Bro CEOs

[CountDeMoney]

He creates the kind of company in which going to an escort bar with your colleagues, as Mr. Kalanick did in South Korea in 2014, according to recent reports, seems like a good idea.

....err....this is a pretty standard part of mainstream Japanese business culture. It seems likely Korea would be similar.

So maybe he should've started Uber in Japan or South Korea, and not LA.

[Zanza]

A lot of these new business models mainly work because they circumvent existing regulation that protects customers or employees. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society is whether we rather want the regulation with its advantages (e.g. better employee rights) and disadvantages (e.g. artificial barriers to market entry) or the free-for-all with its advantages (e.g. cheaper taxis) and disadvantages (e.g. "gig-economy" with its precarious income). So I don't think the toxic culture in these companies is the problem, but rather that their main value-add seems to be to circumvent existing regulation through new sales channels.

[CountDeMoney]

So I don't think the toxic culture in these companies is the problem, but rather that their main value-add seems to be to circumvent existing regulation through new sales channels.

Yeah, women don't need jobs. They're just filthy fucking cumdumpsters anyway.

[grumbler]

A lot of these new business models mainly work because they circumvent existing regulation that protects customers or employees. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society is whether we rather want the regulation with its advantages (e.g. better employee rights) and disadvantages (e.g. artificial barriers to market entry) or the free-for-all with its advantages (e.g. cheaper taxis) and disadvantages (e.g. "gig-economy" with its precarious income). So I don't think the toxic culture in these companies is the problem, but rather that their main value-add seems to be to circumvent existing regulation through new sales channels.

The difference between the traditional business models (e.g. taxis or hotels) and the newer ones like Uber or airbnb is that the traditional businesses need government intervention to artificially raise the prices of the newer business models in order to compensate for the antiquated communications and bureaucracy of the older model.  Government could easily set a minimum wage for uber drivers and not impact Uber's competitiveness with traditional taxis at all.  The main value-added for the new business models is that they give the customer what the customer wants, for less.  Overturning that is probably not what governments should be doing.

[Maximus]

A lot of these new business models mainly work because they circumvent existing regulation that protects customers or employees. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society is whether we rather want the regulation with its advantages (e.g. better employee rights) and disadvantages (e.g. artificial barriers to market entry) or the free-for-all with its advantages (e.g. cheaper taxis) and disadvantages (e.g. "gig-economy" with its precarious income). So I don't think the toxic culture in these companies is the problem, but rather that their main value-add seems to be to circumvent existing regulation through new sales channels.

I think I'd tend toward the opposite view. The toxic culture is the problem. Challenging regulation through innovation is healthy both economically and socially.

[Zanza]

So I don't think the toxic culture in these companies is the problem, but rather that their main value-add seems to be to circumvent existing regulation through new sales channels.

Yeah, women don't need jobs. They're just filthy fucking cumdumpsters anyway.

Women being disadvantaged career-wise is hardly something that is specific to these bro-culture companies, but a much larger societal issue across most or all industries. It needs to be adressed on a much wider scale than just those Silicon Valley startups, although it might be especially pronounced there.

[grumbler]

I think I'd tend toward the opposite view. The toxic culture is the problem. Challenging regulation through innovation is healthy both economically and socially.

I think that this is probably correct, and would note that, silly anecdotal NYT op-eds aside, the problem is hardly limited to "bro cos" and isn't exclusively about men shutting out women.  There are lots of toxic culture hotspots and I think that there is a more systematic problem than complaints about flipflops in the office would indicate.

[CountDeMoney]

Women being disadvantaged career-wise is hardly something that is specific to these bro-culture companies, but a much larger societal issue across most or all industries. It needs to be adressed on a much wider scale than just those Silicon Valley startups, although it might be especially pronounced there.

It might be?  Profound.

[Zanza]

I think the idea that businesses should by themselves circumvent or challenge regulation shows that the Republican party's anti-government stance has been successfully ingrained a deep distrust of the democratically legitimated government. Regulation has a purpose and despite what Reagan said, the government is there to help and make society better. If you think that businesses are better unregulated, then it should follow that the traditional competitors, e.g. hotels or taxis, should also be deregulated to have a level playing field versus Uber or airbnb. You would then basically give up your power to shape the market and just make it a free-for-all. Which I guess appeals to many Americans.

[The Brain]

Getting a taxi in Stockholm was hell before they were deregulated. That was many years ago though.

[Maximus]

I didn't say anything about "businesses are better unregulated". There are regulations that are necessary or beneficial and those that are not. And where that line is is a matter for debate and can change as the context changes. As such it is good for the debate to be revisited when that context change occurs. It does not necessarily follow that businesses that operate in the old context should have their regulations changed in the same way.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the idea that businesses should by themselves circumvent or challenge regulation shows that the Republican party's anti-government stance has been successfully ingrained a deep distrust of the democratically legitimated government. Regulation has a purpose and despite what Reagan said, the government is there to help and make society better. If you think that businesses are better unregulated, then it should follow that the traditional competitors, e.g. hotels or taxis, should also be deregulated to have a level playing field versus Uber or airbnb. You would then basically give up your power to shape the market and just make it a free-for-all. Which I guess appeals to many Americans.

What hotel regulations are you talking about?  Sprinklers and emergency exits?

The way I look at those two is they're monetizing idle assets.

[grumbler]

I think the idea that businesses should by themselves circumvent or challenge regulation shows that the Republican party's anti-government stance has been successfully ingrained a deep distrust of the democratically legitimated government. Regulation has a purpose and despite what Reagan said, the government is there to help and make society better. If you think that businesses are better unregulated, then it should follow that the traditional competitors, e.g. hotels or taxis, should also be deregulated to have a level playing field versus Uber or airbnb. You would then basically give up your power to shape the market and just make it a free-for-all. Which I guess appeals to many Americans.

I think that the idea that there are only two states of business:  regulated, and unregulated, is one of the most unfortunate of the left's many canards.  If you really think that  the only alternative to unlimited regulation is no regulation at all, you might be a leftist European.

[Razgovory]

Grumbler misses owning slaves.

[garbon]

Uber is pretty despicable.