What should really be the shocking thing is that somehow, 10 billion is considered "low".

I don't live in SV, and I'm just a software engineer making under 6 figures, but living comfortably all the same. I am ignorant about this "high finance" stuff - and honestly, I'm probably better for it; less stress and all. Not saying others shouldn't do it if that's what they like, just that I don't think it's for me.

Still - it seems ridiculous to me that a company self-valued at 10 billion, that there is something wrong with that? Maybe it's that I don't understand the financial history of historical tech companies, but it "feels" to me that such companies had no where near such value?

Part of the problem is that I can't think of such historical companies that were similar to WeWork or other "gig-style" companies - that were contemporary with, say, 1960s Fairchild or IBM? Those companies, and other similar companies of that era and into the 1980s (like Sun and SGI and Motorola and Intel, etc) - they were probably valued pretty highly (had they done such thing as an IPO - I don't think that was an available thing then, though - but they probably did have investors, and "ground-up" growth).

But they actually created products - physical things you could touch - as well as software (depending on the company); they weren't just using or repurposing existing tech on a large scale to solve a problem via a form of contract labor. Maybe a better model that would have been contemporary to those companies would be larger-scale construction contractors of the era? Were they ever valued in a similar manner?

To me - in my ignorance - it just seems like all of this exists to make a quick (overvalued) dollar and get out. I don't expect WeWork (or Lyft, Uber, etc) to be around in 20 years. We'll just continue to have this "churn" of companies, no loyalty or building of a base of customers that last ages and are almost "passed down" through generations.

Think about a company like IBM - arguably, it dates back to the late 19th century, but even discounting that, it is a computing and software company that is close to 100 years old; will any of today's "well known" tech companies be able to weather the years like IBM has (albeit with ups and downs, and with scandals and such)?

I can see Apple doing it - maybe. Perhaps Microsoft and probably Google. Amazon? I guess it could become akin to Sears or Montgomery Wards. Of course, no one probably thought of those older brands as having the staying power that they've shown, either - and there were plenty that one would have thought should have stayed around that didn't, and others that did that have imploded (ahem - Sears and Montgomery Wards - for instance).

I don't know if I am making my point clear enough - other than to say that it feels like these "companies" only exist - or were created - as "get rich schemes" for their creators and owners - not because those involved are really in it to make a "real difference" in the world (whether that would be a good or bad thing is debatable).

I guess I miss seeing purpose and organic growth, and a valuation in line with that, and heads or owners of such companies in it for a reason other than "getting rich and getting out".