Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

2025-11-186:06334728www.bbc.com

In an exclusive BBC interview, Sundar Pichai hailed artificial intelligence as an "extraordinary moment" but said no company would be immune if bubble burst.

Faisal Islam,economics editor and

Rachel Clun,business reporter

Alphabet boss Sundar Pichai has warned of some "irrationality" in the current AI boom

Every company would be affected if the AI bubble were to burst, the head of Google's parent firm Alphabet has told the BBC.

Speaking exclusively to BBC News, Sundar Pichai said while the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) investment had been an "extraordinary moment", there was some "irrationality" in the current AI boom.

It comes amid fears in Silicon Valley and beyond of a bubble as the value of AI tech companies has soared in recent months and companies spend big on the burgeoning industry.

Asked whether Google would be immune to the impact of the AI bubble bursting, Mr Pichai said the tech giant could weather that potential storm, but also issued a warning.

"I think no company is going to be immune, including us," he said.

In a wide-ranging exclusive interview at Google's California headquarters, he also addressed energy needs, slowing down climate targets, UK investment, the accuracy of his AI models, and the effect of the AI revolution on jobs.

The interview comes as scrutiny on the state of the AI market has never been more intense.

Alphabet shares have doubled in value in seven months to $3.5tn (£2.7tn) as markets have grown more confident in the search giant's ability to fend off the threat from ChatGPT owner OpenAI.

A particular focus is Alphabet's development of specialised superchips for AI that compete with Nvidia, run by Jensen Huang, which recently reached a world first $5tn valuation.

As valuations rise, some analysts have expressed scepticism about a complicated web of $1.4tn of deals being done around OpenAI, which is expected to have revenues this year of less than one thousandth of the planned investment.

It has raised fears stock markets are heading for a repeat of the dotcom boom and bust of the late 1990s. This saw the values of early internet companies surge amid a wave of optimism for what was then a new technology, before the bubble burst in early 2000 and many share prices collapsed.

This led to some companies going bust, resulting in job losses. A drop in share prices can also hit the value of people's savings including their pension funds.

In comments echoing those made by US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan in 1996, warning of "irrational exuberance" in the market well ahead of the dotcom crash, Mr Pichai said the industry can "overshoot" in investment cycles like this.

"We can look back at the internet right now. There was clearly a lot of excess investment, but none of us would question whether the internet was profound," he said.

"I expect AI to be the same. So I think it's both rational and there are elements of irrationality through a moment like this."

His comments follow a warning from Jamie Dimon, the boss of US bank JP Morgan, who told the BBC last month that investment in AI would pay off, but some of the money poured into the industry would "probably be lost".

But Mr Pichai said Google's unique model of owning its own "full stack" of technologies - from chips to YouTube data, to models and frontier science - meant it was in a better position to ride out any AI market turbulence.

The tech giant is also expanding its footprint in the UK. In September, Alphabet announced it was investing in UK artificial intelligence, committing £5bn to infrastructure and research over the next two years.

Mr Pichai said Alphabet will develop "state of the art" research work in the UK including at its key AI unit DeepMind, based in London.

For the first time, he said Google would "over time" take a step that is being pushed for in government to "train our models" in the UK - a move that cabinet ministers believe would cement the UK as the number three AI "superpower" after the US and China.

"We are committed to investing in the UK in a pretty significant way," Mr Pichai said.

However, he also warned about the "immense" energy needs of AI, which made up 1.5% of the world's electricity consumption last year, according to the International Energy Agency.

Mr Pichai said action was needed, including in the UK, to develop new sources of energy and scale up energy infrastructure.

"You don't want to constrain an economy based on energy, and I think that will have consequences," he said.

He also acknowledged that the intensive energy needs of its expanding AI venture meant there was slippage on the company's climate targets, but insisted Alphabet still had a target of achieving net zero by 2030 by investing in new energy technologies.

"The rate at which we were hoping to make progress will be impacted," he said.

AI will also affect work as we know it, Mr Pichai said, calling it "the most profound technology" humankind had worked on.

"We will have to work through societal disruptions," he said, adding that it would also "create new opportunities".

"It will evolve and transition certain jobs, and people will need to adapt," he said. Those who do adapt to AI "will do better".

"It doesn't matter whether you want to be a teacher [or] a doctor. All those professions will be around, but the people who will do well in each of those professions are people who learn how to use these tools."

A green promotional banner with black squares and rectangles forming pixels, moving in from the right. The text says: “Tech Decoded: The world’s biggest tech news in your inbox every Monday.”

Read the original article

Comments

  • By OptionOfT 2025-11-1819:5922 reply

    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 more efficient with fewer people, but my business leaders are also saying they can't reduce head count yet."

    The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles.

    Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

    • By cedws 2025-11-1820:4628 reply

      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.

      Social media is driving society apart, making people selfish, jealous, and angry.

      Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. It will just be used to stomp on ordinary people and create even more inequality.

      • By jaredklewis 2025-11-191:238 reply

        > That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it.

        I'm skeptical of this explanation for falling birthrates just because birthrates are falling across the world and there seems to be no correlation between fertility and financial security. America has low birthrates. Scandinavia (usually considered to have generous welfare states) has low birthrates. Hungary, where the government gives massive tax breaks (IIRC they spend around ~6% of their GDP on child incentives), has low birthrates. Europe, East Asia, India, the Middle East, the Americas, basically the whole world except for central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (which are catching up) has low birth rates. Obviously the economic conditions between basically all the countries in the world varies wildly, but there isn't a consistent relationship between those conditions and fertility.

        Also within countries, the number of children people have is not always correlated with wealth (and at times in the past 60 years it has been negatively correlated).

        Anyway, I find your argument intuitive, but it doesn't seem to align with the data we have.

        • By uniq7 2025-11-191:318 reply

          In which of those countries is it possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children?

          • By zdragnar 2025-11-1910:132 reply

            Two of my friends with relatively ordinary jobs have stay at home spouses. The cost of daycare is so high that it would basically eat up one of their salaries, and this way they get to actually spend time with their children, which they find to be more filling than a BS career.

            It is definitely doable in the US, and I would imagine most Western countries as well. My knowledge outside of them isn't current enough to speak for the rest.

            • By ThunderSizzle 2025-11-1911:343 reply

              It's do-able, but the housing crisis needs to be resolved. People will never own a house if they didn't have skin in the game by 2021. Salaries are not rising to match housing price inflation.

              Specifically, both house prices and interest need to go down heavily. Sadly, they used higher interest to try to lower prices, and that didn't really bring prices down.

              More supply isn't helping much either, as there is no diversity of supply, and builds aren't undercutting the market yet.

              • By alexjplant 2025-11-1915:221 reply

                > house prices [...] need to go down heavily.

                As a layperson I have a feeling that's not going to happen. The working class has too much wealth tied up in their homes because US society and the government have encouraged people to treat it as a store of wealth instead of a box that shields them from the weather. People talk constantly about "getting on the property ladder", "buying more land because they aren't making more of it", "having a landlord side hustle", etc. A house is a lot more tangible than stocks so people without knowledge of finance feel much better about investing in one (understandably so - also forget about Social Security). Combine this with associated government tax subsidies and mortgage underwriting programs and you've basically created a situation where home prices can't do anything but go up.

                Look at the amortization table for the proposed 50 year mortgage: borrowers wouldn't be making a dent in the principal for a good 10 or 15 years. The underlying assumption here is that people would make money via home price appreciation, i.e. speculation, not from creating an actual store of value. We already kicked this can once when the 30-year mortgage became a thing 60 years ago.

                Of course one can't draw the current trend line into infinity because of affordability but I highly doubt it'll go down appreciably. I also don't know enough to have a solution to this problem - any ideas?

                • By nradov 2025-11-1916:081 reply

                  The uneven demographic curve shows that many elderly current homeowners will have to sell over the next couple decades due to death or moving into assisted living facilities. That will increase supply and reduce demand, although the impact will vary widely by region. Don't expect any major price reductions in popular areas but there may be further collapses in certain rural and economically stagnant areas. You can look at Japan for a preview of how that plays out.

                  • By jchallis 2025-11-1917:411 reply

                    Tax planning can help here. By converting the house to ownership by a tax-advantaged trust , a family absolutely can continue to extract rent from a former property without selling. Doubly so if the mortgage is paid off.

                    • By nradov 2025-11-1918:55

                      Sure, that can help affluent families in some cases. But many elderly people will be forced to sell (or reverse mortgage) their real estate holdings in order to pay for long-term care. Fees at decent assisted living facilities are often in the $8K per month range now so the only way to afford it is to sell the family home.

              • By dragonwriter 2025-11-1917:021 reply

                > More supply isn't helping much either,

                that's because "more supply" hasn't been anywhere close to enough supply, judging by historical housing needs by population age demographics. More supply is absolutely the key thing missing, but it needs to be a lot more supply.

                https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/housing-market-why-homes-ex...

                • By autoexec 2025-11-1922:50

                  There are millions of vacant homes in the US. There's even a fun little infographic that breaks it down by state https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/vacant-hous...

                  Not all of those empty houses will be places people want to live in, but I'd bet a fair amount of them are perfectly fine places people would love to call home if they could only afford them.

              • By formerly_proven 2025-11-1911:543 reply

                > It's do-able, but the housing crisis needs to be resolved.

                Why? Almost everywhere a majority of people (and certainly the majority of voters) are already invested in housing and do not want their investment to loose value.

                > Specifically, both house prices and interest need to go down heavily. Sadly, they used higher interest to try to lower prices, and that didn't really bring prices down.

                People are more willing to spend an ever-growing share of their dual-incomes on housing, which drives housing prices modulo interest. So interest has no actual effect on housing affordability, since it doesn't influence how much people are willing to spend. If you lower interest, prices are simply going to rise such that people spend the same % of their income on housing. If you increase interest, prices will (eventually, slowly, since this is a seller-dominated market) fall to match.

                > More supply isn't helping much either, as there is no diversity of supply, and builds aren't undercutting the market yet.

                New builds will never be cheaper than existing housing stock. Low-cost new housing is a mirage; new housing is premium by construction.

                • By hello_moto 2025-11-1916:00

                  Diversity in property means condos with various configurations, rowhouses, townhouses, multiplex (duplex, quadplex, sixplex).

                  Where I live, the local government decided to remove zoning thereby allowing more varieties of properties.

                  Price comes down in the sense that the missing middle provide options between condo to townhouse to detached

                • By IX-103 2025-11-1912:293 reply

                  It doesn't help that new builds seem to focus on the high end for housing (because that is where the profit is). If we keep building more expensive housing it shouldn't be surprising that the average cost of housing increases.

                  • By lazide 2025-11-1914:02

                    People buying their first house almost never got new housing - ever. They’d buy a starter home, which was older, needed some work, etc.

                    A big issue here is expectations - people are complaining because they can’t buy their own standalone house in a good neighborhood right next to work - while work is in a high demand, high pay area.

                    Also, well paid work is centralizing, so so the gradient is getting steeper (or was, pre-remote work).

                    Guess what, that was never the norm!

                    But a lot of people did buy in what were at the time low demand, high supply, areas that later became high demand areas! Like early Los Angeles.

                    Also, everything is getting more expensive relative to ‘hour worked’ because of centralization of capital, and more work force participation.

                  • By dragonwriter 2025-11-1917:07

                    No, what doesn't help is that the new builds aren't nearly enough. If they were quantitatively sufficient, it wouldn't matter if they all targeted the high end, because the people moving in to it would be pulling demand away from other existing units, with a ripple effect across the whole market.

                    What many people don't realize is how badly the total housing inventory has fallen behind what is needed for the population since the Great Recession.

                  • By azan_ 2025-11-1916:55

                    It absolutely helps - people who move to high end housing free up other, cheaper apartments (recent economic paper has clearly showed that this works, you can easily find it)

                • By lotsoweiners 2025-11-1915:08

                  > If you increase interest, prices will (eventually, slowly, since this is a seller-dominated market) fall to match.

                  That may “fix” home prices but not the important thing to most, monthly payments.

            • By bossyTeacher 2025-11-1912:361 reply

              Problem is that in case of divorce, the stay at home partner financially suffers the most

              • By clbrmbr 2025-11-1913:422 reply

                What do you mean, they typically get half the assets and a sizable chunk of the other partner’s salary in alimony that they don’t need to give up if they do become employed, and then if childcare is needed typically this would be an extra child support expense that both parties pay for even if the erstwhile stay-at-home parent has full custody.

                How would the stay-at-home parent get a bad deal here?

                • By rchaud 2025-11-1916:54

                  If you can't afford childcare, getting half of the assets in a divorce doesn't amount to much. Divorce lawyers don't work for free either.

          • By TuringNYC 2025-11-1915:16

            >> In which of those countries is it possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children?

            It seems impossible to do this in 2025 with white collar work because so much of it is tied to HCOL cities (except for hedge funders, FAANG workers who got lucky on timing, bankers, some lawyers.)

            From what I can see amongst friends and family -- it is possible with blue collar trades jobs where you can be selective on where in the country you can live and where you have some level of ownership of your practice. There are numerous affordable locations in the country.

            I can confirm -- based on how difficult it is to get an appointment -- that my tree guy, electrician, and plumber all make more than me as an executive. Some of these workers further force payments in cash, so they are probably not even paying tax on all their income.

          • By roenxi 2025-11-1910:453 reply

            If they're happy to do it to 1970s standards, probably most of them. The standard of what an ordinary life looks like has gone up a lot. Plus when only the man worked looking after a home was a full time job - much less in the way of microwaves and washing machines and whatnot. It is worth remembering that in the early 1900s there were a lot of houses that didn't even have electricity.

            The trends [0] are clear. As society offers people more comfort they have less children. Often radically so, having a GDP per capita of above $30k basically means that people stop having enough babies to hit the replacement rate.

            [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

            • By piltdownman 2025-11-1914:321 reply

              // Plus when only the man worked looking after a home was a full time job

              If we completely ignore the commonplace role of the maid, nanny or domestic helper — women in 1965 spent the same amount of time on child care and only about 10 more hours on housework a week than women in 2011. According to the 1870 census, “52 percent of employed women worked in ‘domestic and personal service.’” From 1870 through the mid-1900s, that percentage only increased.

              https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/decline...

              //much less in the way of microwaves and washing machines and whatnot

              The CPI accounts for these as 'hedonic quality adjustment'.

              It's always convenient to benchmark this against 1970s onwards as it was the first year that data on race and ethnicity was included in the income statistics. However 1970 is also a recession year which bottomed out the market and eventually led to an oil crisis for most of the decade.

              Adjust for inflation to 2023 and its inarguable.

              New house: $23,450 -> $174,468 Average Income: $9,400 -> $69,936 New car: $3,450 -> $25,668 Minimum Wage: $2.10 -> $15.62

              • By roenxi 2025-11-1921:29

                And is the summary version that it is just as easy for someone to support a family now as in the 1970s? I'm a bit lost on what view you're invoking those statistics to support.

            • By engeljohnb 2025-11-1912:493 reply

              This ridiculous lie needs to end.

              I can get a microwave for ~$60.

              I can get a decent used cell phone for ~$100.

              Appliances are a little more expensive, but I can get a washing machine for ~$300, less if I go to facebook marketplace.

              But in my area, a victorian house that's litterally crumbling with no central cooling and not up-to-code wiring where you can't run a hair dryer and coffee machine at the same time?

              $180,000

              Cost of rent at a similar quality house half the size?

              $1600/month

              Modern comforts are not the reason people can't afford to live.

              • By kakacik 2025-11-1914:05

                Modern mindsets are. 100 years ago you passed as a good parent if your kids weren't all mental asylum cases due to how their home and role models looked like, you didn't beat them regularly to pulp to vent off frustrations, didn't run away, weren't raging alcoholic and just let them grow up on their own, with some input from mother. Some survived, some didn't.

                Try to do it now - what about pregnancy leave? Post-birth leave even in situation with no health complications for mother and child? Creche? Pre-school? Post-school activities? Frequent visits to doctors. And so on and on. When are we supposed to do so with our active even if just normal careers? These are massive costs even in Europe, must be absolutely crushing in US.

                People come home at the evening, drained from work. Who can efficiently handle well more than 2 small kids on top of all that and other duties that life daily puts on each of us?

                There are studies showing that happiness of parents peaks with 2 kids, and 3rd is already a dive into less happiness for most and it doesn't stop there. So massive financial, time and energy costs to reach even replacement rate are not worth it.

                We have 2 kids and somehow managing without nanny or parents nearby. 2 families of peers who have 3 kids are almost impossible to get together with - they are barely managing somehow, most of the time, always late by an hour or two to any meeting. Its really a massive jump in complexity. For more, you properly need a nanny or close family helping out massively, it just doesn't work with 2 people working without hitting burnout or two.

                But then its delegated parenting - why even bother with more kids if you don't raise your own kids, donate sperm or an egg if you just need to tackle a checkbox in life. Parenting needs are more than fulfilled with 2 kids. If state needs more it needs to create something better than 2-3 decades of nightmare to raise them for regular folks. State help even in Europe (or lack of it) is not something motivating to have more kids.

              • By roenxi 2025-11-1921:331 reply

                You've forgotten electricity, depreciation and the need for the house to be wired up to support all the gear. The figures you're quoting are just the price for a one-off purchase, not the total cost of ownership.

                > But in my area, a victorian house that's litterally crumbling with no central cooling and not up-to-code wiring where you can't run a hair dryer and coffee machine at the same time?

                > $180,000

                I'm not familiar with the market you're talking about. What is the median wage in the area that we're comparing $180,000 to?

                • By engeljohnb 2025-11-201:171 reply

                  This is all real numbers from ny recent job search. It was in a rural area in Indiana, a reportedly low COL state. So anything close to a city would've been way more expensive.

                  > You've forgotten electricity, depreciation and the need for the house to be wired up to support all the gear. The figures you're quoting are just the price for a one-off purchase, not the total cost of ownership.

                  Cost of total rewire was quoted $30,000. We didn't end up buying that house, but 30k is honestly a drop in the bucket when you're talking about numbers as huge as 180k. So no, the inclusion of electrical wiring is not some big expense that's making housing unaffordable. And houses had electricity in the mid-to-late 20th century... You know, back when it was reasonable to expect to be able to buy a house on one income without even a college degree.

                  Our electricity bill is usually ~$200/month. This is not what eats most of our paycheck. Our mortgage is far and away our biggest expense.

                  If houses still costed 20k (a price that many older folks have told me they bought a house for), even with a full rewire bringing it up to $50k, some kid working at Walmart could own a house. Now both renting and buying are prohibitively expensive, and it has nothing to do with modern amenities.

                  Housing costs are outrageous, far beyond the rate of inflation. That's why many can barely pay their bills. Not because we have electricity and washing machines and and microwaves.

                  • By roenxi 2025-11-206:161 reply

                    > Cost of total rewire was quoted $30,000. We didn't end up buying that house, but 30k is honestly a drop in the bucket when you're talking about numbers as huge as 180k

                    It's 15%. That is a substantial chunk of the whole.

                    > Our electricity bill is usually ~$200/month. This is not what eats most of our paycheck. Our mortgage is far and away our biggest expense.

                    Your mortgage is what, 20 years? $200 x 12 x 20 ~= $50,000, and around 25% of the mortgage principle. We've found 43% (almost a half house) of the cost so far in the electricity alone. Wiring it up and running the grid aren't cheap. I've always suspected it is illegal to build & sell a house without electricity otherwise there'd probably be a brisk market in them as a cheap option, the savings potential is there.

                    But that isn't the point, I can't tell if $180k is large or small without a median income to compare it to. If people in the area are earning $90k/yr then it might technically be cheap. A ratio of 3 I think is usual for the 70s.

                    • By engeljohnb 2025-11-2010:232 reply

                      You said

                      > If they're happy to do it to 1970s standards, probably most of them [could support a family on one income with an ordinary job].

                      Our house has the same electrical wiring that it did in 1969. The couple that sold us the house told us they bought it for $20k, which means a cashier could have afforded it back then, but now it's too expensive. Therefore, the fact that it has electricity has no bearing on whether it's prohibitively expensive for most people, and I can make a similar argument for any house built in the mid 20th century.

                      >Your mortgage is what, 20 years? $200 x 12 x 20 ~= $50,000, and around 25% of the mortgage principle. We've found 43% (almost a half house) of the cost so far in the electricity alone. Wiring it up and running the grid aren't cheap. I've always suspected it is illegal to build & sell a house without electricity otherwise there'd probably be a brisk market in them as a cheap option, the savings potential is there.

                      Practically all houses had electricity in the 70s. So this is already contradicting what you said earlier if you're citing electricity as the reason no one can afford a house on one income.

                      >It's 15%. That is a substantial chunk of the whole.

                      It doesn't matter if it's substantial. I'm only saying it's not so much that it's the reason no one can buy a house and support a family with an ordinary job.

                      Median income doesn't matter to my point. Housing prices have skyrocketed to the point that most people can't buy a house on one income. No one who's paying attention can deny this fact with a straight face, and your claim that it wouldn't be true if people lived by "1970s standards" is easily proven false by the fact that houses that were built in the 1970s with all the exact same amenities are still overpriced way beyond inflation.

                      The fact that a Victorian house that's falling apart to the point of being dangerous was listed ANYWHERE for $180,000 serves my point.

                      • By alwa 2025-11-2018:52

                        They bought it for $20K in 1969, or am I misunderstanding?

                        https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ suggests that’s almost exactly $180K in 2025 dollars…

                      • By roenxi 2025-11-2011:41

                        Fair enough, call it 50s lifestyle then. I looked it up and if we're talking about the US as a benchmark then turns out [0] the 70s was when women were basically finishing the process of integrating into the workforce. That wasn't an era where one man could support a family. Families were working with a duel income.

                        Point is that one working man isn't enough horsepower to support a family to modern living standards and never has been. The standard that one person could support was low and in practical terms has only improved over time.

                        > Median income doesn't matter to my point. Housing prices have skyrocketed to the point that most people can't buy a house on one income.

                        It matters a lot, that can't be asserted that without considering the ratio of income to house prices - the median income, in nominal terms, has skyrocketed too. Whether the median income or house prices rocketed more and by how much is quite material. If male full time earners are making $90k/year in an area, for example, then a $180k/year house could be said to be quite affordable to a single-income family.

                        If house prices in my area dropped to $180k then people would be talking about how wonderfully cheap housing had gotten and how great it was now that every young couple could afford a house.

                        > So this is already contradicting what you said earlier if you're citing electricity as the reason no one can afford a house on one income.

                        I don't think I actually said that initially, but the numbers you've quoted have convinced me it is at least partially true. The electrical costs appear to be comparable to the amount of money that the house cost according to the numbers you suggested. That is a significant factor in what people can afford. If they avoid almost half a house's worth of expenses then that will go a long way towards being able to afford a house.

                        [0] https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics/women-labor-force.htm

              • By ralphhughes 2025-11-1913:451 reply

                It's fascinating and depressing how despite me being in a different country on the other side of the world to you, if I swap the $ for £, your comment is still accurate based on the current situation in the UK.

                • By dzonga 2025-11-1916:56

                  the 1 bed attic apartment I lived in london - rent 1550 - cost to buy £300k.

                  that's when I knew it was time to leave the uk.

                  at least the us & most non eu countries have cheap power. which means better standards of living.

            • By ako 2025-11-1911:391 reply

              According to Hans Rosling correlation was more between education level of women and the number of children: the higher women are educated, the less children they decide to have.

              • By Peritract 2025-11-1913:171 reply

                Another potential framing is that the higher women are educated, the more they get to decide.

                • By lazide 2025-11-1913:50

                  Also - the more education men have, and the higher income they have, the less they want to join the military.

                  It’s a similar type of issue - of course individuals don’t want to submit to a painful process with high risk and sometimes dubious value to them individually if they have other choices.

                  Most places in the developed world aren’t currently drafting large portions of their population for military service - and a large portion of the population says they’d fight it if they did. Maybe at some point, they wouldn’t have a choice - or the choice would be made very expensive for them to make the other way.

                  I suspect it will be similar for birth rates too.

          • By jaredklewis 2025-11-192:171 reply

            I mean that I know of first hand, just the US and Japan. "Possible" being a low bar that just means that I've seen it at least once.

            I don't think data with all of those factors (household income, number of earners per household, gender of the earners, home ownership, and number of children) exists for any country. Do you have data like that for 1960s America or is your argument based on extrapolations from watching Leave it to Beaver?

            But if we abstract your hypothesis slightly to: fertility is lower now than in 1960 because people are less financially secure now than they were in 1960, I don't think the data we have supports this.

            • By f1shy 2025-11-197:391 reply

              I have seen it all across the EU. Is pretty doable (granted, you have a University title). But you can absolutely buy a home and have a couple of children which will have absolute all they need.

              • By zwnow 2025-11-197:501 reply

                Yea because the average Joe totally has a university title. However in Germany a lot of poor people have many children while a lot of academics have less [0]. It's "doable" also doesn't mean its pleasant. I have checked the rural housing market recently and for a somewhat acceptable house you will have to pay easily ~3k per month given you have a somewhat big start capital. Not sustainable if one person loses their job for a while. Not to say it was that much easier back in the day, the housing market is just beyond fucked for most ordinary people.

                [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

                • By f1shy 2025-11-199:562 reply

                  A decent Flat in Germany, for example near Stuttgart, with good connections with train is about 300k. There are credit lines for 25 years with relative low interest rates. For that you are way lower than 3k per month (assuming 0 downpayment). With 2 people working in a household, you can afford that. Granted, you will not be the "typical" german doing 3 times a year nice vacations. But doing a "real" 1 or 2 week vacation once every 2 years is pretty much standard outside Germany, I think.

                  • By frm88 2025-11-1910:381 reply

                    The price you noted will not buy you a decent flat in the vicinity of Stuttgart with good train connections. At least not for a family. The prices are around € 4.4K/m2. And that's the median. For newer buildings it's up to € 5.5K.

                      • By frm88 2025-11-207:491 reply

                        A 10 second look: the garage place for one car is an extra 20k. The heating is 27 years old, so are the bathroom installations and the kitchen. I, personally don't want to sit on a 27 year old loo. To get this on to a modern level - at least another 50k.

                        Edit: I just checked on the laws etc. 2-wire electric installations are no longer allowed and property owners are obligated to renew them. In this case that would have to be done in the complete house with all other owners. Congratulations, there go another 50k.

                        • By f1shy 2025-11-2010:131 reply

                          That of the 2 wire is just wrong. At this point I do not know if you want to win the discussion or what. I live in a 2 wire-wired house. As long as I do not change the installation, is all ok.

                          Wann die Änderung verpflichtend ist Bei Neuanlagen: Die klassische Nullung darf seit 1973 nicht mehr für neue Installationen verwendet werden. Bei Modernisierungen: Wenn im Rahmen von Renovierungen oder Erweiterungen gearbeitet wird, müssen betroffene Stromkreise auf ein separates Null- und Schutzleitersystem umgerüstet werden. Bei unsicheren Anlagen: Ist der Bestandsschutz nicht mehr gegeben, weil Mängel oder Gefahren bestehen, die die Sicherheit für Leib und Leben oder Sachen gefährden, ist eine Umrüstung erforderlich.

                          You can live without a garage. Can't you? In Germany a car is pretty safe in the street. And I assume, you do not have a 50k+ car, if we are discussing "why can't I buy a house"...

                          Kitchen and Bath look perfectly usable for many years still... That is what I mean. People say "I will not have a house" but what they mean is: "I will not have a perfect house, with completely new bath and kitchen, garage, lots of room for everything, very well located" well, no, you will not. Sorry.

                          I agree about heating. But 50k is for the whole building, which will probably have reserves, so it will cost you maybe 5k to 10k spread in 6 months or so. And you get state help because you will surely go for heat-pump, means it even goes a little down. So the price goes to 310k...

                          • By frm88 2025-11-2010:37

                            The point about the bathrooms and tiles isn't about perfectionism, it's about mould. After 27 years of use I'd renovate wet usage rooms to reduce the health risk for my children. The same goes for the kitchen.

                            If the owner community decides on a heat pump, the wiring will have to be completely renewed. If the owner community decides on a modern oil heating system, the wiring will have to be renewed.

                            Parking your cars in the street while there is the option for a garage is somewhat antisocial, but let's not moralise. The garage is not optional, it's not sondereigentum or else it would have to be mentioned, so you'll have to pay.

                            What you are buying with this property is major financial uncertainty. There is a reason for this price.

                  • By zwnow 2025-11-1910:062 reply

                    I live in the middle of nowhere in Northern Germany. A house where you wont have to tear down the whole place starts at 400k. And that's a basic small sub 100m^2 house with no garden.

                    Sorry but I wont get myself into 40 year debt for a bungalow.

                    After my father's death we sold our old family home for ~70k€ 15 years ago. It would have been in the 300-400k range nowadays. My salary certainly did not double - triple in that time frame.

                    • By hello_moto 2025-11-1916:071 reply

                      Inflation and rich people buying asset class drives everything up

                      • By zwnow 2025-11-1918:361 reply

                        Ill just live for rent and let landlords leech my hard earned money. Gives me freedom to leave whenever I feel like it...

                        I am already 30, wont have a good start capital at 40 and I for sure wont buy a house that late in life.

                        • By f1shy 2025-11-1919:181 reply

                          How much do you wxpend wvery year on vacation and “going out“

                          I know plenty of people in germany who repeat continuously that stance, and they recognize they spend well over 10k/year in vacacions.

                          • By zwnow 2025-11-1919:561 reply

                            Ill fly to Japan next year. First foreign country vacation in 14 years. Estimated costs 3-4k. I go to concerts every few months so I spend a few hundred bucks there. Other than that most of my money goes into rent and food. I have some somewhat expensive contracts though. 50€ phone, 50€ internet.

                            Going out is living life though, I wont reduce my quality of life for decades just so I can afford a house.

                            But in short, I do barely spend money on vacations.

                            • By f1shy 2025-11-205:301 reply

                              You are certainly not the type I am referring to. Even if you cut all that, will not help a lot.

                              Anayway my story: never ever sid vacation abroad.Vacation outside my home only every 2 or 3 years. Never eat out. I have no idea how is it to go to a concert. No expensive hobbies. When I was 40 all of that provided 40k for a down payment.

                              I do not regret it.

                              • By zwnow 2025-11-2011:511 reply

                                I can manage to save 500-1000€ per month. For me the biggest issue is just the general pricing. Maybe its emotional too, but I have fond memories of my family house when I was a kid and I dont want to buy comparatively a bungalow for quadruple the price.

                                • By f1shy 2025-11-2013:37

                                  TBH, if the german economy keeps in this track, at some point the prices will go down... the problem is at that point everything will go down.

                    • By f1shy 2025-11-1919:141 reply

                      You are talking house… I did not say house. I said home, meaning anything, including a flat. Yes, owning land is expensive. So what?

                      • By zwnow 2025-11-1920:01

                        A flat is barely worth it given you still have to bother with neighbors. Those are also 6 digit numbers up here. Not happening. I want a home like my parents used to have. Regular old German refugee home with a nice garden, 3-4 rooms, 2 levels, 2 bathrooms, small cellar. Sounds big, was a rather small house though. Garden had space and a shed to work in. We sold that for 70k 15 years ago and I wont buy a flat for 130k where I possibly have to bother with noisy neighbors.

          • By 4er_transform 2025-11-1913:57

            In which periods in human history has that been possible? In the parts of the world with the highest birth rates is that possible?

          • By dennis_jeeves2 2025-11-2123:16

            0

          • By watwut 2025-11-197:02

            Ordinary men have wifes and two children in all those countries. You are also projecting American lifestyle "buying house without family help is necessary" on countries "hungary" where this was not an expectation for a really really long time. Like, generations.

          • By amy_petrik 2025-11-191:492 reply

            It's a simple catch-22

            - women don't want to leave the workforce because one salary cannot support a family

            - yet women remaining in the workforce, since single-salary is infeasible, thusly doubling supply of workers, lowering salaries, which itself makes it infeasible to single-income a family

            Not to pick on women, as a feminist if you ask me, all modern men should have to be houseboys to serve their feminine masters. It does suck but it is necessary to benefit the modern women who did not suffer, in so by causing modern men to suffer -- to make amends for the suffering of all women in the perpetuity of history at the hands of all historical men, neither of which are alive today.

            • By ThunderSizzle 2025-11-1911:401 reply

              A woman who intentionally went corporate and avoided having kids, and wasted her maternal instincts on someone else's profits, will suffer when their body clock catches up to them, and the company leaves them behind.

              You can't go back and get pregnant. And your marriage probably ended in divorce already anyway by now, which is a whole more amount of suffering.

              • By mittensc 2025-11-1914:251 reply

                Why do you feel the need to tell others how to live their lives?, frustration with your own?

                • By ThunderSizzle 2025-11-1916:091 reply

                  I'm not telling them how to live their lives. I'm just predicting the path that is made based on the choices made.

                  Everyone is on a journey, and the path their journey takes is partially the choices made. People are allowed to think hard about their choices, and the choices of others.

                  If they want their path to go their, so be it, and but it's cruel to not discuss the ramifications of choices made.

                  • By mittensc 2025-11-1916:26

                    what if you are wrong in your conlusions and thinking?

            • By kamaal 2025-11-196:592 reply

              Well that's the point, men are refusing to suffer.

              There is little incentive to walking in a contract, where you are working all the time, no appreciation, love, gratitude or even a thank you. All the time being made to feel like you are not measuring up. And they'd rather be with somebody else apart from you. That done, you also come back from work and do all the chores you would if you remained single.

              And if a few years later the other party decided to break the contract, now they take your home, get monthly pensions(with raises), and get to start the process all over again with somebody else at your expense.

              Plus these days kids don't stay back with aging parents to care for them, so having kids appears pointless as well.

              By and large, let alone an incentive, marriage and children seem to a massive negative for men. Hence I wouldn't be surprised low marriage and birth rates all over the world.

              Why would you want to do all this? When you can work, keep the money, and spend it for your pleasure by staying single?

              • By MSFT_Edging 2025-11-1912:41

                You can spot a guy who 100% contributed to his divorce a mile away.

                Basically a glowing LED billboard.

              • By watwut 2025-11-197:132 reply

                Except that it is men who complain constantly about wanting to marry and have kids while women are much more content being single and have friends.

                You dont have to pay alimony of the wife worked thw whole time. That complain is funny in the comtext of men demanding to return back to time where alimony arrangement was necessary protection.

                Even in marriage, it is more of women who initiate divorce are report higher hapiness after the divorce. Men report lower hapiness and are more likely yo want to marry again.

                • By kamaal 2025-11-199:541 reply

                  Its in the nature of men to work and provide. That's how men seek fulfilment in life.

                  But if you dial up the pain in the process men will bail. This shouldn't be surprising.

                  Perhaps the most primal biological set up of all, the very basis of evolution is response to stimulus.

                  • By 4ggr0 2025-11-1910:251 reply

                    > Its in the nature of men to work and provide. That's how men seek fulfilment in life.

                    i'm sorry, what? it's ingrained in men to be worker-drones and every man sees this as his fulfillment?

                    yikes. as the kids say, 'touch grass'. translated for older people, "maybe expand your world-view and don't extrapolate your idea of a man to all of men."

                    • By ThunderSizzle 2025-11-1911:441 reply

                      Men are workers. Not all work needs to be a "worker-drone", but yes, all men are built towards some form of work, and that work typically is around an item of sorts.

                      Men can work all sorts of ways, and that can include raising kids. Women tend to be a lot less happier leaving their kids to go toil with the dirt.

                      • By 4ggr0 2025-11-1912:041 reply

                        > Men are workers

                        What are women, then? Baby-machines, cooks and cleaners, which I guess you don't see as work?

                        I mean it's not the first time I encounter a dude with the same opinion as you have, but every time I'm surprised by the casual reductionism of our societies. Men make work, Women make baby. Men hard, Women soft. Men strong and powerful. Women weak and emotional.

                        • By Jensson 2025-11-1913:091 reply

                          > Men make work, Women make baby. Men hard, Women soft. Men strong and powerful. Women weak and emotional.

                          On average those are true though, men work more, women take more care of children, men are harder than women, men are stronger than women, and women are more emotional than men. On average.

                          It is fine for women to be manly and men to be feminine, but that doesn't negate the fact that most women are feminine and most men are masculine.

                          • By 4ggr0 2025-11-1914:031 reply

                            Agree to Disagree, I've spent enough time of my life to discuss this exact topic. Men® are Men® and Women™ are Women™, so be it. On average everyone is exactly the same, as long as you look at the same gender. Wait, what's gend...forget it.

                            • By ThunderSizzle 2025-11-1916:041 reply

                              "All people are the same" argument basically negates thousands of years of history, basic human knowledge, etc. Biology impacts quite a bit. For example, if your family comes from Asia, chances are your more prone to lactose intolerance than European-based areas. It's also why most Asian dishes don't have any sort of cheese or dairy - there was no real history of that type of agriculture compared to Europe. To ignore all this and throw it out so that people can pretend to be the exact same is to throw all of history out the window, and to pretend that we're not standing on shoulders of giants that helped craft modern civilization as we know it.

                              Men are Men, and Women are Women. But Women wanted to be like Men, so they did, but Men don't like Women as Men, and Women are shocked to learn this.

                              Now people don't even know what a Woman is.

                              • By 4ggr0 2025-11-1919:33

                                > But Women wanted to be like Men, so they did, but Men don't like Women as Men, and Women are shocked to learn this [...] Now people don't even know what a Woman is.

                                even though i did write that i am done with discussing this topic with people, a sliver of hope was was in my mind. maybe if i continued engaging, you would make a clearer point. but you started by comparing racial, geographical quirks of different cultures to a 50/50 gender split over the whole world. more asian women and men are lactose intolerant, but surely 99% of their women are obedient housewives and 99% of the men are workhorse providers. globally, of course, in every culture. that's just the way things are, respect history, yo.

                                then you decided to go on a rant about women specifically wanting this and that. and then decided to top it all off with some nice transphobic(call it what you want) bs.

                                i don't have the energy to seriously reply to this, and even if, it probably wouldn't matter anyways. cheers, Man®

                • By bossyTeacher 2025-11-1912:42

                  > Except that it is men who complain constantly about wanting to marry and have kids

                  Easy to want that when "have kids" just means "impregnating your wife". Bet most of them would balk at the prospective of a 2 decade long 24/7 childcare duty routine if they had to do it themselves. Plus, if they really wanted to raise kids, many in orphans would benefit from a parent

        • By akoboldfrying 2025-11-196:441 reply

          Birth rates correlate negatively with education of women. I read somewhere that this is one of the most robust findings in all of social science (and when I asked Gemini just now whether there was such a correlation, it said the same).

          • By jaredklewis 2025-11-197:592 reply

            There’s a (positive or negative) correlation between birth rates and dozens of factors, because over the period birth rates have been falling, the world has changed dramatically. Issue is we don’t know what is causal. education also correlates with all kinds of other factors like income, type of work, marital status, and political views, meaning birth rates are also likely correlated with all of these factors.

            • By akoboldfrying 2025-11-198:361 reply

              >Issue is we don’t know what is causal.

              Is it really true that this is not known? Although I only claimed correlation (and am thus surprised that I was downvoted twice, as that claim is obviously true), based on the famous "robustness" of this observation, I strongly suspect that confounding factors like those you mention have already been analysed to death, and found not to eliminate the explanatory power of women's education.

              At least, checking these confounders seems an obviously valuable and interesting avenue to explore. If it hasn't been done yet, I wonder what social scientists are doing instead.

              • By otabdeveloper4 2025-11-1913:101 reply

                > I strongly suspect that confounding factors like those you mention have already been analysed to death

                I doubt it, because the xUSSR is an obvious counterexample.

                Access to condoms is probably a bigger factor.

                • By akoboldfrying 2025-11-1921:04

                  I agree that access to birth control is a strong factor and likely heavily confounded with women's education. I think there will have been examples of women's education but lack of birth control (e.g., predominantly Catholic nations, especially early on), not sure if there are many examples in the other direction though.

                  Unfamiliar with USSR -- is the birth rate high there despite lots of educated women?

        • By judahmeek 2025-11-2118:50

          The best explanation I've heard for the falling birth rates of developed countries is that the cause is a massive increase in social expectation on parents.

          It used to be that whether your child made it through childhood was up to God due to the massive number of risk factors beyond the parents' control. Those risk factors are much more easily mitigated in developed countries, so now the responsibility rests solely on the parents, and that's why kids can no longer go outside.

        • By nairboon 2025-11-195:554 reply

          A generous welfare state (like the Nordics or Switzerland) does not necessarily mean that the middle class is well off with lots of resources for kids. Usually it's the middle class (+upper class) that pays for the generous welfare state, but gets almost none of the benefits. You don't get/need the welfare, if you earn enough to be considered middle class.

          • By lazide 2025-11-1912:14

            Expensive to have kids is a symptom, not a cause of the issue.

            Fewer kids == more investment per kid == more competition for high quality everything == more costs.

            Also, more workers in the labor force (aka fewer SAHM’s, etc) == more competition for labor == lower cost for labor (vs historic trends) == can buy less with an hours labor.

            The ratio of pay for an hours work to a daycare hour is at historic highs, and there is a reason for that.

            If you look at women’s participation in the workforce and overlay it with ratios of worker pay vs buying power, it’s a pretty obvious correlation. There is a reason that labor has been losing ground since the 70’s, and it’s largely because birth control means that women can put off having kids (while still meeting needs like having sex and being in relationships) in order to work and make money and be independent.

            The issue here is - whatcha going to do about it?

            Most women I know eventually want kids, but then they get screwed by all the younger women who don’t yet want kids making the market, ahem, not very amenable.

            And they’re caught in the rat race, which is its own kind of miserable, especially when everyone is competing for the same slots, instead of the roughly half that was the historic norm.

            There really is no free lunch though - plenty of horror stories from before too.

          • By WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 2025-11-1910:50

            You might be confusing Switzerland with something else. Switzerland is low tax, private and expensive healthcare and childcare.

          • By cluckindan 2025-11-197:071 reply

            If by ”Nordics” you mean the rich oil kingdom of Norway, sure. Everyone else has been cutting back on welfare for the last 20 years.

            • By johnisgood 2025-11-1911:362 reply

              My former friend in Finland finished med school, "for free", while living in a really nice apartment "for free", receiving ADHD medications "for free", and then went to a business school "for free". He has not worked a single day in his life and he is in his very late 20s.

              • By jamesblonde 2025-11-1912:211 reply

                Apart from the free appartment, that's the same as most countries in Europe.

                • By johnisgood 2025-11-1913:491 reply

                  University is not free in most countries in Europe though, is it?

                  • By gessha 2025-11-1914:251 reply

                    It is or it’s heavily subsidized and what you pay for is the admin costs typically, which end up <$1000/year.

                    • By johnisgood 2025-11-208:50

                      I got downvoted, and you replied this... when tuition is not free in most European countries, at least not for higher education. In my country, med school used to cost over $18k, which is probably higher now.

                      Also the very hidden caveat of low or no tuition fee in some other countries is that you study in their language, not English.

              • By cluckindan 2025-11-1913:02

                Your former friend is leaving something out from that story: family financial support. Working class kids rarely go to med school and business school.

                Besides, it is not possible to finish med school without working a couple years as an intern.

          • By user____name 2025-11-1917:03

            Deficit spending central banks and treasury finance the welfare state, we're not on a metal standard anymore.

        • By pchristensen 2025-11-193:451 reply

          This documentary goes into a lot of detail on the causes worldwide: The Birth Gap - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GeVG0XYTc

          • By frm88 2025-11-1913:14

            I just watched this. While I completely disliked the heavy emotional focus and bias of the presenter (for example: no interviews with people who don't want children were held, particularly not men), the data seemed solid. There's a peer review pending - I'd like to look at that when it comes out. If the conclusions are solid, we would have to change our societies and economies in such a fundamental way - I don't see that happening in the next 50 years, if at all.

            Thanks for the link, it was interesting.

        • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:051 reply

          Financial security to young people has been highly correlated all over the world for many decades.

          • By jaredklewis 2025-11-1919:52

            I don't buy that at all. Young people in Russia and next door Finland have equal levels of financial security? What are you basing this on?

            But let's say I did accept your premise, I still don't think financial security drives birth rates. In 1957, almost 10% of teenage women gave birth. Do we think 1957 teenagers were having babies because they were all homeowners with secure, well paying jobs?

        • By croes 2025-11-1912:151 reply

          Having many kids is often because of a necessity like cheap workforce for the family or high child mortality.

          Kids can be fun but also can be really exhausting.

          How many kids are really born just for having am offspring and not because of other reasons.

          If people can consciously decide to have or not to have kids my bet is on falling birth rates.

          For stable population you need two kids per couple and first could be an eye opener that children are a lot of work.

          • By gessha 2025-11-1914:291 reply

            I have a partner and we are the age where we need to decide if we want to have kids or not.

            Genuinely curious - what are some reasons to have kids aside from “just having offspring”?

            • By danielscrubs 2025-11-1916:15

              Might sound cliche but it might shape you to become a responsible person from pure pressure.

              If you are jumping around from project to project, odds are that lack of commitment stems from lack of pressure.

              No one wants pressure though… it’s hell.

        • By guerrilla 2025-11-1914:21

          > America has low birthrates. Scandinavia (usually considered to have generous welfare states) has low birthrates.

          While that's true, things are much worse here than they were in several different dimensions.

      • By gorgoiler 2025-11-1914:253 reply

        Why was it possible for a man in the 1960s to have an ordinary job, a family, and a house? Was there some hidden sector of society that suffered considerably more then now? Is there some sector of society now that prospers proportionally more at the expense of others?

        The answer that immediately springs to mind is that women, ethnic minorities, and the urban poor all did relatively badly in the 1960s. With the latter two categories, for every apple pie home with a sedan and two kids there were umpteen other drafty tenement flats with malnourished families sharing a bedroom:

        British tenements

        https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2021/feb/02...

        NYC tenements

        https://www.nypl.org/blog/2018/06/07/tenement-homes-new-york...

        It’s not one thing or another — many factors have contributed to what feels like change this way or that over the years — but I try to never forget just how abominably crap life used to be for quite a lot of people, and just how much better it is these days.

        • By duped 2025-11-1916:59

          You're going to have a difficult time arguing that the economy was good for white men in the 1960s because it was bad for everyone else. Prosperity is not zero sum.

          Perhaps it has more to do with the lower ratio of people crippled by household debt to pay for housing, healthcare, and education. There's nothing more K-shaped than debt, which is a lever for those with wealth and a weight for everyone else. It's a combination of bad policy and greed that put us where we are.

        • By moduspol 2025-11-1916:491 reply

          > Was there some hidden sector of society that suffered considerably more then now?

          The common theory I've heard is that the rest of the developed world was still recovering from WW2.

          • By solace_silence 2025-11-1922:10

            That is a common explanation, but it kinda implies the world just sat on its hands for 20 years after WWII. I suspect it's just a distraction from the high tax rates and relatively progressive policy at the time, to instead say "it can't happen again".

        • By zaphod12 2025-11-1916:44

          your point isn't necessarily wrong, but using an NYPL overview of tenements which all pre-date WWII to exemplify anything about the 1960s in NYC is disingenuous.

      • By Demiurge 2025-11-1821:048 reply

        > 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.

        • By jitix 2025-11-1821:178 reply

          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, Indonesia, Nigeria, Philippines, etc). Unless US physically invades and devastates China, India or Brazil the competition will keep getting exponentially higher. It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital that could have helped create high value jobs.

          In short, its easier to have high standards of living in your secure isolated island when the rest of the world (including historical industrial powers) are completely decimated by war.

          • By f1shy 2025-11-197:421 reply

            > It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital that could have helped create high value jobs.

            Are you aware of the plan Marshall?

          • By xnx 2025-11-190:50

            > In short, its easier to have high standards of living in your secure isolated island when the rest of the world (including historical industrial powers) are completely decimated by war.

            Don't give them any ideas.

          • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:372 reply

            > 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?

            • By redhed 2025-11-1821:431 reply

              I assume the idea is more money could've been invested into bringing the bottom rungs of American society up and created a more skilled and educated workforce in the process.

              • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:512 reply

                So "social capital" == "education"?

                The US has pushed a shit ton of money into education. I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there.

                • By nradov 2025-11-1822:315 reply

                  Education is part of it. But a lot of the social capital which makes societies prosperous is separate from what we usually consider to be education. On an individual behavior level that includes things like knowing how to show up for work on time, sober, and properly dressed, and follow management instructions without arguing or taking things personally. These are skills that people in the middle and upper classes take for granted but they forget that there are a large number of fellow citizens in the economically disconnected underclass who never had a good opportunity to learn those basics. As a society we've never done a good job of lifting those people up.

                  • By rightbyte 2025-11-192:08

                    > On an individual behavior level that includes things like knowing how to show up for work on time, sober, and properly dressed, and follow management instructions without arguing or taking things personally. These are skills that people in the middle and upper classes take for granted

                    I don't see your point.

                    Those rules does not apply to the upper class and middle class workers have way more leeway regarding that than the lower class.

                  • By jimbokun 2025-11-1914:39

                    That comes from growing up in a two parent family where both parents are responsible and hard working and willing to discipline their children.

                    Government can’t really do much to help with that.

                  • By tbrownaw 2025-11-195:452 reply

                    This seems to be saying that a large fraction of poor people are poor only because of bad habits, which they have only because nobody taught them any better?

                    • By philipallstar 2025-11-1911:561 reply

                      There will be some people like that (e.g. middle class kid has terrible work ethic; communicates it to his kid and now that kid has bad habits), but in the large it's more about culture than individual habits.

                      If one person doesn't show up on time, that's a bad habit. If no one shows up on time then that's a cultural issue[0], and much more devastating.

                      As an example, Zim dug itself a huge hole by kicking out the productive white farmers in 2000-2001. One of the key issues charitable foreign people trying to help Zimbabwe addressed was in re-educating the local population in why it matters that all the planting work is done by a certain time of year. The white farmers had all that knowledge, and cultural experience of hard work, and had made Zimbabwe the breadbasket of Africa.

                      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_time

                      • By varnaud 2025-11-1913:481 reply

                        The productive decline of the farms is because of the fast-track land reform. Before 2000-2001, there were no effective national programs to prepare the people to run the farms. The opposition party was gaining ground, and so to stay in power, the ruling party rushed the land reform with no preparation.

                        Not sure how this is a relevant example of a culture that don't value punctuality.

                        • By philipallstar 2025-11-1915:201 reply

                          Well, for the reason I said. You've reframed it in a way that removes responsibility from everyone involved, but that's just an example of how to reframe things. It's not actually useful.

                          • By tbrownaw 2025-11-203:48

                            > You've reframed it in a way that removes responsibility

                            No, the comment you're replying to pretty clearly put the responsibility on the party that "rushed the land reform with no preparation".

                            And also accurately noted that a nation seizing capital and redistributing it to people who don't know how to use it is rather different from what had been the thread topic of personal skills / useful habits being purportedly unattainable by the lower classes without explicit instruction.

                    • By moduspol 2025-11-1917:011 reply

                      The alternative view would be that differences of culture and values do not materially impact one's chances of becoming financially successful, right?

                      • By tbrownaw 2025-11-203:42

                        "The alternative"... no, one of those proposals being false does not require that the other be true.

                  • By jrjeksjd8d 2025-11-191:151 reply

                    The existence of an upper class necessitates the existence of a lower class. You can't just pull everyone up to be above average.

                    • By nradov 2025-11-191:251 reply

                      What's your point? I didn't make any claims about averages. We could do a lot more to improve opportunities and social mobility for people caught in the permanent underclass.

                      • By Ferret7446 2025-11-192:432 reply

                        But we have. The underclass today has much better lives in many aspects than the highest class from many decades ago. The absolute level of wealth has increased, it's simply that the delta between the high and the low is widening.

                        Would you rather live equally in poverty or live comfortably with others who are way more wealthy than you? Surprisingly people do seem to prefer the former, though I'd prefer the latter

                        • By user____name 2025-11-1917:12

                          This is the sort of reductio ad absurdum inverse relationship that never survives a reality check.

                        • By jimbokun 2025-11-207:31

                          You do have to go back several decades for that to be true, though.

                          In the US at least, progress in life expectancy and real wages has really stagnated in recent decades.

                • By bonsai_spool 2025-11-1822:411 reply

                  > I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there.

                  This is wrong.

                  The increase in administrator pay began well after the crises cited in OP.

                  You could cite spending on the sciences (and thus Silicon Valley), but the spending by the US did not accrue to administrators; and further, federal money primarily goes to grants and loans, but GP is citing a time over which there were relatively low increases in tuition.

                  Edit: Not at home, but even a cursory serious search will turn up reports like this one that indicate the lack of clarity in the popular uprising against money "[going] to administrators"

                  https://www.investigativeeconomics.org/p/who-to-believe-on-u...

                  • By malcolmgreaves 2025-11-1823:451 reply

                    For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12.

                    • By bonsai_spool 2025-11-191:35

                      > For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12.

                      First, where is your data?

                      Second, this discussion is clearly about post-secondary education ("the idea is more money could've been invested into bringing the bottom rungs of American society up and created a more skilled and educated workforce in the process.")

            • By jitix 2025-11-1821:573 reply

              Cheaper education, free/subsidized healthcare, free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family support, etc.

              Things that let workers focus on innovation. IT workers in cheaper countries have it much easier while we have to juggle rising cost of living and cyclical layoffs here. And ever since companies started hiring workers directly and paying 30-50% (compared to 10-15% during the GCC era) the quality is almost at par with US.

              • By palmotea 2025-11-1822:121 reply

                >>> 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?

                > Cheaper education, free/subsidized healthcare, free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family support, etc.

                Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US already have those things during the post-war boom?

                Cheaper education? Public K-12 schools, the GI bill, generous state subsidies of higher education (such that you could pay for college with the money you made working a summer job).

                Free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family support? Wages high enough to raise a family on a single income, allowing for stay-at-home moms to provide childcare.

                • By jitix 2025-11-1822:272 reply

                  > Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US already have those things during the post-war boom?

                  Yes, but education system is being dismantled piece by piece at all levels. I work in edutech and our goal is to cut costs faster than revenue. Enrolments are down, students are over burdened with student loans, and new grads can't compete in the market.

                  Also, do you think kids going to K-12 in the US can compete with kids who go to international schools in China and India? High end schools in those countries combine the Asian grind mindset with western education standards.

                  > Wages high enough to raise a family on a single income, allowing for stay-at-home moms to provide childcare.

                  This was a special period of post war prosperity that I mentioned. It was unnatural and the world has reset back to the norm where a nuclear family needs societal/governmental support to raise kids, or need to have two 6 figure jobs. "It takes a village to raise a child" is a common western idiom based on centuries of observations. Just because there was 20-30 years of unnatural economic growth doesn't make it the global or historical norm.

                  • By nradov 2025-11-1822:43

                    Education is a tough one. Like healthcare, it's highly subject to Baumol's Cost Disease. Technology holds some potential but fundamentally we still need a certain ratio of teachers to students, and those teachers get more expensive every year.

                    https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/baumols-cost-disease-long...

                    Education should be well funded. But at the same time, taxpayers are skeptical because increasing funding doesn't necessarily improve student outcomes. Students from stable homes with aspirational parents in safe neighborhoods will tend to do well even with meager education funding, and conversely students living in shitholes will tend to do badly regardless of how good the education system is. If we want to improve their lot then we need to fix broader social issues that go beyond just education. Anyone who has gotten involved with a large school district has seen the enormous waste that goes to paying multiple levels of administrators, and education "consultants" chasing the latest ineffective fad. Much of it is just a grift.

                  • By palmotea 2025-11-1822:431 reply

                    >> Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US already have those things during the post-war boom?

                    > Yes, but education system is being dismantled piece by piece at all levels.

                    So? That's not really relevant to the historical period you were referring to when you said: "It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital that could have helped create high value jobs."

                    At the time, Americans already had many of the things you're saying they should've invested in to get. How were they supposed to predict things would change and agitate for something different without the hindsight you enjoy?

                    > This was a special period of post war prosperity that I mentioned. It was unnatural and the world has reset back to the norm where a nuclear family needs societal/governmental support to raise kids, or need to have two 6 figure jobs.

                    Exactly why do you think it is it unnatural?

                    I think you should be more explicit about how you think things should be for families. Because going on an on about how the times when things were easier was "unnatural" may create the wrong impression.

                    Also keep in mind where talking about human society here, the concept of "natural" has very little to do with any of it. What were really talking about is the consequence of the internal logic of this or that set of artificial cultural practices.

                    • By jitix 2025-11-1822:571 reply

                      > How were they supposed to predict things would change and agitate for something different without the hindsight you enjoy?

                      By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. By 1955 there should have been alarm bells ringing as Europe re-industrialized. Same with 70s oil crisis but the best that US could do was to cripple Japan with Plaza Accords.

                      Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back then.

                      > Exactly why do you think it is it unnatural?

                      Because only two industrialized countries were left standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed unnatural growth until others caught up - first the historical powers in Europe then Asia.

                      • By palmotea 2025-11-1823:23

                        > By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. ... Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back then.

                        That's not realistic, except in hindsight. Most people everywhere pay more attention to their immediate environment and living their lives. Not speculating about what is the global economy is going to look like in 50 years, and how would those changes affect them personally.

                        You're talking about stuff only some PhD at RAND would be doing (or would have the ability to do) in the 1960s.

                        Without the democratic pressure of common people either 1) having a need or 2) seeing things get worse, no changes like you describe would happen.

                        > Because only two industrialized countries were left standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed unnatural growth until others caught up - first the historical powers in Europe then Asia.

                        What's natural?

                        And more importantly: how do you think things should be for families.

              • By sparrc 2025-11-190:27

                The US is not perfect by any measure, but your argument that the US doesn't have innovative nor "high-value" jobs is absurd beyond belief.

              • By judahmeek 2025-11-1822:381 reply

                Right, because Europe is so innovative.

                The mother of invention is idiomatically necessity, not comfort.

                Ultimately, increased levels of competition should lead to higher levels of innovation.

                Btw, what is "the GCC era" a reference to?

                • By jitix 2025-11-1822:503 reply

                  Europe is quite innovative on per-capita basis. Not like US but the workers there have much happier lives and their societies don't have extreme inequality and resulting violence like the US.

                  China is arguably more innovative than all and has terrible work life balance, but their society is stable and you won't go from millionaire to homeless just because you had to get cancer treatment.

                  GCC = global consulting companies, the bane of innovation. Outsourcing of all kinds (even domestic C2C) should be banned.

                  • By judahmeek 2025-11-1916:38

                    If you accept patent applications as a proxy for innovation, then https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/patent-applications-per-m... suggests that Europe lags behind both China & the U.S.

                    Also, China is 3rd, behind South Korea & Japan

                    That & the differing levels of patent application per capita across Europe suggests that patent applications are directly related to work/life balance & perhaps some sort of infonomic aggregation & doesn't seem to support any correlation with quality of life.

                  • By toomanyrichies 2025-11-1823:28

                    Is GCC an acronym you just now came up with, or is does it commonly mean “global consulting company” in your part of the world?

                    I ask because, when I do a Google search, the two most common meanings for that term are “Global Capacity Center” and “Gulf Cooperation Council”.

                  • By nradov 2025-11-1917:07

                    You don't understand what's happening in China. Advanced cancer treatments are generally not even available to poor people. Instead of becoming homeless due to medical expenses they just die. The US healthcare system has serious problems with access and efficiency but it's at or near the top worldwide in terms of cancer survival rates.

                    Chinese society is more "metastable" than really stable. The Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square massacre weren't that long ago. Chinese history going back millennia is full of violent revolutions and civil wars. Xi Jinping has been able to keep a lid on things lately through brutal purges of all other potential power centers but times may get "interesting" again when he leaves power.

          • By pfannkuchen 2025-11-1823:29

            Were there a lot of imports at that time in terms of materials or labor or food? If not, I don’t really see how money flowing in from abroad actually changes the economy in this area. If the wood is harvested in America and the workers are in America and the wood and workers are available, then any amount of money value generated by everyone else will be sufficient to pay them, unless there is a significant stream of imports that need to be paid for (which I’m not aware of in this time period).

            What could have made a big difference is if foreign competition arose for American materials and land, which it did. But that is under our control, we collectively can choose whether to allow them to buy it or not, and whether to let people in at a rate that outpaces materials discovery and harvesting capabilities.

            We also restricted materials harvesting quite a bit during this time period, for example I believe a lot of forestry protections were not in place yet.

          • By eli_gottlieb 2025-11-1822:53

            So you're saying that working-class living standards are a zero-sum competition across capitalist countries, even negative-sum as competing national economies grow their total output and hourly productivity?

            That sounds like a really shitty system.

          • By leptons 2025-11-190:01

            >The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else.

            The US just renamed "Department of Defense" to "Department of War" and they seem willing to go to any extreme to "Make America Great Again". Threatening to take over Canada, Greenland, and Panama already in the first few months of the current administration. Using US military on US soil. There's no line they won't cross. WW3 isn't off the table at all, unfortunately.

          • By palmotea 2025-11-1822:041 reply

            > Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic history common in North America....

            > In short, its easier to have high standards of living in your secure isolated island when the rest of the world (including historical industrial powers) are completely decimated by war.

            So, what's your point? That the plebs shouldn't expect that much comfort?

            • By jitix 2025-11-1822:451 reply

              A common maxim across all cultures is to "manage expectations" for happiness.

              And while comparing societal standards expand the time horizon to 100 years, not nitpick one specific unnatural era of history.

              An automotive engineer in Detroit in 1960 was a globally competitive worker because most of his counterparts in other countries were either dead, disabled or their companies bankrupt.

              The equivalent in today's world would be aerospace engineers, AI researchers, quantum engineers, robotics engineers, etc who arguably have the same standard of living as the automotive engineer in 1960s Detroit.

              Economic and technological standards evolve - societies should invest in human capital to evolve with them or risk stagnation.

              • By palmotea 2025-11-1822:561 reply

                > An automotive engineer in Detroit in 1960 was a globally competitive worker because most of his counterparts in other countries were either dead, disabled or their companies bankrupt.

                > The equivalent in today's world would be aerospace engineers, AI researchers, quantum engineers, robotics engineers, etc who arguably have the same standard of living as the automotive engineer in 1960s Detroit.

                You know were not really talking about top-end positions like automotive engineers in Detroit in 1960. I think we're talking more about automotive factory workers in Detroit in 1960.

                > Economic and technological standards evolve - societies should invest in human capital to evolve with them or risk stagnation.

                You need to be more explicit about how you think things should be for the common man.

                • By jitix 2025-11-1823:061 reply

                  I hope you understand the concept of relative prosperity - The current equivalent would be a factory worker at Boeing. In 60s cars were innovative in US, now Nigeria can outcompete China in cars.

                  Times change, standards rise, competition increases. If America wants to remain competitive globally you need to work in the top 1% fields like you did back in 60s, not expecting $25 per hour for flipping burgers (which should have been automated with robots by now).

                  • By palmotea 2025-11-1823:30

                    You need to be more explicit about how you think things should be for the common man.

          • By philipallstar 2025-11-1911:47

            Everywhere else being destroyed doesn't raise your standards of living. The main difference is the difference between post-war East Germany and West Germany. One got socialism and the other capitalism.

        • By scythe 2025-11-190:47

          A lot of the people who admire the caricatured midcentury economy are probably actually just nostalgic for the '90s. Case-Shiller was much lower, gas was cheap, college was still relatively affordable. The biggest economic complaints of the present day were not as serious then. (There were still affordable parts of the Bay Area!) The subjection of black people and women that existed in the 60s obviously wasn't necessary for those things to be possible.

          But each decade's economy is the product of decades past. The policies of the 90s brought us to the present. So we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the 90s, and the 80s are associated with the iniquities of the Reagan administration. Thus you get this misplaced nostalgia for the 50s-70s without really understanding the problems or the progress that society made even as the highest levels of government seemed to drift off course.

        • By Karrot_Kream 2025-11-1821:131 reply

          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.

          • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:373 reply

            Well congratulations! We have succeeded in having stagnating wages and stagnating standard of living for everyone now!

            • By satvikpendem 2025-11-1918:17

              Will you volunteer to not work so that I can instead?

            • By Karrot_Kream 2025-11-1822:391 reply

              Do you want to take a 20% pay cut so I can take the marginal benefit? Who wants to volunteer to be barred from working so I can negotiate better salary?

              • By johnnyanmac 2025-11-190:50

                I have no full time job, so I already took the cut. You're welcome.

            • By doctorpangloss 2025-11-1821:41

              Lemme guess, we should bring back Bretton Woods?

        • By apsurd 2025-11-1821:371 reply

          I originally upvoted the parent comment. But I changed it.

          "The good ol' days" ... yeah, but good for who?

          • By crossbody 2025-11-192:10

            The good old days... that never were!

            Life has improved for nearly everyone on nearly every metric. But if one myopically focuses on house purchasing as the only thing that matters and takes anomalous post WW2 period, then sure, things are bad (ignoring the fact that housing space and quality + amenities improved dramatically, but hey, who cares about nuance, we just love to complain!)

        • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:364 reply

          > 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 life expectancy?

          • By watwut 2025-11-1821:51

            I think there is something to be valued about historical accuracy.

            > Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of despair", and plateauing or decreasing life expectancy?

            In the 60ties, suicide rates went UP. Peaked around 1970 and we did not reached their levels.

            Long terms statistics about alcoholism rates and drug use are also a real exiting thing. We know that cirrhosis death rate was going up in the 60ties up to 70ties, peaked and went down. It was the time when drinking and driving campaigns started.

            Current drug use is nowhere near what it was a generation ago.

          • By apsurd 2025-11-1821:451 reply

            You're both right. I take your point to mean similar to the disastrous outcome of "no child left behind" act. I do agree with you, but people didn't seriously _intend_ for the result to be everyone lowers to a shit position.

            Or maybe you're saying that's always how these initiatives turn out? It can't be helped?

            • By atq2119 2025-11-1913:44

              It's important to remember that people are not some homogenous mass.

              There were certainly some rich and powerful people who did intend to lower everyone (else) to a shit position.

              That's what stuff like anti-union policies are about. Sure, they drape it up in nice rhetoric, but ultimately the intent is to reduce the power (and thereby the material outcomes) of the common the worker.

              But of course there were also other developments that had the effect more unintentionally.

          • By p_v_doom 2025-11-1914:02

            > we have pursued equality by making this dream accessible to NO ONE.

            Nah, that is not what has happened. Equality is more of an unrelated thing. Business owners and capital are by their very nature opposed to the dream. Even if in a given moment of time they may give concessions, the endless drive for returns and growths means that sooner or later it will always get to the point where we are.

            The problem here is capitalism.

          • By johnnyanmac 2025-11-190:44

            >Why do so many people miss the point on this?

            Because one party wants to return to those times with the exact same social norms. So it's a dangerous line of thinking to forget that women were walled out of many jobs, or had a huge wage gap when they were let in. As well as minorities only barely starting to really get the same opportunities after a lot of struggle.

            >Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of despair", and plateauing or decreasing life expectancy?

            Yes. When it affects the majority is only when we start to pay attention.

        • By lizknope 2025-11-1912:28

          > Every kind of a man, or woman?

          Exactly.

          What about black people or any other minority? Black people couldn't even vote until 1965. Housing discrimination and things like redlining would prevent people from living where they wanted even if they had the money.

        • By tharne 2025-11-1823:16

          > Well, this probably why statistics exist.

          How are statistics going to answer this question? Statistics are used to measure things. They don't tell you what things you should be measuring.

        • By cedws 2025-11-1821:18

          I'm not going to engage with you on a debate because you aren't acting in good faith.

      • By astura 2025-11-1822:323 reply

        According to the census bureau median family income in 1960 was $5,600, which is $58,946.59 in Jan 2024 dollars. It's $83,730 in 2024.

        For individual males, in 1960 it was $4,100 ($43,157.33 Jan 2024 dollars) and $71,090 in 2024.

        Sources:

        https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1962/demo/p60-03...

        https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...

        https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

        The thing is, a 1960s standard of living would be totally unacceptable by almost everyone today. Single car max, no air conditioning, small house or apartment, multiple children sharing bedrooms, no cellphones, no Internet, no cable, no streaming. Local calls only. Children allowed outside by themselves.

        • By byryan 2025-11-190:591 reply

          I think you're out of touch with what "almost everyone" considers an acceptable standard of living. I know plenty of people who have a single car or none at all, live in apartments living pay check to pay check with no kids at all because they are afraid they can't afford them. They would love to have what you described, minus the no cell phones/internet.

          • By epicureanideal 2025-11-198:35

            A random idea I had a few years ago was, what if someone started a “recent modern Amish” community, where they just intentionally keep the community’s tech usage either fixed at 1960s or 1990s, or maybe a fixed number of years in the past like 30 or 50 (meaning, the time target moves forward by a year each year).

            So the kids growing up now might be playing the original Nintendo NES, or maybe an N64, they’d have phones and even computers, etc.

            It could even be a little more nuanced like, the community could vote in certain classes of more modern goods.

        • By Terr_ 2025-11-1823:591 reply

          I feel there is something unsound with that comparison, because you could also apply it to kings of history, simply by listing things that technologically unavailable or unaffordable.

          Imagine transmigrating King Louis XVI (pre-revolution) into some working class professional with a refrigerator, a car, cable TV, etc. I don't think it's a given that he'd consider the package an upgrade.

        • By ethanwillis 2025-11-1822:361 reply

          now tell us how they calculate those inflation adjusted dollars-- what basket of goods? prices in which markets?

          • By tharne 2025-11-1823:232 reply

            They've cited and linked their sources. What's the issue?

            • By ethanwillis 2025-11-191:45

              The "issue" is the comparison is much more complex than people may be led to believe. It's not a simple "adjust the dollars to be the same" calculation.

              There are a lot of assumptions that go into making that calculation.

              If I tell you that the value of a dollar you hold has gone down or up this year versus last year because of the price fluctuation of an item you never have or never will purchase, such as hermit crabs in New Zealand.

              Would you believe your dollar is worth more or less? What if the price of a good you do spend your dollars on has an inverse relationship with the price of hermit crabs in New Zealand? Or what if the prices of the items you do buy haven't moved at all?

            • By bpt3 2025-11-192:061 reply

              The issue is that it doesn't support his preconceived notion that everyone is doing terribly.

              • By ethanwillis 2025-11-199:251 reply

                Actually I outlined what I believed the issue is before you replied and it's not that.

                • By bpt3 2025-11-1915:311 reply

                  Your post is just a more verbose version of what I said.

                  Your "concerns" are all well known and accounted for when calculating things like the consumer price index.

                  • By ethanwillis 2025-11-1919:581 reply

                    You're assuming my "concern" is that the OP is wrong. Which is why i specifically took the time to talk about value being up or down.

                    I get you're just pissed off for whatever reason, but I'll still try to explain more.

                    My point is not addressed when calculating the consumer price index because i'm saying that a single selection of prices and goods to produce a single price index does not tell a person what the value of their money is unless they just happen to be literally the median consumer.

                    Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you buy every single item that is used in that consumer price index? In every city? You're just not being serious if that's the case.

                    You're confusing a price index that minimizes the error in measuring inflation when applied to a large varying amount of people with what i'm advocating which is a price index that's personalized to and minimizes the error in measuring inflation for an individual. Other people's buying habits and prices for things in places where they live don't need to go into a personalized price index.

                    • By bpt3 2025-11-1921:32

                      I'm not pissed off.

                      It's tiring watching people with no idea what they're talking about repeat the same "what about ..." arguments when professionals in the field have spent decades developing and maintaining models that have been proven over that time to be helpful.

                      It's also not a coincidence that nearly 100% of the people trying to poke holes in those models are people who disagree with the results generated from them, and that nearly 100% of those people don't have a clue about the topic at hand.

                      Of course a broad based index that is designed to represent the behavior of hundreds of millions of people is less accurate for you (or me, or anyone) personally than a model based solely on an individual's behavior. I don't know anyone on earth who would argue otherwise.

                      As a reminder, you started off by making a very lazy statement broadly criticizing a post that included well cited economic data showing that the inflation-adjusted median household income has increased substantially since the 1960s, which was in response to yet another terminally online doomer incorrectly claiming that your average American is worse off today than they were then.

                      You're now claiming that your issue with the provided data showing that people are overall financially better off today than they were in the 1960s is that that data isn't tailored to you (or any other individual) personally? I think that just demonstrates the validity of my original comment, because that's an absurd criticism.

                      FYI, you don't need to "advocate" for a personal price index. Track your spending over time and calculate it. If you want get much use out of it, you're going to want to incorporate the CPI data for your metro area as well (which exists and is publicly available) so you can both compare your spending to the median and backfill missing data as needed (for example, historical childcare expenses when you become a new parent).

      • By mittensc 2025-11-197:33

        > 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 wasn't true in the rest of the world.

        The US had a unique position due to ww2 that was bound to errode.

        I find it funny to compare horror stories from my parents/grandparents to this...

      • By Terr_ 2025-11-1823:52

        > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. It will just be used to stomp on ordinary people and create even more inequality.

        The problem isn't "more technology" (nor is the solution "less) but rather a change in who controls it and benefits. We shouldn't surrender-in-advance to the idea that the stompers will definitely own it.

      • By schnitzelstoat 2025-11-198:15

        The main problem there is soaring housing costs which have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with extremely restrictive planning regulations that make it impossible for the housing supply to keep up with population growth.

      • By Avicebron 2025-11-1821:011 reply

        What's crazy is that people will jump all over themselves to say "well you could totally live like that at a 1960s level" like that's even a viable possibility today (in the US).

        What's that about the falcon and the falconer? The center cannot hold..

        • By Retric 2025-11-1821:531 reply

          People do make it work in the US with tiny incomes and a better standard of living than you’d see in a typical 1960’s household.

          I know people raising a family of 4 on 1 income well below the median wage without a collage degree. They do get significant help from government assistance programs for healthcare, but their lifestyle is way better off than what was typical in the 1960’s.

          Granted they aren’t doing this in a ultra expensive US city, but on the flip side they’re living in a huge for 1960’s 3 bedroom house with a massive backyard.

          • By crossbody 2025-11-192:16

            Finally a rational comment and not blind hating-complaining. Thank you

      • By isoprophlex 2025-11-198:311 reply

        We're disappearing up our own assholes made of misery, loneliness and consumerism.

        If you want a picture of the future: imagine a robotic boot, stamping on a human face that's begging for more techno-stamping, forever.

        • By jcgrillo 2025-11-199:11

          This is an excellent metaphor, so don't take this as criticism merely an observation, but it skews heavily towards the techno-utopian narrative that scam artists like Altman and Pichai keep harping on. Your techno-dystopia makes the same fatal assumption that tech matters much at all. The internet has become television. That's it. It's not nothing but it damn sure ain't everything, and it's just not all that important to most folks.

      • By tim333 2025-11-1916:57

        The work an ordinary job and support a house, wife and two kids thing is down to economic policy rather than tech. Houses have been treated as financial assets where you have to restrict supply to keep the prices up.

        You could build a manufatured house for ~$60000 or a couple or years salary like https://siphouse.co.uk/product/insulated-summer-house-with-v... if it wasn't for planning laws preventing it.

        or https://www.claytonhomes.com/homes/36TRU28684RH/ Maybe 2x that for govt sponsored high rises like they have in Asia

        That may look basic but is similar to what you could get in the 1960s. I mean what do you actually need?

        I think we may need a return to slightly more lefty policies - still free enterprise but everyone has a right to a reasonable home and ok income (healthcare etc)

      • By rr808 2025-11-191:591 reply

        > 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.

        Most of the people I see working in tech can easily afford this. Maybe not private schools or McMansions but the basics are pretty easy. Sure if you're a humanities major with health problems its tough.

      • By andrepd 2025-11-1912:24

        > The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains.

        Make it 50 years https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages...

      • By FloorEgg 2025-11-1821:033 reply

        To me this all just looks like a big frothy chemical reaction playing out far beyond any one person's control.

        With that view, many things oscillate over time, including game theory patterns (average interaction intentions of win-win, win-lose, lose-lose), and integration / mitosis (unions, international treaties, civil wars),etc.

        So my optimistic view is that inevitably we will get more tech whether we want it or not, and it will probably make things worse many for a while, but then it will simultaneously enable and force a restructuring at some level that starts a new cycle of prosperity. On the other side it will be clear that all this tech directly enables a better (more free, more diverse, more rewarding, more sustainable) way of life.

        I believe this because from studying history it seems this pattern plays out over and over and over again to varying degrees.

        • By Eisenstein 2025-11-1821:092 reply

          When you say that this pattern plays out, can you be specific?

          • By FloorEgg 2025-11-1822:25

            I don't have time to be precise, but I'll do my best to be more specific.

            New system better at organizing human behavior -> increases prosperity -> more capacity for invention -> new technologies disrupt power dynamics -> greed and power-law dynamics tilt system away from broad prosperity (most powerful switch from win-win to win-lose) -> majority become unsatisfied with system -> economics break down (too much debt, not enough education, technology increasingly and disproportionately benefits wealthy) -> trust break down -> average pattern of behavior tilts towards lose-lose dynamics -> technology keeps advancing -,> new technologies disrupt old power structures -> restructuring of world-powr order at highest levels (often through conflict) -> new system established, incorporating lessons learned from the old (more fair, more inclusive) -> trust reestablished, shift back to win-win dynamics (cycle repeats)

            In reality it's more messy than this. Also the geographical location of this cycle and the central power can move around. Some places may sit out one or more cycles and get stuck.

        • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:321 reply

          Either that or the AI robots kill us all.

          Could go either way.

          • By FloorEgg 2025-11-1823:01

            My guess is that whatever actually happens it will be very different than what the average person has imagined could happen (including me).

        • By gizajob 2025-11-1822:361 reply

          The majority of people are already doing ”bullshit jobs” and many of them know it too. Using AI to automate the bullshit and capture the value leaves them with nothing.

          The AI evangelists generally overlook that one of the primary things that capitalism does is fill people’s lives with busywork, in part as an exercise in power and in another part because if given their time back, those people would genuinely have absolutely no idea what to do with it.

          • By FloorEgg 2025-11-2021:53

            I find your stance kind of confusing.

            What do you mean by bullshit jobs?

            I've heard the term before I think even read a NYT or Atlantic article about it maybe a decade ago. My hazy recollection were jobs that added no actual value to society.

            If this is true, then what value is there for AI to capture?

            Also, do you really think that the majority of jobs don't add any value to society? I find that hard to believe in a free market.

      • By SrslyJosh 2025-11-1823:551 reply

        > The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains.

        More like the last 50 years.

        https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

        "For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades"

        The TL;DR is that in 1964 the average hourly wage was $20.27. As of 2018, average hourly wage was $22.65.

        • By zeroonetwothree 2025-11-191:281 reply

          1974 median individual income was $28k 2024 median individual income was $45k

          Over 50 years that’s a decent amount of growth. Obviously it could be better but it’s not nothing.

          Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

          • By amypetrik8 2025-11-193:241 reply

            Sure but pretty sure with your 1974 28k you could buy a nice house, whereas with your 2024 (equivalent) 45k you can buy an OK car, not a house

            • By raincole 2025-11-194:181 reply

              In theory this graph is already inflation-adjusted.

              In practice, I think this shows why economic statistics are borderline lies.

              • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:18

                The problem is inflation. We have no way to reliably measure it over any long time-frame. Make the time long enough, and it even stops making sense as a concept.

      • By ThrowawayR2 2025-11-190:501 reply

        > "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."

        In the 1930s, it wasn't possible so what's your point? (History time: What happened on October 24, 1929?) Choosing the 1960s as a baseline is artificially cherry-picking an era of economic growth (at the expense of the rest of post-WW2 Europe and Asia who were rebuilding) instead of an era of decline or normalcy.

        • By Dylan16807 2025-11-192:351 reply

          > cherry-picking an era of economic growth

          But we already did the growth. We didn't shrink back. So we should still be able to get those results.

          • By oersted 2025-11-1911:331 reply

            I will not attempt to make a judgement as to the effects of this, but just so you get an idea of the enormity of the change:

            World population:

            1960: ~3B

            2025: ~8.3B

            It was a VERY different world. That growth might not have gone anywhere but it’s not a very significant amount of wealth in today’s terms.

            People are very worried about birth rates because for a while it will mean that there will be too few people of working age, which will be a disaster. But big picture, perhaps a correction is overdue, we cannot make people’s lives better if we keep adding people faster than we are growing the world economy.

            You always need to put history in the context that the world was pretty empty. Less value was created but there was less competition for resources and it was easier for certain groups to stand out or dominate.

            1900: ~1.6B

            1750: ~750M

            1500: ~450M

            1000: ~350M

            1: ~250M

            • By Dylan16807 2025-11-207:29

              Competition for what resources? Food we still have plenty of, green revolution and all, and almost everything else is limited by labor so it should scale fine with population.

              Land is the main thing that's limited, but getting a smaller yard doesn't fix much.

      • By xnx 2025-11-190:511 reply

        > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society?

        It has been for the last few thousand years.

        • By bluescrn 2025-11-198:101 reply

          That ended in around 2010, IMHO.

          Now technology mostly divides and manipulates us, enshittifies things, and works to turn billionaires into trillionaires.

          • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:19

            It's not technology that is doing that.

      • By rockemsockem 2025-11-192:17

        I'd say the most mundane thing I use chat GPT for is to tell me which deeply nested menu some option is in for software I don't use very often.

        I feel like most people would get value out of that.

        Most recent example from a few days ago 'How do I change settings around spacing for "heading 2" in a document?'

      • By georgeecollins 2025-11-191:451 reply

        A lot of this stuff about baby boomers vs now is based on how remember things. The data is more complicated. Example: The average home in 1960 was like 1600 sq ft, now its like 2800 sq ft. Sometimes we are comparing apples to oranges.

        I am not trying to blunt social criticism. The redistribution of wealth is a real thing that started in the tax policies of the 1980s that we just can't seem to back away from.

        But a lot of people are pushing gambling, crypto, options that are telling people that they have no hope of getting ahead just by working and saving. That's not helpful.

        • By p1necone 2025-11-191:501 reply

          > The average home in 1960 was like 1600 sq ft, now its like 2800 sq ft.

          Statements like this are not particularly meaningful unless there is actually a supply of 1600 sqft houses that are proportionally cheaper, otherwise you're just implying a causal relationship with no evidence.

          • By crossbody 2025-11-192:134 reply

            Supply is driven by demand unless there is a monopoly in house building (there isn't). If this wasn't the case, one could quickly become a billionaire by starting first company that build small houses that are supposedly in demand but not provided by the market

            • By phantasmish 2025-11-192:591 reply

              This is developers maximizing profit per lot.

              All this means is there are enough buyers who can afford 2,800 sqft houses to keep builders from wasting a lot on a 1,600 sqft house. There could be a lot more people who want a cheaper 1,600 sqft house (including some of the 2,800 sqft house buyers!) than who want 2,800 sqft houses, but the market will keep delivering the latter as long as the return is better (for the return to improve for 1,600 sqft houses, see about convincing towns and cities to allow smaller lots, smaller setbacks, et c).

              • By tbrownaw 2025-11-195:281 reply

                > All this means is there are enough buyers who can afford 2,800 sqft houses to keep builders from wasting a lot on a 1,600 sqft house.

                So there's a limited supply of lots (or of permission to use those lots).

                • By crossbody 2025-11-195:451 reply

                  Exactly. Zoning laws affect lot sizes, remove them as in Houston or most other countries and the problem disappears.

                  • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-197:472 reply

                    Rural America often doesn’t have “zoning laws”. That hasn’t stopped my home price from more than doubling since 2012.

                    • By crossbody 2025-11-1916:24

                      Zoning laws still influence rural prices! People fled expensive cities to more affordable rural areas due to city zoning, and that drove up prices in short term, as construction lags demand. Other factors (material costs, construction labor costs) had influence too

                    • By api 2025-11-1912:10

                      There’s multiple factors. Another is the zero interest rate era which inflated all asset prices. Money has been insanely cheap for a long time.

            • By tbrownaw 2025-11-195:261 reply

              > Supply is driven by demand unless there is a monopoly in house building (there isn't).

              There is, however, a monopoly on issuing building permits.

              • By crossbody 2025-11-195:431 reply

                Bingo! And that's on government. Remove (or relax) those now by decree and rent prices drop tomorrow

                • By ribosometronome 2025-11-199:111 reply

                  Government? Or the people? These are local government issues, they're not that far detached from the people who elect them.

                  • By crossbody 2025-11-1916:27

                    Well, people and local government in most other countries have no option to set expansive zoning restrictions. It's the rules set up on higher level that enable this system

            • By p1necone 2025-11-192:301 reply

              You're still presupposing that there's a linear (or at least linear enough to be significant amongst the myriad other factors involved) relationship between square footage of house and cost. And that that relationship extends arbitrarily downwards as you reduce the square footage.

              • By crossbody 2025-11-195:48

                It's one of the main factors. And it can be reduced to almost nothing if a small single family housing zone is turned into a skyscraper providing accommodation for thousands

            • By coffeebeqn 2025-11-1911:592 reply

              Why build a 500k house on your expensive lot when you can build a 1.5M house. Capitalism does not in any way optimize for the middle class

              • By crossbody 2025-11-1916:31

                By the same token, why stop at 1.5M and not build a 15M mansion? Or 150M palace? Because you need to build what will meet the demand, not just most expensive thing ever that nobody will buy. Capitalism is the most effective mechanism to satisfy market demand for every group, if unrestricted by well meanjng but poor regulation that distorts the market

      • By red-iron-pine 2025-11-2018:33

        > 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.

        Wasn't like that in 1800s, or the 1910s, or the Great Depression, etc.

        World Wars happened and all of the industrial nations got bombed to hell and lost a generation or two.

        The US didn't have that happen and was able to provide unprecedented prosperity for the Greatest Generation and Boomers because it would take 30+ years to truly rebuild and grow their population.

        Sure enough the wheels started falling off in the 70's and 80s, and only technological growth kept the US on top. And that's slipping.

      • By ahoka 2025-11-1912:382 reply

        "work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children"

        Have you considered that there's more to human existence than to pay a mortgage and women are not something you keep in your house to watch after your offspring so they can do the very same when growing up?

        • By spicyusername 2025-11-1913:171 reply

          I'm not sure what you're responding to, or why you're responding in such a hostile way. The wife can be the breadwinner, too.

          Owning a home and having a parent be able to stay home with your children, husband or wife, are important pillars of a stable life. Who wants a society in which couples don't have time to parent their children or manage their household?

          It's a fact that seeing to your children's education and social life, cleaning, cooking, and all of the other non-sexy activities of running a household are a full-time job. It doesn't need to be the wife that does that, but it's best when somebody in the family can.

          • By moduspol 2025-11-1917:09

            > Owning a home and having a parent be able to stay home with your children, husband or wife, are important pillars of a stable life.

            I'm with you but I think we're in the minority nowadays. "Progress" seems to mean paying someone else (who cares a lot less about your children than you do to) to raise your children starting from the moment that maternity leave ends. But at least you get to live close to a big city, and I guess our GDP is a little higher.

        • By williamdclt 2025-11-1913:49

          That's not the point being made. Whether you're into the traditional marriage/family social schema or not (and personally I'm very much not), it's still something that most of the population wants, that society expects and relies on. The fact that it's not something achievable anymore is clearly a big problem.

      • By kiba 2025-11-1914:20

        The benefits of economic growth flows largely to people who owns land and non-reproducible privilege.

        This the real reason why billionaire exists, not because they have a lot of money, though that help, but because they were able to build modern monopolies. The solution is to tax, dismantle, or regulate them, and that includes land.

        Georgism and LVT proposals are starting to see a slow resurgence in the political landscape.

      • By lynx97 2025-11-1913:32

        > In the 60s it was possible for a man ... with a wife and support two or three children.

        This is borderline sexist.

        > and the plummeting birth rates show it

        Those or, IMO, mostly due to the invention of the pill.

      • By bananaflag 2025-11-191:021 reply

        > I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people.

        AI healthcare, for example. Have an entity that can diagnose you in a week at most, instead of being sent from specialist to specialist for months, each one being utterly uninterested in your problem.

        • By LtWorf 2025-11-1912:45

          The AI only works kinda decently for ONE specific field, where you still need to take the xray anyway and need the machine and the operator to do it.

      • By satvikpendem 2025-11-1918:11

        > 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.

        The book Capital in the 21st Century comes to the conclusion that this is a historical anomaly due to World War II (and really only in the US, and really only for white families in the US). Don't take the anomaly of the past and treat it as the normality of what people in history experienced.

      • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:04

        > Because to me it looks like the opposite.

        It's neither. None of that is about technology, and it's not the first time in history that it happened either.

        And if AI somehow replace a third of the workforce, it's still not enough of an structural change to make technology a cause. If it goes way above that, it can be different, but it's not right now.

      • By SchemaLoad 2025-11-192:12

        We will be able to build even bigger super yachts for billionaires now though. Bezos can have his own personal cruise ship.

      • By LtWorf 2025-11-1912:38

        > 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.

        And that was all because they needed to show to the communist countries how much better capitalism was.

        Now communism is gone so there's no need to show off.

      • By Blamklmo 2025-11-1910:06

        [dead]

    • By tharne 2025-11-1823:144 reply

      > The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles.

      > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      I've wondered about this myself. People keep talking about the trades as a good path in the post-AI world, but I just don't see it. If huge swaths of office workers are suddenly and permanently unemployed, who's going to be hiring all these tradesmen?

      If I were unemployed long-term, the one upside is that I would suddenly have the time to a do a lot of the home repairs that I've been hiring contractors to take care of.

      The other thing I worry about is the level of violence we're likely to see if a significant chunk of the population is made permanently unemployed. People bring up Universal Basic Income as a potential, but I think that only address a part of the issue. Despite the bluster and complaints you might hear at the office, most want to have the opportunity to earn a living; they want to feel like they're useful to their fellow man and woman. I worry about a world in which large numbers of young people are looking at a future with no job prospects and no real place for them other than to be made comfortable by government money and consumer goods. To me that seems like the perfect recruiting ground for all manner of extremist organizations.

      • By Bilal_io 2025-11-191:20

        > The other thing I worry about is the level of violence we're likely to see if a significant chunk of the population is made permanently unemployed.

        No worries, they'll just make AI robots to shoot people.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1823:241 reply

        > If huge swaths of office workers are suddenly and permanently unemployed, who's going to be hiring all these tradesmen?

        "Professionals were 57.8 percent of the total workforce in 2023, with 93 million people working across a wide variety of occupations" [1]. A reasonable worst-case scenario leaves about half of the workforce intact as is. We'd have to assume AI creates zero new jobs or industries, and that none of these people can pivot into doing anything socially useful, to expect them to be rendered unemployable.

        > if a significant chunk of the population is made permanently unemployed

        They won't. They never have. We'd have years to debate this in the form of unemployment insurance extensions.

        [1] https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-professional-and-te...

        • By johnnyanmac 2025-11-191:051 reply

          >We'd have to assume AI creates zero new jobs or industries

          Zero American jobs, sure. It's clear that these american industries don't want to invest in America.

          >They won't. They never have.

          not permanent, but trends don't look good. It doesnt' remain permanent because mass unemployment becomes a huge political issue at some point. As is it now among Gen Z who's completely pivoted in the course of a year.

          • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-197:512 reply

            Increased production has always just lead to more stuff being made, not more people unemployed. When even our grandparents were kids a new shirt was something you’d take care of, as you don’t get a new one very often. Now we head on to Target and throw 5 into our cart on a whim.

            Were there less weavers with machines now doing the job (or whatever?). Sure. But it balances out. It’s just bumpy.

            The big change here is that it’s hitting so many industries at once, but that already happened with the personal computer.

            • By johnnyanmac 2025-11-2023:48

              >The big change here is that it’s hitting so many industries at once, but that already happened with the personal computer.

              The PC was pre-NAFTA, and since then we've had at least 3 waves of tech trying to outsource tech jobs (let alone actually impacted jobs like manufacturing) to cut costs. We're now on the current wave.

              More stuff can be made... just not in the US.

            • By LtWorf 2025-11-1912:471 reply

              But nobody can afford stuff.

              • By panick21_ 2025-11-1916:151 reply

                And yet in the real world people buying labobous at insane rates.

                • By LtWorf 2025-11-1921:241 reply

                  The very same people that 40 years ago would have bought a home instead yes. Now they can no longer do that so might as well blow the money on stuff.

                  • By panick21_ 2025-11-2012:131 reply

                    > might as well blow the money on stuff.

                    Or you know, don't do that and buy a home when you are 40 instead of 25.

                    People who do save an have good discipline, and don't have children to early still do pretty well.

                    The culture of 'yolo just get a credit card with 18 and max it out for video game skins' is literally losing people 100000s over their lifetime.

                    Yes buying a house is not as easy as before, but the doomerism a solution. You can rent and be save. Renting isn't inherently worse for you in the long, that just myth.

                    • By LtWorf 2025-11-2023:53

                      > Or you know, don't do that and buy a home when you are 40 instead of 25.

                      * 400

      • By DenisM 2025-11-190:011 reply

        I heard Spain has 20% unemployment among the young and the violence problem did not happen. Didn’t check it though.

        • By lagosfractal42 2025-11-1915:031 reply

          Instead of checking and sharing it with us you've decided to pass on the burden of proof to us?

          • By DenisM 2025-11-1922:06

            Sorry, I was being lazy and on a phone. I checked now - it’s closer to 25%. Low crime is anecdotal from my personal connections.

      • By janalsncm 2025-11-1823:232 reply

        UBI correctly identifies the problem (people can’t afford housing/clothing/food without money) but is an inefficient solution imo. If we want people to have those things, we should simply give them to them.

        • By JoshTriplett 2025-11-190:461 reply

          How much of them, which ones, to who, at what price, who is forced to provide them, how much do they get, what about other needs...

          Or we could just give people money and let them do as they wish with it, and trade off between their needs and wants as they see fit (including the decision of whether they want to work to obtain more of their wants).

          • By janalsncm 2025-11-192:322 reply

            How much money should everyone get?

            • By mitthrowaway2 2025-11-193:271 reply

              The right answer to this is not a number, but rather a feedback loop that converges on the right number. When everyone is laid off without production of goods slowing down, the result is deflation; when everyone gets too much money relative to production of goods, the result is inflation. So that means you can use the CPI inflation as a feedback variable, and adjust the UBI amount until the CPI is stable.

              • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:241 reply

                I'm all for using a UBI to stabilize inflation (it's way better than giving the money to rich people like we do today), I don't think you got the sizes of things correctly.

                Any UBI that avoids people getting poor will have to come mainly form taxes, and will mostly not make any bit of inflation.

                • By mitthrowaway2 2025-11-1918:482 reply

                  Why would it come from taxes, rather than simply from being printed?

                  The typical answer is "printing money causes inflation", but in the context of this feedback loop, it only causes exactly as much inflation as is required to cancel out the deflation caused by automation-induced layoffs and productivity increases. That's the magic of feedback.

                  But if it's because the resulting UBI would still be insufficient for welfare, we could also use taxes to fund a secondary "revenue-neutral" layer of UBI that taxes the rich and redistributes to everybody, but probably it makes sense to go in slower steps, seeing what level the primary UBI stabilizes at and then adding a secondary tax-funded one if the primary one isn't sufficient for both welfare and sustaining economic demand.

                  (The secondary UBI would probably still be somewhat inflationary, even though it's funded by taxes, just because poor people spend more of their money on things that are highly-weighted in the CPI, but the feedback loop will balance that out).

                  • By JoshTriplett 2025-11-201:341 reply

                    Ideally, the funding for it would on net come from the substantial economic boost created by UBI. More startups, more innovation, more job mobility, higher salaries (because people have more options), more education and training and skilled labor (because people have more ability to not work)...

                    • By mitthrowaway2 2025-11-203:09

                      Indeed. I think one underappreciated economic boost would just be the greater economies of scale that so many production lines will be able to operate at when everyone can afford to buy their output!

                  • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1919:31

                    Because the printed money is way too little to create a social safety net.

            • By Dylan16807 2025-11-192:38

              If the plan was to give people the full set of housing/clothing/food then use the poverty line calculation for amount of money. Or the social security calculation.

              We can iterate on the exact amount. There are difficulties with UBI but figuring out the amount is a pretty minor one.

        • By boxerab 2025-11-193:481 reply

          the main problem with UBI is it makes people even more dependent on the state, and therefore more easy to control by said state.

          • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-197:521 reply

            Well, that and the utterly insane cost (and therefore inflation).

            • By azinman2 2025-11-1916:36

              Or the fact that everyone is now on welfare? And poorer?

    • By thewebguyd 2025-11-1820:455 reply

      > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      The same people who are buying products and services right now. Just 10% of the US population is responsible for nearly 50% of consumption.

      We are just going to bifurcate even more into the haves and have-nots. Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps.

      It won't be sustainable and we need UBI. A bunch of unemployed, hungry citizens with nothing left to lose is a combo that equals violent revolution.

      • By ben_w 2025-11-1821:294 reply

        The top 10% income bracket of the US is broad enough to include basically all US software developers, isn't it?

        If all jobs evaporate, what does the economy look like when just based on interest and dividend payments?

        • By stackskipton 2025-11-1822:03

          Top 10% of households are 212k. Plenty of software developers don't make that but if they have a spouse with 70k job, they are in top 10%. However, many software jobs are starting to be in HCOL so they probably don't feel like they are in top 10%.

        • By coffeecat 2025-11-194:55

          > The top 10% income bracket of the US is broad enough to include basically all US software developers, isn't it?

          I wish! My salary is a bit below the median US household income.

        • By thewebguyd 2025-11-1821:36

          Pretty much yeah, I believe it's around $200k/year puts you in that bracket.

          If all jobs evaporate, then only asset owners will have money to spend, everyone else is left to fight for scraps so we either all die off or we get mad max.

        • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:31

          It looks like Mad Max.

      • By tharne 2025-11-1823:26

        > Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps.

        Or everyone else starts fighting that 10% once they get tired of scraps.

      • By stocksinsmocks 2025-11-192:18

        Or maybe the type of labor desired will be more comple, interesting, and valuable as it was when we gave up hunting and gathering for farms and as we mechanized farming and left for factories and factories and offices.

      • By Eisenstein 2025-11-1821:11

        I posit that the consumption is the problem.

    • By nostrademons 2025-11-1823:05

      "All of these copilots are supposed to make work more efficient with fewer people, but my business leaders are also saying they can't reduce head count yet."

      Duh, if they reduce headcount then they will have fewer people in their department, which will negatively affect their chances for promotion and desirability of their resume. That's why they actually offshore the jobs to India and Southeast Asia; it lets them have 3x+ the headcount for the same budget.

      If you want to have them actually reduce headcount, make org size the denominator in their performance reviews, so a director with 150 people needs to be 15x more productive than a manager with 10, who needs to be 10x more productive than the engineer IC. I guarantee that you will see companies collapse from ~150,000 employees to ~150, and profit/employee numbers in the millions (and very likely, 90% unemployment and social revolution). This is an incentive issue, not a productivity issue. Most employees and their employers are woefully unproductive because of Parkinson's Law.

      You'll never see a manager or even a managing-CEO propose this, though, because it'll destroy their own marketability in the management job market. Only an owner-CEO would do it - which some have, eg. Valve, Nintendo, Renaissance Technologies. But by definition, these are minority employers that are hard to get into, because their business model is to employ only a few hundred people and pay them each millions of dollars.

    • By janalsncm 2025-11-1823:181 reply

      Intuitively, the whole economy cannot be B2B SAAS companies funded by VCs. At some point you need to provide value to consumers or the government. If those consumers don’t have any money and/or aren’t willing to spend a paycheck making studio ghibli profile pics, you have a problem. I guess Sam Altman has been asking for a government bailout so maybe he is going for the b2g option in a backwards sort of way.

      • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1911:012 reply

        These consumers will have to stop being entitled salaryman and show some entrepreneurship to survive.

        I think that's good thing.

        • By janalsncm 2025-11-1917:37

          Sure, maybe the majority will go back to being peasants or serfs, which I would argue is the default state of humanity. It might be that the last 300 years, where individuals have the ability to sell useful services back to society, were an anomaly and things will go back to the way they were before that.

        • By LtWorf 2025-11-1912:50

          And to whom do you sell stuff if nobody else has money either?

    • By RajT88 2025-11-1820:58

      > The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles.

      At least one sci-fi author has gamed this out:

      https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

    • By wongarsu 2025-11-1914:05

      In the magical fairy land of Economics 101 a lower headcount reduces costs, and because both their and their competitors' costs are reduced market forces drive the price of their products down by an equivalent amount. That leaves people with more spending power. Which leads to either more consumption of existing products and services, or creation of new types of products or services. Either way making those will employ additional people

      Of course in reality this does not work like that for large parts of the economy. But even if it was true companies woulnd't gain anything from AI beyond the ability to be briefly more competitive by being ahead of the curve in AI adoption

    • By cm2187 2025-11-199:501 reply

      The economy has never worked like that. When you increase productivity, you create wealth and you enable other industries to appear. We have gone through numbers of those cycles. The industrialisation of agriculture, then machines in manufacturing, then introduction of computers (think of all the secretarial jobs, computers - as in engineers making calculations, accountants that have disappeared), then outsourcing of the industry to China. But somehow unemployment is low in most western countries. So what makes you think this time it will be different?

      • By Pingk 2025-11-1910:141 reply

        Western employment has survived because automating and outsourcing labour has pushed people to take up knowledge/services work.

        If AI is somewhat successful at automating knowledge work, what feasible job could exist that doesn't require your mind or body?

        Services like healthcare and plumbing aren't going away of course, but there's not enough demand to support an economy on those jobs.

        In my opinion the whole economy needs a rethink regarding what our actual goals are as a society, and maybe AI will force that conversation to happen, but I'm sceptical if it'll be a well-considered consensus.

        • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1911:001 reply

          > If AI is somewhat successful at automating knowledge work, what feasible job could exist that doesn't require your mind or body?

          Very few office jobs in bigcos, but it does mean that you'll not need as much capital as before to start a business and compete with existing incumbents.

          • By bossyTeacher 2025-11-1912:501 reply

            In a world where AI automates jobs, arguably any business services you could offer would likely have no customers because those potential customers can automate the services you offer themselves just like AI automates the employment skills employees offer. Not sure why people keep bringing up entrepreneurship as if that couldn't be automated.

            • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1913:201 reply

              > In a world where AI automates jobs, arguably any business services you could offer would likely have no customers because those potential customers can automate the services you offer themselves just like AI automates the employment skills employees offer

              Take the POS market for example. It's relatively trivial to setup your POS system in dbase/foxpro/MS-access. Yet almost every shop uses lightspeed/toast/square because they don't want to take on the additional burden of maintaining it and want support. They also hire web developers/designers to make their website even though framer/square space are super easy to use.

              With AI I think what's happening is that more competitors are challenging these incumbents leading to downward pressure on pricing. Which is great for customers!

              > Not sure why people keep bringing up entrepreneurship as if that couldn't be automated.

              Ah, how would you automate entrepreneurship? This isn't the matrix where AI will suddenly wake up one day and start an entrepreneurship journey.

              • By bossyTeacher 2025-11-1914:25

                > With AI I think what's happening is that more competitors are challenging these incumbents leading to downward pressure on pricing. Which is great for customers!

                If AI automates jobs, POS system vendor is using an AI to run the business. You can do that yourself and remove the middle man.

                re: "Ah, how would you automate entrepreneurship?"

                I meant that every non-physical business need that would be filled by a local business can now be filled by the same AI you have already use to automate half the jobs away.

                There is this fantasy where employers can replace workers with AI but businesses cannot replace their software vendors with AI

    • By amy_petrik 2025-11-191:411 reply

      >Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      Let me answer your question with another question - if the population pyramid is inverted and birth rate is like 1.1 babbies per 2 adults.. then how is any market going to grow? Seems to me all markets with halve. On top of what you pointed out. Or I suppose it's a happy accident if our workforce halves as our work halves - but still the consumer market has halved. It does make me wonder under what reality one would fathom that the stock market would go up long term.

      • By corv 2025-11-191:51

        When AI and robots take care of everything there is more time to make babbies

    • By kjkjadksj 2025-11-193:06

      Its not even about reducing headcount but offshoring too. I see that in my industry. Major orgs are all hiring in bangalore now. Life is good if you are in bangalore or hyderabad. Ai is seen as something to smooth over the previous language/skill/culture gaps that may have been plugging the dam so far.

    • By ceroxylon 2025-11-1914:14

      The top 10% is already propping up half of consumer spending[0]. People will have money to throw around, but the amount of people doing so is shrinking until we figure out a way to balance the income disparity and reverse that trend.

      [0]https://www.morningbrew.com/stories/wealthy-americans-accoun...

    • By lumost 2025-11-1915:55

      Many industries are stuck in either prisoner dilemmas, all payer auctions, or other game theoretic environments that make it impossible to pull back spend.

      If the army was 1000x more “productive” on a dollar basis- would you cut back military spending? No, because everyone else will be 1000x as productive soon. Spend may even rise with efficiency gains unlocking new capabilities/risks.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1821:081 reply

      > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      We have no basis for seriously considering this hypothetical when it comes to LLMs.

      • By ben_w 2025-11-1821:49

        Depends how absolute one takes the statement "no-one has money to throw around".

        Taken loosely, we have seen previous developments which make a large fraction of a population redundant in short periods, and it goes really badly, even though the examples I know of are nowhere near the entire population.

        I'm not at all sure how much LLMs or other GenAI are "it" for any given profession: while they impress me a lot, they are fragile and weird and I assume that if all development stopped today the current shinyness would tarnish fast enough.

        But on the other hand, I just vibe coded 95% of a game that would have taken me a few months back when I was a fresh graduate, in a few days, using free credit. Similar for the art assets.

        How much money can I keep earning for that last 5% the LLM sucks at?

    • By bluefirebrand 2025-11-190:21

      > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      Here's hoping we figure that out soon otherwise we're going to see how long it takes the poor to reinvent the guillotine

      Personally I'm kind of hoping for sooner than later. The greed and vice of the upper stratosphere in society is wildly out of control and needs to be brought to heel

    • By tim333 2025-11-1823:58

      > problem ... laid off are not going to find new roles

      Not necessarily. If AI improves productivity, which it hasn't very much yet, there is the option to make more stuff rather than the same output with less people.

      The Luddites led on to Britain being the workshop of the world, not to everyone sitting around unemployed, at least not for a while.

    • By rozap 2025-11-1821:146 reply

      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, which seems extremely far fetched given it's owned by the group of people who would benefit from either scenario presented above.

      • By throwacct 2025-11-1821:45

        Third option: no bailouts of any type. Don't socialize losses. The board resets itself again, and let entrepreneurs, small businesses flourish again.

      • By JoshTriplett 2025-11-190:49

        > with bailouts going to the largest players

        > I honestly don't see a third option unless there is government intervention

        Bailouts are government intervention. The third option is an absence of government intervention, at least at the business level. By all means intervene in the form of support for impacted individuals, e.g. making sure people have food on the table. Stop intervening to save businesses that fail.

      • By johnnyanmac 2025-11-191:09

        It's slim but the 3rd option is the administration falling apart Nixon-style. Be it by death, conviction, or resignation.

        The slimmer part is any potential successors suddenly responding to the people, but maybe that happens in congress in 2027. Still up in the air.

      • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:401 reply

        If the AI bubble pops it's just another bubble like the many ones that have occurred throughout history and the market eventually recovers.

        In the AGI Succeeds scenario, the situation is unprecedented and it's not clear how it ever gets better.

        • By throwacct 2025-11-1821:506 reply

          Tbh, the answer is simple: if we truly get AGI, the government would nationalize it because it's a matter of national security and prosperity for that matter. Everything will change forever. Agriculture, Transportation, Health... Breakthrough after breakthrough after breakthrough. The country would hold the actual key to solve almost any problem.

          • By apsurd 2025-11-1822:47

            when you write it out like that, it sounds unfathomably… silly.

            I'm not a tinfoil hat skeptic, and i'd like to think i can accept the rationale behind the possibility. But I don't think we're remotely close as people seem to think.

          • By gizajob 2025-11-1822:39

            The government only nationalises losses, not wins.

          • By bossyTeacher 2025-11-1912:59

            > Tbh, the answer is simple: if we truly get AGI, the government would nationalize it

            If you truly get AGI, you are highly unlikely to be able to reliably control it let alone nationalise it. And it is highly unlikely that only a single country would reach it. Chances at least one other country would. And AGI would be eventually weaponised against other countries successfully or not.

            the changes of AGI causing huge damage in the world would be very real. Unlike a WMD, the damage isn't necessarily visible, immediate or obvious.

          • By trashtester 2025-11-198:07

            As technology changes over history, governments tend to emerge that reflect the part of the population that can maintain a monopoly of violence.

            In the Classical Period, it was the citizen soldiers of Rome and Greece, at least in the west. These produced the ancient republics and proto-democracies.

            Later replaced by professional standing armies under people like Alexander and the Ceasars. This allowed kings and emperors.

            In the Early to Mid Medieaval time, they were replaced by knights, elites who allowed a few men to defeat commoners many times their number. This caused feudalism.

            Near the end of the period, pikes and crossbows and improved logistic systems shifted power back to central governments, primarily kings/emperors.

            Then, with rifles, this swung the pendulum all the way back to citizen soldiers between the 18th and early 20th century, which brought back democracies and republics.

            Now the pendulum is going in the opposite direction. Technology and capital distribution has already effectively moved a lot of power back to an oligarchic elite.

            And if full AGI combined with robots more physically capable than humans, it can swing all the way. In principle a single monarch could gain monopoly of violence over an entire country.

            Do not take for granted that our current undertanding of what the government is, is going to stay the same.

            Some kind of merger between capital and power seems likely, where democratic elections quickly become completely obsolete.

            Once the police and military have been mostly automated, I don't think our current system is going to last very long.

          • By gizajob 2025-11-1822:39

            The key to typing out the solution to any problem, not actually solving it.

          • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:581 reply

            Looking at the current state of politics around the world...you really think that would be the outcome?

            • By throwacct 2025-11-1822:51

              AGI? Absolutely. If your country gets there, would anyone relinquish that type of power and knowledge?

      • By lemoncookiechip 2025-11-190:164 reply

        Does the USA even have enough money to rescue the tech giants at this point? We could be talking multiple trillion dollars at worst. And the AI only companies like OpenAI and Anthropic would be the most vulnerable in comparison to say Google or Microsoft, because they have no fallback and no sustainability without investor money.

        And Nvidia would be left in a weird place where the vast majority of their profits are coming from AI cards and demand would potentially dry up entirely.

        • By Libidinalecon 2025-11-191:55

          That is a huge problem.

          We were not pushing 40 trillion in debt at the time of the great financial crisis.

          The TARP was a max of 700 billion and we didn't even disburse all the funds.

          Trying to do a bailout of this size could easily cause a crisis in the treasury market. Then we really are in huge trouble.

        • By Ekaros 2025-11-196:58

          There is talk about bailout, but is it first possible. Second how long will it post pone issue. Massive increase in government debt used in bailout likely leads to more inflation, which leads to higher interest rates, making that debt much more expensive. And at some point credibility of that debt and dollar in general will be gone.

          Ofc, this does lead to ever increasing paper valuations. So maybe that is the win they are after.

        • By zeroonetwothree 2025-11-191:33

          All these companies don’t have piles of debt. So why would they need a bailout at all?

        • By mupuff1234 2025-11-195:43

          Microsoft, Google, etc are printing money despite the bubble, not because.

          Don't see why they would need rescuing.

      • By goalieca 2025-11-1821:56

        Bailouts for chip fabicration and nothing else.

    • By jmkni 2025-11-1820:45

      There's a karma element too

      Maybe I can make things more efficient by getting rid of you and replacing you with AI, but how long until my boss has the same idea?

    • By WhyOhWhyQ 2025-11-193:39

      The narrative going around in AI skeptic circles at least is that these layoffs are not tied to AI but to covid-era over-hiring, and that companies have an incentive to blame the layoffs on AI rather than admit underperformance/bad planning.

    • By Ferret7446 2025-11-192:36

      The same could be said for the nuclear arms race. The problem is that you can't afford to let a competitor/foreign country own this technology. You must invest. The problems have to be figured out later.

    • By pessimizer 2025-11-1912:30

      > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around?

      Nobody. It's a joke. The reason China could do this is because they were selling to the world. Our idiot elites don't even believe that it's bad to run massive trade deficits every year, while watching the gradually increasing strength of every exporting country.

      A great movie about this that I watched recently is Der VW-Komplex (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBRIzhbTFUA), where I learned that in the late 80s fully 10% of Volkswagen's output was purchased by Volkswagen's employees. Bitomsky was already asking "what will the robots buy?" And watching a management that seemed to think of human needs and desires as an annoying complication of machine and product design.

      > The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles.

      I will note again that middle class people are completely unsympathetic to this problem until it affects them. They're like "Just learn Spanish!" "Just become programmers!" i.e. just be like me, who planned ahead and was quiet in class and is exactly where I belong. Complete idiot answers given by somebody who isn't worried about their own position in society at all.

      Almost every independent retail business closed down because the US wouldn't tax imports or Amazon purchases, every small town in the US was wrecked and every Front Street filled with boarded up storefronts or rotating unprofitable boutiques run by the wives and children of rich men, and the upper middle class just laughed, looked down their noses and complained about their taxes.

      I suggest gig work. The people who own the machines will send you tips through your phone if you pick up the leaves and trash around the gates of their homes.

    • By popcorncowboy 2025-11-194:57

      Tax AI.

    • By croes 2025-11-1912:10

      AI and robots have the same problem.

      If they work they will ruin a any society where income is based on labor.

      So AI either destroys capitalism or society.

  • By nabla9 2025-11-1810:046 reply

    Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon will get through easily. They don't have excessive debt. They can afford to lose their investments into AI. Their valuations will take a hit. Nvidia will lose revenue and profits, stock will go down by 60% or more, but it will also survive.

    Oracle will likely fail. It funded its AI pivot with debt. The Debt-to-Revenue ratio is 1.77, the Debt-to-Equity ratio D/E is 520, and it has a free cash flow problem.

    OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the dollar.

    • By tim333 2025-11-190:13

      >Debt-to-Equity ratio D/E is 520

      It's actually 520% or 5.2 - still high but 520 would be crazy.

    • By surgical_fire 2025-11-1819:08

      > Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon will get through easily. They don't have excessive debt. They can afford to lose their investments into AI.

      Survive, yes. I don't think anybody ever questioned this.

      I wonder if they will be able to remain as "growth stocks", however. These companies are allergic to be seen as nature companies, with more modest growth profiles, share profits, etc.

    • By Balgair 2025-11-190:031 reply

      > OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the dollar.

      And just like 23andme, so will all that data be sold for dimes.

      • By ribosometronome 2025-11-199:17

        If it's just like 23andme, that sale would be to Sam Altman.

    • By belter 2025-11-1812:331 reply

      You will be able to rent a whole Meta datacenter with thousands of NVIDIA B200 for $5/hour. AWS will become unprofitable due to abundance of capacity...

      • By DeathArrow 2025-11-1913:181 reply

        That's sounds nice. I can run FLUX or SDXL on all those NVIDIAs and fill the Internet with porn.

        • By belter 2025-11-1916:04

          > fill the Internet with porn....

          I have got news for you...

    • By tow21 2025-11-1810:122 reply

      Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon might get through easily as companies. I don't think all G/M/M/A staff will get through easily.

      • By conartist6 2025-11-1810:214 reply

        Microsoft is in a pickle. They put AI lipstick on top of decades of unfixed tech debt and their relationship with their userbase isn't great. Their engineering culture is clearly not healthy. For their size and financial resources, their position in the market right now is very delicate.

        • By throwawayffffas 2025-11-1810:512 reply

          I think that's the impression you get if you focus on Microsoft as a OS vendor. It's not that anymore, that's why their OS sucks for many years now. Their main business is b2b, cloud services, and azure. I think they are pretty safe from OpenAI. Plus they have invested big in OpenAI as well.

          • By Ekaros 2025-11-1811:091 reply

            Windows is hard to replace in large organizations. Is there actually any real AI competitors in the stack? Well Google, maybe. The whole Windows+Office+AD+Exchange and now Azure stack is unlikely to go any time soon. However badly they screw it up.

            • By robotnikman 2025-11-1818:56

              True. Basically any medium to large scale business is reliant on Windows/Office/AD. While there are open source alternatives to Windows/Office, I can't think of a good open source alternative to AD/Group Policy/etc

          • By goalieca 2025-11-1821:592 reply

            M365 is arguably far worse than office97. Drive/sharepoint is confusing and team is especially broken.

            Azure is a product all right, but there’s nothing particularly better there than anywhere else.

            • By mr_toad 2025-11-1823:03

              SharePoint has been a dog’s breakfast since forever.

            • By BLKNSLVR 2025-11-190:13

              M365 is inarguably worse than Office 97

        • By StopDisinfo910 2025-11-1810:421 reply

          I don't think so.

          They are one of the few companies actually making money with AI as they have intelligently leveraged the position of Office 365 in companies to sell Copilot. Their AI investment plans are, well, plans which could be scaled down easily. Worst case scenario for them is their investment in OpenAI becoming worthless.

          It would hurt but is hardly life threatening. Their revenue driver is clearly their position at the heart of entreprise IT and they are pretty much untouchable here.

          • By thewebguyd 2025-11-1821:33

            > Worst case scenario for them is their investment in OpenAI becoming worthless.

            And even then, if that happens when the bubble pops, they'll likely just acquire OpenAI on the cheap. Thanks to the current agreement, it already runs on Azure, they already have access to OpenAI's IP, and Microsoft has already developed all their Copilots on top of it. It would be near-zero cost for Microsoft at that point to just absorb them and continue on as they are today.

            Microsoft isn't going anywhere, for better or for worse.

            Despite them pissing off users with Windows, what HN forgets, is they aren't Microsoft's customer. The individual user/consumer never was. We may not want what MS is selling, but their enterprise customers definitely do.

        • By eitally 2025-11-190:472 reply

          I disagree. They're the one place that can get away without investing in frontier model research and still win in the enterprise.

          Google is only place that serves the enterprise (Workspace for productivity, Cloud for IT, Devices for end users) AND conducts meaningful AI research.

          AWS doesn't (they can sell cloud effectively, but don't have any meaningful in-house AI R&D), Meta doesn't (they don't cover enterprise and, frankly, nobody trusts Zuck... and they're flaky.

          Oracle doesn't. They have grown their cloud business rapidly by 1) easy button for Oracle on-prem to move to OCI, and 2) acting like a big colo for bare metal "cloud" infra. No AI.

          Open AI has fundamental research and is starting to have products, but it's still niche. Same as Anthropic. They're not in the same ball game as the others, and they're going to continue to pay billions to the hyperscalers annually for infra, too.

          This is Google's game to lose, imho, but the biggest loser will be AWS (not Azure/Microsoft).

          • By hyperadvanced 2025-11-1915:32

            I agree that AWS/Amazon seems to be uniquely badly positioned to benefit at all from AI, while also being potentially screwed by AI companies failing.

          • By Blamklmo 2025-11-1911:33

            [dead]

        • By Blamklmo 2025-11-1911:30

          [dead]

      • By nabla9 2025-11-1810:306 reply

        I cry for Elon, that precious jewel of a human being.

        Tesla (P/E: 273, PEG: 16.3) the car maker without robots, robotaxis is less than 15% of the Tesla valuation at best. When the AI hype dies, selloff starts and negative sentiment hits, we have below $200B market cap company.

        It will hurt Elon mentally. He will need a hug.

        • By officeplant 2025-11-1821:21

          He's gonna need a lot of ketamine in the aftermath that's for sure.

        • By slaw 2025-11-1810:48

          Never bet against TSLA. Elon will just start selling tickets Mars colony.

        • By gizajob 2025-11-1822:42

          The fanboys obsessively buy any dip. It should have been back at a $200billion market cap countless times but it never gets there.

        • By Rover222 2025-11-1821:212 reply

          Then show us your puts, mr buffet

          • By tim333 2025-11-190:54

            Buffett isn't a put buyer but did well investing in Tesla's rival BYD.

          • By bdangubic 2025-11-1821:22

            lol - yea…

        • By rhetocj23 2025-11-190:08

          [dead]

        • By ceo_tim_crook 2025-11-190:44

          [dead]

    • By aurareturn 2025-11-1810:428 reply

        OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the dollar.
      
      OpenAI is existential threat to all big tech including Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple. Hence, they're all spending lavishly right now to not get left behind.

      Meta --> GenAI Content creation can disrupt Instagram. ChatGPT likely has more data on a person than Instagram does by now for ads. 800 million daily active users for ChatGPT already.

      Google --> Cash cow search is under threat from ChatGPT.

      Microsoft --> Productivity/work is fundamentally changed with GenAI.

      Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

      I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big tech in ~5 years or less.

      • By j_w 2025-11-1814:283 reply

        > Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

        Yeah... No they can't. I don't agree with any of your "disruptions," but this one is just comically incorrect. There was a post on HN somewhat recently that was a simulated computer using LLMs, and it was unusable.

        • By zahlman 2025-11-196:39

          I think it should be obvious just from thinking about how much more an OS is beyond the UI for launching programs.

        • By lucaslazarus 2025-11-195:091 reply

          Not to mention you would need an order of magnitude improvement in on-device inference speed to make this feasible at current smartphone costs. Or they could offload it and sell an insecure overpriced-subscription laggy texting device that bricks when you don’t have cell service…

          • By aurareturn 2025-11-195:24

            It isn't going to happen soon. Maybe 4-6 years from now.

            But it is clearly the direction. Apple will try to stave off this move by turning iOS more into an LLM as well.

        • By aurareturn 2025-11-193:05

          I find myself doing more and more inside ChatGPT. When ChatGPT inevitably can generate GUIs on the fly, book me an uber, etc. I don't see why iOS wouldn't have competition.

      • By nabla9 2025-11-1810:501 reply

        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.

        • By aurareturn 2025-11-1811:074 reply

          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.

          • By NumberCruncher 2025-11-1822:351 reply

            They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.

            Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".

            • By aurareturn 2025-11-193:072 reply

                They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.
              
              I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world.

              I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?

              • By consp 2025-11-193:221 reply

                Meta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.

                • By aurareturn 2025-11-193:531 reply

                  Given that OpenAI has publicly stated that they're working on monetizing free users (ads), I think they can make ads targeting as good as Meta can.

                  This is why Meta is all in on AI by the way. With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.

                  • By DeathArrow 2025-11-1914:44

                    >With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.

                    People are on Facebook to interact with other human beings, not LLMs. People won't leave Facebook to use ChatGPT.

              • By NumberCruncher 2025-11-1921:40

                > Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million [...] users?

                I am pretty sure they will be able to monetize it. But there is a big difference between "generating revenue" and "generating profit". It's way cheaper to put ads between posts of your friends (like FB started out with ads) then putting ads next to the response of an LLM. Because LLM responses has to be unique, while a holiday photo of yours might be interesting for all of your friends, and LLM inference is quite expensive, while hosting holiday photos is cheap. IMHO this is the reason why the 5th generation of ChatGPT models try to answer all possible questions of the world in one single response, kinda hoping that I am going to be happy with it an just close the chat.

          • By nabla9 2025-11-1813:441 reply

            > Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.

            Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor money drying out there is no bubble.

            • By aurareturn 2025-11-1814:043 reply

              I think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.

              • By gizajob 2025-11-1822:40

                More like 1998

              • By arunabha 2025-11-1819:202 reply

                Clearly, a lot of people here disagree with you. Doesn't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech industry.

                • By consp 2025-11-193:241 reply

                  Bitcoin is going to be the next universal payment system anytime now...

                  • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-198:02

                    Weird example to trot out as a bubble when at any point in its history, if you held for a few years or so you’d be pretty far ahead on your investment. It clearly shows people are awful at calling out bubbles.

                • By aurareturn 2025-11-193:071 reply

                  The mass is usually wrong on predicting these kinds of events. I don't see why HN is any different than Reddit group think.

                  • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-198:00

                    Nobody was predicting for the dotcom or the financial crisis bubbles. The fact that everyone and their grandma is calling this a bubble makes me think that it simply can’t be.

              • By lizknope 2025-11-1912:37

                I asked a few weeks ago if we are at the Pets.com stage of the bubble yet.

          • By jcgrillo 2025-11-199:35

            > They consistently have the best or second best models.

            This is the problem with your original argument. It assumes that having a "good model" (e.g. one that performs well on some benchmarks) has somehow to do with something in the real world. It doesn't. If you can show that it does, your thesis might have at least a glimmer of credibility.

            The idea that a chatbot will somehow displace an operating system is the kind of absurdity that follows from making this error.

          • By jimbokun 2025-11-1821:44

            What if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?

      • By r053bud 2025-11-1819:51

        I’ll HAPPILY bet that it won’t. $10,000 to a charity of each other’s choosing?

      • By bigstrat2003 2025-11-1823:141 reply

        OpenAI has yet to make a single, solitary thing that works well. It's nothing but Sam Altman hyping things. They aren't an existential threat to anyone.

        • By tim333 2025-11-190:38

          ChatGPT 3 and 4 were impressive and kind of kicked off the current AI boom/bubble. Since then though, Altman changing the non-profit OpenAI into a kind of for profit Closed AI seems to have led to a lot of talent leaving.

      • By nomel 2025-11-1823:09

        > Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

        Or, instead of spending billions training models that are nearly all the same, they instead take advantage of all the datacenter full of GPUs, and AI companies frantically trying to make a profit, many most likely crashing and burning in the process, to pay relative pennies to use the top, nearly commoditized, model of the month?

        Then, maybe someday, starting late and taking advantage of the latest research/training methods that shave off years of training time, save billions on a foundation model of their own?

        I don't think it makes sense for Apple to be an AI company. It makes sense for them to use AI, but I don't see why everyone needs to have their own model, right now, during all the churn. It's nearly already commodity. In house doesn't make sense to me.

      • By thewebguyd 2025-11-1821:26

        > I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big tech in ~5 years or less.

        I seriously doubt it. If this bubble pops, the best OpenAI can hope for is they just get absorbed into Microsoft.

      • By officeplant 2025-11-1821:18

        >Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

        Ah yes, PromptOS will go down in the history books for sure.

      • By petesergeant 2025-11-198:02

        No, LLMs are an existential threat. OpenAI is a heavily leveraged prop-model company selling inference, which often has a model a few months ahead of its competitors.

        AI isn’t bullshit, but selling access to a proprietary model has certainly not been proven as a business model yet.

  • By willis936 2025-11-191:5716 reply

    Forget the talk about bubbles and corrections. Can someone explain to me the rationale of investing in a product, marketing it, seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust, and then you continue to invest at an accelerating rate? Good business would have driven us very far away from this point years ago. This is very deep in the "because we can" territory. It's not FOMO.

    • By Ancapistani 2025-11-192:117 reply

      > Can someone explain to me the rationale of investing in a product, marketing it, seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust, and then you continue to invest at an accelerating rate?

      Sure!

      Google began investing heavily in AI (LLMs, actually) to catch up to the other frontier labs, which had already produced a product that was going to eviscerate Google Search (and therefore, Google ad revenue). They recognized this, and set about becoming a leader in the emerging field.

      Is it not better to be a leader in the nascent industry that is poised to kill your profitability?

      This is the same approach that Google took with smartphones. They saw Apple as a threat not because they had a product that was directly competing, but because they recognized that allowing Apple to monopolize mobile computing would put them in a position to take Google’s ad revenue — or allow them to extract rent in the form of payments to ensure Apple didn’t direct their users to a competing service. Android was not initially intended to be a revenue source, at least not most importantly. It was intended to limit the problem that Apple represented. Later, once Google had a large part of the market, they found ways to monetize the platform via both their ad network and an app store.

      AI is no different. If Google does nothing, they lose. If they catch up and take the lead, they limit the size of the future threat and if all goes well, will be able to monetize their newfound market share down the road - but monetization is a problem for future Google. Today’s Google’s problem is getting the market share.

      • By jcgrillo 2025-11-198:463 reply

        > frontier labs, which had already produced a product that was going to eviscerate Google Search (and therefore, Google ad revenue)

        > If Google does nothing, they lose.

        Is any of that actually true though? In retrospect, had google done nothing their search product would still work. Currently it's pretty profoundly broken, at least from a functional standpoint--no idea how that impacts revenue if at all. To me it seems like google in particular took the bait and went after a paper tiger, and in doing so damaged their product.

        • By big-and-small 2025-11-199:451 reply

          Even before recent "AI improvements" for us tech nerds Google search was broken ad invaded something. But for average Joe up until recently it's was still okay because it served purpose of whatever normal people use search for: find some rumors about their favorite celebs, find some car parts information or just "buy X".

          Problem for Google is that for a good chunk of normal non-techy people LLM chats looks like talking to genius super intelligence and they was not burned by it yet. So they trust it.

          And now good chunk of non-tech people now go and ask ChatGPT instead of using google search. And they do it simply because it's less enshittified than Google search.

          • By jcgrillo 2025-11-1911:581 reply

            I wonder is Google's AI investment a rational reaction to real competition or something else? My strong suspicion is that it's in fact delusional beliefs held by their management--something to do with "AGI"--that drives this activity, perhaps combined with the effects of information monoculture/social isolation/groupthink. It seems the simpler explanation that a very small group of people are behaving insanely than a very large number.

            • By big-and-small 2025-11-1920:591 reply

              I'm honestly clueless about reasoning behind bigtech investment into AI. For me it's all just look like another seasonal fad like we had many of during last two decades. Everyone invests into AI because of FOMO.

              I know the tech itself is real and people do use it. And it will certainly change the world. Yet I doubt even fraction of money burnt on it will ever be recuperated because race to the bottom.

              But yeah - I'm just random tech guy who has not built a big successful company and honestly have very little clue how to make money this way.

              • By Ancapistani 2025-11-1922:42

                > I'm just random tech guy who has not built a big successful company and honestly have very little clue how to make money this way.

                Hey, me too :)

                I’ve been at this for a couple of decades, though, and from what I’ve seen the key to building a “successful” company is to ride the wave of popular interest to get funding, build an effective team, and then (and only then) try to find a way to make it profitable enough to exit.

                I do think “AI” (really, LLMs, and GPTs in particular) are going to have a transformative impact on a scale and at a rate we’ve never seen before - I just have zero confidence that I can accurately predict what it’s going to look like when the dust settles.

        • By oblio 2025-11-199:261 reply

          Users still googled before. Now they just move to chatbots. Regular people don't really notice the search degradation as much and enshittification helps Google, as revenues kept going up. Chatbots are an existential threat since they will add ads and that's where Google's ad revenue dies.

          • By jcgrillo 2025-11-199:444 reply

            Did any users actually move to chatbots? By which I don't mean the 0.001% of tech nerds who buy chatgpt subscriptions, but in aggregate did a meaningful number of google searchers defect to chatgpt or other llm services? I really doubt that. Data would be interesting but there's a credibility problem...

            • By big-and-small 2025-11-199:491 reply

              Yes. People do use them and they trust them, unfortunately.

              Tech nerds know what ChatGPT is, they know llm limits somewhat and they know it's hallucinating. Normal people do not - for them is a magical all knowing oracle.

              • By Ancapistani 2025-11-1922:47

                > People do use them and they trust them, unfortunately.

                Yep, and it’s hard to communicate that to them. It’s hard to accurately describe even to someone familiar with the context.

                I don’t think “trust” is the right word. Sitting here on 19 Nov 2025, I do in fact trust LLMs to reason. I don’t trust LLMs to be truthful.

                If I ask for a fact, I always consider what I’d lose if that fact were wrong.

                If I ask for reasoning, I provide the facts that I believe are required to make the decision. I then double-check that reasoning by inverting the prompt and comparing the output in the other direction. For more critical decisions, I make sure I use different models, from different providers, with completely separate context. If I’ve done all that, I think I can honestly say that I trust it.

                These days, I would describe it as “I don’t trust AI to distinguish truth”

            • By Ancapistani 2025-11-1922:19

              I don’t have data for it, and would love to dig it up at some point. My head is too deep in a problem at the moment to make space for it …but I did just add it to my task list via ChatGPT :)

              Anecdotally, I believe they did.

              My wife is decidedly not a tech nerd, but had her own ChatGPT subscription without my input before I switched us over to a business account.

              My mother is 58, and a retired executive for a “traditional” Fortune 100 company. She’s competent with MS productivity tools and the software she used for work, but has little interest outside that. She also had her own ChatGPT subscription.

              Both of them were using it for at least a large subset of what they’d previously used Google for.

            • By oblio 2025-11-1912:05

              Gemini, ChatGPT and probably all of the others have free tiers that can be used as an enhanced web search. And they're probably better in many regards, since they do the aggregation directly. Plus regular users don't really check sources, can't really verify the trustworthiness of a website, etc, so their results were always hit or miss.

            • By Iulioh 2025-11-1910:42

              As someone who deeply dislikes using chatbots for information there is a lot of stuff that is easily and reliably anwsered by GPT

              You must know the limitations of the medium but searching for how much and at what temperature should i bake my broccoli is so fucking annoying to search on google

        • By Ancapistani 2025-11-1922:39

          > Is any of that actually true though?

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          I don’t think it matters.

          Google has the capital to spend, and this effort needn’t succeed to be worthwhile. My point is that the scope of the potential future risk more than justifies the expense.

          > and in doing so damaged their product

          Only in objective terms.

          The overall size of the market Google is operating in hasn’t changed, and I’m not aware of anyone positioned to provide a better alternative. Even if we assume that Google Search has gotten worse as a result of this, their traditional competitors aren’t stealing marketshare. They’re all either worse than the current state of Search, are making the same bet, or both.

      • By i386 2025-11-1911:101 reply

        This is very revisionist. While they have been catching up quickly there was no master 4D chess strategy here. Google was incredibly late to this game - Sergey had to come back from retirement because most of the research team had a Sarah Connor complex and couldn’t ship. The saving grace is that AdWords picked up the tab again and founders shook the place up when it became clear the golden goose was being cooked.

        • By palmotea 2025-11-1916:44

          > Sergey had to come back from retirement because most of the research team had a Sarah Connor complex and couldn’t ship.

          What, you don't want to ship the Torment Nexus? You're fired! We must ship a Torment Nexus, we must maintain our market share even if it means our destruction!

      • By willis936 2025-11-1911:07

        This makes sense, but if the goal was to avoid business failure from disruption / losing customers, then why would the companies not be behaving in ways that maximize their customers? Intermediate value theorem applies here. There is no number of net negative customer base that can be spun in a good way. There is no path to recouping their lost customers. These fundamentals must be seen by the decision makers.

      • By rifty 2025-11-199:08

        This has been how I've framed a lot of the expenditure despite lack of immediate substantial new revenues. Everyone including Google is driven to protecting current revenues from prospective disruption. But the vulnerability AI created for Google is to other companies worth positioning themselves to take advantage of if Google falls behind and loses chunks of marketshare.

      • By schnitzelstoat 2025-11-198:131 reply

        Yeah, like imagine if the LLM's don't advance that much, the agentic stuff doesn't really take off etc.

        Even in this conservative case, ChatGPT could seriously erode Google Search revenues. That alone would be a massive disruption and Google wants to ensure they end up as the Google in that scenario and not the Lycos, AltaVista, AskJeeves etc. etc.

        • By bbarnett 2025-11-1910:392 reply

          But what Google is doing, is like what Firefox did when Chrome came out. Panicking.

          Panicking, and therefore making horrible design and product choices.

          Google has made their main search engine output utter and complete junk. It's just terrible. If they didn't have 'web' search, I'd never be able to use it.

          In almost every search for the last month, normal search results in horrible matches. Switch to web? Bam! First result.

          Not web? The same perfect result might be 3 or 4 pages deep. If that.

          (I am comparing web results in both cases, and ignoring the also broken 80% of the pages of AI junk.)

          In an attempt to compete, they're literally driving people to use ChatGPT for search in droves.

          They could compete, and do so without this panicky disaster of a response.

          • By mjcl 2025-11-1915:01

            Fun fact: For now, adding a boolean search term like -blahblahblah will skip the AI result and just show web results.

          • By andrepd 2025-11-1911:121 reply

            What do you mean "normal" and "web"?

            • By bbarnett 2025-11-1914:50

              Do a search. After, you can select image, shop, other things or web search.

      • By m463 2025-11-194:00

        I like the duck duck go AI summaries...

      • By keyle 2025-11-195:032 reply

        [flagged]

        • By tempestn 2025-11-195:161 reply

          It was a well reasoned response to the question posed. Not everything is AI, and not all "walls of text" are equal.

          • By Ancapistani 2025-11-1922:22

            I didn’t see the comment, but I assume they were accusing me of generating it.

            For what it’s worth, I didn’t use AI at all for it. I just tend to sound like an LLM, likely because I have ADHD and grew up very rural (most of my vocabulary and grammar from reading).

            I also tend to use a lot of parenthetical phrases, semi-colons, and lists. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • By FloorEgg 2025-11-196:07

          Maybe consider trying to follow the HN guidelines?

    • By Octoth0rpe 2025-11-192:113 reply

      > Can someone explain to me the rationale of investing in a product, marketing it, seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust, and then you continue to invest at an accelerating rate?

      I'll take a stab at this. It's not 100% clear to me which product you're referring to, so I'll try to answer as if the product is something that already has customers, and the maker of the product is shoving AI into it. The rationale is that the group you're trying to convince that you're doing a good job is your shareholders or investors, not your actual customers. You can justify some limited customer attrition by noting that your competitors are doing the same thing, and that maybe if you shove the _right_ AI features into the product, you'll win those customers back.

      I'm not saying it's a _good_ rationale, but that seems to be what's at play in many cases.

      • By willis936 2025-11-1911:041 reply

        This is what I feel is the case. That is putting a lot of customers on the table. Valve / GabeN get it. In 2025 they make a marketing point about how their hardware runs arch and you can put whatever software you want on it. Valve is positioned to eat Microsoft's and Google's lunch if they're not careful. While chasing the fear of losing customers they are actively losing customers.

      • By strange_quark 2025-11-193:17

        Correct. More succinctly, this what happens when the share price becomes the product.

      • By globalnode 2025-11-197:15

        i like this reason, and the 'dont do nothing' sibling comment. both make sense to me.

    • By macNchz 2025-11-193:232 reply

      There are at least a few stories from the 90s where companies that readily could have invested in “getting online” instead decided that it would only harm their existing business. The hype at the time was extraordinary to be sure, but after the dust settled the internet did change the shape of the world.

      Nobody can really know what things will look like in 10 years, but if you have the capital to deploy and any conviction at all that this might be a sea-change moment, it seems foolish to not pursue it.

      • By Frieren 2025-11-198:011 reply

        > Nobody can really know what things will look like in 10 years,

        100% true. Do not invest trillions on such an uncertainty in the long term is always a bad investment.

        > but if you have the capital to deploy and any conviction at all that this might be a sea-change moment, it seems foolish to not pursue it.

        Gamblers argument: "But what if this is the winning ticket?"

        • By sampullman 2025-11-198:231 reply

          Then aren't most forms of investment based on a "gambler's argument"?

          A risky investment is obviously akin to gambling, but to get things built and make a profit you have no other choice.

          • By amelius 2025-11-1910:152 reply

            > Then aren't most forms of investment based on a "gambler's argument"?

            Are you now equating an investor with some guy in a casino? Sorry, but that seems like a stretch.

            • By beepbooptheory 2025-11-1913:10

              You are quoting and responding to a rhetorical question from a person with essentialy the same criticism as you, to respond as if they are making the claim.. why??

            • By sampullman 2025-11-1920:12

              No I am not, you took the opposite of the intended meaning.

              I'm saying the risk aspect is similar, but I take issue with equating (product) investment and gambling, since one has a potential to create, and the other just shifts money around.

      • By boxerab 2025-11-193:451 reply

        Pascal's Wager for tech.

        • By krige 2025-11-1910:12

          More like it's edgy cousin, the basilisk.

    • By kjkjadksj 2025-11-193:041 reply

      The golden goose is not you or I. It is our boss who will buy this junk for us and expect us to integrate it into our workflows or be shown the door. It is the broccoli headed kids who don’t even have to crack open cliffnotes to shirk their academic responsibilities anymore. It is universities that are trying to “keep up” by forcing an AI prompting class as a prerequisite for most majors. These groups represent a lot of people and a lot of money.

      It doesn’t have to work. It just has to sell and become entrenched enough. And by all metrics that is what is happening. A self fulfilling prophecy, no different than your org buying redundant enterprise software from all the major vendors today.

      • By isoprophlex 2025-11-198:28

        > broccoli headed kids

        now that there's a prime quality rare insult

        anyway i totally agree with your reasoning. one might as well ask "why is MS Teams so bad? it's bloated, slow, buggy, nasty to use from a UX pov... yet it's everywhere"

        this shitware -- ms teams, llm slopguns, whatever -- never had to work, they just have to sell.

    • By brainwad 2025-11-197:442 reply

      Eastman Kodak tried your implied proposed strategy, of ignoring technological developments that undermine their core product. It didn't go so well. Naturally technology companies have learned from this and other past mistakes.

      • By DeathArrow 2025-11-199:581 reply

        Kodak developed a prototype digital camera in 1975. In 1990 they started selling digital cameras. They manufactured their own sensors.

        How did they ignore technological advancements?

        • By Iulioh 2025-11-1910:451 reply

          Having the shinyest toys is useless if you don't play with them.

          They had the tech but didn't see the danger in it, they belived that the lower quality digital camera would fail and investing in them would mean exploring a new market and they choose the safe corporate move, buisness as usual.

          Turns out that low quality but way more pratical and cheaper on the long run really sells

          • By lizknope 2025-11-1912:35

            https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/908575-one-of-job-s-busines...

            “One of Job's business rules was to never be afraid of cannibalizing yourself. " If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will," he said. So even though an Iphone might cannibalize sales of an IPod, or an IPad might cannibalize sales of a laptop, that did not deter him.”

            Kodak did sell digital cameras but they were so scared of protecting their film business I don't think they went all in on digital and let the other camera companies take over.

      • By pfannkuchen 2025-11-1916:56

        I’m not sure this is the whole story.

        Kodak operated in a region that was a manufacturing and technology hub until the mid 1900s. The region started to decline significantly in the 1960s. By the 1990s it was basically a ruins compared to the 1950s.

        So by the time Kodak made this strategic mistake, I imagine they already would have had a hard time recruiting talent into that obviously dying region for a decade or so, and many people who were there already were actively leaving the region by that time.

        I suspect that in the counterfactual where the region stayed as it was in the 1950s in terms of economic prosperity, Kodak probably could have successfully played catch up once it was clear where the game was going.

        So yes they made a strategic mistake, but they did so while simultaneously “brain drain” bleeding out due to other unrelated factors.

    • By rockemsockem 2025-11-192:132 reply

      If you're talking about all of AI with your statement I think you may need to reconcile that opinion with the fact that chat GPT alone has almost 1 billion daily users. Clearly lots of people derive enormous value from AI.

      If there's something more specific and different you were referring to I'd love to hear what it is.

      • By eCa 2025-11-192:381 reply

        I’m probably an outlier: I use chatgpt/gemini for specific purposes, but ai summaries on eg google search or youtube gives me negative value (I never read them and they take up space).

        • By rockemsockem 2025-11-193:021 reply

          I agree about the summaries! I think AI is applied in a lot of bad ways ATM although TBH I've heard some people like the summaries

          • By duskdozer 2025-11-197:39

            I can't say I find them 100% useless - though I'd rather they not pop up by default - and I understand why people like them so much. They let people type in a question and get a confident and definitive answer all in natural language, which is what it seems like the average person has tried to do all along with search engines. The issue is that they think whatever it spits out is 100% true and factual, which is scary.

      • By kergonath 2025-11-197:361 reply

        > Clearly lots of people derive enormous value from AI.

        I don’t really see this. Lots of people like freebies, but the value aspect is less clear. AFAIK, none of these chatbots are profitable. You would not see nearly as many users if they had to actually pay for the thing.

        • By jcgrillo 2025-11-198:562 reply

          In the article Pichai is quoted saying:

          > "It doesn't matter whether you want to be a teacher [or] a doctor. All those professions will be around, but the people who will do well in each of those professions are people who learn how to use these tools."

          Bullshit. Citation very much needed. It's a shame--a shameful stain on the profession--that journalists don't respond critically to such absurd nonsense and ask the obvious question: are you fucking lying?. It is absolutely not true that AI tools make doctors more effective, or teachers, or programmers. It would be very convenient to people like Pichai and Scam Altman, but that don't make it so.

          • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1910:392 reply

            There are hundreds of thousands of developers here including me who would vouch that AI does make them vastly more productive.

            • By Vegenoid 2025-11-1915:351 reply

              And AI skeptics are waiting to see the proof in the pudding. If we have a new tool that makes hundreds of thousands of devs vastly more productive, I expect to see the results of that in new, improved software. So far, I'm just seeing more churn and more bugs. It may well be the case that in a couple years we'll see the fruits of AI productivity gains, but talk is cheap.

              • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1916:421 reply

                The proof is in feature velocity of devs/teams that use it and in the layoffs due to efficiency gains.

                I think it's very hard to convince AI skeptics since for some reason they feel more threatened by it than rest. It's counterproductive and would hinder them professionally but then it's their choice.

                • By jcgrillo 2025-11-1917:282 reply

                  Without rigorous, controlled study I'm not ready to accept claims of velocity, efficiency, etc. I'm a professional software engineer, I have tried various AI tools in the workplace both for code review and development. I found personally that they were more harmful than effective. But I don't think my personal experience is really important data here. Just like I don't think yours is. What matters is whether these tools actually do something or whether instead they just make some users feel something.

                  The studies I've seen--and there are very few--seem to indicate the effect is more placebo than pharmacological.

                  Regardless, breathless claims that I'm somehow damaging my career by wondering whether these tools actually work are going to do nothing to persuade me. I'm quite secure in my career prospects, thank you kindly.

                  I do admit I don't much like being labeled an "AI skeptic" either. I've been following developments in machine learning for like 2 decades and I'm familiar with results in the field going back to the 1950s. You have the opportunity here to convince me, I want to believe there is some merit to this latest AI summer. But I am not seeing the evidence for it.

                  • By rockemsockem 2025-11-2113:05

                    You say you've used AI tools for code review and deploys, but do you ever just use chat GPT as a faster version of Google for things like understanding a language you aren't familiar with, finding bugs in existing code, or generating boilerplate?

                    Really I only use chat GPT and sometimes Claude code, I haven't used these special-cased AI tools

                  • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1918:342 reply

                    > You have the opportunity here to convince me, I want to believe there is some merit to this latest AI summer. But I am not seeing the evidence for it.

                    As I said the evidence is in companies not hiring anymore since they don't need as many developers as before. If you want rigorous controlled studies you'll get it in due time. In the meantime maybe just look into the workflows of how people are using

                    re AI skeptics: I started pushing AI in our company early this year, and one of the first questions I got was that "are we doing it to reduce costs". I fully understood and sympathize with the fact many engineers feel threatened and feel they are being replaced. So I clarified it's just to increase our feature velocity which was my honest intention since ofc I'm not a monster.

                    I then asked this engineer to develop a feature using bolt, and he partially managed to do it but in the worst way possible. His approach was to spend no time on planning/architecture and to just ask AI to do it in a few lines. When hit with bugs he would ask the AI "to fix the bug" without even describing the bug. His reasoning was that if he had to do this prep work then why would he use AI. Nonetheless he finished entire month's worth of credit in a single day.

                    I can't find the proper words, but there's a certain amount of dishonesty in this attitude that really turns me off. Like turbotax sabotaging tax reforms so they can rent seek.

                    • By jcgrillo 2025-11-1919:06

                      > If you want rigorous controlled studies you'll get it in due time.

                      I hope so, because the alternative is grim. But to be quite honest I don't expect it'll happen, based on what I've seen so far. Obviously your experience is different, and you probably don't agree--which is fine. That's the great thing about science. When done properly it transcends personal experience, "common sense", faith, and other imprecise ways of thinking. It obviates the need to agree--you have a result and if the methodology is sound in the famous words of Dr. Malcolm "well, there it is." The reason I think we won't get results showing AI tooling meaningfully impacts worker productivity are twofold:

                      (1) Early results indicate it doesn't. Experiences differ of course but overall it doesn't seem like the tools are measurably moving the needle one way or the other. That could change over time.

                      (2) It would be extremely favorably in the interests of companies selling AI dev tools to show clearly and inarguably that the things they're selling actually do something. Quantifying this value would help them set prices. They must be analyzing this problem, but they're not publishing or otherwise communicating their findings. Why? I can only conclude it's because they're not favorable.

                      So given these two indications at this point in time, a placebo like effect seems most likely. That would not inspire me to sign a purchase agreement. This makes me afraid for the economy.

                    • By franktankbank 2025-11-2014:47

                      months worth of credits? What does that mean?

            • By skydhash 2025-11-1911:131 reply

              Productive how? If you’re not measuring the thing, how can you tell that the thing improved?

              • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1911:383 reply

                Feature velocity has increase manifold. And this is despite decreased team size.

                A small startup now has the chance to compete with incumbents without raising from VCs.

                Not talking about you, but I think cynics just look at it with too much pessimism and therefore can't see it.

                • By jcgrillo 2025-11-1911:491 reply

                  It's not really about optimism or pessimism, it's effect vs no effect. Self reported anecdotes like yours abound, but as far as I'm aware the effect isn't real. That is, it's not in fact true that if a business buys AI tools for its developers their output will increase in some way that impacts the business meaningfully. So while you may feel more productive using AI tooling, in fact you probably aren't, actually.

                  • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1912:071 reply

                    If there was no effect we wouldn't be seeing so many mass layoffs and people complaining about this job market being worst than even dot com crash.

                    • By jcgrillo 2025-11-1912:181 reply

                      No. If you're trying to make a causal link between some layoffs and AI tooling you need to bring the receipts. Show that the layoffs were caused by AI tooling, don't just assume it. I don't think you can, or that anyone has.

                      • By saxenaabhi 2025-11-1913:271 reply

                        Most public companies aren't attributing it to AI yet due to fear of backlash, but it's obvious to most of us.

                        And Startups and SMB's are more open to attributing it to efficiency gains due to AI.

                        If you aren't seeing it then probably it's because you are in a niche vertical. Which is great for you, but not representative on the whole.

                        • By rockemsockem 2025-11-2113:11

                          I am very much not an AI skeptic, I use AI every day for work, and it's quite clear to me that most of the layoffs of the past few years are correcting for the absurd over hiring from the Covid era. Every software company really convinced themselves that they needed like 2-3x the workforce they actually did because "the world changed". Then it became clear that the world in fact did not fundamentally change in the ways they thought.

                          Chat GPT just happened to come out around the same time so we get all this misattribution

                • By franktankbank 2025-11-2014:52

                  I agree, the first thing I asked copilot to write me was a feature estimator:

                  def mult2(points): return 2xpoints

                  Its going to be really interesting what happens to this labor pool once you've finally sunk all the ships youre let aboard.

                • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:59

                  > Feature velocity has increase manifold.

                  And yet, every time somebody not paid by the AI companies tries to measure it, they don't find it.

          • By porridgeraisin 2025-11-199:31

            From what I hear, many doctors pass X-ray and MRI scans to Chatgpt for a ...second opinion :-)

    • By raincole 2025-11-194:091 reply

      I don't know which product you're even talking about.

      If you mean AI Overview, you really need to cite the source of this claim:

      > seeing that it drives consumers away from your product

      Because every single source I can find claims that Google search grew in 2024[0]. HN is not a good focus group for a product that targets billions of people.

      [0]: For example https://www.seroundtable.com/google-search-growth-39040.html but feel free to provide a more credible source that claims the opposite.

      • By devsda 2025-11-195:211 reply

        One can also interpret the growth as a failure from product p.o.v though it drives views.

        With AI summaries being hit or miss, we may say users now need to do 20% more searches to find what they are looking for.

        Numbers aren't always a good proxy for customer satisfaction.

    • By tdeck 2025-11-195:132 reply

      > Can someone explain to me the rationale of investing in a product, marketing it, seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust, and then you continue to invest at an accelerating rate?

      Hey now, Google Plus was more than a decade ago. I didn't like it either, but maybe it's time to move on? I think they learned their lesson.

      • By philipallstar 2025-11-1910:551 reply

        Stadia was pretty recent, though.

        • By tdeck 2025-11-1914:15

          Did Stadia do anything that adversely affected already successful products? I thought it had limited collateral damage.

    • By moi2388 2025-11-196:421 reply

      What I think:

      - get customers used to using AI by “gently” cough nudging them towards this in all products.

      - get experience and data for your LLMs and AI dev teams regarding what works and what doesn’t

      - Bet on AI becoming good enough that people will use this as their entry to the Web, Media and software

      - become the largest player of these AI apps, so that you can inject ads again

    • By voidfunc 2025-11-192:08

      Because the investor class is drunk on their own wine.

    • By tammer 2025-11-194:10

      While you & I may find shoehorning LLMs into every nook & cranny distasteful, I worry Marl may think differently

      https://open.substack.com/pub/nothinghuman/p/the-tyranny-of-...

    • By shalmanese 2025-11-193:291 reply

      What evidence do you have that it's driving consumers away from the product? The people who bother to say anything on the internet are the extreme dedicated minority and are often not representative of a silent majority. Unless you have access to analytics, you can't make this inference.

      • By frm88 2025-11-1910:081 reply

        https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/09/17/how-americans...

        That's only one article and with only a small focus: Americans only.

        U.S. adults are generally pessimistic about AI’s effect on people’s ability to think creatively and form meaningful relationships: 53% say AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively, compared with 16% who say it will improve this....

        Regarding your skepticism about the loss of trust: https://publicpolicy.cornell.edu/masters-blog/what-americans...

        One of the most consistent themes in the research is fear of misinformation. In an era where AI-generated content can be nearly indistinguishable from authentic material, the potential for deception is enormous, and people know it. A full 76% of Americans say they are concerned about AI tools producing false or misleading information.

        • By NeutralCrane 2025-11-1913:361 reply

          That doesn’t say anything about pushing people away from using products with AI though. People are enormously negative about the effects of social media, and yet social media use is incredibly pervasive and sticky.

          • By frm88 2025-11-1915:041 reply

            I thought that the loss of trust would be self-explanatory in that regard? You don't buy stuff you don't trust, yes?

            Anyways: https://futurism.com/the-byte/study-consumers-turned-off-pro...

            Researchers have found that including the words “artificial intelligence” in product marketing is a major turn-off for consumers, suggesting a growing backlash and disillusionment with the tech — and that startups trying to cram “AI” into their product are actually making a grave error.

            • By NeutralCrane 2025-11-1922:331 reply

              My point is that what people say and what people do are not the same thing. It may sound self-explanatory that if people don’t trust AI, they will avoid AI products, but I’m interested in data proving this. Self-reported attitudes regarding AI are not the same as customers actively avoiding products using AI.

              • By frm88 2025-11-208:021 reply

                I agree with your observation re. what people say/do. However, you know just as well as I do, that there's never studies/data of people avoiding stuff. How would you even go about proving a negative? So, let's turn this around: can you show me data that confirms people are enthusiastic to buy AI enhanced things? Data that confirm people's widespread acceptance and/or even preference of AI enhanced commodities?

                • By shalmanese 2025-11-213:12

                  There is no need for us random civilians to know the truth of these matters. Employees inside the company can see analytics that show whether the features are working or not.

    • By terminalshort 2025-11-198:17

      > seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust

      Where is your evidence for this part of your claim?

    • By satvikpendem 2025-11-1918:191 reply

      > If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.

      - Steve Jobs

      • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1918:331 reply

        Eh... That's only worth anything if the new version of "you" is better than the original.

        I'm certain Jobs thought there's no need to point that detail, because nobody still living¹ would be dumb enough not to understand it implicitly. Too bad that we have evidence otherwise.

        1 - At the worst case, selection bias should make it true.

        • By satvikpendem 2025-11-1919:221 reply

          I'm not really sure what you're saying. He was talking specifically about the iPhone vs the iPod, and anyway, people buy inferior products all the time in tech history so there's no guarantee a better product would succeed anyway.

          • By marcosdumay 2025-11-1919:281 reply

            It's at least something people prefer. There's no way he even thought people would use that rationale for taking products people like (or dislike less) out of the market to cannibalize the market by force with something people don't like (or dislike more).

            • By satvikpendem 2025-11-1919:31

              Good thing no one is talking about that sort of thing then. In the context of Google, either they implement LLMs themselves or another company will come and do so in order to cannibalize Google.

    • By elif 2025-11-194:42

      People are scared of change which threatens their occupation, hobbies, and sense of human purpose.

      Even if that change is wildly profitable for megacorps in the long run.

HackerNews