I would wager that more jobs accelerate psychological and physiological issues than, say, volunteering or unemployment with active community engagement do. At the very least, the psychological benefits of unemployment are objectively an incidental side-effect of its actual purpose, which is labor for a profitable enterprise. That is to say that employment is still "functional" if it generates that labor even while destroying someone's psychological health. If that health is paramount, the structure of employment probably needs to change in order to privilege health over productivity, even to productivity's detriment. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would be better off with some other institution.
Disclosing that you spend half the median income on top-spec Apple hardware every year is a confession, dude. There's no justifying that spend, past, "I like having the newest toys." Happy for you and whatever sales rep whose performance review you're making a slam dunk. It's still not good advice for the vast majority of people who use their computers for work.
You're an economic elite living in what is commonly known as a "bubble"; consider the response to your initial post a momentary popping of it.
I don’t spend anywhere near that. It resells for 60-80% when I replace it a year or two later. That offsets the cost drastically.
Spending $700 per month on your work tools (where that represents 2-3% of revenue) is not unreasonable. My minuscule office space in the shitty part of town costs as much.
I think anyone running their small business that depends on high performance computers should have an annual budget of at least 1% of revenue for hardware.
It's still thousands in unnecessary spend. You've likely thrown away a few years of post-retirement funds, and at least a few months of runway in the case of a crisis or emegency. It doesn't matter if it seems like a reasonable expense as a percentage of revenue, because the marginal improvement in productivity, for the vast majority of people, is going to be insignificant.
You can justify it to yourself however you like, but outside of your bubble, it's a poor allocation of money.
It's part of a larger economic con centered on the financial industry and the financialization of American industry. If you want this stuff to stop, you have to be hoping (or even working toward) a correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade.
It will hurt, and they'll scare us with the idea that it will hurt, but the secret is that we get to choose where it hurts - the same as how they've gotten to choose the winners and losers for the past two decades.
The author argues that this con has been caused by three relatively simple levers: Low dividend yields, legalization of stock buybacks, and executive compensation packages that generate lots of wealth under short pump-and-dump timelines.
If those are the causes, then simple regulatory changes to make stock buybacks illegal again, limit the kinds of executive compensation contracts that are valid, and incentivize higher dividend yields/penalize sales yields should return the market to the previous long-term-optimized behavior.
I doubt that you could convince the politicians and financiers who are currently pulling value out of a fragile and inefficient economy under the current system to make those changes, and if the changes were made I doubt they could last or be enforced given the massive incentives to revert to our broken system. I think you're right that it will take a huge disaster that the wealthy and powerful are unable to dodge and unable to blame on anything but their own actions, I just don't know what that event might look like.
Genuine question, I don't understand the economics of the stock market and as such I participate very little (probably to my detriment) I sort of figure the original theory went like this.
"We have an idea to run a for profit endeavor but do not have money to set it up. If you buy from us a portion of our future profit we will have the immediate funds to set up the business and you will get a payout for the indefinite future."
And the stock market is for third party buying and selling of these "shares of profit"
Under these conditions are not all stocks a sort of millstone of perpetual debt for the company and it would behoove them to remove that debt, that is, buyback the stock. Naively I assume this is a good thing.
If you don't understand a concept that's part of the stock market, reading the Investopedia article will go a long way. It's a nice site for basic overviews. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buyback.asp
The short answer is that the trend of frequent stock buybacks as discussed here is not being used to "eliminate debt" (restore private ownership), it's being used to puff up the stock price as a non-taxable alternative to dividend payouts (simply increasing the stock price by reducing supply does not realize any gains, while paying stockholders "interest" directly is subject to income tax). This games the metric of "stock price", which is used as a proxy for all sorts of things including executive performance and compensation.
My view is that you don't want more layers. Chasing ever increasing share prices favor shareholders (limited amount of generally rich people) over customers (likely to be average people). The incentives get out of whack.
I disagree. Those place the problem at the corporate level, when it's clearly extended through to being a monetary issue. The first thing I would like to see is the various Fed and banking liquidity and credit facilities go away. They don't facilitate stability, but a fiscal shell game that has allowed numerous zombie companies to live far past their solvency. This in turn encourages widespread fiscal recklessness.
We're headed for a crunch anyway. My observation is that a controlled demolition has been attempted several times over the past few years, but in every instance, someone has stepped up to cry about the disaster that would occur if incumbents weren't shored up. Of course, that just makes the next occurrence all the more dire.
Stupidity, greed, and straight-up evil intentions do a bunch of the work, but ultimately short-term thinking wins because it's an attractor state. The influence of the wealthy/powerful is always outsized, but attractors and common-knowledge also create a natural conspiracy that doesn't exactly have a center.
So with AI, the way the natural conspiracy works out is like this. Leaders at the top might suspect it's bullshit, but don't care, they always fail upwards anyway. Middle management at non-tech companies suspect their jobs are in trouble on some timeline, so they want to "lead a modernization drive" to bring AI to places they know don't need it, even if it's a doomed effort that basically defrauds the company owners. Junior engineers see a tough job market, want to devalue experience to compete.. decide that only AI matters, everything that came before is the old way. Owners and investors hate expensive senior engineers who don't have to bow and scrape, think they have to much power, would love to put them in their place. Senior engineers who are employed and maybe the most clear-eyed about the actual capabilities of technology see the writing on the wall.. you have to make this work even if it's handed to you in a broken state, because literally everyone is gunning for you. Those who are unemployed are looking around like well.. this is apparently the game one must play. Investors will invest in any horrible doomed thing regardless of what it is because they all think they are smarter than other investors and will get out in just in time. Owners are typically too disconnected from whatever they own, they just want to exit/retire and already mostly in the position of listening to lieutenants.
At every level for every stakeholder, once things have momentum they don't need be a healthy/earnest/noble/rational endeavor any more than the advertising or attention economy did before it. Regardless of the ethics there or the current/future state of any specific tech.. it's a huge problem when being locally rational pulls us into a state that's globally irrational
Yes, that "attractor state" you describe is what I meant by "if the changes were made I doubt they could last or be enforced given the massive incentives to revert to our broken system". The older I get and the more I learn, the less I'm willing to ascribe faults in our society to individual evils or believe in the existence of intentionally concealed conspiracies rather than just seeing systemic flaws and natural conspiracies.
There was a long standing illusion that people care about long-term thinking. But given the opportunity, people seem to take the short-term road with high risks, instead of chasing a long-term gain, as they, themselves, might not experience the gain.
The timeframe of expectations have just shifted, as everyone wants to experience everything. Just knowing the possibility of things that can happen already affects our desires. And since everyone has a limited time in life, we try to maximize our opportunities to experience as many things as possible.
It’s interesting to talk about this to older generation (like my parents in their 70s), because there wasn’t such a rush back then. I took my mom out to some cities around the world, and she mentioned how she really never even dreamed of a possibility of being in such places. On the other hand, when you grow in a world of technically unlimited possibilities, you have more dreams.
Sorry for rambling, but in my opinion, this somewhat affects economics of the new generation as well. Who cares of long term gains if there’s a chance of nobody experiencing the gain, might as well risk it for the short term one for a possibility of some reward.
> correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade
You need to also have a robust alternative that grows quickly in the cleared space. In 2008 we got a correction that cleared the incumbents, but the ensuing decade of policy choices basically just allowed the thing to re-grow in a new form.
I thought we pretty explicitly bailed out most of the incumbents. A few were allowed to be sacrificed, but most of the risk wasn't realized, and instead rolled into new positions that diffused it across the economy. 2008's "correction" should have seen the end of most of our investment banks and auto manufacturers. Say what you want to about them (and I have no particular love for either), but Tesla and Bitcoin are ghosts of the timeline where those two sectors had to rebuild themselves from scratch. There should have been more, and Goldman Sachs and GM et al. should not currently exist.
> A few were allowed to be sacrificed, but most of the risk wasn't realized, and instead rolled into new positions that diffused it across the economy.
Yeah that's a more accurate framing, basically just saying that in '08 we put out the fire and rehabbed the old growth rather than seeding the fresh ground.
> Tesla and Bitcoin are ghosts of the timeline where those two sectors had to rebuild themselves from scratch
I disagree, I think they're artifacts of the rehab environment (the ZIRP policy sphere). I think in a world where we fully ate the loss of '08 and started in a new direction you might get Tesla, but definitely not TSLA, and the version we got is really (Tesla+TSLA) IMO. Bitcoin to me is even less of a break with the pre-08 world; blockchain is cool tech but Bitcoin looks very much "Financial Derivatives, Online". I think an honest correction to '08 would have been far more of a focus on "hard tech and value finance", rather than inventing new financial instruments even further distanced from the value-generation chain.
> Goldman Sachs and GM et al. should not currently exist.
I would say yes and no on Tesla. Entities that survived becaue of the rehab environment actually expected it to fail, and shorted it heavily. TSLA as it currently exists is a result of the short squeeze on the stock that ensued when it became clear that the company was likely to become profitable. Its current, ridiculous valuation isn't a product of its projected earnings, but recoil from those large shorts blowing up.
In our hypothetical alternate timeline, I imagine that there would have still been capital eager to fill the hole left by GM, and possibly Ford. Perhaps Tesla would have thrived in that vacuum, alongside the likes of Fisker, Mullen, and others, who instead faced incumbent headwinds that sunk their ventures.
Bitcoin, likewise, was warped by the survival of incumbents. IIUC, those interests influenced governance in the early 2010s, resulting in a fork of the project's original intent from a transactional medium that would scale as its use grew, to a store of value, as controlled by them as traditional currencies. In our hypothetical, traditional banks collapsed, and even survivors lost all trust. The trustless nature of Bitcoin, or some other cryptocurrency, maybe would have allowed it to supercede them. Deprived of both retail and institutional deposits, they simply did not have the capital to warp the crypto space as they did in the actual 2010s.
I call them "ghosts" because, yes, whatever they might have been, they're clearly now just further extensions of that pre-2008 world, enabled by the our post-2008 environment (including ZIRP).
"In 2008 we got a correction that cleared the incumbents,"
I thought in 2008 we told the incumbents "you are the most important component of our economy. We will allow everybody to go down the drain but you. That's because you caused the problem, so you are the only ones to guide us out of it"
Looking forward to the OpenAI (and Anthropic) IPOs. It’s funny to me that this info is being “leaked” - they are sussing out the demand. If they wait too long, they won’t be able to pull off the caper (at these valuations). And we will get to see who has staying power.
It’s obvious to me that all of OpenAIs announcements about partnerships and spending is gearing up for this. But I do wonder how Altman retains the momentum through to next year. What’s the next big thing? A rocket company?
I tend to agree, but there's something to be said for a retribution focus taking time and energy away from problem-solving. When market turmoil hits, stand up facilities to guarantee food and healthcare access, institute a nationwide eviction moratorium, and then let what remains of the free market play out. Maybe we pursue justice by actually prosecuting corporate malfeasance this time. The opposite of 2008.
Problem with "it will hurt" is that it will actually hurt middle class by completely wiping it out, and maybe slightly inconvenience the rich. More like annoy the rich, really.
I have thought about stopping the use of all tech leaders: only use LLM access by running locally and Huggingface, only use a small 3rd party email provider, just use open source, and only social media use is via Mastodon.
What would be the effect? Ironically, more productive?
I am pissed at Microsoft now because my family plan for Office365 is set to renew and they are tagging on a surcharge of $30 for AI services I don’t want. What assholes: that should be a voluntary add on.
EDIT: I tried to cancel my Office365 plan, and they let me switch to a non-AI plan for the old price. I don’t hate them anymore.
Yeah, it started with the whole Wall Street, with all the depression and wars that it brought, and it hasn't stopped, at each cycle the curve has to go up, with exponential expectations of growth, until it explodes taking the world economy to the ground.
How do you guarantee your accelerationism produces the right results after the collapse? If the same systems of regulation and power are still in place then it would produce the same result afterwards
This is important to point out. All the talk about AI companies underpricing is mistaken. The costs to consumers have just been externalized; the AI venture as a whole is so large that it simply distorts other markets in order to keep its economic reality intact. See also: the people whose electric bills have jumped due to increased demand from data centers.
Americans are subsidizing ai by paying more for their electricity for the rest of the world to use chatgpt (I'm not counting the data centers of Chinese models and a few European ones though)
The Chinese national entrance exam (gaokao?) is notoriously grueling, but doing well pretty much guarantees you a spot in a top university. Would have been useful to me, having grabbed a middle-of-the-road SAT score for Ivies but having failed to apply to one. There's definitely a multi-pronged strategy for ensuring exclusivity.
Bank could lend out money to students, with the future college degree as security. After graduation, the student either gets a job that requires that degree, or licenses that degree to another person or to an institution which collects degrees and licenses them on one or several degree licensing marketplaces. Most would use these third-party re-licensers to simplify the paperwork. For example when a company needs to license a degree for a temporary project of just a few months, or when a degree holder takes leave from their own job for let's say three months. Then she can have some income from renting out her degree during that time.
I'm sure you've already thought about the problem of students who have mortgaged their future degree, but do not graduate for some reason. What happens to the money the bank has invested? This problem is mitigated and solved by packing these degree mortgages into Credit default swaps to hedge the risk. Since most students will graduate and be a return on the investment, we will pack all degree mortgages into investment funds, and offer them on the international financial markets, with sophisticated leverage tools. So, investors will not feel the pain if 1 out of 10 students do not finish their degrees, that will be very much offset by those who do - especially when leverage is used.
This is how we solve social and environmental issues, make education affordable to everybody, create a great investment boom, and make the younger generations stakeholders in the economy. Smart parents would take advantage of degree mortgages for very low monthly rates if they sign them for their child already during pregnancy, meaning they could even be paid off before graduation. That's a good start in life!
I was going to say, "furry porn," but then I realized that you're essentially just looking at the modern version of a pagan animal worship cult (of personality?) with some of those artists. You'd be surprised what gooners would do to appease their favorite werewolf coitus provider.
...PBS? Sesame Street has only ever been a boon to the common kid.
reply