471–480 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source on your first point? Sounds a conspiracy from r/superstonk
I think the OP meant buying partial stock? afaik those are not real trades; robinhood has to house the trades on their books to some extent
A lot of Robin Hood's growth in particular was driven by people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet, and by the Fed juicing the markets with low rates for far too long, and by the ridiculous meme stock phenomenon. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Personally I'm glad that some sanity is returning to investing, and we are still a long way from getting back to normal.
The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.
It's absurd Americans judging at normal people spending money, but same people ok with companies making record profit during pandemic, the minimum wage limit etc. It's pathetic.
The truth is that a majority of tech companies don't need 50%+ of their employees. Google could lay off vast swathes tomorrow and be immensely more profitable without any loss in revenue. The 2010s will be remembered as the golden era for tech employment. The second we start getting industry wide layoffs, the insanely high wage inflation we've seen will kick into reverse much faster than you probably believe possible…
The really scary thing for me is the possible macro environment for tech.
Indians will soon overtake any of the Western countries as the largest English-speaking population on the internet. As I'm sure many of you know, Indians are hugely talented and most of us who had to deal with CS or Maths have probably resorted to some of the extremely generous Indian experts who teach these subjects on Youtube. There are some very good institutes and universities with solid reputations, many expanding to boot camps and such - so there is a very good volume of tech talent coming online fast.
So you have a tsunami of highly educated, English-speaking tech workers coming online AND a sudden surplus of laid off tech workers in the West. It could potentially get really ugly for the Western tech workers used to six figures for working 30 hours per day and then spending the rest of the day on activism or "day in the life of a X" Tiktoks. After all, we just tested remote work and you can live like a king in India for much less than even the cheapest Western town.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.
Many people need that money. It's absurd Americans judging at normal people spending money, but same people ok with companies making record profit during pandemic, the minimum wage limit etc. It's pathetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet How did you quantify this statement?
In my industry the wave of stimulus definitely caused behavior changes, it was pretty distinct. Obviously, a lot of people did need that money to make ends meet. But it's also obvious that some % of the population was able to treat it as money they were able to play around and have some fun with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something tells me infosec's not going to give me the okay on that one. In lieu of that, I think "sending a wave of money through the system by handing a check to every taxpayer will not temporarily change some peoples' behavior" is the hypothesis that would need some data to back it up, in my view.
If infosec won't give you the +1 on sharing, it's best you and they find some shared ground. I suspect app/othersec would actually agree here. Sending a wave of money into a group of historically underemployed seems like it'd result in normal expenditures, modulo some slush. Maybe it's the contemporaneous injection of many, many trabillions into 501c3s, individual funds, small businesses, and other groups who could s…
Sending a wave of money into a group of
historically underemployed seems like
it'd result in normal expenditures, modulo
some slush.
Far more importantly, "sending a wave of money into a group of historically underemployed" is not what happened. Pretty much every taxpayer got a series of stimulus checks. It wasn't based on need; it was based on your claimed income for the previous year. Historically underemployed groups got checks, rich boys with time and money on their hands got checks. Everybody. (edit: not everybody, more like ~80%) Maybe this is the root of your misconceptions?
Maybe it's the contemporaneous injection [...]
Edit: alternatively, feel free to abstain
from conversations where your allegiances
lie contrary to complete honesty
What is this missing honesty you're referring to? This is one of the weirder interactions I've ever had on HN. And that's really saying something.
A lot of Robin Hood's growth in particular was driven by people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet, and by the Fed juicing the markets with low rates for far too long, and by the ridiculous meme stock phenomenon. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Personally I'm glad that some sanity is returning to investing, and we are still a long way from getting back to normal.
The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.
Let the privileged folks have their fun, so the unprivileged can eat and not worry so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happened in 1998-1999 too. People got online trading accounts, did great and then decided to try to invest for a living. You should not take investment advice from people who have been doing it less than a decade. It takes time to sort out the lucky from the smart.
Heh I made 30% trading! Of course had I just let it ride in an index fund I’d’ve made 50+%…
Biggest mark of utter management failure is making too small a layoff in April (9%) and needing to do another round today. Combined that’s a 30% headcount reduction since Q1-2022
Please say more. Is the idea to get the blood-letting over with all at once?
This is not the exact link I was looking for but goes into it somewhat https://www.ycombinator.com/library/3Z-advice-for-companies-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.
And so what if it is? With the rate that tech is going to be putting people out of jobs, most folks are going to have shit for options. Let the privileged folks have their fun, so the unprivileged can eat and not worry so much.
Causes asset inflation making them out of reach for the 'unprivileged'. See housing market.