This entire thread seems to be missing the fact that during this period of us soaking it up, all legitimate competitors can't compete and will either disappear or suffer greatly.

Agreed. Also, this is nothing new. Consumers got the same bennies in 1999. I remember getting a bunch of $1 DVDs from some Amazon wannabe (can't remember the name now). They were trying to buy customers by subsidizing DVD sales. It didn't work. The strategy was great for my college dorm DVD collection. Not so great for their VC's ROI though.

I can't provide you with exact sources, but I recall the same thing happening in Mexican indigenous villages with coca cola. Coca cola would subsidise the drink so that it is much cheaper than local drinks. Villagers give up their local drinks for coca cola. Once it has a monopoly, coca cola raises the prices. Villagers are unable to get back to their local drinks which no one makes anymore, and keep buying Coke.

These kind of things generally happen over many years, and you generally take it as one of the good things in life. Unfortunately before you know it, you are already paying top dollars, you have a multinational making huge margins on your back, and not many ways to get out of it.

No.

If you know and realize that it is only convenient because of VC subsidies, you know enough not to use those services since it won't be sustainable.

I try to understand each business model I support with revenue. If it's only setup to enable growth, I pass.

If a billionaire wants to subsidize food and taxis for me then I'm more than happy to take it

Even if you know that using said VC money bankrupts whole families the world over?

I don't think it's morally wrong to take a cheap taxi ride subsidized by speculators. I don't care if the model is sustainable since I get all my value immediately in return for the fare.

The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue.

I think there can still be a moral component, if you know that they are enacting and perpetrating a vicious cycle that will lead to the depletion of public transit:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/ci...

What about the opportunity cost of driving more sustainable competition (whether that's better taxis, direct competitors, or public transit) out of business? Uber doesn't exist in a vacuum.

That's an interesting point. In the long term I think there will always be a need for the service so when a loss leader goes out of business someone will step up.

Public transit has existed alongside taxis for hundreds of years. Uber won't kill transit.

> The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue.

Why should that be the case? If you know one part of company X is against your interest, why support revenue of said company at all then?

You misunderstand. I don't use uber because of their people policies. I would use them if they treated people better. And I would enjoy the subsidy.

Exactly. Other than the moral-environmental issue of the subsidy encouraging me to take more short trips, thus increasing my footprint...

Use them while they are subsidized, then bail quickly. Maximize for your self interest.

You treat your consumption as an investment? That's kind of silly.