181–190 of 752 posts
I'm curious what HN is doing with their portfolios right about now. I'd be dumping NVDA and reallocating to more bonds for the time being.
Currently? Wishing there was an S&P 500 that banned tech stocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. Every kind of a man, or woman? > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. Well, this probably why statistics exist.
Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic history common in North America. The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else. We can see the economic crisis' in the US first in the 70s/80s with Europe and Japan rebounding, then again in 90s/00s with China and East Asia growing, and now again with the rest of the world growing (esp Latin America, India, Indonesi…
What does this sentence mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people. In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains. S…
> In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. Every kind of a man, or woman? > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. Well, this probably why statistics exist.
"The good ol' days" ... yeah, but good for who?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. Every kind of a man, or woman? > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. Well, this probably why statistics exist.
Yeah if you bar over 50% of your workforce from working at market clearing wages then naturally the other 50% are going to get paid at their expense. When you underpay minorities and often outright ban women from working formal employment, it's not hard to see how wages for the others remain high.
I'm curious what HN is doing with their portfolios right about now. I'd be dumping NVDA and reallocating to more bonds for the time being.
Currently? Wishing there was an S&P 500 that banned tech stocks.
[0] https://www.proshares.com/our-etfs/strategic/spxt (S&P minus tech stocks)
[1] https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/ (S&P minus "Magnificent 7")
Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…
Realistically I think there are two outcomes: AGI succeeds and there are mass layoffs, money is concentrated further in the hands of those who own compute. OR AI bubble pops and there are mass layoffs, with bailouts going to the largest players to prevent a larger collapse, which drives inflation and further marginalizes asset-less people. I honestly don't see a third option unless there is government intervention, w…
In the AGI Succeeds scenario, the situation is unprecedented and it's not clear how it ever gets better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah if you bar over 50% of your workforce from working at market clearing wages then naturally the other 50% are going to get paid at their expense. When you underpay minorities and often outright ban women from working formal employment, it's not hard to see how wages for the others remain high.
Well congratulations! We have succeeded in having stagnating wages and stagnating standard of living for everyone now!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic history common in North America. The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else. We can see the economic crisis' in the US first in the 70s/80s with Europe and Japan rebounding, then again in 90s/00s with China and East Asia growing, and now again with the rest of the world growing (esp Latin America, India, Indonesi…
> It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital that could have helped create high value jobs. What does this sentence mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI has no technical moat (others can do what they do), generate content, all have the same data. OpenAI does not expect to be cash-flow positive until 2029. When no new capital comes in, it can't continue. OpenAI can's survive any kind of price competition.
They consistently have the best or second best models. They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users. Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. There's price competition right now. They're still surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most likely to survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. Every kind of a man, or woman? > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. Well, this probably why statistics exist.
> Every kind of a man, or woman? Why do so many people miss the point on this? Instead of making this dream true for all the people who were previously excluded, we have pursued equality by making this dream accessible to NO ONE. > Well, this probably why statistics exist. Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of despair", and plateauing or decreasing…
Or maybe you're saying that's always how these initiatives turn out? It can't be helped?