6 ms·

At any given social gathering among even non tech people I know, there’s always a side conversation happening about crypto. It’s the same people who go spend to

• mschuster91 5y ago
  > A whole generation doesn’t believe they have any opportunities. Even those in tech believe we don't have any meaningful opportunities. Real talk: most of what we do day in day out for our employers is shit built upon bullshit built upon a house of cards, and it will come crashing down sooner than later. The European Union is finally flexing its muscles, other countries are beginning to follow suit against the digital corporations, even the US Congress is asking questions from both parties now. And where will we all be when the venture capital dries up, when entire business models are outright banned or made virtually impossible because of privacy regulations? Or when those we work for (especially in the automotive or other carbon-sensitive industries) have to cut down costs or close shop? If you work at Facebook or Google (and to a lesser extent Microsoft and Apple), everything you do follows exactly one motive: make as much profit for the shareholders as possible by advertising people stuff they don't need. Most of what everyone else is doing is either directly related to advertising, to creating a new product that is only marginally better than the previous version or to extracting money out of someone else for services they don't need. Bullshit jobs? We are in a bullshit economy, and the circle of capitalism forces us to ever-increasing economic growth - it's obvious that the path we are on as a species is pointing straight to our downfall, be it by climate change, by a resource-resetting war or by exhaustion of vital natural resources. Disagree? Ask yourself when was the last time you created something at work that provides a net benefit to society's survival.
  • azth 5y ago
    > And where will we all be when the venture capital dries up VC capital will have to go somewhere. You seem to be arguing against ad companies, which I understand. But there are so many other tech avenues that produce tons of value. Healthcare, logistics, green energy, power distribution, retail, agriculture, security, etc. So many domains where tech can provide huge value and upside.
    • mschuster91 5y ago
      Sure, but all of these will use way less of us tech people no matter what happens. Once the entire advertising/selling product chain collapses, the tech world is in for a ride.
      • horns4lyfe 5y ago
        The vast majority of tech workers don’t work at google or Facebook, or any other ad. company.
  • kitsunesoba 5y ago
    > Disagree? Ask yourself when was the last time you created something at work that provides a net benefit to society's survival. I think you have a point, but at the same time I’m not sure it’s possible for everybody or even most people to have jobs that are crucial to society. Once you hit certain technology level and population thresholds, a lot of jobs become all about optimization and margins — even those that have more of a concrete role in society. It’s unavoidable unless we drop back to pre-1900s technology and/or population levels.
    • mschuster91 5y ago
      > It’s unavoidable unless we drop back to pre-1900s technology and/or population levels. No. What we need to do is to not define our worth as humans by the work we do. Only then we can truly automate our crucial needs (i.e. food production, transportation) as far as possible without fearing massive social unrest by millions of people "without employment". A single train conductor replaces a hundred truck drivers. Many governmental services could be done by the citizens themselves based on automated processes. Most teachers (especially the ones who spend all their day droning in front of a blackboard) could be replaced by videos. The only thing where we will definitely need humans in the future is research, care work and construction/trades. Everything else? Look at the Star Trek economy.
• blablabla123 5y ago
  Same, and I often wonder if people want to start some kind of scam. I mean the reality is probably that investing in crypto is much riskier, has probably a much lower expected yield than say trading with (covered) derivatives. But I also think it has to do with some kind of FOMO. Everybody knows someone who knows someone that got a ridiculously high return on investment because they bought the stuff 10 years ago. On the other hand it's possible to buy very well-understood derivates today with equal chances on public companies. > It’s the same people who go spend too much at casinos YMMV but my experience is actually the opposite. I.e. rather the gambling types actually buy derivates and everybody else considers buying crypto or has already done so.
  • epolanski 5y ago
    I mean, if you invest in crypto to make money, you're merely betting someone else will give you more money than you paid. And that person in turn is thinking the same. How can this work forever? It's a zero sum game. There's no value being created or dividends being paid.
    • landemva 5y ago
      Value is being sucked out of traditional finance. Value is being sucked out of other stores of value such as gold and silver.
    • syspec 5y ago
      I agree with you, completely. However, I'd love to hear your answer to the rebuttals "how is that different from regular stocks (sans dividends)?"
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  • tata71 5y ago
    Yeah, GP's circle seems at least mildly privileged..
  • 5y ago
• pdog 5y ago
  > People don’t think they can really reach goals related to life stability unless they win some sort of lottery. People think this because it's true. The median U.S. income is no longer enough to cover a year of basic expenses, or achieve reasonable goals, even if you work for the entire year[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-chart-is-best-explanation-middle-class-finances-you-will-ever-see/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-char...
  • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "His concern about what he calls “market fundamentalism” derives from the way those markets are failing American families." Free-market extremists provably ruined more lives than all terrorists combined
    • chmod775 5y ago
      > Free-market extremists provably ruined more lives than all terrorists combined So did architects who designed unsafe staircases... Or air pollution... Or mosquitoes...
      • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        well, air pollution and mosquitoes do kill like a million people a year, I am not sure about staircases...
        • chmod775 5y ago
          In the US staircases and mosquitoes are about equally deadly, with around 1500 deaths per year. However most of the malaria deaths occur in people returning from countries where the toll is much higher.
      • me_me_me 5y ago
        Not sure what the point of this post is?
• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > A slightly higher than median salary used to mean one is in the middle class. No, it didn't. If you are salary-dependent, you are working class. A slightly higher than non-Hispanic white median salary used to mean you were in a relatively comfortable, but still wage-labor-dependent, segment of the working class. Women entering the work force in mass and some other changes, it takes a slightly higher multiple of a single non-Hispanic White median income (but a fairly similar multiple of a non-Hispanic White household income) to do that for a household, and its been that way for most of the working life of Gen X and later.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • yibg 5y ago
    Seems like you are just redefining middle class. Middle class doesn’t mean not having depend on a salary.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Seems like you are just redefining middle class. No, the people trying to prevent working-class solidarity that sold the idea that a vague upper-income segment of the proletariat with no clear or coherent definition, and none of the type of differentiation in fundamental relation to the economy that defines an economic class, are the “middle class” in capitalism rather than the classical definition in which that is the petit bourgeoisie were the redefiners.
      • yibg 5y ago
        The petit bourgeoisie were a tiny minority of the population. Most people were peasants. Is that what you’d prefer society to be like? If you want to redefine middle class to be small business owners and merchants that don’t depend on a salary that’s fine I guess, but that’ll be an even smaller percentage of the population than the modern middle class.
        • 5y ago
• tester756 5y ago
  I'd add cars to this list
• clpm4j 5y ago
  This is interesting/amusing because often these people who are obsessed with crypto and tech culture (seemingly a lot of GenZ - at least the ones that pop up on Twitter) aren't the computer scientists and engineers who actually understand the underlying technology. They can wax poetic about some high level decentralized utopia, but when pressed further you realize that they have no idea how computers and software work.
  • taurath 5y ago
    They’re ones who’ve seen that it’s probably their one shot at generational wealth, so they’ve all bought their lottery tickets.
• mgh2 5y ago
  I bet this is why Elon invested in bitcoin - target demographic. He knows how to market to the next generation: millenials and Gen Z who felt left out - a bet they will buy Teslas
  • lamontcg 5y ago
    No, he also believes the USD will fail and that bitcoin is the only viable alternative. He's just another GenX crypto libertarian.