3 ms·

But but what about all the articles 3 months ago that were saying we're definitively not in a tech bubble ?! It reminds me of 1999 or 2000 were I saw at my loc

But but what about all the articles 3 months ago that were saying we're definitively not in a tech bubble ?! It reminds me of 1999 or 2000 were I saw at my local book shop a book titled something like "are you ready for the next 20 years of uninterrupted economic growth ?" written by 2 Nobel price winners, no less ... Then there was the (should I say first ?) tech bubble pop one or two years later ...

icebraining 11y ago
Which articles? All the ones I remember regarding whether there was a bubble ranged from "maybe" to "definitively", and a search seems to confirm that generally: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bubble&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastYear&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bubble&sort=byPopularity&prefi...
pj_mukh 11y ago
Hah! Every article I read for the last two years has been gleefully predicting this for a year now. Most SV companies (including some of the much maligned "unicorns"), I know started buckling up and becoming profitable far before this. Some frivolity will end no doubt, but the gleeful anticipation with which some people have been awaiting a bubble pop might be disappointed. This still just looks like a correction compared to what happened last time.
npalli 11y ago
The NASDAQ plunged from over 5000 in March 2000 to about 1100 in two years. That was a bubble. People getting laid off is not a bubble, if so, then we will keep having these 'bubbles' every year making the whole term meaningless. The very fact that 20 people jump in and warn us at the slightest hint (like this) that this is a bubble tells me that we are not in a bubble. Even if people get laid off they will find work else where. Funny thing is that this article talks about laid off tech workers finding work in Finance, which as we speak is getting decimated.
- rhino369 11y ago
  How do you know if this isn't March 2000 all over again. A tech bubble would look different than in 2000 because companies didn't go public the same numbers as last time. That blunts the impact a bit. But it also hides the impact. If VCs go into panic mode you won't know about it until start ups start failing in high numbers from running out of runway.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

icebraining 11y ago

Which articles? All the ones I remember regarding whether there was a bubble ranged from "maybe" to "definitively", and a search seems to confirm that generally: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bubble&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastYear&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bubble&sort=byPopularity&prefi...

pj_mukh 11y ago

Hah! Every article I read for the last two years has been gleefully predicting this for a year now. Most SV companies (including some of the much maligned "unicorns"), I know started buckling up and becoming profitable far before this. Some frivolity will end no doubt, but the gleeful anticipation with which some people have been awaiting a bubble pop might be disappointed. This still just looks like a correction compared to what happened last time.

npalli 11y ago

The NASDAQ plunged from over 5000 in March 2000 to about 1100 in two years. That was a bubble. People getting laid off is not a bubble, if so, then we will keep having these 'bubbles' every year making the whole term meaningless. The very fact that 20 people jump in and warn us at the slightest hint (like this) that this is a bubble tells me that we are not in a bubble. Even if people get laid off they will find work else where. Funny thing is that this article talks about laid off tech workers finding work in Finance, which as we speak is getting decimated.

rhino369 11y ago
How do you know if this isn't March 2000 all over again. A tech bubble would look different than in 2000 because companies didn't go public the same numbers as last time. That blunts the impact a bit. But it also hides the impact. If VCs go into panic mode you won't know about it until start ups start failing in high numbers from running out of runway.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]