Live data from Hacker News

American Disruption

stratechery.com

171–180 of 210 posts

Re: American Disruption

#171
post #47
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're more likely to 'on shore' with 3D printer like automated fabricators (think next baby step between CnC machines and Replicators). As far as any mention of jobs? Those are long gone and never coming back. Trade still makes sense for raw inputs and any outputs though.

And since when the US has a “job availability” problem? Unemployment is low. We have a jobs quality problem. Good pay, good hours, benefits. It doesn’t matter if it’s manufacturing or services. Somehow some people think their parents had it easier working for a factory, but a lot of blood and sweat went to get that. We can shed blood and sweat to get better barista jobs too. It’s not about where jobs are performed.

Even if we assume manufacturing does bring back high quality jobs: The people still have to leave their low quality jobs they are currently doing to fill those jobs. Which means the American people are going to have to give up something. Which probably means things like their Big Macs, with a return to home cooking like in the heyday of manufacturing.

A win from a health perspective, perhaps, but going back to the age where people didn't do anything other than spend all their free time maintaining their home life probably isn't what people are dreaming of.

Re: American Disruption

#172
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjJgfspg/ shows it all too well. Except that people liked those jobs because they were doable for people who aren't bright enough to write code. If you're not the brightest tool in the toolbox, and not the most professional, and have a criminal record, you still need a job, and the trades are open for business. Amazon warehouses skill level, without the dystopia. I'm sure I'll do fine, it's…

Again, America had low unemployment. And low level blue color job can be aw much dystopia as warehouse - your not bright person with criminal record an no skills will be taken advantage as much.

What the unemployment numbers, even digging into U4 vs U6, don't account for, is how hard people have to scramble to find those jobs. it's not that they aren't out there, people do still need to pay bills after all, it's that gone are the days when you'd just show up to the union hall and know you'd just be assigned some work. That feeling of solidarity, that you can just rely on the fact that you're needed and necessary and can get a dollar to feed yourself today, whenever you need a dollar. That doesn't show up on unemployment numbers.

Arguably driving for Uber/whatever does that today, but you can't seriously believe that you can build an entire economy off of everyone delivering people and food to the rich.

Re: American Disruption

#173
I think this misses the point. The president and his closes aides are fascists. They aren't economics professors and diplomats trying to play some game, they're people who look towards the future and see that this world is going to end for a number of reasons. Productive capacity in China, climate change, the decline of patriarchal white supremacy, the facade of a 'rules based order', international payments and finance systems, &c.

Defending a world that is inevitably on the way out is for suckers and weaklings. And boy howdy do they despise the weak. How do you clean out the weak from finance and start preparing a command based war economy?

Volatility, the violence of markets. Move fast and break things. Then there's chaos under the heavens and the situation is excellent, or however the maoist saying goes.

At least to me this looks like trying to get advantages in an expected world war. Sensitive businesses need to die and release labour that can be transfered to a war industrial economy, and the plainly weak people need to die so the people that cares for them no longer have to and can labour with something else like pregnancy or trauma medicine.

Elon Musk is surprisingly not fully on board with this, either he doesn't understand the team he joined or he's started having second thoughts when his stocks crashed. I'm guessing the former, and that he to some extent joined the fash to look cool and manly, and liked it when he got to be on the world stage throwing about their taboo, highly recognisable signals. But now he doesn't find it exciting and refreshing to watch the world burn, he likely doesn't have his own vision for it.

None of the others are into deep sophisticated reasoning. It's not how they think. Mainly they lust, and the thinking they do is to dress up their lust in a way that doesn't turn public speeches and statements into moments of intimacy and vulnerability, because that would be effeminate and look weak.

The war they expect is north versus south, and not east against west. When the climate refugees come and the equator is unlivable, the far north will be the attacked home of the supreme humans, the masters of the future.

Re: American Disruption

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbf the fishing ports were some of the most rational Brexit voters. They were aware that EU fisheries policy quotas seriously impaired their ability to catch fish and believed that leaving the EU meant leaving the quotas behind. Unfortunately for them, they happened to be completely wrong about this (arguably not unpredictably: the UK MMO was more zealous than most European countries about enforcing catch restriction…

is it rational that they didn't do their homework to find out that the quota wasnt going to be removed once they'd left the EU?

I'm not sure it's entirely irrational to fail to predict what the government would eventually settle on, especially when said government was at least feigning interest in getting a better deal for fishermen...

Particularly not compared with some of the other Brexit vote rationales

Re: American Disruption

#175
post #149
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not a problem here (they have an app, too) but it’s definitely valid for Uber to compete on better service. I am skeptical that they will be able to get the kind of returns which their investors want that way, however.

I fly into a random city, say Denver. I could start hunting around for a local taxi app, which may or may not work, may or may not have any cars I could get in a waiting taxi at the airport, but then I run into issues with cash etc I could use uber while I'm still collecting my bag and have a known car and known experience waiting for me

Sure, as I said they have a potential edge in service and people who frequently travel to new places. My point was just that it’s not a very big edge: most people are not traveling to new places all of the time and if there’s a big savings they’ll switch. That doesn’t mean that Uber is doomed, just that they’re not a Google/Facebook money printing machine where local competitors can pop up easily.

Re: American Disruption

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BART takes 2x the time station to station. Try it out right now. The time is 1256 as of the time of this comment. SFO International to Montgomery St. Station: Earliest arrival is 1346 Driving: Earliest arrival is 1323 My experience is that the car takes ~6 min to arrive to pick you up for Uber. You can call it earlier, but assuming you call it when you arrive and then wait that's 1322. You lose 23 minutes to BART. An…

What are you going to do on your phone in the Uber vs on your phone on your couch when you get home vs your phone on Bart? If you have an important in-person meeting to get to then by all means pay the surcharge but let's be real about how some of us are spending those "saved" minutes. Thank you for doing the math - we're only talking about 23 of them? it's entirely possible to capitalize on 23 minutes, but seriously…

Can use your laptop in the car safely. A friend of mine had his laptop yanked on BART. Chap ran off, my friend gave chase, and that guy threw away the laptop. Surprisingly, only dented! But I'd rather not experience that. 28 minute ride vs. 45 minute ride after 10 min wait is pretty large difference IMHO. If no traffic, that's even shorter. For me, from Caltrain station (where I live) to airport I have a record door to gate of 16 min. That's a no planning choice. If I have to make a 45 minute ride I have to plan: take the T-line to Powell, switch to BART, ride down to the airport? Crazy. No chance.

Re: American Disruption

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you going to do on your phone in the Uber vs on your phone on your couch when you get home vs your phone on Bart? If you have an important in-person meeting to get to then by all means pay the surcharge but let's be real about how some of us are spending those "saved" minutes. Thank you for doing the math - we're only talking about 23 of them? it's entirely possible to capitalize on 23 minutes, but seriously…

Can use your laptop in the car safely. A friend of mine had his laptop yanked on BART. Chap ran off, my friend gave chase, and that guy threw away the laptop. Surprisingly, only dented! But I'd rather not experience that. 28 minute ride vs. 45 minute ride after 10 min wait is pretty large difference IMHO. If no traffic, that's even shorter. For me, from Caltrain station (where I live) to airport I have a record door…

Yikes that's scary. I'm still gonna take Bart tho. Do what's right for you!

Re: American Disruption

#178
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not a problem here (they have an app, too) but it’s definitely valid for Uber to compete on better service. I am skeptical that they will be able to get the kind of returns which their investors want that way, however.

they already IPOed so the original investors made out with a ton of money. if you think there's still a version where Uber evaporates overnight, I have some puts to sell you.

I’m not expecting anything like evaporating, only that things like their share price and compensation are more like a tech company than a taxi company but they don’t have a strong moat. There’s interest around things like self-driving taxis, but they don’t own the technology so it won’t open up extra margins.

Re: American Disruption

#179
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesnt make sense. When money moves out of stocks, it has to go somewhere. Typically, it moves to less-risky assets, like bonds. That makes their prices go up, and yields down. Likewise, why would the tariff strategy be to drive down bond prices? Lower prices means receiving less for their issuance/paying more interest... Youve got it all backwards friend

Flight to cash.

could be, but it doesnt change the fact that the parent comment had bond prices and yields completely backwards

Re: American Disruption

#180

I find amusing that people still want to rationally discuss this thing. What the U.S. is doing is just Brexit 2.0. If reason didn't work with Brexit, why would it work with this? The best each one of us can do is to isolate ourselves from the disaster.

> is just Brexit 2.0

They are (were? will be?) exiting the world, not just the EU...

Post reply on HN