Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just own the damn robots

thereformedbroker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 356 posts

Re: Just own the damn robots

#61

Post by s73ver_ »

pdog wrote: post #6
mooreds wrote: post #2

Whoa. No solutions, at the end, but what a story. As someone in a situation similar to the 45 year old he mentions, I worry about being displaced. Not every day, but every month or so I wonder. What a fascinating thesis. I wonder what happens when the 'replacement fear' buy collides with the 'boomer retirement' sell?

Pretty sure the proposed solution is to buy stocks of the U.S. technology giants: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

But with what money? Most of the people at high risk for displacement aren't exactly rolling in the cash.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#62

Post by disease »

a_brawling_boo wrote: post #58

I came to see if people were talking about the robotics and automation ETF cited in the article and if it would be a good idea to buy at this point, but seems that everyone is having philosophical conversation instead of a investing conversation :-p

From a clueless investor here, it seems like NVidia would be a good play if you anticipate widespread growth in machine learning.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#63

Post by germinalphrase »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #54
mooreds wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say it's a "Brave New World" :) The real question is what happens to the 90%.

The best outcome is the "Culture" endpoint: a post-need society. 10% of people are called upon to work, and the rest thrive on basic income and become artists and inventors, philosophers and musicians and actors. The worst outcome, on the other hand, is rather more dystopian. A society with a very large percentage of young, unemployed people with no particular path to success is not a stable society. I suppose it mat…

Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in which the children of the 90% may move into/out of as their skills/ability apply? Which is to ask - is it worth maintaining a 90% at all or should we 'solve that problem'?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#64

Post by Danihan »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #54
mooreds wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say it's a "Brave New World" :) The real question is what happens to the 90%.

The best outcome is the "Culture" endpoint: a post-need society. 10% of people are called upon to work, and the rest thrive on basic income and become artists and inventors, philosophers and musicians and actors. The worst outcome, on the other hand, is rather more dystopian. A society with a very large percentage of young, unemployed people with no particular path to success is not a stable society. I suppose it mat…

See WSHH fight comp videos for the answer.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#66

Post by s73ver_ »

taberiand wrote: post #25
anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

Because you'll be shot, probably by a robot.

But eventually, the robots, unable to cope with what they've got to do, will turn to robot drugs, robot alcohol, and other robot-destructive behaviors to escape.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#67

Post by Density »

In sci-fi the singularity is the moment when human consciousness merges with machine.

In the real world the singularity is when people get so worked up about automation they invest infinity money in tech companies.

e: I spent a solid chunk of my income on tech company stocks.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#68

Post by uoaei »

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

Exactly. As they say: if the employees own the company, robots on the assembly line would mean vacations, not layoffs.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#69

Post by richk449 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

> Why not just seize the means of production?

I wonder if anyone has tried that before. I guess I will go read a history book and find out.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#70

Post by kmicklas »

paulpauper wrote: post #49
adventured wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest market cap companies in a given decade, overwhelmingly tend to be under-performers in the following decade. It's a trend that has repeated decade after decade. Many of these types of companies - AMZN, NFLX, GOOGL, FB - have pulled a massive share of their future returns forward (which is what happened to Microsoft, stagnating its stock for ~15 years). In 2007 the largest companies were: Exxon, GE, Microso…

Netflix has a ~200 PE ratio, there is no means for it to ever justify its existing valuation (400 million global subscribers? no chance), much less a far higher one. Their present business model has never proven the ability to produce good margins, content has perpetually sapped their earnings potential and is likely to continue to do so. Facebook and Google will stagnate and grow into their valuations. Google partic…

> will be permanently successful

Surely you don't mean actually permanent. So what time scale do you think they will last?

Post reply on HN