|
So when cities contract Uber drivers to cover areas too inefficient for bus service are they getting paid differently? How will that work?
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Technically speaking if you're waiting for the company to need you then you are on call and get some compensation because they are owning your time. Ambulance drivers do get paid when sitting and waiting after all while people "on call" sometimes first their jobs often get at least a decent salary. Uber is just being lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Given that Uber knows, via GPS, exactly where his phone is at all times he's got the app open, this would be an easily falsifiable lie, and a competent lawyer would advise against it. We probably shouldn't rule this out, since mysteriously he is claiming the exact same round $200 in 'employment related expenses' every week. e: Notably, only data from 3 weeks is being provided as well -- two during the holiday season, despite their claim that the driver has continued to drive for Uber for nearly 10 months (Sept. 2015 to July 2016 when the lawsuit was filed). It's a virtual certainty that those weeks are being cherry-picked. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I get 3USD/hr for being on call and 1.5x pay if I get called in, and that's only if I voluntarily take call because we're overstaffed for the night and I'm on overtime anyhow. So yeah, Uber is just being lovely. Thats less than minimum wage. Is it because you're just on call and not actually working?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:We probably shouldn't rule this out, since mysteriously he is claiming the exact same round $200 in 'employment related expenses' every week. To the person upthread asking "How can they get away with this?" the answer is that Uber has steadily been reducing drivers' take of the income in order to come closer to profitability. They're still losing money on each trip, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Another trend in some countries (UK, Canada, Ireland) is towards zero-hour contracts, where employees are effectively on call all the time, but only paid when they actually get work. These are obviously about as fair as "at-will employment", but apparently legal in a lot of places. That said, a driver circling around, being tracked by an app and under fairly strict rules of an organisation which pays them money is quite a different situation to someone sitting at home hoping to be called in for a shift. It's hard not to look at the former as an employment situation. blah_blah posted:We probably shouldn't rule this out, since mysteriously he is claiming the exact same round $200 in 'employment related expenses' every week. The article says that Uber reimburses those, so maybe that's a flat rate for the reimbursement? (Which would also be kinda lovely, since it doesn't take into account mileage.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Is that an important difference? The end-result is still that Uber is out. In many countries the two are tied together. Being a certified taxi driver means being paid according to union set taxi driver minimum standards. Taxi drivers are unionized? Where I'm from they're independent contractors to the dispatching service (or pay the dispatch service instead). If they're renting the medallion they can end up in the red on a bad shift. And yeah, it's an important difference. The assertion was that Uber's low amortized wages was leading to legislation that has pushed Uber out of markets. I was asking for an example of such a market/legislation, because I wasn't aware of any.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I am not a lawyer. Assuming he wins on the "I'm an employee, not a contractor" point, it would surprise me a great deal if the minimum-wage laws were written to say "You can pay somebody less than minimum wage one week, as long as you pay more than minimum wage another week." That would gut a lot of the purpose of minimum wage. I dunno about the expenses; they've presumably been averaged, as you imply. There would be fixed costs for car payments, depreciation, and insurance. But the comparison is fundamentally silly. The flat $200 expenses per period independent of hours worked mean that he could similarly work 2 hours during a week, make no money, and claim a loss of $100 per hour. The plaintiff here is calculating their time worked to (roughly) the nearest 30 seconds, their income to the nearest cent, and their expenses to the nearest hundred dollars (and not even for the same time period in question). Oh, and they are also only giving you data for 3 weeks out of roughly 40 that they've worked. That's probably not something you should be taking seriously. Lead out in cuffs posted:The article says that Uber reimburses those, so maybe that's a flat rate for the reimbursement? The calculation of $/hour is clearly (total compensation - expenses)/(hours worked), if you want to double-check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:But the comparison is fundamentally silly. The flat $200 expenses per period independent of hours worked mean that he could similarly work 2 hours during a week, make no money, and claim a loss of $100 per hour. The plaintiff here is calculating their time worked to (roughly) the nearest 30 seconds, their income to the nearest cent, and their expenses to the nearest hundred dollars (and not even for the same time period in question). Oh, and they are also only giving you data for 3 weeks out of roughly 40 that they've worked. That's probably not something you should be taking seriously. None of which is relevant to the post you responded to. If you assume he is lying, then you can just make up whatever you want. If you assume it is an average of total expense, then it still does not apply to the argument because the weeks in question because he didn't work 2 hours (and if he did work 2 hours other weeks and he averaged expense based on hours then the results for these weeks would look even worse). And none of that has anything to do with whether Uber's rate would work under existing minimum wage law were the employment classification to be established. Edit: and of course they were cherry picked, but the claim states the average for the entire course of employment was $6/hour. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
It's a bit tricky though. Commuting to work (or even waiting in the mandatory security line) doesn't count as "work time" for minimum wage purposes. Uber probably has some wiggle room there, though probably not as much as they'd like. This is why we have courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:That's depressing as hell. they aren't selling pads, they're leasing them, because NASA doesn't launch nearly that many rockets these days to necessitate using 20+ pads. back when all those pads were needed NASA was constantly doing test flights to figure out rocketry, we've mostly figured it out now so those pads are just sitting around doing nothing if private space firms aren't using them. some of these pads have been mothballed for decades if anything it's optimistic to see this happening, to be able to offload known space problems and tasks onto the private sector so NASA can refocus on pure science and building new spacecraft like the orion. NASA doesn't need to waste time sending food and toilet paper to the ISS boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Edit: and of course they were cherry picked, but the claim states the average for the entire course of employment was $6/hour. As before, using mysteriously round numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:As before, using mysteriously round numbers. I find it highly unlikely that the judge is expecting "$6.57 and three mils average".
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
The interesting issue with uber while waiting for a fare is that 99% of drivers now also have lyft running at the same time. First: if he is entitled to minimum wage for his odle time, do lyft and uber both have to pay minimum wage (so he makes 2x minimum wage). Or shoulf they both pay half or some portion. Second: If I'm idle on both uber and lyft for 15 minutes and then get a lyft fair, should that 15 minutes could against uber's minimum wage? What if they had a ride at 16 minutes that would have covered min wage? Third: what company would allow you, an employee, to be on call for the competition while I pay you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:As before, using mysteriously round numbers. As expenses are going to be estimates unless every expense is meticulous (and given that not every automotive expense is 100% applied and would thus be an estimated reduction in overall expense), rounding is common and rounding to round numerals or 5 increments is even more common. Unless his estimation deviates from reality by a ridiculous amount, it would have only little impact in the ultimate average which was still significantly below minimum wage. And at this point you are just assuming everything is a lie. $200/week in deductible expenses to run a taxi service does not sound unreasonable at all. While it is certainly possible that he has massively inflated the numbers, do you have anything at all to offer as a compelling reason why I should distrust the number other than the idea that the roundness upsets you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
nm posted:The interesting issue with uber while waiting for a fare is that 99% of drivers now also have lyft running at the same time. I would be OK with an employment contract forbidding you from using a direct competitor app while "on the clock" (and possibly in general but I don't see the necessity in that).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:Thats less than minimum wage. Is it because you're just on call and not actually working? Yep. And I can use my PTO if for some reason I take call before I get to my full-time hours for the week. It's why uber's position is so awful. I'm being paid a decent amount of money (for call) just to reserve my time in case they need me. And then if they do need me I get 1.5x pay on top of that. And that's only if I take call voluntarily, because they can only mandate that I take call if I'm on overtime. And our call/ot/float policies are kind of lovely compared to some other areas' too. gently caress uber. E:. My requirements for being on call are "be able to be here and ready to work within an hour". That's it. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:As expenses are going to be estimates unless every expense is meticulous (and given that not every automotive expense is 100% applied and would thus be an estimated reduction in overall expense), rounding is common and rounding to round numerals or 5 increments is even more common. Unless his estimation deviates from reality by a ridiculous amount, it would have only little impact in the ultimate average which was still significantly below minimum wage. And at this point you are just assuming everything is a lie. $200/week in deductible expenses to run a taxi service does not sound unreasonable at all. While it is certainly possible that he has massively inflated the numbers, do you have anything at all to offer as a compelling reason why I should distrust the number other than the idea that the roundness upsets you? Presumably he should know the exact amount spent on gas/insurance/repairs (the three examples given in the document) over that timeframe, for starters. Expenses are one of the absolute most relevant things here (since no one is seriously arguing that Uber drivers make less than minimum wage before expenses), and really not all that difficult to account for. So it's difficult for me to take it seriously without a significantly more detailed financial picture than is given in the filing. It's also notable that the low wages/hour seem to arise largely from claims to be working ~60 hours/week (nearly 80 in one of the weeks where more detail is given). It would be interesting to know how that is being accounted for. Note: I don't have a hard time at all believing that Uber can pay significantly below (effective) minimum wage, especially if you take out a lease to buy your car (and it's super scummy that they encourage this), if your hours are primarily off-peak or in low-traffic areas, or if your car is low-efficiency/non-electric or expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Presumably he should know the exact amount spent on gas/insurance/repairs (the three examples given in the document) over that timeframe, for starters. As it is his personal vehicle it would be impossible to 100% accurately report expenses as they would reflect only an estimated portion of overall cost of ownership, and depreciation is inherently estimation, so this statement is wrong on its face. quote:So it's difficult for me to take it seriously without a significantly more detailed financial picture than is given in the filing. It's also notable that the low wages/hour seem to arise largely from claims to be working ~60 hours/week (nearly 80 in one of the weeks where more detail is given). It would be interesting to know how that is being accounted for. If your assumption is that he is flat lying by significant amounts just state that, stop trying to justify it, as you are offering nothing other than wild assumptions to support your statements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:and depreciation is inherently estimation, Vehicles have a cost, a mileage lifespan, and you know roughly how many miles you drive for Uber. It might be 'estimation' but it's certainly not rocket science, nor would it be that inaccurate. Similarly for gas costs (assuming you aren't driving e.g. a Prius, as seemingly half of Uber drivers are doing nowadays). Insurance is a little bit trickier -- but in many cases the nominal cost (but not the expected one) is just going to be zero due to people driving under their own personal insurance. archangelwar posted:If your assumption is that he is flat lying by significant amounts just state that, stop trying to justify it, as you are offering nothing other than wild assumptions to support your statements. Clearly I think that the expenses number is inflated, and the number of hours worked likely is as well. These estimates (including depreciation, which isn't mentioned in that part of the filing) still put Uber pay after expenses as 50-115% more than the $6/hour figure quoted there. You seem to have uncritically accepted that $200/week is about correct for expenses. Note that using the assumptions in the Buzzfeed article above, 250 working days/year at 75 miles/day (probably above the median, but in the ballpark of correct c.f. this link) comes out to around 5.5k of expenses per year, which makes roughly a $2/hour difference. Note that several of these expenses are also tax-deductible as well, making the true expense even lower -- for example, taking the standard mileage deduction alone reduces your taxable income by roughly $10k in the above, which saves $1.5-2.5k depending on the tax bracket of the particular individual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
nm posted:The interesting issue with uber while waiting for a fare is that 99% of drivers now also have lyft running at the same time. The answer to all of your questions is "it depends" since the actual definition of an independent contractor is murky. If Uber is misclassifying drivers, then most of your questions resolve themselves since the real issue is that drivers are being treated unfairly and are forced to use both services to turn a profit. If they aren't, then the questions aren't relevant anyway. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The answer to all of your questions is "it depends" since the actual definition of an independent contractor is murky. If Uber is misclassifying drivers, then most of your questions resolve themselves since the real issue is that drivers are being treated unfairly and are forced to use both services to turn a profit. If they aren't, then the questions aren't relevant anyway. I suspect this lawsuit isn't going anywhere because of these questions and similar issues. However, even if uber drivers are employees, the question remains as to whether when they do not have a fair, are they employees legally entitled to minimum wage. The case would be stronger if the hours listed were hours spend actually driving with (and possibly too and from) a fare. Otherwise, I think it falls flat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Knowing the actual costs of running a cab, 200USD per week sounds remarkably low, infeasibly low even.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the often tiny employment law in the US, but I can give some input on comparative legislation. Since the beginning of labor rights, some employers have attempted to avoid their application by framing their relation with the employee as a non-labor one. In order to prevent this, which would make labor law useless, some systems explicitly presume the existence of a labor contract, even when the parties have labeled them differently (E.g. As independent contractors) if all the elements of a labor relationship are present. Generally, a labor relationship is based on the Worker providing services for the Company, following the latter's orders and instructions, and being under its supervision (this is the case, albeit with some differences, in, for example, Spain, Colombia, Chile, Italy and others). From this perspective, if the Uber driver can prove that for all intents and purposes he was under the supervision of Uber, following Uber's orders, and working entirely for the company (or almost), he might be able to prove that he is an employee and that, therefore, labor rights should be enforced in his favor. California also establishes this rebuttable presumption (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=2750.5.), also enumerating how to rebut it. There is already at least one case in which a California court recognized Uber drivers as employees (attacked here by a tech blog, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ontractor.shtml) so it wouldn't be unprecedented to rule like this. Keep in mind, however, that it depends on where the lawsuit was filed, and whether the state in question establishes such presumptions. Of course, Uber ended up settling similar lawsuits, avoiding the reclassification of its employees as such ( http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/21/11485424/uber-suit-california-Massachusetts-drivers-employee-contractor). While I have no problem with independent contractors, looking at Uber drivers like that can be dangerous. Considering that the amount of money you can get using Uber is only enough to survive if you work virtually nonstop, looking at the drivers as people who are just relaxing at home, driving whenever they're in the mood, is misleading. Uber relies on their drivers being glued to the wheel almost the entire day, but then pretends that it's just a small thing you do for beer money. Like selling junk on eBay. Sorry if it's too long. I find the topic fascinating. Some more info http://www.amcham.be/publications/amcham-connect/2015/november/fieldfisher-uberization-labor-market-belgium-uber-airbnb (praising Belgium for thinking they're independent contractors, criticizing California for the opposite) http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors/ (info on classifying workers as contractors in the US).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook quote:
Is this from the future?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Is this from the future? October issue of Vanity Fair, which I presume comes out in September.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook Well I know what I'm reading this morning. VF owns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:Well I know what I'm reading this morning. VF owns. I love the ending.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Clearly I think that the expenses number is inflated, and the number of hours worked likely is as well. Okay, so you think he is lying. Why bother discussing it further then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook It's an interesting article, but which definitely comes way too late. Now that it is obvious that Theranos is, and always was, bullshit, every media outlet is lining up to throw poo poo at them. While the author of this particular piece mentions how the media ate up Theranos' "quixotic" story, and notes in passing how Forbes was embarrassed of having blown Holmes out of proportion, it omits the role Vanity Fair itself also played in it. Hell, in October last year (the same month the WSJ exposé was released), Vanity Fair was calling Holmes part of "The New Establishment," a list of "visionaries, investors, and cultural leaders" that were changing the world (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2015/09/new-establishment-list-2015). The author does something that I consider downright offensive, which is to keep mentioning race and gender of people, without mentioning why it is a problem. He uses "most of whom are white males" as a corollary to his comments on VC firms and startups, as if it was demonstrably damning that white men are a problem. He also misses the point that placing the emphasis on race and gender for no apparent reason is precisely the kind of reasoning that lead to the rise of Elizabeth Holmes and Meredith Perry (of ubeam), since the media wanted to push and agenda-driven narrative. They propped up their heroes (young female dropouts) without actually looking at the absolute insanity of their products, or how they defied basic laws of physics. Having said that, Dan Simmons in Disrupted also discusses the issue of diversity in tech, but provides what I consider to be good info on the topic. In his view, the problem ends up being about people sharing the same mentality, since they all end up doing the same, without questioning the model in which they are immersed. Edit: In another article the same author acknowledges the mainstream media propping up Holmes, including Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/theranos-silicon-valley-media). Even in that article, however, he brings up race for no discernible reason quote:"There are a lot of directions in which to point fingers. There is Holmes, of course, who seemed to have repeatedly misrepresented her company. There are also the people who funded her, those who praised her, and the largely older, all-white, and entirely male board of directors, few of whom have any real experience in the medical field, that supposedly oversaw her." And, no, despite the redtext, I do not think racism doesn't exist. Redrum and Coke fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:The author does something that I consider downright offensive, which is to keep mentioning race and gender of people, without mentioning why it is a problem. He uses "most of whom are white males" as a corollary to his comments on VC firms and startups, as if it was demonstrably damning that white men are a problem. He also misses the point that placing the emphasis on race and gender for no apparent reason is precisely the kind of reasoning that lead to the rise of Elizabeth Holmes and Meredith Perry (of ubeam), since the media wanted to push and agenda-driven narrative. They propped up their heroes (young female dropouts) without actually looking at the absolute insanity of their products, or how they defied basic laws of physics. Saying they're white men is very relevant to the story, because if Silicon Valley had less of an obvious gender (and racial, but that's not relevant to Theranos) imbalance, a white female entrepeneur wouldn't be a news story, or an unusual investment pick. You may disagree that Silicon Valley's gender imbalance is a problem, but you can't deny it exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The author delivers the punchline in the next paragraph. "When Elizabeth Holmes emerged on the tech scene, around 2003, she had a preternaturally good story. She was a woman. ..." Because Elizabeth Holmes was a woman, she appeared to be solving Silicon Valley's diversity problem. That was part of what made her saleable. As you note, "They propped up their heroes (young female dropouts) without actually looking at the absolute insanity of their products, or how they defied basic laws of physics. " I think you're only partially right on this. True, the media sided with Holmes because they wanted to push this narrative. However, the investment was separate from any ideological agenda. VC companies can be accused of a lot of things, giving money to a woman for the sake of diversity alone isn't one of them. The investors (none of whom were in the medical field) gave money to Theranos for the same reason they've thrown money at every idiotic idea that has crashed and burned: They thought it could potentially make them even richer. The problem came after, when the media should have been all over that story, when Theranos went from tech media to mainstream media, particularly considering that these were medical tests, and yet allowed it to flourish because they saw it as ideologically pleasant. There was also lazy journalism (and the fact that "old media" is funding investigative reporters less and less is probably connected to this) that went unnoticed because, at the bottom, they really wanted this story to be true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook That's a great article. Vanity Fair posted:... The employee cafeteria served Kool-Aid that day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
VCs aren't investing much of their own money, a big part of the startup bubble is that too many people want to invest too much money in VC funds, so the VCs are looking for places to dump the extra cash. Socially responsible investing is also a thing, especially in the Valley, so conspicuously funding some woman and/or minority owned businesses could help attract more capital.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
I appreciate the part about her traveling with four bodyguards at all times who refer to her as 'Eagle 1' like she's the goddamn POTUS
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Perhaps if you have simply answered my initial question directly rather than tap dance around your incorrect assertions concerning the expense estimation process we could have avoided this whole discussion. If your stance is that he is lying and the numbers are complete fabrications rather than ballpark estimations then there is nothing to discuss as you can assert the truth to be whatever you want; which is precisely what you are doing with your tax rant as it also resides on a lot of assumptions that are not based on the information provided. quote:You seem to have uncritically accepted that $200/week is about correct for expenses. No, I am stating that it is silly to point at the roundness of $200/week as clear evidence the entire case is fabricated. Thankfully you have clarified that it wasn't the roundness of the number, but that it conflicts with your personal narrative, which is what I asked you in the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:True, the media sided with Holmes because they wanted to push this narrative. However, the investment was separate from any ideological agenda. VC companies can be accused of a lot of things, giving money to a woman for the sake of diversity alone isn't one of them. The investors (none of whom were in the medical field) gave money to Theranos for the same reason they've thrown money at every idiotic idea that has crashed and burned: They thought it could potentially make them even richer. None of the facts in the story stand alone. They combine. Investors wanted the Next Big Thing. They wanted a young, college-dropout, brilliant entrepeneur. They wanted a medical Facebook. So when a young, good-looking, Stanford drop-out who modeled herself on Steve Jobs came along, they were easy prey. It's no different than any other hustle: you want to look like the sort of person the mark expects. Wow, that Board of Directors was an utter disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
It was Graham, and it was a joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Absolutely nobody is arguing that Holmes got money "for the sake of diversity alone". That's a straw man. What I am saying is that big-league investing is amazingly cargo cult. I think it was Andreessen (if not, it was somebody equally famous) who said that they're looking for people who remind them of Mark Zuckerberg. They mean that literally -- young, college dropout, expensive school, the right kind of scruffy clothes. Holmes fit this template perfectly, with the bonus that she was a woman. VCs are well aware of the resentment within Silicon Valley of the lack of representation of women and of non-white, non-Asian entrepeneurs. VCs' narrative is that "well, we just haven't seen the right woman/non-white/non-Asian person". Elizabeth Holmes let them reassure themselves that hey, they really did fund women when the right one came along. I didn't mean that you were arguing that. Sorry if it came off that way. I meant that the diversity agenda was not an issue for VC. The media is the one that should have done actual research instead of having an agenda regarding a story they wanted to have. As for Holmes; I'm not sure she was actually a con artist from the get-go. As far as cons go, it would be a pretty bad one. I think that she started off with an idea and a pocket full of dreams, didn't let the "nay sayers" bring her down, and then found a bunch of scientifically-illiterate VC who, together with the media acting as sycophants, gave her ego the push it needed. Of course, don't get me wrong, none of these things excuse her behavior in any way (these are either things she knew or should have known), not to mention the many times down the road where she deliberately mislead investors regarding the state of the Theranos technology. The media really needs to stop pushing the "if they criticize you is because you're just a strong individual! ^_^", since it leads to crazy poo poo like that. Or ubeam: https://twitter.com/meredithperry/status/656678186940411904 EDIT: As for VCs not finding women. I don't know, maybe it IS true that they haven't found the right ones to fund, in the sense that they don't see their tech or apps as profitable (as Theranos or uBeam would be, if they actually worked). I have a hard time imagining any VC would pass the opportunity to fund an all-gay, Muslim, Transexual, fat-positive, wheelchair-bound firm, if they believed they'd make millions off of it. Redrum and Coke fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:41
|
|