SoftBank Vision funds post record $39B annual loss

Post by bryant » Thu, May 11, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #60

henry2023 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety and reliability are not mutually exclusive with exploitative. It can be both.

Sadly, taxis were never both until Uber. Even in Manhattan, getting a taxi at 2am was a crap shoot. I can an Uber in the suburbs at 2am anywhere in the country. That’s neat.

Post by fredgrott » Thu, May 11, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #38

williamDafoe wrote: post #8

Their massive early investment in Uber distorted their reality and they expected ride sharing to be incredibly successful in other markets when it's not even successful in the USA - it's a fraud that pays below minimum wage off the backs of people who cannot do math. It has never made money anywhere ... ARM has had a laziness problem ever since the Apple A1 chip - there's a reason why nobody uses their 6-yr old layou…

Not being incredibly successful doesn't make it a fraud. I don't think anybody invested in it because Uber misrepresented the market.

Post by Mistletoe » Thu, May 11, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

jjeaff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically an inefficient, but effective way to siphon money from the poor and middle class and deposit it into the bank accounts of the wealthy by utilizing the equity the poor and middle class have in their vehicles.

> to siphon money from the poor and middle class and deposit it into the bank accounts of the wealthy by utilizing the equity the poor and middle class have in their vehicles What poor and middle class assets does SoftBank manage? (EDIT: Nvm. I misread “vehicle” as an investment vehicle.)

Post by ipaddr » Thu, May 11, 2023, 9:29 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #69

skybrian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we translate that from financial to real-world terms, it means that people aren't getting paid enough to cover wear and tear on their cars. I think that depends on how much you paid for the car and how long it will last (depends on quality, how good the maintenance is, and luck). Also, cash pays the rent and lower depreciation doesn't (unless you sell the car), so some people may prefer this to borrowing money.

Yet they are evidenced by people driving for Uber. I’ve driven a Prius for Uber and think so fared quite well using the irs mileage deduction rate to offset almost all my revenue and paid nearly no tax, legally and covered actual depreciation. It’s funny to think 10 years of drivers are somehow idiots.

Post by ipaddr » Thu, May 11, 2023, 9:30 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #50

mrguyorama wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go look it up, it's been done before. Uber basically required you buy a new car in certain circumstances, and don't pay enough to keep up with gas, repairs, and value loss of running a car around.

Uber allows 16 year old cars in my city. If you're driving a paid-off 5+ year old Honda or Toyota, I think Uber's paying enough for you to turn a decent profit from driving for them. https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/boston/vehicle-requirements... It probably isn't paying enough for you to buy a brand new car with a loan and drive that around for them. But they're not making you do that, either...