Bro CEOs

[Tonitrus]

And, I may be stupid on finances...but as long as they are privately held, how are the venture capitalists getting any returns?  With a privately-held company, if Uber were to go start going south and eventually go under, don't all of their investment contributions go with it?

They still have opportunities to sell their stakes, and the valuation Uber has gotten in at least one equity transaction has been $50b.

So it's like buying some of the chips in someone's poker game, hoping that they're going to get that straight flush.

[alfred russel]

Hey Fredo, how do acquisitions affect profit/loss?  Only a balance sheet entry, right?

Generally speaking, yes.

Lots of nuances to the rules, but generally, you are supposed to evaluate the assets acquired for impairment. So for example, if I buy a startup for $1 billion, I would record its assets as $1 billion. From then on, I'm supposed to review if the assets really have a fair market value of at least $1 billion. If they don't, I record an impairment through the P&L.

[alfred russel]

And, I may be stupid on finances...but as long as they are privately held, how are the venture capitalists getting any returns?  With a privately-held company, if Uber were to go start going south and eventually go under, don't all of their investment contributions go with it?

They still have opportunities to sell their stakes, and the valuation Uber has gotten in at least one equity transaction has been $50b.

So it's like buying some of the chips in someone's poker game, hoping that they're going to get that straight flush.

That is a good description of venture capital.

[Admiral Yi]

Read a while back that VCs are happy with 1 hit out of 7.

[garbon]

True. They can just find other jobs in a jiff.

Has their time spent driving for Uber changed the jiffiness with which they can find a job?

Probably. If you are guaranteed revenue through one source that eats up your time, quite likely makes it harder to find another gig.

Uber advertises itself to prospective drivers as a way to earn extra money in your spare time.  If someone is depending on driving for Uber as their primary job, A) that person is doing it wrong, and B) do you think they'd be better off with no income at all?

I don't think companies should be using the excuse of 'well if you don't like it, don't come here.'

[Admiral Yi]

Generally speaking, yes.

Lots of nuances to the rules, but generally, you are supposed to evaluate the assets acquired for impairment. So for example, if I buy a startup for $1 billion, I would record its assets as $1 billion. From then on, I'm supposed to review if the assets really have a fair market value of at least $1 billion. If they don't, I record an impairment through the P&L.

So if I understand you correctly, writing down the asset goes into expenses?

[alfred russel]

Generally speaking, yes.

Lots of nuances to the rules, but generally, you are supposed to evaluate the assets acquired for impairment. So for example, if I buy a startup for $1 billion, I would record its assets as $1 billion. From then on, I'm supposed to review if the assets really have a fair market value of at least $1 billion. If they don't, I record an impairment through the P&L.

So if I understand you correctly, writing down the asset goes into expenses?

Basically.

[grumbler]

I don't think companies should be using the excuse of 'well if you don't like it, don't come here.'

I don't think employees should be using the excuse of "I know what I contracted to do and how much I was contracted to receive for it, but I should be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract," either.

Luckily, neither of those phrases apply to the Uber situation.

[dps]

True. They can just find other jobs in a jiff.

Has their time spent driving for Uber changed the jiffiness with which they can find a job?

Probably. If you are guaranteed revenue through one source that eats up your time, quite likely makes it harder to find another gig.

Uber advertises itself to prospective drivers as a way to earn extra money in your spare time.  If someone is depending on driving for Uber as their primary job, A) that person is doing it wrong, and B) do you think they'd be better off with no income at all?

I don't think companies should be using the excuse of 'well if you don't like it, don't come here.'

I'm not sure I follow.  There are a lot of places I don't want to work, for one reason or another;  I don't expect them to change to accommodate me, so I don't work at any of those places.  What's the problem?  And doesn't pretty much every company pretty much have that attitude toward job seekers, unless maybe someone has special talents or skills that are in short supply?

[Oexmelin]

I suppose the issue is whether or not one recognizes the legitimacy of certain grievances beyond the appeal of the sacrosanct "freedom of choice". In other words, if you believe that the only recourse of employees to have their employer change behavior is to quit, you deny legitimacy to collective movements aimed at changing worker's conditions.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think companies should be using the excuse of 'well if you don't like it, don't come here.'

Why not, it's simply an extension of the "Don't like it, then quit" American managerial ethic.

[Oexmelin]

What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.

[Admiral Yi]

I suppose the issue is whether or not one recognizes the legitimacy of certain grievances beyond the appeal of the sacrosanct "freedom of choice". In other words, if you believe that the only recourse of employees to have their employer change behavior is to quit, you deny legitimacy to collective movements aimed at changing worker's conditions.

I don't see how legitimacy is the issue.  In free societies people, individually or as a group, can express grievances, preferences, demands, whatever.  The existence of that right doesn't mean the counterparty has to agree.

[Oexmelin]

I don't see how legitimacy is the issue.  In free societies people, individually or as a group, can express grievances, preferences, demands, whatever.  The existence of that right doesn't mean the counterparty has to agree.

It is very much an issue. In a society where people, individually or as a group, have widely varying levels of power over others, undermining the legitimacy of collective grievances in ordinary discourse has tremendous effect in providing counter powers. The consequences of someone quitting for Uber is negligible. The consequences of quitting for an Uber driver can be significant.

In a society where a significant number of people with little negotiating power have actually internalized the managerial ethic (don't like it, quit), the collective effect is to confer even more power upon businesses.

Let me put it this way: garbon expressed an ought: companies should not use that excuse, because, presumably, garbon believes it undercuts, even from the perspective of the company itself, the possibilities that there may be something to reform. dps also expressed an ought: employees should not express grievances, because the legitimate way to express grievance is to quit. Normalizing dps's stance has strong social effects - with which I disagree. Your mileage, I am sure, varies considerably.

[CountDeMoney]

What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.

This is America, man: we side with management, because to side with the worker is...well, you know.