4 ms·

No. If you know and realize that it is only convenient because of VC subsidies, you know enough not to use those services since it won't be sustainable. I try

No. If you know and realize that it is only convenient because of VC subsidies, you know enough not to use those services since it won't be sustainable. I try to understand each business model I support with revenue. If it's only setup to enable growth, I pass.

mason55 10y ago
If a billionaire wants to subsidize food and taxis for me then I'm more than happy to take it
- chinathrow 10y ago
  Even if you know that using said VC money bankrupts whole families the world over?
robotresearcher 10y ago
I don't think it's morally wrong to take a cheap taxi ride subsidized by speculators. I don't care if the model is sustainable since I get all my value immediately in return for the fare. The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue.
- vwcx 10y ago
  Exactly. Other than the moral-environmental issue of the subsidy encouraging me to take more short trips, thus increasing my footprint...
- rrdharan 10y ago
  I think there can still be a moral component, if you know that they are enacting and perpetrating a vicious cycle that will lead to the depletion of public transit: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/cities_are_cutting_transportation_service_because_they_think_uber_will_fill.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/ci...
- geofft 10y ago
  What about the opportunity cost of driving more sustainable competition (whether that's better taxis, direct competitors, or public transit) out of business? Uber doesn't exist in a vacuum.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    That's an interesting point. In the long term I think there will always be a need for the service so when a loss leader goes out of business someone will step up. Public transit has existed alongside taxis for hundreds of years. Uber won't kill transit.
- chinathrow 10y ago
  > The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue. Why should that be the case? If you know one part of company X is against your interest, why support revenue of said company at all then?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    You misunderstand. I don't use uber because of their people policies. I would use them if they treated people better. And I would enjoy the subsidy.
edoceo 10y ago
Use them while they are subsidized, then bail quickly. Maximize for your self interest.
M_Grey 10y ago
You treat your consumption as an investment? That's kind of silly.

mason55 10y ago

If a billionaire wants to subsidize food and taxis for me then I'm more than happy to take it

chinathrow 10y ago
Even if you know that using said VC money bankrupts whole families the world over?

robotresearcher 10y ago

I don't think it's morally wrong to take a cheap taxi ride subsidized by speculators. I don't care if the model is sustainable since I get all my value immediately in return for the fare. The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue.

vwcx 10y ago
Exactly. Other than the moral-environmental issue of the subsidy encouraging me to take more short trips, thus increasing my footprint...
rrdharan 10y ago
I think there can still be a moral component, if you know that they are enacting and perpetrating a vicious cycle that will lead to the depletion of public transit: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/cities_are_cutting_transportation_service_because_they_think_uber_will_fill.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/ci...
geofft 10y ago
What about the opportunity cost of driving more sustainable competition (whether that's better taxis, direct competitors, or public transit) out of business? Uber doesn't exist in a vacuum.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  That's an interesting point. In the long term I think there will always be a need for the service so when a loss leader goes out of business someone will step up. Public transit has existed alongside taxis for hundreds of years. Uber won't kill transit.
chinathrow 10y ago
> The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue. Why should that be the case? If you know one part of company X is against your interest, why support revenue of said company at all then?
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  You misunderstand. I don't use uber because of their people policies. I would use them if they treated people better. And I would enjoy the subsidy.

edoceo 10y ago

Use them while they are subsidized, then bail quickly. Maximize for your self interest.

M_Grey 10y ago

You treat your consumption as an investment? That's kind of silly.