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

The dead economy theory

owenmcgrann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#381

Post by registeredcorn »

rootusrootus wrote: post #226

I know this isn't exactly related, so maybe a low value comment, but it itches in my mind. Years ago I talked with a recruiter at Facebook and they bragged about how many floors of developers they had working on Messenger in just one location (Seattle). What on earth do you do with that many devs on a project like Messenger? I mean, really? I feel like in a way, AI just adds to that weird situation of overcapacity. M…

> What on earth do you do with that many devs on a project like Messenger?

The pessimist in me says that at least part of the intent isn't about what they do, but rather about who they work for.

Assume you can afford to hire unnecessary amounts of employees. Is it more cost effective to:

a) Hire them and have them essentially sit around, floundering

b) Not hire them, allowing competitors the chance to hire them to work on something that could be of importance

Sure, you could hire them and devote them to working on other projects, but there are also risks and costs associated with that. If you have already budgeted with X, Y, and Z for however many quarters, it may not make good sense to green light additional projects. Too many balls in the air adds extra complexity for middle management, which impacts their ability to communicate the state of things to upper management.

Reduce access to resources available to the enemy by hoarding what you can. When the stock price looks like it might take a hit, toss the excess.

Re: The dead economy theory

#383

Post by harimau777 »

5701652400 wrote: post #359
Henchman21 wrote: post #341

[flagged]

nonsense. people want basic things. ask any gal what guy needs, or any guy what gal needs. what really happenign is elites lost the plot. we are on airplaine falling down without a captain. nobody is in the control room.

Isn't there a big problem with people not being able to find partners? In that case it seems like people aren't getting the basic things that they want.

Re: The dead economy theory

#384

Post by fra »

crote wrote: post #351
deepsun wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every country subsidies their agriculture for national security purpose. You don't want an enemy to starve you in case of a big war.

Name one country which is fully self-sustaining. Agricultural subsidies exist primarily due to lobbying, the "we don't want to starve" argument is nothing more than an excuse used to justify the fortunes handed out to corporate-scale farmers.

France, USA, Australia to name 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_self...).

Re: The dead economy theory

#385

Post by Galanwe »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #339
Galanwe wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about that a lot too, and in the end I think it just comes down to stupid economics: What do you want them to do with all this money? 1) Most top US tech companies are flooded of money. Everyone dumps money in the SP500. 2) This money has to go somewhere. You can't just redistribute it as dividends, otherwise it's an admission that you won't grow and giving you more money would be a 0 sum game. 3) So you ha…

Facebook doesn't get the money when you buy a share of META -- that goes to the person you bought the share from. They could do an offering to raise money, but they aren't. They've been doing the opposite, they've been buying back shares at a significant rate. Some of it is to offset stock based compensation, and some of it is just stock pumping.

> Facebook doesn't get the money when you buy a share of META

Technically no, but in reality yes, because shares are used as currency.

For instance, META does not acquire companies using cash, they use their own shares as payment. The higher the stock price, the lower the dilution.

Same thing for stock options and RSU.

So, it's true that stock prices don't translate 1:1 to cash inflows, but wherever stocks are currency (employee compensation, benefits, acquisitions, etc), it does translate.

Re: The dead economy theory

#386

Post by TimByte »

graemep wrote: post #265
Animats wrote: post #248

India has the problem with farming that the US is starting to have with AI. Farming in India is still far too labor intensive by world standards. 43% of workers still work in agriculture. [1] For the US, that number is under 2%. China is at 22% as of 2023, and dropping steadily. This inefficient agricultural system is not by accident. It is supported by heavy subsidies. Attempts to cut the subsidies resulted in riots…

The industrial revolution was enabled by more efficient agriculture feeing labour to do other work.

What is the next large labour-absorbing sector supposed to be?

Re: The dead economy theory

#387

Post by FloorEgg »

TimByte wrote: post #378
Animats wrote: post #248

India has the problem with farming that the US is starting to have with AI. Farming in India is still far too labor intensive by world standards. 43% of workers still work in agriculture. [1] For the US, that number is under 2%. China is at 22% as of 2023, and dropping steadily. This inefficient agricultural system is not by accident. It is supported by heavy subsidies. Attempts to cut the subsidies resulted in riots…

One difference though is that the agriculture transitions had somewhere for labor to go: factories, construction, urban services, export manufacturing, etc

This transition does too. It's just not clear to most where yet.

Re: The dead economy theory

#388

Post by 5701652400 »

bawolff wrote: post #185

I feel like people have said that about every technical revolution. I dont think this article would have been out of place in the hay day of the industrial revolution. Its never been true in the past. Otoh, there always has to be a first time for everything. I think to be convincing though it needs more evidence on how this differed from other technical revolutions.

what if I tell you it has been in decline all along? we just barely kept up with it. just look at the birth rates.

this turkey has been watching chickens, pigs, cows in line. now is time for Thanksgiving. and we are the turkey.

Re: The dead economy theory

#389

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #123
dleslie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Won't super power AI tools allow companies to do more with the same number of people? Don't you think a smarter way to run a business is to capture more of the market if you have the resources to do so? It is possible to have excess productivity. AI allows an existing labour pool to rapidly surpass necessary productivity levels for the existing demand. IE, let's say I live in a small town and I open a machine shop.…

> It is possible to have excess productivity. The most productive places in the world are also those with the highest incomes and wealth generation. "Excess productivity" is either temporary or a sector-specific phenomenon, it doesn't apply to society as a whole.

Temporary excess productivity can linger a very long time and sector-specific excess productivity can still be broadly damaging. Detroit and southeastern Michigan were devastated by the collapse of American automotive industry in the '00s, taking something like 10-15 years before starting to recover.

Re: The dead economy theory

#390

Post by 5701652400 »

ismaelyws wrote: post #18
Miner49er wrote: post #3

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market. For some companies yeah, but this is why companies are switching to consumption based pricing - so they can charge AI.…

Yep, if AI gutters the middleclass and small budinesses who you gonna sell to?

+1. soon there is nobody to sell to.
Post reply on HN