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

Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#161

Post by ericd »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #70
yaacov wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electrification of mobility and transport makes the environmental argument a moot point. I disagree. Electric cars are more efficient than IC, but they still use electricity which mostly comes from fossil fuels. Add in all the massively increased infrastructure spending and emissions per capita that are needed for suburbs, and urbanization is a no-brainer from an environmental perspective.

A million EVs are sold every six months, and the time to sell a million EVs is shortening. Hundreds of GWs of renewables come online each year. Urbanization is like nuclear power, financially and politically untenable. It is not a reasonable path to success.

How is urbanization financially untenable? IIRC, it’s been shown that suburbia generally isn’t paying its way when it comes to infrastructure, which is optimistically built with debt, and then isn’t self-sustaining from property taxes of just those served. Because there’s a lot more infrastructure to maintain per person to have people so spread out, and the values aren’t correspondingly higher.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#162

Post by [deleted] »

ericd wrote: post #161
toomuchtodo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million EVs are sold every six months, and the time to sell a million EVs is shortening. Hundreds of GWs of renewables come online each year. Urbanization is like nuclear power, financially and politically untenable. It is not a reasonable path to success.

How is urbanization financially untenable? IIRC, it’s been shown that suburbia generally isn’t paying its way when it comes to infrastructure, which is optimistically built with debt, and then isn’t self-sustaining from property taxes of just those served. Because there’s a lot more infrastructure to maintain per person to have people so spread out, and the values aren’t correspondingly higher.

[deleted]

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#163

Post by toomuchtodo »

ericd wrote: post #161
toomuchtodo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million EVs are sold every six months, and the time to sell a million EVs is shortening. Hundreds of GWs of renewables come online each year. Urbanization is like nuclear power, financially and politically untenable. It is not a reasonable path to success.

How is urbanization financially untenable? IIRC, it’s been shown that suburbia generally isn’t paying its way when it comes to infrastructure, which is optimistically built with debt, and then isn’t self-sustaining from property taxes of just those served. Because there’s a lot more infrastructure to maintain per person to have people so spread out, and the values aren’t correspondingly higher.

Urban infrastructure costs are lower (less roads, small land area to cover with police, fire, etc), but the real estate costs quickly balloon (dense real estate in desirable locations is more expensive). Do I care if my single family home is $1k-2k/year more in tax costs than urban areas if my house is $100k-300k cheaper than a condo in the city (these numbers are pulled directly from the Chicago housing market)? I do not. I would even pay much more to not live in the city (my taxes could double, and I would still come out ahead living in the 'burbs over my lifetime), but that's an argument for another thread about the continuing willingness of the debt markets to provide cheap capital for municipalities who need to pay for sprawl. Misallocated capital is the bane of many a social ill.

Are you able to convince large populations of people they should pay much higher real estate costs for lower local taxes when they're still going to pay more (total monthly housing or lump sum payment) than in the suburbs? I do not believe that argument will fly.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#164

Post by ericd »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #163
ericd wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is urbanization financially untenable? IIRC, it’s been shown that suburbia generally isn’t paying its way when it comes to infrastructure, which is optimistically built with debt, and then isn’t self-sustaining from property taxes of just those served. Because there’s a lot more infrastructure to maintain per person to have people so spread out, and the values aren’t correspondingly higher.

Urban infrastructure costs are lower (less roads, small land area to cover with police, fire, etc), but the real estate costs quickly balloon (dense real estate in desirable locations is more expensive). Do I care if my single family home is $1k-2k/year more in tax costs than urban areas if my house is $100k-300k cheaper than a condo in the city (these numbers are pulled directly from the Chicago housing market)? I d…

Right, I think the real bill would be far more than double, but I haven't looked into this topic in depth, so I can't really say. While the party lasts, and the suburbs are heavily subsidized by cities/debt markets, sure, you'd have a hard time convincing the people being subsidized to change their ways. If that party ends, I think economic reality will do all the convincing. But markets and policy can stay irrational for a very long time, so who knows.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#165

Post by kitkatkid »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #122
JesseAldridge wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* They created a transportation network that enables a huge chunk of the world to get from point A to point B quickly, safely, and cheaply. > something about Uber creating all these millionaires sickens me This feeling is called envy.

It's hard to explain to people without a strong sense of morality and fairness, but many of us were taught to do the right thing, that "ends don't always justify the means", and that people who cheat or lie or steal or engage in other dubious activities will eventually be punished. If you read the parent post, there's a strong sense that the author doesn't believe the ends justify the means. Your comment suggests tha…

I have a strong sense of morality and fairness and want to do the right thing, which is why I love Uber (and Lyft, et al).

A single entity managed to smash apart the corrupt, racist and unaccountable taxi cartels in thousands of cities. No more taxis refusing to pick up dark skinned riders, no more taxis refusing to drive to neighborhoods where those same people live. No more apathetic dispatchers who don't care that the taxi driver was drunk or the car was being driven by someone other than the license holder. No more exploitative cartels bidding up taxi medallions and forcing low-skilled immigrants to work 14 hour days while preventing competition.

Ride sharing apps have fundamentally made the world a better place, especially for women and people of color. I feel far safer taking an Uber in an unfamiliar city than I ever did with the luck of a taxi, both in terms of physical safety and in terms of getting scammed.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#166

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #163
ericd wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is urbanization financially untenable? IIRC, it’s been shown that suburbia generally isn’t paying its way when it comes to infrastructure, which is optimistically built with debt, and then isn’t self-sustaining from property taxes of just those served. Because there’s a lot more infrastructure to maintain per person to have people so spread out, and the values aren’t correspondingly higher.

Urban infrastructure costs are lower (less roads, small land area to cover with police, fire, etc), but the real estate costs quickly balloon (dense real estate in desirable locations is more expensive). Do I care if my single family home is $1k-2k/year more in tax costs than urban areas if my house is $100k-300k cheaper than a condo in the city (these numbers are pulled directly from the Chicago housing market)? I d…

Condo prices are ludicrously detached from the fundamental efficiency because the supply of urban housing types is so severely restricted, on the basis of all the arguments you’ve just given.

If houses were banned on all but a few blocks, they’d be expensive too.

Urbanization is the arc of human civlization for thousands of years. The automobile era is a weird little blip.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#167

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #36
belligeront wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Exerting property rights' = preventing others from building on their property. 'Exerting voting rights' = zone newcomers, poor people, and apartment dwellers out of existence so they can't vote in our local elections.

Yes, those rights. If you’re a newcomer, buy where the community aligns with your development and density desires. Otherwise, go elsewhere. Don’t expect the community to change for you because you think your ideas are “better”. This isn’t meant to sound combative, these are just facts.

What is “the community”? There are plenty of people with interest in / demand for urbanism, just not in a spatial distribution that confers zoning power. For now. Greater awareness might create that interest (most people are surprised to learn that the strip malls they loathe are exactly as required by law). Or zoning power might be limited from a higher level of government where spatial fragmentation is less important. But a big set of people interested in urban living does exist. Why do you think it’s so expensive?

These people are a) a market opportunity, and b) a set that might grow dramatically given the right technology catalyst. I personally think e-bikes will play a large role in getting people out of the cars-competing-for-space mindset at the root of so much NIMBYism, while preserving much of the convenience of personal transport over buses.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#168

Post by warp_factor »

tracer4201 wrote: post #158
warp_factor wrote: post #79

Airbnb or Uber are not really tech companies. They are business companies with a WebApp required as part of the execution. They didn't invent anything on the technical level, they brought some business ideas to existing tech (I mean Airbnb is literally a website with a DB) In the same way that United is not a tech company, but they have a website that accepts reservation. Tech companies create new Tech as part of the…

What defines a “real” tech company? Gatekeeping what can or cannot be defined defined as a tech company. Am I on Reddit or hacker news? Wow.

I was actually making a point that what defines a tech company shifted over time.

10 years ago, we had some "hard tech" with a lot of tech innovation. I was arguing that the meaning of "tech company" shifted to a business company, using tech as a way to streamline operations. Those are very different in my opinion.

I obviously prefer the first one. But I accept that in the collective mind, tech company mainly means a website nowadays.

Post reply on HN