendship at all when you have to act like a politician.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Why does Schwab still exist when there's free trading nowdays?

<comment><USER49> Schwab offers commission free trades now.

<comment><USER48> What does it offer then if it's no longer a brokerage?

<comment><USER50> Why do you think it's no longer a brokerage?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Why were they even in SF at all?

I mean unless you're in the tech scene & need the valley synergies the trade off seems straight up bad

<comment><USER52> Because that's where they were founded in 1971, SF has a history before the most recent tech bubble.</comment></comment>


Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress - <AUTHOR> http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/ <comment><USER2> Why, when something becomes politically animated, do standards tend to be lowered?

HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?>)

The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages."

There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, _ad hominem_ attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations.

Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."

Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")

I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.

My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?

<comment><USER3> It isn't a joke. It's a very serious legal precedent that, if pushed hard enough, can go all the way to Supreme Court (which would most likely reject the case, letting the last decision stand). It is an excellent example of a serious issue with case-based law, as practiced within the U.S. It's a hack, and it's designed to demonstrate both the absurdity of the Supreme Court's decision when taken to a logical extreme, and the limitations of our legal system. It's also very clever. The fact that it is satirical in nature is only of cursory interest.

<comment><USER2> There are lots of serious implications stemming from the Court's recent decision and one doesn't have to look far to find a serious discussion of them, no matter how one views the merits of the issue. See, for example, this piece on how the "High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases" ([http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&High...](http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&High_Court_Campaign_Finance_Opinion_Roils_Dozens_of_Cases)).

Since the law has recognized corporations as "legal persons" for a couple of centuries at least, all without anyone even beginning to think that a corporation is a citizen entitled to vote and to run for office, I think there is a long-standing rationale for this position that its critics need to address before simply declaring the point to be absurd. This sort of stunt obviously fails to do this. And, far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a _straw man_ position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing (at least nothing serious as far as law is concerned). It is, therefore, a low form of argumentation.

I understand that people feel passionately about it, and therefore appreciate a clever ploy that appears to make their point, but that is really my point: it is that very animated spirit that we can have about politics that allows us to lower standards and find acceptable in that context a way of arguing that we would axiomatically reject in another context.

<comment><USER3> _far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a straw man position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing_

This is a much better explanation of the view point you expressed originally - probably the best I've seen so far. I agree with you here completely. I still think it's a clever hack, but I concede that my original argument wasn't very strong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Everybody seems to argue about this issue without ever referring to the text of the first amendment, which is what the majority of the Supreme Court based its decision on.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To me, it seems pretty obvious that by passing McCain-Feingold, Congress had made a law "abridging the freedom of speech." It should not be surprising that it was ruled unconstitutional.

<comment><USER5> Here is what I'm worrying about... will there be a purpose formed corporation whose sole goal is the election of an individual? They could accept money from investors to finance their operation. Then in the last 2 weeks of an election buy all available airtime nationwide (or just in swing states) and say just spout total lies about an opponent. Something like "XXX will force us into a fascist government". 24x7 before an election. Given enough money, they could buy all the airtime available, leaving no time for any opposition ads.

They have the right to lie, and if they are sued for liable / defamation, etc... they are a corporation that can be disbanded. And because they are a corporation, there is limited liability to the owners.

<comment><USER6> Corporations are already formed for the sole purpose of electing an individual aka. The Committee to Elect Barack Obama.

Also, buying all the airtime is basically impossible as it decreases supply while increasing demand. Once investors realized someone was trying to do that, they'd buy ad space just to sell to that company. It would be incredibly expensive to organize all the sub-companies needed to buy it all with out anyone noticing. If anyone notices the gig is up as investors will swoop in to take a cut of the action.

Besides, if anyone actually managed to do that, it would be VERY easy for the other side to get articles written about how their viewpoints can't be expressed.

It would generate so much free publicity for the other campaign that it would likely be counterproductive. I'd love to be the candidate opposing the guy who bought all the ad time. It's pretty much a guaranteed victory because of the public backlash that would result.

<comment><USER7> _It would be incredibly expensive to organize all the sub-companies needed to buy it all with out anyone noticing._

Rockefeller did it. Both Senior and Junior, actually. On multiple occasions. Now, there's probably nobody alive today with that kind of capital and influence to burn on this (with possible exception of Bill Gates and the House of Saud, both of whom seem to have other plans for their money).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Corporate "citizenship" is a complete red herring in this issue.

This is not some crazy new doctrine the USSC shat out this year, this is a legal premise that has existed for over a century. Otherwise, you couldn't sue a company for damages.

The issue is about political speech for _actual human beings_ in organizations, including corporations and labor unions (and yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship").

Crying out "ZOMG giving corporations rights!" is nothing more than trying to short-circuit others' thinking.

<comment><USER9> But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations. The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak through the corporations.

Corporations are businesses. They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions. They do not require free speech.

<comment><USER8> You say "But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations", but then you say, "They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions".

Both of your claims can't be true.

EDIT: Sorry, down-voters, they _can't_ both be true. Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities.

<comment><USER10> You're wrong. A company's management speaks on behalf of the company. And not always in the interest of the shareholders, and definitely _never_ in the interest of _all_ the shareholders.

<comment><USER8> OK, so we have "management" and a "company", but no humans?

<comment><USER10> You claimed: "Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities."

Let's take Exxon. <http://www.google.com/finance?q=exxon>

Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of? Are they all American citizens, for example? Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?

<comment><USER8> _"Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of?"_

Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of.

" _Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?_ "

Why _do_ you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?

<comment><USER10> With the indirection that corporate structure creates, the following are some of my concerns:

1) You mention "Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of."

a) 'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it. This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes

b) you could argue for the shareholders --> but, the major shareholders are mostly pension funds etc. Membership to these funds is mandated by employers, with little choice by employees (i.e. most voters).

2) And your 2nd comment: "Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?"

The United States Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?

<comment><USER8> _"'the people within it' -- > a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it."_

I did not say it necessarily did, though it's certainly speaking for its leadership, who answers to the human shareholders and is voluntarily associated with the other people in the company.

 _"This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes"_

Indeed. It's a group created for other purposes. Political involvement is a valid avenue for pursuing those purposes, as the political system affects the group.

 _"If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?"_

That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed.

<comment><USER10> "That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed."

Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control. The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a _different_ person since the new shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.

Or is my reasoning bogus?

<comment><USER8> Yes, the reasoning is bogus because Exxon _can't take public office_. Full stop.

You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked story are working to encourage that confusion.

<comment><USER10> I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all.

However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go. Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.

<comment><USER8> " _I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all._ "

OK, but your scenario requires that confusion.

The people in the article are engaging in a _stunt_. They don't expect or intend to win, and they probably won't spend much or long on the campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For a second I thought The Times was republishing a story that The Onion posted today: [http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...](http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows)

 _"This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double- digit margin. "_

</comment><comment><USER12> This sort of thing depresses me. The vast majority of people don't understand the SCOTUS decision, or even know what it was really about, or what the basis for the decision was.

Furthermore, few seem to understand what the concept of a corporation having some of the legal attributes of a person is about, and how it has almost nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision.

And you see the constant misinformation that corporations are legally obligated to follow whatever path leads to the most profit.

It's just depressing how little people understand about the society they live in.

</comment><comment><USER13> Given that corporations are directly accountable to their shareholders, I wouldn't be amazed if this actually turned out to be a better model than the current one (where a congressman gets elected and can basically do whatever they want until the next election without immediate consequences).

</half-joking>

<comment><USER14> Why is there a persistent assumption that a politician accountable to voters is under less pressure than a corporate director accountable to shareholders? Both are elected periodically, and both must use their terms in office to do, or attempt to do, things desired of them by the people who elected them.

And, to be perfectly honest, I think you'll find that self-serving behavior, corruption and malfeasance are just as common in corporations as in politics.

<comment><USER15> Maybe, but it's probably easier to lead a shareholder revolt against a corporate board of directors and/or CEO than to oust an entrenched Congressperson/Senator. Re-election is 98% guaranteed once you're in office (I pulled the number out of my ass, but I know that the number is high; i.e. somewhere between 90%-100%).

<comment><USER16> I decided to fact-check you, and according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States) , "In recent years this [incumbent reelection rate] rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle."

So, uh, consider your fact duly checked. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If the corporation is under 35 years of age, it can't run for president. Sorry, startups!

<comment><USER18> Corporations aren't natural born, and therefore can never be president. Although if we repeal the natural born requirement we can finally see Arnold run against Cyberdyne (and this time its for the presidency!...).

<comment><USER19> _No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen._

I'm pretty sure all you have to prove is that a corporation isn't a "person" or a "citizen".

<comment><USER18> First of all, the whole point of the company doing this is that coporations are persons according to the law. I know nothing of citizenship of corporations.

Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are _No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;_ The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural in the relevant bits of the US constitution.

<comment><USER19> Are you sure it's that they "are" persons or just they are considered to have rights similar to the rights a person has? Seems like a pretty important distinction.

<comment><USER18> Corporations are _legal persons_. This is not the same a human beings which are _natural persons_. The defining issues in corporate law came from the anti-slavery amendments to the US constitution. All hinged around the usage of the term _natural person_ vs the term _person_.

Edit: this means that the generic _person_ covers both _natural persons_ and _legal persons_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Text of the Supreme Court opinion:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html>

<comment><USER21> Money line: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This seriously must be a joke. Isn't it? From their website:

"Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an emerging new market.

The campaign's designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to antiquated "human only" procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity. "We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.""

This seems like mockery to me.

<comment><USER23> The campaign video makes it pretty clear that this is satire; I find it a bit disturbing that people seem to be taking it seriously.

... on the other hand, if it isn't satire, I am extremely scared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> One of the best comments I saw on the page was that, if one person has the right to free speech, then groups of people also have a right to free speech. However, it also seems clear to me that if one person can have a seat in congress, multiple people can't have that seat. This argument would allow the courts to strike this down while keeping the Citizens United decision in full force.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love it when The Onion predicts real life and reminds us how absurd things can be:

[http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...](http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows)

</comment><comment><USER26> Surely this is a joke, or at least a publicity stunt...

 _"Now that democracy is truly for sale, Murray Hill Incorporated are offering top dollar..."_

<comment><USER26> Why the downvotes? The quote above is directly taken from the campaign video provided on the linked website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Cheap partisan fair. The gas station hotdog of political commentary.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm very disappointed with the comments I see on this thread.

I think the problem many people have with _Citizens United v. FEC_ is that it opens the door to political activity that seems counter to our long held principal of _one man, one vote._

I don't think anyone has a problem with a group of people pooling their resources with the intent to run campaign ads on a given topic or candidate. That's basic democratic activity.

The problem occurs when resources are highly concentrated in an individual such that he can drown out the voice of others.

The natural tradeoff in capitalism is between efficiency and equality: resources are deployed efficiently but the gains are distributed unequally. Capital owners necessarily benefit the most from capitalism. Businesses generally own the most capital in our system; there are a few billionaire individuals, but the vast majority of billionaires are corporations.

So in a campaign system where money buys voter attention, the loudest and most attention-getting speakers will tend to be corporations. These speakers who have disproportionate influence have the ability to control political discourse based more on the size of their megaphone than on the quality of their ideas. This should be troubling to anyone who values enlightenment-era principles like the best ideas winning on their own merits via rational discourse.

In practice, greater influence imbues additional voting power in these speakers, both through direct leverage with Congressional representatives as well as through the power to dominate the airwaves at election time. Large corporations don't have just a few times more influence, they have 3-6 orders of magnitude more influence than the average individual. They meet directly with Senators. When was the last time you had a personal meeting with your Senator?

This is what people mean when they complain that companies can "buy elections" or "buy legislation." I think everyone would agree that this is already occurring. Witness the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, brought to you by the Disney Corporation. Very few legal scholars would argue that this legislation was in the public interest.

 _Citizens United_ opens the door to even greater corporate influence in our political discourse. Many people believe it will only worsen this situation of vastly unequal participation in our democracy.

<comment><USER28> Lawrence Lessig sums it up better than I can:

 _The point is simple, if extraordinarily difficult for those of us proud of our traditions to accept: this democracy no longer works. Its central player has been captured. Corrupted. Controlled by an economy of influence disconnected from the democracy. Congress has developed a dependency foreign to the framers' design. Corporate campaign spending, now liberated by the Supreme Court, will only make that dependency worse. "A dependence" not, as the Federalist Papers celebrated it, "on the People" but a dependency upon interests that have conspired to produce a world in which policy gets sold._

<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Flagged

This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small groups and small companies to buy advertisements expressing their opinions while allow large groups and companies to setup PACS to do it.

<comment><USER30> Care to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person, or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the decisions of many citizens.

This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.

<comment><USER31> A company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).

If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?

<comment><USER32> > Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right > to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).

But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to _make sure_ that every person gets an equal voice in government.

Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales.

!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!

Contrast it with an organization designed to _emphasize_ a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.

<comment><USER31> I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter.

 _For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay?_

It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.

However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value.

On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.

This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.

 _!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!_

This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.

For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?

<comment><USER32> > I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the > shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the > corporate charter.

Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter.

> It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard > "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be > acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased > shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the > rights of minority shareholders.

So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve?

> On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of > their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as > agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the > opinion of the minority.

Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions.

> This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of > a company, don't buy shares.

Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?

> This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people > to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have > persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.

Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for citizens, not arbitrary entities.

> For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through > methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to > government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be > forbidden from speaking?

No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power (through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to represent the interest of human citizens.

<comment><USER31> _Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter._

The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable chose not to buy shares.

 _Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions._

The company is acting as a group of people who have agreed to devote a certain amount of their wealth (their initial investment) to work toward a certain purpose (whatever the charter says).

The "company" doesn't actually exist - all there is is a set of contracts between shareholders. The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the shareholders and other parties.

 _Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?_

If you choose to buy products from companies supporting segregation, that's on you. Steve Jobs doesn't have mind control rays. He neither forced you to buy shares or an iPhone.

Also, the issue if your trading partners spending money on causes you dislike is not limited to corporations. For all you know, the owner of your local bakery is a secret racist sending money to the Klan.

<comment><USER32> I'd also like to add: > Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).

You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker news comments, not your computer. The computer is a direct representation of you. A company is a distinct entity created from the collection of people. Your analogy is faulty.

> The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it > unacceptable chose not to buy shares.

Yet the charter which is agreed upon is a distinct entity concocted by human beings. At best it's a monster like frankenstein.

> The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the > shareholders and other parties.

Yet the company is also a distinct entity.

Look the US government guarantees rights to individuals, not groups or corporations. Groups that come together for a common interest only amplify their voice by the collective pooling of their _individual_ voices. A corporation pools those individual voices into a mob, which does something else independent of any one person's will. It's a _distinct_ entity. It is not a human. It does not have rights like a citizen.

I can't stress this enough: the government guarantees certain right to individual people, not groups that can be arbitrarily formed.

<comment><USER31> _You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker news comments, not your computer._

And the government is not restricting your rights with it's "no criticizing Obama with a computer" law. It's only restricting the actions of your computer.

A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms. Incidentally, the government does grant people the right to form groups - it's called "peaceable assembly".

But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?

Also, this brings us back to my (and Robert's) original question: if free speech doesn't apply to corporations, can the government censor the corporate media?

<comment><USER32> > A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group > of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms.

People lose their individuality when participating as part of a mob. A group is a distinct entity formed by a mob. It is not like any of the individual singled out people.

The mob when formed acquires distinct characteristics and behaviors that distinguish it from any individual human being, who may be governed by neurons, emotions, and psychological disorders, etc. A mob can also be potentially a million times more powerful than a single human being, so how can you give such an entity the rights of an individual? Moreover, humans may like chickens and dogs, but a mob, through some freak compromise, decides to satisfy itself by breeding a half dog / chicken. Such a thing would never be concocted at the individual level, but is potentially possible at the mob level. And if it works out, it could actually be the most logical solution to satisfy the mob (an entity).

> But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up > all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the > government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my > association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?

That depends. If the sole purpose of you publishing your paper is to advance the factional agendas of NYU, AND if NYU acknowledges that your paper is speaking for NYU, the entity, then yes. But that doesn't mean you can't personally publish the paper. The only thing that can be potentially forbidden is NYU, using it's power to give your paper more voice and merit than it deserves. However if you are publishing it personally, then no such regulation can happen because constitutionally your rights are protected.

<comment><USER32> I want to add to that. So consider the United States (assuming you live in the US). Do you consider it just a vessel for your opinions? Do you agree with and support everything the United States does? I'm going to assume you said no to that (if yes, then I'm arguing with a crazy person). And do you think any one person in the United States agrees with everything the United States government does? It would be _extremely_ unlikely if it does happen, and even if it does happen, the US government has the possibility of veering away from that person. This is because the US government is a distinct entity formed when the mob of people come together. Unlike your computer, it does not act exactly as you do.

Remember the focus is not on the company, it's on what the company creates when it is a formation of a bunch of people. It creates a distinct entity which usually ends up being a compromise of its constituents wishes. People act differently in a group, they can lose their humanity, and usually there's less responsibility for misdeeds. This thing the mob creates should _in no way be treated on the same level as any individual constituent of it_. This is because, as I have tried to show you, it is not simply a vessel of any single human being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well, if campaign contributions are limited (to level the playing field) then a company's expenditures should be using the campaign contribution allowance of its shareholders.

</comment><comment><USER34> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism>

</comment><comment><USER35> I hope this kind of thing illustrates the absurdity of democracy in general. For a company to have influence, it needs to accumulate money, which means it needs to make customers happy or convince investors that it can do so.

For a voter to have influence, they have to survive for eighteen years and then find their way to a polling place.

<comment><USER36> This is a straw man, since the federal gov't is a republic rather than a strict democracy.

And what would you propose as alternative to permitting everyone living in this country long enough to reach adulthood to cast their their own vote?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does this mean _foreign_ corporations can also run for our Congress?

That would be fucking insane.

<comment><USER10> I'm curious. Are people more offended by the expletive than they are concerned about the possibility that foreign companies can run for actual seats in Congress?

<comment><USER8> I'm more dismayed that the USSC decision has been so thoroughly misrepresented by people like the company in TFA that you would ask that question in all seriousness and good faith.

<comment><USER10> I hope you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> If only we had words that differentiated a _person_ from a _corporation_.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder what McCain makes of this. He's been flip-flopping quite a bit recently.

</comment><comment><USER38> Talk about cutting out the middle man.

</comment><comment><USER39> Ahh, so we're finally cutting out the middle-man then. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER40> It reminded me of the (excellent) Charles Stross book Accelerando. Let's face it, it's the next step. We're just marking time till someone builds a Matrioshka brain around the Sun anyway.

</comment><comment><USER41> Shouldn't FDA/FTC regulations on things like product labeling and false advertising be ruled unconstitutional? Isn't a corporation's free speech being violated when they aren't allowed to lie about their product?

<comment><USER42> Free speech protections for individuals don't protect us against prosecution for making fraudulent claims or certain types of lies (e.g. libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, perjury, and so on). Why would a right to free speech protect corporations for making fraudulent or otherwise endangering statements about their products?

<comment><USER41> So you're saying we already have reasonable exceptions to the first amendment to protect society from behavior deemed objectionable as determined by congress? Kind of like when congress decided that corporations should be kept of the political process.</comment></comment></comment>


Time Crystals a new state of matter - and now we can create them - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-time-crystals-are-a-new-crazy-state-of-matter-and-now-we-can-create-them <comment><AUTHOR> Does this mean perpetual motion machines are possible after all?

<comment><USER2> No, the energy would be an exchange of mass, if I under stand it the right way

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you elaborate?</comment></comment></comment>


High-Deductible Health Policies Linked to Delayed Diagnosis and Treatment - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/18/713887452/high-deductible-health-policies-linked-to-delayed-diagnosis-and-treatment <comment><USER2> The lady's situation is awful, but expected. These HDHPs got shoved down our throat with accompanying HSAs that lack initial funding to cover the out of pockets out of reach to most Americans. Adding insult to injury out of pocket charges appear way out of line with the negotiated amounts insurers pay once one meets the sky high out of pocket.

The only employees winning here are those enduring catastrophic expenses and the mid 6+ figure earners able to sock away above-the-line (!) tax free HSA deposits. It _might_ have worked if there were incentives to enlighten employers to top off their worker's HSAs every year so treatments aren't cancelled or put off, but it isn't happening, and the result is most of us are covered but few of us can use it.</comment>