QuoteSundayReview | Opinion
Jerks and the Start-Ups They Ruin
By Dan Lyons
Failing New York Times
April 1, 2017
The tech industry has a problem with "bro culture." People have been complaining about it for years. Yet nobody has done much to fix it.
That may finally change, if the people in charge of Silicon Valley — venture capitalists, who control the money — start to realize that the real problem with tech bros is not just that they're boorish jerks. It's that they're boorish jerks who don't know how to run companies.
Look at Uber, the ride-hailing start-up. It's the biggest tech unicorn in the world, with a valuation of $69 billion. Not long ago Uber seemed invincible. Now it's in free fall, and top executives have fled. The company's woes spring entirely from its toxic bro culture, created by its chief executive, Travis Kalanick.
What is bro culture? Basically, a world that favors young men at the expense of everyone else. A "bro co." has a "bro" C.E.O., or C.E.-Bro, usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler. Instead of being forced by investors to surround himself with seasoned executives, he is left to make decisions on his own.
The bro C.E.O. does what you'd expect an immature young man to do when you give him lots of money and surround him with fawning admirers — he creates a culture built on reckless spending and excessive partying, where bad behavior is not just tolerated but even encouraged. 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. (The visit led, understandably, to a complaint to the personnel department.)
Bro cos. become corporate frat houses, where employees are chosen like pledges, based on "culture fit." Women get hired, but they rarely get promoted and sometimes complain of being harassed. Minorities and older workers are excluded.
Bro culture also values speedy growth over sustainable profits, and encourages cutting corners, ignoring regulations and doing whatever it takes to win.
Sometimes it works. But often the whole thing just flames out. The bros blow through the money and find they have no viable business. For example: Quirky, founded in 2009 by the 20-something Ben Kaufman. It raised $185 million to build a "social product development platform" that sold kooky gadgets, but filed for bankruptcy basically because the "brash" and "unorthodox" chief executive had no business being a chief executive. One indication that Mr. Kaufman is a bro? Well, the first reference he lists on his LinkedIn page is: "He's a dick ... but hilarious."
Zenefits, a human-resources start-up and another bro co., raised $583 million, at a peak valuation of $4.5 billion, then crashed after reports that it had used software to cheat on licensing courses for insurance brokers, and operated a hard-partying workplace where cups of beer and used condoms were left in stairwells. Zenefits limps on, but its C.E.-Bro co-founder has left the company, and nearly half the staff has been laid off.
Uber's public downfall began in February, when Susan Fowler, a former engineer at the company, wrote about enduring sexual harassment and discrimination there. Other employees came forward with stories. One involved a manager groping employees' breasts. Mr. Kalanick's own bro-hood became part of the story when a video surfaced showing him berating a Uber driver who complained that Uber's price cuts had driven him into bankruptcy. Mr. Kalanick said the driver needed to take responsibility for his own life.
As this was happening, Google's self-driving car unit sued Uber, alleging it had stolen its ideas. Then word leaked that Uber had been using a sneaky software tool to deceive regulators in cities around the world. All this is as much a part of "bro culture" as the poor treatment of women; the point is to get away with as much as you can.
Hoping to right the ship, Uber appointed one of its board members, Arianna Huffington, to join former attorney general Eric Holder and others to investigate the sexual harassment claims. Mr. Kalanick has apologized and vowed to "grow up." (He's 40.) Most important, Uber has announced that it is planning to hire a chief operating officer, ideally a steady hand like Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook. It's a great idea, but it should have happened years ago. Now it may be too late.
Ms. Huffington insists the board has full confidence in Mr. Kalanick. But should it? He's a college dropout with a spotty track record and a reputation for pugnacity. His record at Uber includes racking up enormous losses — reportedly $5 billion over the last two years. Despite this, the bluest blue-chip investors (including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) have invested a total of $16 billion in Uber.
Bro C.E.O.s are better at raising money than making money. So why do venture capitalists keep investing in them? It may be because many of the venture capitalists are bros as well.
Venture capitalists used to be tech engineers who had made a bundle, retired early and took up investing in start-ups as a kind of white-shoe hobby. The new breed are competitive alpha males who previously might have gone to work as bond traders. At the same time, there are fewer women. In 1999, 10 percent of investing partners at venture capital companies were women. By 2014 the number had declined to 6 percent, according to the Diana Project at Babson College. This is probably one reason that, despite many studies showing that women run companies better than men, none of the 15 biggest American tech companies valued over $1 billion has a female chief executive.
Uber's collapse should not come as a surprise but it does offer a lesson: Toxic workplace culture and rotten financial performance go hand-in-hand. It's possible for a boorish jerk to run a successful company, but jerks do best when surrounded by non-jerks, and bros do best when they hire seasoned executives to help them. Without "adult supervision" and institutional restraints, the C.E.-Bro's vices end up infecting the culture of the workplaces they control.
This poisonous state of affairs will get fixed only when investors start getting hurt. A crash at Uber, the most high profile tech start-up in the world, could provide the jolt that finally brings the tech industry back to its senses.
Great illustration in the Times Sunday Review, LOL:
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/02/opinion/sunday/02lyons/02lyons-master768.jpg)
Hey, if I'm getting venture capital and I ain't putting my own money in, I might party too.
This article is all over the place.
No chicks man. They have cooties.
This is what happens when you start loosening dress codes.
Ugh, flip flops in the office environment. :bleeding:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2017, 08:27:57 PM
Ugh, flip flops in the office environment. :bleeding:
Then you would never survive the federal government. It's what Dazzling Urbanite women wear to the office. Easier to walk around in bare feet all day that way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2017, 08:38:57 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2017, 08:27:57 PM
Ugh, flip flops in the office environment. :bleeding:
Then you would never survive the federal government. It's what Dazzling Urbanite women wear to the office. Easier to walk around in bare feet all day that way.
Barf. All those ashy feet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2017, 07:39:55 PM
What is bro culture? Basically... ...usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler.
So, basically, a typical Languishite, except young and good-looking.
QuoteApril 1, 2017
Bro culture something negative?? And you guys fell for it. :lol:
Ugh. I worked for a "bro co" at one point. That was the one that went up in smoke from a crack pipe smoked by a hooker/s (still, all we know is the CEO had one hell of a weekend) worth about $83 mil of venture capital.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2017, 09:18:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2017, 07:39:55 PM
What is bro culture? Basically... ...usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler.
So, basically, a typical Languishite, except young and good-looking.
Are any of us hustlers? Some of us maybe be cocky, but with morality we tend toward completely one or the other.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2017, 09:18:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2017, 07:39:55 PM
What is bro culture? Basically... ...usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler.
So, basically, a typical Languishite, except young and good-looking.
Not enough of us went to good schools.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2017, 08:14:51 AM
Ugh. I worked for a "bro co" at one point. That was the one that went up in smoke from a crack pipe smoked by a hooker/s (still, all we know is the CEO had one hell of a weekend) worth about $83 mil of venture capital.
:hmm: Expensive hooker.
QuoteHe 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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2017, 12:14:56 PM
QuoteHe 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.
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2017, 12:52:29 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on April 02, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
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.
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.
Getting a taxi in Stockholm was hell before they were deregulated. That was many years ago though.
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 01:13:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 01:13:30 PM
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.
Grumbler misses owning slaves.
Uber is pretty despicable.
Uber is great.
Sucks for cab owners.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Uber is great.
Sucks for cab owners.
The service is great for customers sure. How they treat their 'employees' not so much. And that whole business of flouting laws about getting permission for driverless cars? :thumbsdown:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
The service is great for customers sure. How they treat their 'employees' not so much. And that whole business of flouting laws about getting permission for driverless cars? :thumbsdown:
If drivers are not happy with their compensation it's very easy for them to stop driving. Unless you're talking about the CEO spazzing out to that one driver.
Even if Uber completely implodes tomorrow due to the bro culture, the venture capital has had ample opportunity to walk away with epic returns. It seems like an odd example for the article.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 04:05:15 PM
Even if Uber completely implodes tomorrow due to the bro culture, the venture capital has had ample opportunity to walk away with epic returns. It seems like an odd example for the article.
That's because it's a bullshit article. The writer takes the assholish behavior of the Uber CEO and a couple harrasment cases at Uber, and tries to spin a narrative about some overarching cultural phenomenon with profound implications for society. Nothing he says is supported by evidence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
The service is great for customers sure. How they treat their 'employees' not so much. And that whole business of flouting laws about getting permission for driverless cars? :thumbsdown:
If drivers are not happy with their compensation it's very easy for them to stop driving. Unless you're talking about the CEO spazzing out to that one driver.
True. They can just find other jobs in a jiff.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Uber is great.
Sucks for cab owners.
It loses money hand over fist though. Even for startup standards, 3 billion loss on 5.5b revenue in 2016 it's way out there.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
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.
:unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:39:19 PM
Probably. If you are guaranteed revenue through one source that eats up your time, quite likely makes it harder to find another gig.
That logic applies to any activity that takes time and for which you receive compensation.
Quote from: celedhring on April 02, 2017, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Uber is great.
Sucks for cab owners.
It loses money hand over fist though. Even for startup standards, 3 billion loss on 5.5b revenue in 2016 it's way out there.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/
I understand their business model correctly...since they don't own any of the vehicles, they probably have very little in actual hard asset value. As opposed to say, Tesla (which also is spotty on profitability).
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?
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 02, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
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?
Hey Fredo, how do acquisitions affect profit/loss? Only a balance sheet entry, right?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 02, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 02, 2017, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 02, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
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.
Read a while back that VCs are happy with 1 hit out of 7.
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2017, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
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.'
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 05:12:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 05:12:35 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2017, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
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.
What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 06:51:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 06:49:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 07:00:34 PM
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.
I didn't necessarily mean that my only recourse should be to quit. After all, unless I own my own business, there's always going to be something that isn't exactly the way I personally want it (no matter what government regulations or union contracts are applicable, unless I have the power to unilaterally impose such, and if I had that kind of power, why would I be working? And speaking of regulations and contracts, I have to abide by those even if I own the business). But there are some jobs I simply don't want to do, and I have other options, so I work elsewhere.
The interesting thing about Uber, is from what I understand, it has always held the belief that its future is a fleet of autonomous vehicles. Basically, its drivers are tolerated as a practical necessity until the technology it is working on renders them obsolete.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 07:00:34 PM
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.
The amount of power the employer has is a function of the opportunity cost to the employee. I.e., the value of their next best alternative. That value is determined by the larger market, not by that particular employer. In other words, the only way an employer has leverage is to provide rents in the economic sense. BTW, this is not a question of legitimacy, it is, as you mentioned, about power.
I don't see the post where dps said employees should not express grievances. I only see the post where he said it's illogical to expect employers to accomodate all requests. I'd happily work in a meat packing plant if they offered 50K with benefits and I didn't have to show up.
The power of collective action of employees, and the capacity of action of employers is intimately tied to the legitimacy they enjoy in the public sphere, and the assessment that both have, of their capacity to convince others of their legitimacy. I.e., if I can only imagine people calling me a whiner for speaking out, I will keep silent. And if I can only imagine *myself* as a whiner if I speak out, I will silence others.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 07:31:14 PM
The power of collective action of employees, and the capacity of action of employers is intimately tied to the legitimacy they enjoy in the public sphere, and the assessment that both have, of their capacity to convince others of their legitimacy. I.e., if I can only imagine people calling me a whiner for speaking out, I will keep silent. And if I can only imagine *myself* as a whiner if I speak out, I will silence others.
OK, so in effect you're arguing for the syndicalist point of view that wages and working conditions should be arbitrated in the court of public opinion. And to go further, you're unhappy with the verdict that court has reached, at least in the US.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 06:49:15 PM
What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.
Sounds awful. How do you live with it?
I'm someone disposed to what I think Oex's point of view is...which I think involves lower skilled workers organizing to obtain better wages than they could negotiate individually. Basically, something along the lines of what taxi drivers have enjoyed.
Unfortunately, I think the taxi driver is being replaced by the lower paid uber driver just before they are all replaced by self driving cars.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 08:11:13 PM
I'm someone disposed to what I think Oex's point of view is...which I think involves lower skilled workers organizing to obtain better wages than they could negotiate individually. Basically, something along the lines of what taxi drivers have enjoyed.
Unfortunately, I think the taxi driver is being replaced by the lower paid uber driver just before they are all replaced by self driving cars.
Are taxi drivers unionized anywhere in the US? I've never heard of it.
The folks that are organized are the medallion owners.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2017, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 06:49:15 PM
What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.
Sounds awful. How do you live with it?
Political activism :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 07:31:14 PM
The power of collective action of employees, and the capacity of action of employers is intimately tied to the legitimacy they enjoy in the public sphere, and the assessment that both have, of their capacity to convince others of their legitimacy. I.e., if I can only imagine people calling me a whiner for speaking out, I will keep silent. And if I can only imagine *myself* as a whiner if I speak out, I will silence others.
Disagree. The public in the US knows little and cares less about the vast majority of decisions made by typical employees and managers. Maybe it is different where you are, but the power of collective action by either employees or management here is determined far more by personal relationships than by "the legitimacy they enjoy in the public sphere."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 08:13:34 PM
Are taxi drivers unionized anywhere in the US? I've never heard of it.
The folks that are organized are the medallion owners.
Not that I know of, but the medallion scheme serves a similar function.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2017, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 02, 2017, 06:49:15 PM
What is terrible is how the managerial ethic has been thoroughly ingrained in the self-imagination of the worker.
Sounds awful. How do you live with it?
Political activism :)
Have you been able to politically activate the self-imagination of the worker in your neck of the woods?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 08:16:46 PM
Not that I know of, but the medallion scheme serves a similar function.
My understanding is the medallion scheme passes rents to the owners, not the drivers.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2017, 08:18:58 PM
Have you been able to politically activate the self-imagination of the worker in your neck of the woods?
Be sure to let me know if you genuinely want to discuss this issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 08:13:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2017, 08:11:13 PM
I'm someone disposed to what I think Oex's point of view is...which I think involves lower skilled workers organizing to obtain better wages than they could negotiate individually. Basically, something along the lines of what taxi drivers have enjoyed.
Unfortunately, I think the taxi driver is being replaced by the lower paid uber driver just before they are all replaced by self driving cars.
Are taxi drivers unionized anywhere in the US? I've never heard of it.
The folks that are organized are the medallion owners.
There are informal driver unions, but no collective bargaining agreements of which I am aware.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2017, 06:48:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
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.
True. Doubly so in this case where Uber fights to not even have them labeled as employees.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2017, 12:56:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 02, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
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.
For example:
In NYC there are over 13,000 taxi medallions, which is fewer than existed in the 1930s. The prices for medallions went over $1 million and from the 70s till the Uber era were a far better investment than the S&P 500. The government artificially constrained supply, and the benefits went to disproportionately capitalists in the old-fashioned Marxist sense - people who financed the purchase of medallions and monetized that value. The owners then lobbied to keep the number of issued medallions down. This problem was discussed for decades but nothing ever really happened except the black car services slowly grew, and every decade a handful of additional licenses would be issued. The government and incumbent industry created a problem, and the market distortion they created paved the golden road for Uber.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2017, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2017, 12:14:56 PM
QuoteHe 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.
He was in Korea though. Isn't it generally good practice to go along with the etiquette of the host country?
I'd be really curious to know if western companies have policies on this kind of thing.
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 11:30:32 AM
I'd be really curious to know if western companies have policies on this kind of thing.
Of course they do. Good grief, Tyr. Don't you work for a western company? You can't bang hookers on the company dime just because you are in Asia.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2017, 11:43:43 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 11:30:32 AM
I'd be really curious to know if western companies have policies on this kind of thing.
Of course they do. Good grief, Tyr. Don't you work for a western company? You can't bang hookers on the company dime just because you are in Asia.
Big difference between banging hookers and going to a hostess bar.
The former is unacceptable on the company dime in Asia too. The latter is a pretty unavoidable part of business.
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2017, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2017, 12:14:56 PM
QuoteHe 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.
He was in Korea though. Isn't it generally good practice to go along with the etiquette of the host country?
I'd be really curious to know if western companies have policies on this kind of thing.
The etiquette of the host country? It was Uber people going to a titty bar; it's not like they were in town and hosted by Samsung. It doesn't take policy to think, hmmm, maybe I shouldn't take a fellow female coworker to a titty bar escort club with me and 4 other dude?
Here's another question: are all of you really this fucking thick?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2017, 11:55:01 AM
Here's another question: are all of you really this fucking thick?
Don't assume Tyr represents all of us.
The games industry definitely has some of this going on.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2017, 12:58:49 PM
The games industry definitely has some of this going on.
I thought everybody was working 80+ hour weeks and thus had no time for strip clubs.
Hostess bar!=titty bar
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 01:06:02 PM
Hostess bar!=titty bar
Yeah I think that point is going to be lost on a lot of people not familiar with hostess bars.
In Korea they're called room salons. I've been to one where the laying of pipe was part of the entertainment.
What is a hostess bar?
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 03:52:05 PM
What is a hostess bar?
You and some other dudes go into a room with a table. Your head dude talks to the madame, says how many girls and how much booze you want. Girls show up, booze shows up. They pour your drinks, laugh at your jokes, sing some songs, maybe do some shots. Maybe you grab a tit. You do that for a couple hours then leave.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 01:06:02 PM
Hostess bar!=titty bar
Yeah I think that point is going to be lost on a lot of people not familiar with hostess bars.
So it's a titty bar without tits, where the dancers don't dance, but you're still paying them to sit with you--they just don't leave when it's their turn on the pole.
Yeah, so much more fucking elegant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 01:30:38 PM
What hotel regulations are you talking about? Sprinklers and emergency exits?
The way I look at those two is they're monetizing idle assets.
on the top of my head:
- building code is different for an hotel than for a house
- construction workers conditions are different for an hotel than for a house, that inflates the costs of constructions too
- hotels&such have to submit to inspections to insure they keep their ratings
- hotels have to charge customers some taxes requires by the States/cities, something Airb'nb is not always doing
- they are required to hire specific people and pay various taxes (social security) for these people when they offer cleaning services, something you don't have to bother with even if you're offering that particular services (you could just hire an illegal immigrant and pay her cash, it's unlikely the authorities would chase you for that).
Imho, to level the playing field, if we require hotels to charge customers a special tax, Airb'n'b should be asked to do the same.
I agree it's a great idea to monetize idle assets, but if you impose restrictions one one business, you either have the same restrictions for everyone or you don't have any restrictions at all.
For taxis, well, it took the arrival of Uber in Montreal to finally force a few of them to offer their services via mobile phones and accept credit card payments. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them...
But, they have a legitimate point: if they're forced to comply with certain rules and Uber has fuck all to do with such rules, than either you remove some of the restrictions from Taxi company or you enforce them on Uber & co. I prefer the 1st point, but I can understand why so many taxi drivers are pissed off at Uber.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2017, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
The service is great for customers sure. How they treat their 'employees' not so much. And that whole business of flouting laws about getting permission for driverless cars? :thumbsdown:
If drivers are not happy with their compensation it's very easy for them to stop driving. Unless you're talking about the CEO spazzing out to that one driver.
True. They can just find other jobs in a jiff.
it was never meant to be a full time occupation. As Yi said, monetization of idle assets. You use your car 30hrs a week, you want to do 15 more hours with it by renting your services.
if at some point, you realize you don't even cover your expenses or you simply don't make enough to justify offering the services, then stop doing it. Seek something else. When no one wants to do Uber anymore, they're raise their prices.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2017, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 01:06:02 PM
Hostess bar!=titty bar
Yeah I think that point is going to be lost on a lot of people not familiar with hostess bars.
So it's a titty bar without tits, where the dancers don't dance, but you're still paying them to sit with you--they just don't leave when it's their turn on the pole.
Yeah, so much more fucking elegant.
It's one of those weird Japanese things.
QuoteI agree it's a great idea to monetize idle assets, but if you impose restrictions one one business, you either have the same restrictions for everyone or you don't have any restrictions at all.
I don't think any country is willing to consider such a huge change in how regulations work.
Many cities make Air BnB hosts pay the tourist tax. IIRC its even included as part of the bill calculation on the website now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2017, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2017, 01:06:02 PM
Hostess bar!=titty bar
Yeah I think that point is going to be lost on a lot of people not familiar with hostess bars.
So it's a titty bar without tits, where the dancers don't dance, but you're still paying them to sit with you--they just don't leave when it's their turn on the pole.
Yeah, so much more fucking elegant.
Hey GI Joe, 2 dolla! Me love you long time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2017, 04:11:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 03:52:05 PM
What is a hostess bar?
You and some other dudes go into a room with a table. Your head dude talks to the madame, says how many girls and how much booze you want. Girls show up, booze shows up. They pour your drinks, laugh at your jokes, sing some songs, maybe do some shots. Maybe you grab a tit. You do that for a couple hours then leave.
That sounds...lame.
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 07:37:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2017, 04:11:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 03:52:05 PM
What is a hostess bar?
You and some other dudes go into a room with a table. Your head dude talks to the madame, says how many girls and how much booze you want. Girls show up, booze shows up. They pour your drinks, laugh at your jokes, sing some songs, maybe do some shots. Maybe you grab a tit. You do that for a couple hours then leave.
That sounds...lame.
Yeah, but this setup is quite popular in this part of the world. I should add that these bars can be extremely expensive, with bills going up to the tens of thousands of US$ per night. Depending on what you drink and the quality of the girls.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2017, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 07:37:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2017, 04:11:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 03:52:05 PM
What is a hostess bar?
You and some other dudes go into a room with a table. Your head dude talks to the madame, says how many girls and how much booze you want. Girls show up, booze shows up. They pour your drinks, laugh at your jokes, sing some songs, maybe do some shots. Maybe you grab a tit. You do that for a couple hours then leave.
That sounds...lame.
Yeah, but this setup is quite popular in this part of the world. I should add that these bars can be extremely expensive, with bills going up to the tens of thousands of US$ per night. Depending on what you drink and the quality of the girls.
Sounds pretty steep for what, at best, amounts to a serious case of blue balls.
Quote from: Syt on April 04, 2017, 02:03:51 AM
Sounds pretty steep for what, at best, amounts to a serious case of blue balls.
A lot of people go to those places on business. It is where they entertain important customers and negotiate deals. So they just put the cost on the company account. The night clubs/hostess bars know that, so they dare to charge those crazy amounts. They also do their best to impress the guests. One night club once advertised that they have an indoor Rolls-royce to take guests from the lobby to the rooms so they don't have to walk. Of course there are marble floors, gold plated pillars, champagne fountains and all that. It is also a status symbol. "See, I can afford to go to xxx club" is a way to convince others that your words are not empty.
Still sounds rather silly.
Do you ever get invited to such events? What does your wife think? And what if there's any femal employees in the entourage?
Quote from: Syt on April 04, 2017, 02:19:33 AM
Still sounds rather silly.
Do you ever get invited to such events? What does your wife think? And what if there's any femal employees in the entourage?
I am but a humble civil servant, and we are not allowed to spend more than about US$60 on each guest if we need to buy dinner for them. All my knowledge about these places come from the media. Never been invited to these places, and I think I'll likely be fired if I accept any invitation to go there.
But yeah, they are crazy. I think they are no where near as popular now when compared to the 80s and 90s. Those days, many HK companies and businessmen made easy money and blew their cash on the girls. Even the triads have to cut back now.
There's also cheaper versions.
The true Hostess clubs are these ones that cost thousands a night and have super glam women.
Then there are snacks and Philippine bars with considerably less attractive women and lower prices.
I've been to the latter as part of work outings.
... And once to a small snack completely by accident. Ouch. My wallet.
I am determined never to go to those places. It is like highway robbery or extortion. They'll just give you women to sit with you, lots of expensive drinks, then a crazy bill toward the end. I am sure those establishments have lots of muscles backing them up. Luckily the civil service is ultra-conservative about these things, so it is highly unlikely that anybody would invite me there.
On the Uber thing: it's one of those things where it is very easy to do your part in forcing a change: if you do not like how Uber treats its contractors, you can just use one of the myriad other minicab/taxi services, who work based on a different, more traditional business model.
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2017, 05:46:22 AM
On the Uber thing: it's one of those things where it is very easy to do your part in forcing a change: if you do not like how Uber treats its contractors, you can just use one of the myriad other minicab/taxi services, who work based on a different, more traditional business model.
I just try to avoid them all. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 07:37:53 PM
That sounds...lame.
I don't think liking having pretty girls around while drinking is all that unusual, even if you don't end up getting your dick wet.
Paying people to watch you get drunk seems kind of weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2017, 01:52:42 PM
Paying people to watch you get drunk seems kind of weird.
Are you 'mental?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2017, 01:52:42 PM
Paying people to watch you get drunk seems kind of weird.
Bar patrons/bartenders do that dynamic all of the time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2017, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 07:37:53 PM
That sounds...lame.
I don't think liking having pretty girls around while drinking is all that unusual, even if you don't end up getting your dick wet.
Not that different from going to Hooters et. al. You don't get to boink the waitresses, but you can look at them and they'll pretend to find your inane banter amusing.
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2017, 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2017, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2017, 07:37:53 PM
That sounds...lame.
I don't think liking having pretty girls around while drinking is all that unusual, even if you don't end up getting your dick wet.
Not that different from going to Hooters et. al. You don't get to boink the waitresses, but you can look at them and they'll pretend to find your inane banter amusing.
You don't usually run up a bill in the thousands of dollars at Hooter's, though.
I don't get it either.
But it makes a little more sense when you think of it in the context of a middle aged salary man whose entire life is his work and who hasn't even spoken to his wife, with whom he is still living, for 10 years.
I also find it odd. I guess the night clubs/hostess bars operate at a level where the customers can legitimately claim that they are there for business/building relationships with work colleagues reasons and they didn't cheat on their wives.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2017, 09:22:15 PM
You don't usually run up a bill in the thousands of dollars at Hooter's, though.
Not all hostess bars are that expensive.
The thousands of dollars (and hundreds of thousands of dollars during the 90s bubble in Tokyo) is taking the concept and upscaling it to a prestige symbol. But the basic concept of "guys like being around pretty women who act like they find them interesting" is similar.