Oh My God

Generali

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFy8gkgfSWs&feature=youtu.be

This is just horrible. 16 minutes, needs sound. SFW I suppose.

Warning: Contains 18 year old 'hedge fund mangers'.

I feel unwell.

nomorecreditcards1973

That is scary! They are not normal kids!

Conrad

And now watch this as a direct comparison (gets better the longer you watch) of how the American dream and all hope is lost for millions;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRW6rhmFAXc



Trump is long over due, and despite having made the most out of off shoring and migrant labour himself, he's ready to repent.

Conrad

Is UBER the future for the working Man and Woman? Whilst asset owners such as our little traders above syphon off the money, working people have less and less?


London licensed cabby's always earned a good crust, a way out of poverty for the ordinary folk, but now UBER syphon's off London cab fare revenue to stock holders in California, and UBER drivers earn a lot less than licensed cabbies used to.


Picketty is right maybe, more and more asset wealth concentrated in few hands driving ever more income away from the masses?

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Is UBER the future for the working Man and Woman? Whilst asset owners such as our little traders above syphon off the money, working people have less and less?


London licensed cabby's always earned a good crust, a way out of poverty for the ordinary folk, but now UBER syphon's off London cab fare revenue to stock holders in California, and UBER drivers earn a lot less than licensed cabbies used to.


Picketty is right maybe, more and more asset wealth concentrated in few hands driving ever more income away from the masses?

you have this the wrong way both on a global scale and on a national scale.

The amount of capital for a typical household is increasing. More people own their own homes, more people own cars, more people own more household goods and cloths and spend more of their income on non necessities.

The problem is that we look at the past with rose tinted glasses.


It is of course true that there is now a large number of very wealthy people. people like sports stars or actors or TV hosts now make 100x as much as their counterparts 50 years ago. This does not detract from the fact that for the majority they are richer a lot richer.

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

Is UBER the future for the working Man and Woman? Whilst asset owners such as our little traders above syphon off the money, working people have less and less?


London licensed cabby's always earned a good crust, a way out of poverty for the ordinary folk, but now UBER syphon's off London cab fare revenue to stock holders in California, and UBER drivers earn a lot less than licensed cabbies used to.


Picketty is right maybe, more and more asset wealth concentrated in few hands driving ever more income away from the masses?

I think the biggest problem with this very commonly held theory is that while there are a lot of companies that are apparently going to be the Uber of something, the only companies that are the Uber of anything are Uber (the Uber of Uber I suppose) and Airbnb. Even then the latter is skating on pretty thin ice as it just doesn't have the finances to keep flouting zoning laws IMO.

Additionally as Uber morphs into a company that looks a lot more like Addison Lee than a tech company, it is becoming more capital intensive as it leases cars to drivers that have crap credit ratings and few choices (which, let's face it, is why you drive for Uber in the first place; you're not going to quit as a CEO to be an Uber driver).

https://get.uber.com/cl/xchange/

$116 a month for a 3 year old Toyota Corolla over 13 years. Plus Uber takes the money out of your [STRIKE]wages[/STRIKE] turnover before you get a cent. Plus there's an immobiliser in the car if you don't earn enough to keep up the payments.

I can see why it would be the future for [STRIKE]employers[/STRIKE] work brokers but TBH if you have choices in life this isn't going to be what you choose.

If you're at the bottom of the heap you will always be mucked about and treated like crap. If you have skills that employers want then they need to treat you properly or you simply find someone that will treat you well.

mwpt

The original posted youtube video is private. What was it?

cells

Generali wrote: »

I think the biggest problem with this very commonly held theory is that while there are a lot of companies that are apparently going to be the Uber of something, the only companies that are the Uber of anything are Uber (the Uber of Uber I suppose) and Airbnb. Even then the latter is skating on pretty thin ice as it just doesn't have the finances to keep flouting zoning laws IMO.

Additionally as Uber morphs into a company that looks a lot more like Addison Lee than a tech company, it is becoming more capital intensive as it leases cars to drivers that have crap credit ratings and few choices (which, let's face it, is why you drive for Uber in the first place; you're not going to quit as a CEO to be an Uber driver).

https://get.uber.com/cl/xchange/

$116 a month for a 3 year old Toyota Corolla over 13 years. Plus Uber takes the money out of your [STRIKE]wages[/STRIKE] turnover before you get a cent. Plus there's an immobiliser in the car if you don't earn enough to keep up the payments.

I can see why it would be the future for [STRIKE]employers[/STRIKE] work brokers but TBH if you have choices in life this isn't going to be what you choose.

If you're at the bottom of the heap you will always be mucked about and treated like crap. If you have skills that employers want then they need to treat you properly or you simply find someone that will treat you well.

not to mention uber is not yet profitable so the idea that rich uber investors are making hay while the customers and public pick up the tab is wrong. it would be more accurate to say very rich people and companies are investing billions into uber and taking a big risk with their own cash to hopefully bring a service into the world that in the future will add wealth and value for customers and investors.

I think uber would pay more for its drivers if it could afford to do so but the market they are trying to create is not just to take away the taxi trade but to convince people in urban areas to not buy cars at all instead to always use ubers. So instead of a London with about 3 million private owned cars maybe it would be closer to a London with 1 million private owned cars and 100k-200k uber taxis.

the uber business model in say London needs the cost of 150,000 uber taxis and the wage for the drivers and the profit for uber to be less than the cost of running 2 million private owned cars.

the future should be uber taking a more central role to reduce costs for the drivers. like including insurance and adding cameras and maybe even having a car company produce uber cabs directly for uber. all the cost savings on the huge scale they can operate at could allow lower prices or higher profits and wages.

with uber pool and specific designed cars they could potentially get 4-6 customers per car per trip at that point they could afford to pay drivers well and make a good profit and charge customers less than owning their own cars. especially for intercity travail eg Birmingham to London and back again with 5 customers each way and doing 4 trips each day it would be cheaper (£15/customer) and faster than taking the trains or using your own.


of course long term the best best is self drive cars operating 20 hours a day saving having to pay a human >£200,000 over a 3 year life for the car.

fun4everyone

mwpt wrote: »

The original posted youtube video is private. What was it?

I was wondering the same

Generali

fun4everyone wrote: »

I was wondering the same

It's subsequently been made private, probably due to the people in the video being roundly mocked, as well as it being pointed out that the video is in breech of SEC rules on fund promotion.

The video itself was of two 18 year olds that are running a hedge fund because their parents are rich and can give them seed capital without worrying what happens if the fund goes south. To seed a fund you generally need something around $25-50 million as a minimum.

Probably the funniest bit was watching an 18 year-old intone solemnly how the life experience that he brings to the fund is a point of differentiation.