The article's point is that for many poor people getting a shitty job that only pays enough for rent and food is pointless when you can get rent or food from your parents, or from welfare, or by thrift alone.
Today I learned Hacker News is filled with libertarian ideologues.
It's amazing that people who pride themselves in critical thinking and problem solving (hackers), can actually be so naive as to believe this nihilistic Ann Rand crap.
HN is starting to look more like Reddit every day.
Except the founder gets paid either way, and paid more than anyone else usually. If the business goes bust nobody takes his house, or his things - he just finds another job or starts another business with VC welfare.
I'll bite. Here's why I don't think Twitter is profitable or will be:
1) No ads. I don't see any now. "But, they can add advertisements later!" No they can't. Adding advertisements to Twitter will destroy their brand and everything that makes them "cool."
2) No clear picture on their profits and revenue. Profitable companies or companies with a solid revenue model have nothing to hide. There's no reason to hide your money situation if you're successful or have a successful strategy. Twitter doesn't. Their strategy relies on selling to the VC community, not selling to users.
3) Buying up competitors before you're posting profits means twitter's only asset (users) are hard to maintain control of.
The article's point is that for many poor people getting a shitty job that only pays enough for rent and food is pointless when you can get rent or food from your parents, or from welfare, or by thrift alone.