Stanos posted:

The question is does the spigot turn off before cabs are really screwed.

Cicero posted:

Privately owned for-profit services with locally granted monopolies are really the worst of both worlds.

McDowell posted:

I see Uber as a rhetorical opportunity. NYC or some other major city should have a pilot program for a 'public' Uber. Everyone has a profile, hours and GPS are logged, dashcams are required for liability. It would be the cornerstone for a new economy with GMI.

McDowell posted:

I see Uber as a rhetorical opportunity. NYC or some other major city should have a pilot program for a 'public' Uber. Everyone has a profile, hours and GPS are logged, dashcams are required for liability. It would be the cornerstone for a new economy with GMI.

Cicero posted:

Got no problem with this in theory, I just have a hard time seeing local governments actually execute on it well. They're not exactly known for flexibility or cutting-edge innovation.

edit: part of why it's a better consumer experience on Uber is because they're more cutthroat with contractors than governments would be with employees, though. By all accounts, Uber really does respond to user reviews and cut loose poorly-rated drivers.

more friedman units posted:

Yep, if taxi companies had a comparable app with driver ratings and credit card payments, I think Uber would have a lot more trouble.

Fulchrum posted:

Ceiling fan posted:

Who the gently caress knows if there is a tech or any kind of bubble? All I know is that I check out individual companies and invest in the ones that can make money doing what they do and are run well.

Also, it's really hard to find porn companies on stock exchanges. Seriously, they're the most profitable companies on the net, and that's while anyone can find as much free porn as they want. I've been making a killing on boring poo poo like medical technology, consumer technology, semiconductor production, ect. And I can't find a nice porn production stock to save my life.

Deki posted:

As someone in the software field, while it really does seem that while there are a lot of startups that do nothing but eat VC money, the vast majority of people claiming there's a huge tech collapse in the future are basically just spiteful at tech workers for real or imagined reasons. I see no reason why startups going out of style would effect the 95% of us who work on poo poo that is used for real applications.

Bip Roberts posted:

Snapchat thinks it's worth 19 billion. That's a bubble.

Typo posted:

90% of everybody in tech don't work for companies like snapchat

Bip Roberts posted:

Snapchat thinks it's worth 19 billion. That's a bubble.

computer parts posted:

Oh, now we're going to define tech as "literally anyone in the nation who works with a computer" despite the fact that Silicon Valley is in the thread title.

Luigi Thirty posted:

The money is certainly real. For some reason billionaires don't want to wait for their portfolios to go up 3% a year, they want to gamble millions on companies with no business plans or in some cases revenue in the hopes that they become the new Facebook. For example, let's take Robinhood.

tsa posted:

It's almost as if there is a general trade-off between risk and reward! Like seriously I don't think a bunch of people in this thread understands the basics behind vc. You may only need one or two winners because when you won you win really big.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Yeah, the real poisonous part of this tech bubble is the continued erosion of workers' rights what with the push for a "new" definition of worker because the old ones are dumb and obsolete thanks to the internet. 1099 contracting and holding 4 app jobs at once just means you're a TECH WORKER.

Radbot posted:

This is going to be the majority of jobs in America within 10-15 years. "Employment" will no longer be a thing, everyone will be a 1099 "contractor" (that must do exactly what we tell you in this way looking like this and acting like this or you're fired deactivated).

If you employ people today, you are a sucker, and businesses are starting to learn this.

Typo posted:

90% of everybody in tech don't work for companies like snapchat

coffeetable posted:

Which implies that the valuations of all the startups other than those one or two are bullshit.

computer parts posted:

Oh, now we're going to define tech as "literally anyone in the nation who works with a computer" despite the fact that Silicon Valley is in the thread title.

Anubis posted:

Futures are +300 or so right now. Seriously, calling for a complete collapse in tech or the general markets is idiotic. Yes, some smaller companies will go under. Yes, people are playing the lotto with startups. No, it isn't going away anytime soon because rich people will be constantly convinced that you only need to hit 1/100 to quadruple your money. We are in a correction but, despite some weaknesses, fundamentals aren't really that bad and people are going to have to put their money somewhere.

China may finally be realizing their tailor wasn't being entirely truthful about their new cloths though. But that kind of bubble is pretty common thing when you get huge groups of consumers suddenly interested in investing in the markets.

coma posted:

Unemployment rates were at 4.1 percent in 1999 and the 2000 bubble popped..and were a flat 4.0 in 2000

Anubis posted:

Are you seriously trying to claim that low unemployment numbers (especially the somewhat shaky U-3 rates) are a good indicator of impending doom? Or are you just trying to claim that good fundamentals aren't an indicator of continued growth? Because if all you are looking at is the U-3 that's... I mean there's reading tea leaves and then there's whatever that is, no offense. If you really think it's collapsing you should be heavily invested in gold because if the US has a true crash then it's going to be a lot more painful than 2008. We don't have room to lower interest rates or many of the other extraordinary measures that would be required to pull us out. Luckily things like consumer debt and banks being over leveraged are both down quite a bit. The things that turn a correction into a recession just aren't there in abundance, in the US right now. However, China, as our largest trading partner, is certainly going to drag us through the mud a bit and it won't be sunshine and rainbows. But again, people have to put their money somewhere. With treasuries paying next to nothing, bonds being low as can be, the only common options are stock, commodities like precious metals, or real estate.

And as for tech startups specifically... Tech companies still have the best chance of any new startup to hit it big, especially among companies that commonly look for early funding. One of the big advantages that tech companies have is patent value. Even if you aren't able to achieve profitability with your core product you might end up developing valuable software and being awarded important software patents that one of the established companies are willing to buy you out for.

coma posted:

Unemployment is the biggest thing the beltway is leaning on when imploring everyone that the stock market isn't connected to the real economy, however the unemployment rate was much lower in 2000 and even in 2008 it only started going up from 5.0 percent in April. Corporate debt is the highest percentage-wise it's ever been because of stock buybacks purchased on credit through QE which might make things tight if downward shifting revenues are a trend and/or the interest rate is raised and if that happens the amazing buyouts that keep startups from sinking might trend downward, it's not inconceivable.

While it's not a carbon copy of the dotcom boom (more rounds of private funding instead of IPOs) I think there's enough parallels to say it's a similar bubble, perhaps not as big as the last one, or perhaps bigger since this market is more connected to the rest of the economy, as opposed to the dotcom market which was almost virtualized since net usage hadn't peaked yet.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/is-silicon-valley-in-another-bubble

coma posted:

Unemployment is the biggest thing the beltway is leaning on when imploring everyone that the stock market isn't connected to the real economy, however the unemployment rate was much lower in 2000 and even in 2008 it only started going up from 5.0 percent in April. Corporate debt is the highest percentage-wise it's ever been because of stock buybacks purchased on credit through QE which might make things tight if downward shifting revenues are a trend and/or the interest rate is raised and if that happens the amazing buyouts that keep startups from sinking might trend downward, it's not inconceivable.

While it's not a carbon copy of the dotcom boom (more rounds of private funding instead of IPOs) I think there's enough parallels to say it's a similar bubble, perhaps not as big as the last one, or perhaps bigger since this market is more connected to the rest of the economy, as opposed to the dotcom market which was almost virtualized since net usage hadn't peaked yet.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/is-silicon-valley-in-another-bubble

Condiv posted:

if you haven't read this vanity fair piece yet, you should, it's really good and it makes clear just how bubbly tech has gotten in the US

we're currently wasting millions of dollars on companies who do idiotic poo poo like mail you a roll of quarters for $20, have constantly running gas trucks running around filling up people's cars cause they're too busy to go to a gas station, or exchange virtual currency for real money.

Shakenbaker posted:

That can't be real, right? Like... there is a company that mails you quarters? Is there anywhere in the US that you need to use quarters that doesn't have a change machine right there?

coma posted:

Unemployment rates were at 4.1 percent in 1999 and the 2000 bubble popped..and were a flat 4.0 in 2000

nerdz posted:

What happens to uber if they ever stop using VC to prop up they quality of service. Or worse, what happens when uber becomes a monopoly? They've been doing lots of shady underhanded stuff to lyft and whoever is a local competition.

Condiv posted:

http://valleywag.gawker.com/real-startup-that-mails-you-quarters-for-laundry-isnt-s-1593540845

there's also soylent, a complete food that you drink designed by an idiot nerd who thought that he would stop pooping if he just nuked his gut flora with a heavy dose of antibiotics (oh and he nearly got malnutrition from some of the first batches of soylent, cause he didn't realize iron was important to humans).

you know what's not important to humans? lead and cadmium, two metals that soylent has a butt ton of. soylent's maker says it's not a problem cause california's lead standards in food are way too high, but a bit of cursory research shows that medical professionals have been saying that the lead limits for food in the US are way too high, and california's one of the few states with good limits on lead in food

Necc0 posted:

When that happens the VCs stuck holding the bag will start demanding returns on their investment. They will have a few options

- Squeeze blood from a stone by either cutting drivers' rates or increasing fares. Doing this directly would be a death sentence so they could develop complex rules that gently caress their drivers over a longer period of time. This wouldn't be enough for them to make back their investment though so they probably won't go this route.
- Private buyout. Maybe Google or someone else will want to buy them entirely for their self-driving car fleet. If Uber had a good patent portfolio this would be a reliable strategy but... they don't. Buyout is very unlikely especially now that Google is looking like they're going to be more careful with their money from now on.
- IPO. Put the shares on the market and give Cramer blowjobs until his red sweating face explodes from screaming about what a good buy Uber is. Drop all the shares and run like hell. If we're at this point where Uber & many others are doing this, it's time to start drawing parallels to the dot-com bust. We're not there yet either, though.

Basically yes there's way more money in the field than there should be and some lucky bastards are making out like bandits. It's not really a problem though because the total people effected by this is small, and all the money is being grifted off rich people who view dropping the occasional ten-million the same way we view gambling on penny stocks. Once the Fed raises rates you may see a lot of this settle down.

Necc0 posted:

- IPO. Put the shares on the market and give Cramer blowjobs until his red sweating face explodes from screaming about what a good buy Uber is. Drop all the shares and run like hell. If we're at this point where Uber & many others are doing this, it's time to start drawing parallels to the dot-com bust. We're not there yet either, though.

MeruFM posted:

Lots of small startups are already dying before their 3rd round.