4 ms·
This is the story of every startup ever "we'll walk like a duck, talk like a duck, but quietly avoid being regulated like a duck for as long as possible to disr
by p1necone 7y ago
This is the story of every startup ever "we'll walk like a duck, talk like a duck, but quietly avoid being regulated like a duck for as long as possible to disrupt all the other ducks".
- olliej 7y agoWe want to compete with these other companies by not following the law. Then argue that any attempt to enforce the law is an attack on innovation, rather than acknowledge that their competitive(?) prices only exist because they aren't playing on a level (legal) playing field.
- penagwin 7y agoYou're forgetting the part where you start lobbying for regulations that raise the barrier for entry to new potential competitors
- mc32 7y agoAnd then when they feel like they are become ducks then they say all those others who walk like dicks and quack like ducks are ducks too and should be regulated like ducks. See! We’re volunteering ourselves —and them cuz we’re all ducks!
- AimForTheBushes 7y agoHonestly, I don't think that applies to the situation in the article. The gross receipts tax is hindering them from being globally competitive. Companies like Salesforce, with it's huge gross margins barely get taxed anything while companies with minimum margins are being taxed on every sale. It seems like SF over regulation will push fintech companies to pretty much anywhere else.
- malandrew 7y ago> It seems like SF over regulation will push fintech companies to pretty much anywhere else. I personally hope that happens. I never want to live/work in SF ever again, so the more tech jobs that leave, the more options I have that aren't SF. These companies are in a city and state that do not deserve their golden geese. The entire time I lived there I was constantly asked myself why I was paying such high taxes to a state that consistently works against my self interest.
- staticassertion 7y agoSame. I assume most people are just saving up to leave.
- vecinu 7y agoI think the numbers would be staggering if they could be accurately measured. I know so many people that live in SF/Bay Area saving up to move away ASAP.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mkskm 7y agoWhere did you go instead?
- ISL 7y agoOne can readily argue that all of the early Silicon Valley hardware startups were not attempting to end-run regulation, but rather exploit emerging integrated-circuit technology.
- tathougies 7y agoI mean, government regulations are designed for large companies. By themselves, they act as a moat to protect monopolies and oligopolies. Of course smaller companies need to essentially break the law. Every time we see success only at the cost of breaking laws, we should really start to re-examine our laws instead of continuously blaming those who succeeded. In this case square not only succeeded but literally makes life better / possible for many many people. If there were regulations in the way that would have prevented them from doing so, we should probably self-reflect a bit and have a sense of shame.
- dave5104 7y agoYou make it sound like all regulation is bad. There's surely some unnecessary and bad individual regulations, but overall, I prefer a world where a startup can't have success dumping toxic chemicals into a river.
- eloff 7y agoRegulation can be both beneficial and serve as a barrier to entry that protects the incumbents. In fact, that's probably the common case. It's worth recognizing that there are these two competing interests, that every regulation bears this hidden cost, and that the benefit had better be enough to justify that cost. I think often this is not true. Regulations could often be much less burdensome while still achieving most of the benefits.
- jklehm 7y agoI think most regs were driven by events or behaviors at the time of their creation. To revert them I'd hope there'd be a compelling case as to why the catalyst that brought the regs into existence no longer applies or will not reappear in the future. I'm not sure that it's an easy process.
- eloff 7y agoEasy, no. Necessary, yes. Imagine a world where regulations only grow on the whole. How far out do you have to extrapolate that system for it to implode under its own weight? That can happen to nation states too...
- rolltiide 7y agoIt is up to the government to create rules that are clearly defined and not arbitrary and capricious as the 5th amendment dictates. The 14th amendment was found to retroactively apply the bill of rights to all government entities and it will have taken centuries for this standard to be the default way governments interact with their people. The side effect of this is that clear rules create the way to circumvent them. When irreconcilable the courts are how this has to be resolved, and I believe what I wrote is a factor in that argument as municipal governments regulations reactionary based on a the sentiments of a very small number of people.
- rco8786 7y agoSquare is a 10 year old public company with a 25B market cap. Hard to call them a startup. More like “every company ever” wants to minimize their taxes.