As I consider my professional future, I’ve asked myself – am I fit for running a business? Do I have solid intelligence and sound intuition to make smart decisions? I’m not sure, but hopefully soon I’ll found out.
One thing I do know for sure is that companies filing IPOs when they have nine-figure losses makes me furious and I will never support that decision.
Doing so is bad for the economy and it’s fundamentally bad for everyone, especially any non-professional average Joe/Jane investor. Eventbrite just filed and they have around $100 Million in losses in three years. Could they be profitable in the future and recoup their losses? Maybe. Certainly not anytime soon. Let them IPO when that happens.
Letting people gamble in Vegas is one thing, letting people gamble on losing companies that support one of the world’s largest economies?
Is 10 years all we need to forget what subprime lending did to the United States? That it violently threw our economy into “The Great Recession”? This is the same damn thing.
It has me screaming “WHY IS THIS LEGAL?!?!”
- Slack…. $400 Million revenue with $139 Million in losses
- WeWork…. $1.7 Billion (BILLION) revenue with $690 Million losses
Here’s some good news: You can help the world in one easy step!
Reducing trash is one of the global problems INDIVIDUALS can help solve. One person can’t fix war or poverty, but they can buy or throw away one less thing.
If everyone in the USA commits to saving a 1/2 pound from the trash a year, that’s preventing roughly 160 Million pounds entering toxic landfills. Now visualize the impact: that’s the equivalent of roughly 44,000 cars. To scale up, if everyone on the planet did it, that would be 3 Billion pounds (~811,000 vehicles) a year!
I personally know how easy it is to get discouraged about the world because so many of the problems seem too enormous or intangible to solve, but this is an opportunity to immediately help our world in a way that is as easy as not ordering one thing from Amazon or not drinking a couple cups of coffee.
Thanks everyone (bonus points for sharing the message too).
Does anyone else see an opportunity to fix the American voting system for electing officials? I, for one, am one of those people who massively dislikes the electoral college. Why is the popular vote not truly meaningful? I think it discourages people from voting. We should fix that.
This is an idea I’m tossing around. It abolishes the Electoral College and is based on popular vote.
Every citizen gets get two votes:
- 3 points for your first choice.
- 1 point for your second choice.
Every member of congress plus the President have approximately x100 point values (maybe a little more but keep the ratio).
- 300 points for their first choice.
- 100 point for their second choice.
- It’s based on total points, not averages. Averaging votes is terrible. Let’s say two candidate have an average vote of 4. Candidate A has a vote of 5 and 3, Candidate B has two votes of 4. By average they’re the same, but they have different votes so who is the better candidate – the one people are more emotional towards or the neutral one? Points simplifies the equation.
- You get two choices so it’s not an “All or nothing” scenario. And if you hate every candidate, but one just slightly less, you could even cast a single vote for a second choice to give them one point.
- There is a 2 (or 200) point gap between choices to emphasize your first choice. This will help eliminate you accidentally knocking out your first choice.
- Congress members and the President get more weight because they are the political professionals we elect to represent us at the highest levels and theoretically have the most knowledge of what’s happening. The larger point values are enough to give them a swing in a very tight vote but not enough to determine the whole thing. And most importantly, the point ratio remains the same.
- I’m hoping this helps third party candidates because our two party system is growing more violently divided by the day.