These studies seem to be largely focused on job displacement. There is is a reasonable likelihood that AI grows the overall economy.
I think we forget that our perspective of AI now is comparative, probably to that of a preindustrial worker worried about machines. Displacement, sure but complete replacement seems a non nuanced view of how it may all turn out.
What's the point of cake if you can't eat it? You'd have to start charging for having the cake.
The current practice of limited investment is reasonable and helps keep the system self funded without much in the way of account fees. It's not as if banks are investing the funds in the equity market. Appreciate I'm commenting from afar and without emotion but these failures are normal. This kind of chaos makes the system stronger. And I think most commentators can agree that this is largely a symptom of a swift increase in the repo rate shortly after significant bond purchases by SVB. There are lessons to be learnt but I don't think if you were sitting on the SVB board and were part of the decision to purchase these low risk bonds did you in any way think it would lead to this outcome.
They didn't have risk officer for months. They lobbied to repeal regulations. And I don't blame them, that's their incentives.
At 10x leverage, when you're correctly assuming your customers will be bailed by the government instead of you getting criminally prosecuted, the worst you can lose is 100% of your money. With the kind of leverage you get in a bank, you don't even need to have positive expectation value investment to have positive expectation value for the bank shareholders.
even with completely trash odds of 50% chance of losing it all and 50% chance of earning only 20% with 10x free client deposit leverage, your expectation value is still 100%!
This is the moral hazard you're dealing with. At 10x leverage ratios of banks, they can take the worst possible bets and still win so long as their maximal loss is just losing all the investment.
You're just encouraging this behavior. This latest decision gives a huge incentives to all banks out there to blow out. Just the incentive structure alone is enough to collapse the entire financial system at this point. It was already eating itself and it's only going to get worse.
It's just a matter of time before they blow it beyond repair.
Why would customers being made whole (at the cost of wiping out all equity and possibly at some cost to other banks) affect the incentives of banks in this kind of situation? What would banks do differently if account holders could lose everything over $250k? If they are happy to “gamble with 10x leverage” then presumably they don’t care about impact to their customers. If bank management risked jail time that might change incentives but doing that doesn’t seem to require a cost to account holders.
Customers should be diversifying in these situations. It’s easy enough to set up a sweep. Those that don’t for whatever reason shouldn’t get bailed out for their poor decision making. That’s de facto subsidizing any future banks that want to make risky investments.
Linked article is roughly double the time frame referenced for India. Its in the world's largest democracy. Benevolent dictatorships work for as long ad the dictator(s) remains Benevolent.
The general positive rhetoric on HN for unions is a jaded. Take it from someone that lives in a country with very strong Unions that ultra strong unions are all they're cracked up to be.
You've never dealt with American unions. Trying to get a union worker to help you do something means filling out paperwork to do things like moving a chair from one room to the next room.
At the company level unions in the 1980s became synonymous with organized crime. They would call strikes whenever they wanted a bribe.
I think spending about 20 minutes on r/antiwork will get most folks to agree with you.
I think most people want a purpose. Many are perfectly happy for that to be something other than their work or means of earning an income. Nothing wrong with this of course but try be the person where some of your purpose is tied up in your work on that forum, or even this forum at times, and you get accused of having Stockholm syndrome toward your employment captors.
Reading the rest of this thread is like reading /antiwork on reddit. We have the life we have because our ancestors worked hard. My father worked as a welder for 50 years and has health issue at just about every joint. My grandfather went 2km down a mine shift in some of the worst possible conditions. Its a privilege to be able to earn my living working on a pc and put in a couple of extra hours to get sth%t done. Most commentary here is trying to vilify hard work and often from some of the highest relative earners.
The author clearly values hard work. She felt meaning in her work and reflected on that. The idea that all hard work or, God forbid, a hard working culture is toxic is probably why it's so much harder to achieve big things in the modern world. Hard work isn't always burn out and hard work isn't always bad.
More often than not its during the hardest working times that you learn or achieve the most.
All hard work is not necessarily bad in small doses. A culture of constantly working, being afraid to go home, and skipping vacations for the company's benefit is toxic, full stop.
I mean this in the most literal sense - that kind of environment breeds stress that kills you. 3 years of long days at one company turned my hair gray by 28. Another 3 years at that company had me on blood pressure meds. I'm doing much better at a BigN now, and other than a week of primary oncall each quarter (for which I am well paid), I go home at 5pm every day and do other things with my life.
Agreed. If you're an individual who wants to work this hard, hopefully you can find a team of like-minded folks who will work hard with you and make sure that it is structured in a way that you all reap the benefits.
