a concern I've heard of CBDCs and cashless systems in general is that governments will be able to do exactly that, and there wouldn't be a recourse to someone pushed out of the system.
More realistically they could have your purchases and income streams feed into a social credit system or actuarial models.
just to footnote the quote since I didn't know what it meant the first couple times I saw it: It's likely in reference to an article and line in a video as part of the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" concept. The article generated some backlash so they changed the article title and added some notes to bookend it. (edit: WEFwoof posted this below as well)
My own normally-cautious family is tentatively having people meet up from four cities in one house for a week, which I feel is taking too much of a risk even if everyone's tested.
I'm likely to cancel and cause some disappointment, stopping short of "ruining the holidays," but IMO that's ok to keep everyone safe.
yes, and IIUC it's already a crowded market. I haven't been car shopping in a very long time so I'm not sure what's the current state of the art, but the Kelley Blue Book (edit: mentioned in a sibling comment) is probably the original and best-known one. First published in 1926, online since 1995.
EdJiang, please note this isn't to you directly (either as a poster or Uber employee), my engineer-brain is sort of thinking of loopholes and unintended consequences. I'm not expressing an opinion here.
How many "real" working hours does it take to get 25 working hours? I only found one reference (Berkeley Law) that estimated 1/3 of the time is downtime, so very roughly 40 hours a week? Of course depends on location, chosen time of work, and much more.
More cynically, would these companies be able to distribute work such that rides are given to drivers with more "buffer" before hitting these ACA payouts?
Again, not at Uber, Lyft and others specifically but the USA is a country where if we mandate workers with 30 hours get healthcare, employers may try to schedule for 29. I think it's unfortunate, but that's the incentive.
(opinion mode on: we need to fix healthcare as a country; the current state of affairs and likely the state after the Supreme Court hears Texas v. California in three weeks is ridiculous)
I heard one plan was to gain market share and eventually replace drivers with self-driving vehicles altogether, but I should note I'm spreading at least third-degree hearsay.
One lawsuit was a Department of Justice antitrust investigation (quickly settled) that required a bunch of lawyers, discovery, and having the conduct run up against the Sherman antitrust act. I think a tech union is very unlikely but would rather things get fixed before they get that far.
My understanding is that the related civil class action suit recouped small fractions of estimated lost wages, though there's a lot of hand-waving there and both sides are going to wave their hands differently.
I might be mistaken; this didn't affect me too much, and I most mostly just amused how incredibly afraid of Steve Jobs everyone was.
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but might a union actually help in this case?
The 30 hour mandate is from the federal government as part of the Affordable Care Act. If someone was moved from 40 hours to 29 hours because of this, that's bad, but they were likely not a union member, right? Unions would have a negotiated contract for however many hours they wanted (either more or less than the norm), and would have also already negotiated benefits on the side so the incentive for the employer to cut to 30 hours would be gone.
Regarding the fewer hours points - I wasn't advocating that shorter weeks are always better, but rather that unions are responsible for, or at least contributed to, many of the gains that workers got over the last 150 years, and that IMO have been eroding.
Pretending we lived in the early 20th century, isn't the benefit of 40 hours a week in a factory over >60 hours a week in a factory clear? In terms of health and safety, unions have also made sure that e.g. you were less likely to become trapped and burn alive during the workday [0].
+1 to your post and links. I'm also surprised by how much anti-union sentiment exists in the US; things like the 40-hour workweek and concept of overtime were paid for in blood.
This question looked interesting, and it's a matter of opinion but IMO none of them started out nearly as simply as we're discussing in this thread. I think they all fail the 4-weeks-to-revenue test (Not seeking to argue, was just curious).
Facebook is probably the simplest: one month initial development time, launching after that month, adding three more colleges the month after. It looks like they had funding within about five months. Maybe worth noting they're the most software-only of the bunch, and that the v1 product was a CRUD app with great market fit (that's a good thing here for velocity, I'm not downplaying their success). And especially when they were founded, revenue wasn't really seen as necessary, so they probably get a pass on the "be profitable in 4 weeks" bit.
Amazon did start out sort of simply, as a bookstore, but it took a year from incorporation to launch and Bezos had a significant investment from parents. Remember luck and survivor bias, they caught the dotcom boom and bust, too.
Apple sort of fits simplicity - you had a couple people who worked together before identifying the potential of a product, founded a company, and get to prototypes and incorporation in a few months. On the other hand I think it's a tough case for simplicity since step 1 is "Invent the Apple I" -- and make sure it's during the beginning of a new tech revolution. Plus, in terms of success we are probably talking about the Apple II, released the year after the I.
Netflix started with funding from a previous successful venture and right out of the gate needed to fund N copies of nearly 1,000 DVDs. Wikipedia suggests they had "only" 30 employees at the beginning. One of the cofounders had prior mail-order experience--which is great, and counts! But the post here concludes with "I'll try a new career in marketing;" I hope it works out for him but notice there's a trend of prior experience or domain knowledge through several of these companies.
Google was the result of a multi-year PhD project and involved coming up with a new ranking approach (or, for the detractors, adjusting and applying an existing mathematical concept to directed graphs) and a somewhat fresh take on search UI. Then later they had to figure out ads to turn a profit.
Adding the M, Microsoft was founded after Gates and Allen had already created a tech company together prior, and they saw a market opportunity. I'm sort of sketchy on the history, but a quick search shows they developed Altair BASIC in around four months, reusing some of the work they'd one prior, had the advantage of using Harvard's infrastructure at least briefly, and IIRC sort of pretended they had a product when they didn't. Paul Allen is said to have written the bootloader they'd need while on the flight to their sales pitch. Probably no wi-fi or laptops on board that flight :)
You could say they all pivoted at some point or didn't hit on what would be their full potential from the outset, so it's important to get going on something. At the same time, it seems they found one solid product and took a risk on it, rather than taking a shotgun approach and seeing what stuck.
Overall I think there's much more planning and medium- or long-term slog involved in these companies to say they started simply. Though for most small businesses I do agree with the sibling posts to get going and test things out ASAP. I think being aggressive about culling ideas that aren't working is ok for SaaS or CRUD businesses, so you don't risk becoming a zombie company.
Nice project idea and congratulations on launching the first set!
One suggestion in case it's OP's project or the author is reading: if your video editing workflow has audio adjustment tools or supports plugins, consider using a de-esser to reduce the sibilance a little bit. Everything's easy to understand but some of the s's can be just a little harsh.
More realistically they could have your purchases and income streams feed into a social credit system or actuarial models.