6 ms·

The guy is getting $1.7bn. That is gluttonous. To put that into perspective, if you took even just $100m and divided it among the 1,000 workers laid off each o

The guy is getting $1.7bn. That is gluttonous. To put that into perspective, if you took even just $100m and divided it among the 1,000 workers laid off each one would get $100,000. Yet they get nothing. And this one man gets $1.7bn from a company that isn't even healthy enough to survive while nickle and diming janitors who get paid $24k/year. This is what late stage capitalism looks like.

generalpass 7y ago
My guess is that it was a forced buyout? The terms of which are always painful for the forcers. As far as the employees go, anyone working for a company clearly not making any money needs to move along. Whatever consequences you suffer are at your own risk. And as far as what this might look like under socialism, the government would take money from people who have nothing to do with any of it and give it to all of the people involved in order to maintain an organization that nobody wants to do business with.
- x0x0 7y ago
  on the one hand, yes: folks worked for a company that lost money. So some of this is on them. However, I strongly suspect that the risk was not in any way clearly communicated to them. And you're ignoring the fact that they clearly have the resources to pay the founder another $600m or so.
- klodolph 7y ago
  > And as far as what this might look like under socialism, “Late stage capitalism” and “socialism” is a false dilemma. We can see the known, evil effects of late-stage capitalism, and it is appropriate to pin the blame on the systems which encourage this behavior even while acknowledging the benefits of those systems and while holding accountable actors within these systems.
- eranima 7y ago
  This really has nothing to do with socialism.
  - generalpass 7y ago
    "Late state capitalism" is a Marxist term.
    - eranima 7y ago
      It was coined by Werner Sombart, who was not a Marxist but rather a classical economics professor in Germany.
      - generalpass 7y ago
        Geez, even the Wikipedia article on the term states that is Marxist. I think you are substituting "Marxist" with "as written by Marx."
      - knightofmars 7y ago
        Werner Sombart was heavily influenced by Marx. Regardless of how you want to view him. Read his entry on Wikipedia. "Sombart, at that time, was an important Marxian, someone who used and interpreted Karl Marx — to the point that Friedrich Engels said he was the only German professor who understood Das Kapital. Sombart called himself a "convinced Marxist,"[1] but later wrote that "It had to be admitted in the end that Marx had made mistakes on many points of importance."
willtim 7y ago
Completely agree. I don't know why you are getting downvoted, capitalism in its present form is clearly broken. The payout sum here is ludicrous, it is certainly not justified in terms of value created for society. This money has to come from somewhere and ultimately the common folk will be paying the price.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Isn't the money coming - if it comes - from SoftBank? Would it be better for the common folk if they kept it?
  - willtim 7y ago
    Better for our pension funds, yes. The stock price of SoftBank has halved in value over this event. I'm expected to fund my old age using stocks.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      The stock price halved because WeWork failed, regardless of his payout.
      - willtim 7y ago
        The money doesn't come from thin air. If SoftBank paid it out, the shareholders lose out even more so.
- foogazi 7y ago
  Obviously someone thought it was valuable Who are we to judge what price you put on things and what you are willing to pay? no one is being forced to do anything here
  - willtim 7y ago
    I don't think "no one is being forced to do anything here" is justification for the unprecedented inequality and the existence of billionaires.
eranima 7y ago
Turns out the neoliberal startup crowd who downvoted you doesn't want people calling out this glaring problem. Edit: ah, here they are to come downvote me
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with your points otherwise.)
codegeek 7y ago
I am a Capitalist but I approve this message. There has to be a sense of morality somewhere even when running a company. I truly believe that a company can make great profits while taking care of its people. I also believe that it is ok for the initial risk takers like founders/CEO to make a hell lot more money BUT not by destroying other people's lives. I don't think any private company should have any interference by the Govt. BUT every founder/owner/CEO should think about their people first. Is this even possible ? I really hope so. "Moral Capitalism" anyone ? Disclaimer: I run a small private company of 12 of us and I struggle with this everyday.
- eranima 7y ago
  I'm a socialist but I applaud anyone willing to stand up against amoral practices like this. Your position closely resembles Warren's opinions on this matter.
- earthtolazlo 7y ago
  I thought capitalism was all about rational self-interest. If there’s no government interference, what incentive is there to behave ethically? As far as I can tell the answer is “none” and that’s what we see playing out over and over again.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    Ethics are what you do when there isn't an incentive. If you're forced to do it, it's not ethics. One theory of ethics holds that it is in your long-term interest to behave ethically, even if you can't know for certain what the constraints are. They encode a heuristic wisdom for survival, and that's why we have ethics at all. But many will fail to follow that, and if they are punished in the end, it's only after many others suffer -- and are not made whole by your punishment.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  > I don't think any private company should have any interference by the Govt. BUT every founder/owner/CEO should think about their people first. This amounts to an ideological viewpoint, however it doesn't map to reality. If the government doesn't step in, the worst of the worst will sift up to the top, and the most complacent will sift to the bottom. It's how things naturally fall into place. Exploitative people in an unchecked market have an unmatched advantage. If you believe in real market competition, then pure capitalism cannot work because it stifles competition by creating unfair disadvantages for CEOs who think about their people, discouraging them from acting benevolently. The problem is that you see the government as this authoritarian beast who must be kept in a cage for the safety of its people, when in reality a healthy government is its people. Government regulations in a free market are a result of the consumers who participate in the market wanting protection. In the end, you either favor consumer protection or corporate protection. Which seems more moral to you?
fdswefsad 7y ago
in Italy, I believe it used to be a crime to mismanage a company such that people lost their jobs. Anyway, such large job losses would trigger a criminal probe.
- lacker 7y ago
  In Italy, I believe it used to be a crime to mismanage a company such that people lost their jobs. On an unrelated note, Italy has never had a tech startup worth a billion dollars.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    This isn't a tech startup.
    - rollerboi 7y ago
      You're right. But man, they tried really hard to sell it as a tech startup. From their S-1 filing (emphasis mine): "We pioneered a “space-as-a-service” membership model that offers the benefits of a collaborative culture, the flexibility to scale workspace up and down as needed and the power of a worldwide community, all for a lower cost. Through iterative product development at scale and significant investment in technology infrastructure, we have demonstrated that we can build better solutions for less money. We are changing the way people work globally and, in the process, we have disrupted the largest asset class in the world—real estate." Edit: I just noticed that it continues with a MUCH better statement on the next page: "Technology is at the foundation of our global platform. Our purpose-built technology and operational expertise has allowed us to scale our core WeWork space-as-a-service offering quickly, while improving the quality of our solutions and decreasing the cost to find, build, fill and run our spaces. We have approximately 1,000 engineers, product designers and machine learning scientists that are dedicated to building, integrating and automating the complex systems we use to operate our business. As a result, we are able to deliver a premium experience to our members at a lower price relative to traditional alternatives." So uhh, honest question. What were they trying to build with those 1,000 engineers/designers/ML scientists? The company literally leases (not buys) office space to then lease out to their customers. I never understood why this business model needs "significant investment into Tech infrastructure"

generalpass 7y ago

My guess is that it was a forced buyout? The terms of which are always painful for the forcers. As far as the employees go, anyone working for a company clearly not making any money needs to move along. Whatever consequences you suffer are at your own risk. And as far as what this might look like under socialism, the government would take money from people who have nothing to do with any of it and give it to all of the people involved in order to maintain an organization that nobody wants to do business with.

x0x0 7y ago
on the one hand, yes: folks worked for a company that lost money. So some of this is on them. However, I strongly suspect that the risk was not in any way clearly communicated to them. And you're ignoring the fact that they clearly have the resources to pay the founder another $600m or so.
klodolph 7y ago
> And as far as what this might look like under socialism, “Late stage capitalism” and “socialism” is a false dilemma. We can see the known, evil effects of late-stage capitalism, and it is appropriate to pin the blame on the systems which encourage this behavior even while acknowledging the benefits of those systems and while holding accountable actors within these systems.
eranima 7y ago
This really has nothing to do with socialism.
- generalpass 7y ago
  "Late state capitalism" is a Marxist term.
  - eranima 7y ago
    It was coined by Werner Sombart, who was not a Marxist but rather a classical economics professor in Germany.
    - generalpass 7y ago
      Geez, even the Wikipedia article on the term states that is Marxist. I think you are substituting "Marxist" with "as written by Marx."
    - knightofmars 7y ago
      Werner Sombart was heavily influenced by Marx. Regardless of how you want to view him. Read his entry on Wikipedia. "Sombart, at that time, was an important Marxian, someone who used and interpreted Karl Marx — to the point that Friedrich Engels said he was the only German professor who understood Das Kapital. Sombart called himself a "convinced Marxist,"[1] but later wrote that "It had to be admitted in the end that Marx had made mistakes on many points of importance."

willtim 7y ago

Completely agree. I don't know why you are getting downvoted, capitalism in its present form is clearly broken. The payout sum here is ludicrous, it is certainly not justified in terms of value created for society. This money has to come from somewhere and ultimately the common folk will be paying the price.

icebraining 7y ago
Isn't the money coming - if it comes - from SoftBank? Would it be better for the common folk if they kept it?
- willtim 7y ago
  Better for our pension funds, yes. The stock price of SoftBank has halved in value over this event. I'm expected to fund my old age using stocks.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The stock price halved because WeWork failed, regardless of his payout.
    - willtim 7y ago
      The money doesn't come from thin air. If SoftBank paid it out, the shareholders lose out even more so.
foogazi 7y ago
Obviously someone thought it was valuable Who are we to judge what price you put on things and what you are willing to pay? no one is being forced to do anything here
- willtim 7y ago
  I don't think "no one is being forced to do anything here" is justification for the unprecedented inequality and the existence of billionaires.

eranima 7y ago

Turns out the neoliberal startup crowd who downvoted you doesn't want people calling out this glaring problem. Edit: ah, here they are to come downvote me

dredmorbius 7y ago
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with your points otherwise.)

codegeek 7y ago

I am a Capitalist but I approve this message. There has to be a sense of morality somewhere even when running a company. I truly believe that a company can make great profits while taking care of its people. I also believe that it is ok for the initial risk takers like founders/CEO to make a hell lot more money BUT not by destroying other people's lives. I don't think any private company should have any interference by the Govt. BUT every founder/owner/CEO should think about their people first. Is this even possible ? I really hope so. "Moral Capitalism" anyone ? Disclaimer: I run a small private company of 12 of us and I struggle with this everyday.

eranima 7y ago
I'm a socialist but I applaud anyone willing to stand up against amoral practices like this. Your position closely resembles Warren's opinions on this matter.
earthtolazlo 7y ago
I thought capitalism was all about rational self-interest. If there’s no government interference, what incentive is there to behave ethically? As far as I can tell the answer is “none” and that’s what we see playing out over and over again.
- jfengel 7y ago
  Ethics are what you do when there isn't an incentive. If you're forced to do it, it's not ethics. One theory of ethics holds that it is in your long-term interest to behave ethically, even if you can't know for certain what the constraints are. They encode a heuristic wisdom for survival, and that's why we have ethics at all. But many will fail to follow that, and if they are punished in the end, it's only after many others suffer -- and are not made whole by your punishment.
soulofmischief 7y ago
> I don't think any private company should have any interference by the Govt. BUT every founder/owner/CEO should think about their people first. This amounts to an ideological viewpoint, however it doesn't map to reality. If the government doesn't step in, the worst of the worst will sift up to the top, and the most complacent will sift to the bottom. It's how things naturally fall into place. Exploitative people in an unchecked market have an unmatched advantage. If you believe in real market competition, then pure capitalism cannot work because it stifles competition by creating unfair disadvantages for CEOs who think about their people, discouraging them from acting benevolently. The problem is that you see the government as this authoritarian beast who must be kept in a cage for the safety of its people, when in reality a healthy government is its people. Government regulations in a free market are a result of the consumers who participate in the market wanting protection. In the end, you either favor consumer protection or corporate protection. Which seems more moral to you?

fdswefsad 7y ago

in Italy, I believe it used to be a crime to mismanage a company such that people lost their jobs. Anyway, such large job losses would trigger a criminal probe.

lacker 7y ago
In Italy, I believe it used to be a crime to mismanage a company such that people lost their jobs. On an unrelated note, Italy has never had a tech startup worth a billion dollars.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  This isn't a tech startup.
  - rollerboi 7y ago
    You're right. But man, they tried really hard to sell it as a tech startup. From their S-1 filing (emphasis mine): "We pioneered a “space-as-a-service” membership model that offers the benefits of a collaborative culture, the flexibility to scale workspace up and down as needed and the power of a worldwide community, all for a lower cost. Through iterative product development at scale and significant investment in technology infrastructure, we have demonstrated that we can build better solutions for less money. We are changing the way people work globally and, in the process, we have disrupted the largest asset class in the world—real estate." Edit: I just noticed that it continues with a MUCH better statement on the next page: "Technology is at the foundation of our global platform. Our purpose-built technology and operational expertise has allowed us to scale our core WeWork space-as-a-service offering quickly, while improving the quality of our solutions and decreasing the cost to find, build, fill and run our spaces. We have approximately 1,000 engineers, product designers and machine learning scientists that are dedicated to building, integrating and automating the complex systems we use to operate our business. As a result, we are able to deliver a premium experience to our members at a lower price relative to traditional alternatives." So uhh, honest question. What were they trying to build with those 1,000 engineers/designers/ML scientists? The company literally leases (not buys) office space to then lease out to their customers. I never understood why this business model needs "significant investment into Tech infrastructure"