Pretty sure Uber’s sole existence is owed to cheap debt and a bubble in venture capital. Them and WeWork soaked investors for all they were worth and never gave a flying fig about profitability because there was always some one willing to float a cheap loan
They got investment because they were building a monopoly first. It really just tells you how valuable monopolies are if it wasn’t obvious enough already. It’s more reason why we can’t let monopolies happen.
Like Amazon, which only had net losses for several years (from 1994 to 2002) in order to focus on aggressive growth and outcompeting other similar services by setting excessively low prices on books and media.
All these startups that can only survive because of years and years of VC funding with the promise of a future payoff, which only seem to come in the form of an acquisition, seem like pretty bad business ideas.
If the investors lose, the company doesn’t make money, the employees are working in a legal gray area and underpaid while using their own personal property to prop up the business… it’s not great.
If the founder/owner made made money and everyone else is getting screwed, that’s not a business, it’s a scam.
oh, yeah. the gig economy and the startups that exploit is genuinely awful. Can’t say I feel bad for the duped investors, though. They invested in a genuinely shitty company. so. heh.
Pretty sure Uber’s sole existence is owed to cheap debt and a bubble in venture capital. Them and WeWork soaked investors for all they were worth and never gave a flying fig about profitability because there was always some one willing to float a cheap loan
They got investment because they were building a monopoly first. It really just tells you how valuable monopolies are if it wasn’t obvious enough already. It’s more reason why we can’t let monopolies happen.
Like Amazon, which only had net losses for several years (from 1994 to 2002) in order to focus on aggressive growth and outcompeting other similar services by setting excessively low prices on books and media.
Maybe with interest rates going up we’ll see more realistic valuations in the Valley and startups with actually business ideas instead of just ideas.
It was a sound business idea though. Just a shitty investment idea.
The owners/founders made shitloads off it (at the expense of investors.)
All these startups that can only survive because of years and years of VC funding with the promise of a future payoff, which only seem to come in the form of an acquisition, seem like pretty bad business ideas.
If the investors lose, the company doesn’t make money, the employees are working in a legal gray area and underpaid while using their own personal property to prop up the business… it’s not great.
If the founder/owner made made money and everyone else is getting screwed, that’s not a business, it’s a scam.
oh, yeah. the gig economy and the startups that exploit is genuinely awful. Can’t say I feel bad for the duped investors, though. They invested in a genuinely shitty company. so. heh.