Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 402 posts

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#321

Post by maxerickson »

mangeletti wrote: post #116
tomasien wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bailout was massively profitable for the government and every penny has been repaid. Investing in innovation is exactly what a company like GM should be doing and our tax dollars are in no way involved in this. Edit: didn't make money on GM http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA... Made lots of money overall: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of...

This is entirely untrue, pertaining GM. We tax payers lost tremendous money on GM[1], and then GM restructured (think "good bank bad bank"[2] style nonsense) in a clever way to ensure that we would never reap the benefits of the future success of "GM". 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_bank

Didn't the government take a 61% percent stake in the good bank part of the company?

Wikipedia links this WSJ article on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124646098696280443

The second paragraph mentions the US government being the majority owner of the new company.

Am I misunderstanding which clever restructuring you are talking about?

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#322

Post by biot »

saosebastiao wrote: post #266
mrgordon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the members of the family are going different places, each of them can likely share a car with other people heading in the same direction (e.g. to the same school or workplace, to the same city from the suburbs, etc.)

The same capability currently exists independently of driverless cars. What makes you think the utilization of this tactic will change with driverless cars?

Coordinating this is a hassle. With driverless cars, you could say "I need a vehicle to take me from A to B" and a vehicle just shows up, possibly with one or more passengers who were already enroute to B. It wouldn't surprise me if that becomes the norm with an option for "I require a private trip" for an extra fee.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#323

Post by bduerst »

Merad wrote: post #229
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…

Sorry, I think this is just totally disconnected from the reality of the average American who lives outside of a major urban center. 1. Mom, dad, and kid all need to go to work/school at roughly the same time. If they all have a 15-20 minute commute (well below average for many areas) and the destinations for all three aren't in the same immediate vicinity, we're right back to the family needing 2-3 cars. 2. Eh, no.…

For rural and light suburban areas I wonder if we'll probably see more of a hybrid shuttle service with at-door pickups, not unlike school buses.

Even without the wage-cost of drivers, individual taxi service may still be too expensive to match the lower demand.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#324

Post by bduerst »

skorecky wrote: post #319
yggydrasily wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mom, dad, and kid all need to go to work/school at roughly the same time. That's okay, once automation really gets going, Mom & Dad will be out of work, solving that problem.

That's kinda the point. We all work too much right now as it is. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/you-really-dont-...

CEO Anne-Marie Slaughter was just in the On-Point podcast saying the same thing (in context to work-life balance and family), that we have a bias for thinking the person who comes in at 6am and leaves at 6pm is a good worker.

This bleeds over into decisions that affects other aspects such as telecommuting, paternity leave, etc.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#325

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #321
mangeletti wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely untrue, pertaining GM. We tax payers lost tremendous money on GM[1], and then GM restructured (think "good bank bad bank"[2] style nonsense) in a clever way to ensure that we would never reap the benefits of the future success of "GM". 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_bank

Didn't the government take a 61% percent stake in the good bank part of the company? Wikipedia links this WSJ article on the topic: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124646098696280443 The second paragraph mentions the US government being the majority owner of the new company. Am I misunderstanding which clever restructuring you are talking about?

[deleted]

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#326

Post by adevine »

MajorLOL wrote: post #108
adevine wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GM's financial arm was GMAC, which, while bailed out during the financial crises, eventually rebranded and IPO'ed as Ally Financial. The US Treasury made a ~ $2.4 billion profit on a $17.2 billion investment: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/j...

>The US Treasury made a ~ $2.4 billion profit on a $17.2 billion investment Factor in the interest USA would have saved by paying down the national debt instead. Additionally, consider what private investors would have returned with the same investment and what they would have paid in tax on personal income if they had never been taxed that $17.2b instead. They won on this one, we can point at the various Solyndras t…

Just want to comment on the "Factor in the interest USA would have saved by paying down the national debt instead." statement. During the financial crisis paying down the national debt would have been pure folly. The US was borrowing at basically 0% at that point and purposefully trying to flood the economy with cash.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#327

Post by georgeecollins »

cgy1 wrote: post #252
wavefunction wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct.

IIRC Ford actually got very lucky in that they were actually in huge trouble before the market crash and decided to mortgage the company right before the credit market seized up. So that was really why they didn't need to take the bailout.

I would argue they were also better run than GM during this period.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#328

Post by JimmyAustin »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #272
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…

Cars often get used as park-able, lock-able storage devices (for instance, people will often keep their gym clothes in their car, so that they can do work->gym->home instead of having gym clothes at work or doing work->home->gym->home). That's a big design feature that makes driving strangers around much less practical than it looks.

As convenient as a personal locker that follows you is, I don't think the average person is willing to spend 20k for one.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#329

Post by jonathankoren »

bduerst wrote: post #323
Merad wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I think this is just totally disconnected from the reality of the average American who lives outside of a major urban center. 1. Mom, dad, and kid all need to go to work/school at roughly the same time. If they all have a 15-20 minute commute (well below average for many areas) and the destinations for all three aren't in the same immediate vicinity, we're right back to the family needing 2-3 cars. 2. Eh, no.…

For rural and light suburban areas I wonder if we'll probably see more of a hybrid shuttle service with at-door pickups, not unlike school buses. Even without the wage-cost of drivers, individual taxi service may still be too expensive to match the lower demand.

Never lived in the rural area did you?

No one likes buses, because buses are slow. They're slow because they make lots of stops that are irrelevant to your trip. As someone that regularly rode the school bus on a route that took an hour, compared to a 10 minute direct route. Fuck buses.

Yes taxis, exist, but not many. The only people I knew that ever took them were people that lost their licenses.

What you've actually described is a shuttle service. They exist everywhere. They're not popular because they're slow. Last time I took a shared shuttle from the airport it took an additional 45 minutes to get home than driving direct. They have more convenient pick up schedules and locations, but the transit times are almost as bad.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#330

Post by Qworg »

nealabq wrote: post #269
mangeletti wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, just like with most predictions that are based on trends, the current set of expectations will be uprooted by an unforeseen technological advancement. I'll even go as far as predicting that this technological advancement will be a personal (or family) aerial vehicle[1] that makes commuting as easy as vehicular travel, but perhaps safer, and definitely faster. In other words, I think the automobile will dimin…

Think of the possibilities even if cars stay on the ground. No more garages and driveways. Neighbourhoods will look a lot nicer, and maybe this will foster community engagement? House design will change, maybe with more multi-family units. Much narrower roads, with real estate that's now sacrificed to roadway given over to parkland or housing. Maybe cars will move partially or fully underground, travelling in large-d…

The "personalized interior" is the most socially acceptable end case I can foresee.

We conflate two separate things when we consider what cars _are_ - a way to transport ourselves and things from place to place AND an extension of our home. The idea of home extension will be more difficult to break than the idea that you have to drive everywhere.

Post reply on HN