News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by munificent on Thursday November 21, 2019 @12:43PM (#21596959)
Hypothesis: Events like this are the modern moral equivalent of the giant, gaudy, gilt-encrusted palaces of the 17th century.

Economic disparity has reached a point where those at the top end literally have more money than they know what to do with and are increasingly spending it on stupider and stupider things out of some perceived need to do something.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by stickfigure on Thursday November 21, 2019 @01:49PM (#21597838)
Events like this are the modern moral equivalent of the giant, gaudy, gilt-encrusted palaces of the 17th century.

I think this vastly overstates it. Versailles cost some significant fraction of France's GDP - possibly as much as 25% in some years. WeWork's $10B is a mere drop in the US' $20T GDP.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by rchaud on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:37PM (#21598505)
WeWork is just one part of it, however. Uber is another Ponzi scheme, living on underpriced rides and multi-billion losses for as long as their bond rating holds up.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by eternalny1 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:53PM (#21599467)
Uber isn'ta Ponzi scheme.

I use Uber all the time, as does everyone I know. Hell, I even drove for them for a while.

They provide a needed service and they are subsidizing that to get rid of competition like Lyft and to grow a huge user base. Then, it's likely they will raise prices and start making money.

But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by rchaud on Thursday November 21, 2019 @04:53PM (#21600107)
> But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.

The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They're a public company now, so to come up with fresh cash, they have to issue bonds and pay interest on them. How will they repay it when they aren't generating fresh cash through profits? They can't rely on VCs opening their wallets whenever they needed money.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by eternalny1 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @10:16PM (#21602129)
> The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable.

They will raise prices eventually, they are in the "get a lot of regular users" phase still, growing that until they are ubiquitous.

Yes, they may face monopoly concerns then, but that is down the road.

What they will not face is competition from the $30 taxi companies, because unlike the taxi company they do not own any cars and the resultant costs of that.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by sanysany on Thursday November 21, 2019 @07:59PM (#21601475)
I believe the plan is to increase prices.

Cheap rides are to gain marketshare and customer acquisition. Not saying the strategy will be fruitful but it is a strategy.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by notus on Thursday November 21, 2019 @08:34PM (#21601678)
That's a terrible plan considering any one of their competitors could not raise their own prices and now be a preferred choice to Uber.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by dclowd9901 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:02PM (#21598867)
And what's their profit exit? The ever-innovative and dubious "forcing people to watch fucking ads while they ride around."
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:05PM (#21598065)
Not to mention Versailles was built with taxpayers money.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by gwbas1c on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:23PM (#21599128)
It's not as straightforward with VC money. VCs have to answer to investors.

(Hopefully someone more knowledgable can chime in,) but I always thought VC was a mix of government, private, and institutional funds?

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by munificent on Friday November 22, 2019 @12:58PM (#21608097)
I think there's an argument that taxpayers are indirectly funding all of this.

If you assume that the government needs $X to perform its function then when tax rates are cut for corporations and those wealthy enough to game the system, its everyone else whose taxes pay the shortfall. The reason there is so much money floating around the top end is specifically because they've figured out how to foist their tax burden onto others.

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by baud147258 on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:21AM (#21605741)
I don't know where you're getting this idea. At its highest, it was less than 5% of total State spending.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by gmartell on Thursday November 21, 2019 @12:51PM (#21597061)
I like your hypothesis but fear the reality is less benign. To me it seems most ('those at the top' as you put it) do what they do in an attempt to obtain ever more money and power - never satisfied with how much they already possess.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @01:18PM (#21597406)
So nothing has changed in this regard since 17th century, right?
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by raincom on Thursday November 21, 2019 @01:30PM (#21597569)
Thanks to surveillance and collusion between politicians and the elite, now the elite is more protected than ever.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @01:45PM (#21597768)
Was the elite less protected in 17th century?
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by SwiftyBug on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:29PM (#21598401)
They ended up having their heads cut off, so, yes.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:26PM (#21599177)
According to [1] there have been more revolutions in the last 10 years than in the entire 17th century.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebe...

Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by MFLoon on Thursday November 21, 2019 @04:28PM (#21599852)
Interesting observation, but a) events of the last 10 years are documented at an exponentially higher rate and resolution than events of the 17th century, and b) this list has lots of events which hardly raise to the level of the large scale revolutions of the 17th century, aaand c) none of these events are taking place in global centers of wealth and power. Today's elites are without a doubt more protected than the denizens of Versailles precisely because their power and wealth operate on a global scale.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @04:43PM (#21600010)
Re global centers - is it because elites are better protected, or because there are fewer people willing to die on barricades? Vast majority of Americans have a decent life today (eg not starving, not being exploited and treated like slaves by the elites), unlike the vast majority of population in the 17th century in Europe.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by MFLoon on Thursday November 21, 2019 @04:59PM (#21600164)
I mean, both. But there are plenty of self proclaimed radicals in America who claim they'd be willing to die on the barricades, but a) there's no central set of barricades upon which to die, even in the global "centers" and b) the ones that do exist are way too well protected. Remember Occupy Wall St? That was essentially an attempt to besiege (albeit non-violently) the financial power centers, but it was easily swatted away by local municipalities armed to the teeth with military grade crowd control tools.
Re:WeWork lays off 2,400 employees by p1esk on Thursday November 21, 2019 @05:22PM (#21600384)
Re radicals: it’s not about them, it’s about having enough support in the population.

Re protection: it’s only good if those who are supposed to protect you are on your side.