5 ms·

> Many people predicted this would be a permanent acceleration that would continue even after the pandemic ended Who predicted this? The general consensus amo

> Many people predicted this would be a permanent acceleration that would continue even after the pandemic ended Who predicted this? The general consensus among folks I know was that the economy was in for an ass blasting once the pandemic supports were removed.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dan-robertson 4y ago
That wasn’t my memory from early 2022. It seemed like much of the economy today was impacted by the Ukraine war. But maybe that’s just coincidence. Lots of people also felt that tech companies were overvalued. But my memory may be playing tricks on me.
- jryhjythtr 4y ago
  The two will be forever conflated (and there's an excellent argument that Putin made his move on new territory while the rest of the world had weakened itself with years of self-imposed Covid restrictions). However, literally shutting down globe-sized sectors of the economy for months or years at a time, with no notice, to me is obviously the biggest cause of what we see now (and what is to come). Exactly how does the war in Ukraine economically affect, for example, the US?
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    The US has given over $8B in aid. Also natural gas prices are going to hurt this winter. Gasoline prices hurt this summer, both directly and in transport costs.
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      >The US has given over $8B in aid That's throwaway change, compared to the amount spent on Covid. >Also natural gas prices are going to hurt this winter. The US is the world's biggest producer of natural gas, at least while fracking is still largely permitted.
      - throwaway2037 4y ago
        I was surprised when I read this part: <<The US is the world's biggest producer of natural gas>> Then, I checked Google. Yep, you are right: https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-production-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-production-by-country/ In my mind, I was mixed up with world's largest exporters. Last I knew, it was a race between Qatar and Australia. But wrong again! It is Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
    - bombcar 4y ago
      $8 billion comes out to $25 per person in the US. It’s nothing compared to anything. Heck, it’s only four powerballs from last weekend.
    - varjag 4y ago
      The US have been spending $20B¹ per year on air conditioning for troops in Afghanistan. ¹2011 figure
      - ksala_ 4y ago
        Completely unrelated to the thread, but I had to google this. This seems to be the source https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-... Reading the notes at the bottom, it seems like the number might be somewhat realistic, but should really be called the cost of shipping fuel and securing it to Afghanistan, some of which was probably used for aircon.
        varjag 4y ago
        My point is $8B in 2022 money for defeating Russia in field is deal of the century.
        nibbleshifter 4y ago
        Bargain basement prices!
        ksala_ 4y ago
        Yes, I agree, I don't think that $8B is a lot of money for the US, especially in the military context. I was just surprised at the number and shared some back story.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Only a fraction of that $8B in aid was direct cash payments to Ukraine. Much of it went to US defense contractors and was recycled into the domestic economy. Higher fossil fuel prices hurt US consumers, but most of that value is flowing to US energy companies and ultimately to US investors. The vast majority of fossil fuels burned here are also extracted and refined here; we only import a little.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > the rest of the world had weakened itself with years of self-imposed Covid restrictions This is a pretty bold political statement: it’s saying that people weren’t worried about getting sick and that the millions of people who died, had long-term illness, or were caring for their relatives weren’t contributing to the economy. Things like the business owners complaining that retail sales were down even after they got exactly what they asked for suggests that’s not the case. > literally shutting down globe-sized sectors of the economy for months or years at a time, with no notice Can you give details on where you believe this happened?
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      >the millions of people who died, had long-term illness, or were caring for their relatives weren’t contributing to the economy. They were dominated (at least by the publicly-available figures here in the UK) by retired folks. No, in a purely pragmatic sense, they don't contribute much to the economy, especially as any wealth they do have gets immediately re-distributed on death anyway. If we were talking about some terrible disease (like Smallpox, for example), where the young and old alike died in huge numbers, then the argument would be different. >Can you give details on where you believe this happened? Are you kidding me? Maritime shipping and aviation are two obvious examples.
      - DanBC 4y ago
        > They were dominated (at least by the publicly-available figures here in the UK) by retired folks. You're saying here that most of the people who died were old, which is true. But you're also saying that this means that not many young people died from covid, which is untrue. It's untrue because a small proportion of a very large number is still a lot of people. Covid killed very many economically active people.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        > Maritime shipping and aviation are two obvious examples. Also, most forms of non-screen entertainment (bars, restaurants, sports, theaters, etc.)
      - 4y ago
  - benjaminwootton 4y ago
    Agreed. It was blatantly obvious that the cure was worse than the disease, and that at best the restrictions could just kick the can down the road a while. It was also covered up by printing cash at enormous scale. Now when the economy starts bleeding, supply chains struggle and inflation moons, people try and pin it on Putin and deny they ever supported it. It’s cognitive dissonance at best? incredible dishonesty at worst.
    - implements 4y ago
      > It was blatantly obvious that the cure was worse than the disease, That's not how I remember it - governments locked down to prevent health systems collapse while a vaccine was created, tested and scaled for mass production. After successful vaccine deployment restrictions were lifted.
      - jryhjythtr 4y ago
        Three huge assumptions here - "health system collapse" was the inevitable outcome of any other approach to dealing with Covid. "health system collapse" is worse than all of the other present and future side-effects, including the effects of denying healthcare to huge numbers of people over the past 2.5 years. "health system collapse" didn't happen anyway. At least where I am (UK), it's increasingly clear that our response to Covid has blown open all of the existing cracks, and it's hard to say that we "saved" the NHS.
        benjaminwootton 4y ago
        3 weeks for me to get a remote GP appointment right now. This will be killing more people than Covid ever did, so we are in the red before we even get onto anything else.
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      It'll be like the wars in Iraq and Libya. Vitally important at the time, but you can't find anyone now who will say they supported them. Then again, how can you blame people? Most people do what they are told, and the person who glared at you last year for breaking some Covid rule or the other could equally likely have a conversation with you today about some horrible outcome they've had thanks to Covid restrictions, and never link the two.
  - Nimitz14 4y ago
    Gas prices. I'm perplexed that you somehow missed the connection.
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      How did the US screw up being the world's biggest producer of natural gas, and being energy independent?
      - Nimitz14 4y ago
        Gas as in fuel. Are you being deliberately dense? Anyways you're changing the topic now. Glad I could help you understand how the ukraine war affected the US economy. Good day.
        jryhjythtr 4y ago
        >Are you being deliberately dense? No, I'm not from the US, so the colloquial usage of "gas" as "fuel for cars" slipped my mind. The US is also a net exporter of crude oil, so all I've said so far still applies. How has the Ukraine war affected gasoline prices? Are you just talking about the state you live in, or US-wide?
sbarre 4y ago
I think the whole "many predicted" statement that several large tech companies have used to thin out all the pandemic hires is cover for the fact that they boom-hired during the pandemic knowing full well they would very likely have to shed those hires when things went back to pre-pandemic levels and the opportunity for short-term profit was over. Shopify called it a "bet", which was a surprisingly honest way of framing it, by at least admitting to the risk and uncertainty that existed around all their growth. Also saying "many predicted" is less culpable than saying "we kinda knew we'd have to eventually do this, but hey short-term profits, right?"
- wbl 4y ago
  Tech projects aren't tightly tied to revenue increases.
- edouard-harris 4y ago
  That seems a bit unfair. Every successful founder is irrationally optimistic about their own business — that's partly how they became successful in the first place. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that Zuck, Lütke, the Collisons, and many, many others all made the same wrong directional bet and ended up over their skis for perfectly sincere reasons. In case one has trouble recalling, way back in the dark ages of 2.5 years ago, when these investments were first being made, neither the duration nor the outcome of the pandemic were at all clear to anyone.
  - sbarre 4y ago
    Who said anything about fair? When has fairness ever factored into business? If a company sees an opportunity to make money, short or long term, they take it. That's just good business, right? There is a cold calculation that happens.. If we do this, will we come out ahead at some point in the future? Yes? Then do it. If "this" means hiring a ton of people that you might have to let go in the future, then so be it. That's how all companies operate, all the time. The difference here is that the time between hiring and layoffs has compressed, and the bets that companies make are shorter term.. Hire thousands of people, drive massive quarterly profits for a while, then let a bunch of them go. Thank you for your service. This is how a lot of existing industries work already.. Warehouse/factory work, seasonal work like construction and farming/fishing.. That's why those industries have unions too, because if this becomes a repeating pattern, the average worker suffers from poor job security and constant upheaval for the sake of corporate profits. I said this in the discussion around Shopify's layoffs as well: as a worker in tech looking for a job, you need to start thinking about how much your role contributes to the bottom line, and also about the timing of your hiring. If you are hired during rapid growth, then assume your job security is much lower, because your employer is making a bet, as opposed to planning for a calculated and safe long term expansion.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Who predicted this? Every investor who continued to buy stock in these companies as they doubled in price, along with companies like Peloton, Zoom, Carvana. The laptop class genuinely believed we'd never do anything in-person again.
philod 4y ago
Most large fast going tech companies "predicited" this but that doesn't mean they really believed it. The alternative at the time was to say..."we grew 100% in the last two years but with covid restrictions limiting etc wr think that growth will be more like 80% and revenue down x%" that would have sent massive shocks to investors and stocks would have dropped overnight as companies like Meta had been setting a long precedent of "beat and raise" with their earnings calls. Essentially everyone was hoping it would continue as they didn't want to see equity and comp and valuations down. What's funny is that it all happened anyway over the course of the year. Believe me from first hand experience there were many people in these companies raising flags late last year that it can't continue but were essentially ignored. Hope is not a strategy!
Aeolun 4y ago
All the big tech companies that are now laying people off? I mean, they probably believed what they wanted to believe, but that’s a very human failing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dan-robertson 4y ago

That wasn’t my memory from early 2022. It seemed like much of the economy today was impacted by the Ukraine war. But maybe that’s just coincidence. Lots of people also felt that tech companies were overvalued. But my memory may be playing tricks on me.

jryhjythtr 4y ago
The two will be forever conflated (and there's an excellent argument that Putin made his move on new territory while the rest of the world had weakened itself with years of self-imposed Covid restrictions). However, literally shutting down globe-sized sectors of the economy for months or years at a time, with no notice, to me is obviously the biggest cause of what we see now (and what is to come). Exactly how does the war in Ukraine economically affect, for example, the US?
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  The US has given over $8B in aid. Also natural gas prices are going to hurt this winter. Gasoline prices hurt this summer, both directly and in transport costs.
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    >The US has given over $8B in aid That's throwaway change, compared to the amount spent on Covid. >Also natural gas prices are going to hurt this winter. The US is the world's biggest producer of natural gas, at least while fracking is still largely permitted.
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
      I was surprised when I read this part: <<The US is the world's biggest producer of natural gas>> Then, I checked Google. Yep, you are right: https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-production-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-production-by-country/ In my mind, I was mixed up with world's largest exporters. Last I knew, it was a race between Qatar and Australia. But wrong again! It is Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    $8 billion comes out to $25 per person in the US. It’s nothing compared to anything. Heck, it’s only four powerballs from last weekend.
  - varjag 4y ago
    The US have been spending $20B¹ per year on air conditioning for troops in Afghanistan. ¹2011 figure
    - ksala_ 4y ago
      Completely unrelated to the thread, but I had to google this. This seems to be the source https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-... Reading the notes at the bottom, it seems like the number might be somewhat realistic, but should really be called the cost of shipping fuel and securing it to Afghanistan, some of which was probably used for aircon.
      - varjag 4y ago
        My point is $8B in 2022 money for defeating Russia in field is deal of the century.
        nibbleshifter 4y ago
        Bargain basement prices!
        ksala_ 4y ago
        Yes, I agree, I don't think that $8B is a lot of money for the US, especially in the military context. I was just surprised at the number and shared some back story.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Only a fraction of that $8B in aid was direct cash payments to Ukraine. Much of it went to US defense contractors and was recycled into the domestic economy. Higher fossil fuel prices hurt US consumers, but most of that value is flowing to US energy companies and ultimately to US investors. The vast majority of fossil fuels burned here are also extracted and refined here; we only import a little.
- acdha 4y ago
  > the rest of the world had weakened itself with years of self-imposed Covid restrictions This is a pretty bold political statement: it’s saying that people weren’t worried about getting sick and that the millions of people who died, had long-term illness, or were caring for their relatives weren’t contributing to the economy. Things like the business owners complaining that retail sales were down even after they got exactly what they asked for suggests that’s not the case. > literally shutting down globe-sized sectors of the economy for months or years at a time, with no notice Can you give details on where you believe this happened?
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    >the millions of people who died, had long-term illness, or were caring for their relatives weren’t contributing to the economy. They were dominated (at least by the publicly-available figures here in the UK) by retired folks. No, in a purely pragmatic sense, they don't contribute much to the economy, especially as any wealth they do have gets immediately re-distributed on death anyway. If we were talking about some terrible disease (like Smallpox, for example), where the young and old alike died in huge numbers, then the argument would be different. >Can you give details on where you believe this happened? Are you kidding me? Maritime shipping and aviation are two obvious examples.
    - DanBC 4y ago
      > They were dominated (at least by the publicly-available figures here in the UK) by retired folks. You're saying here that most of the people who died were old, which is true. But you're also saying that this means that not many young people died from covid, which is untrue. It's untrue because a small proportion of a very large number is still a lot of people. Covid killed very many economically active people.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      > Maritime shipping and aviation are two obvious examples. Also, most forms of non-screen entertainment (bars, restaurants, sports, theaters, etc.)
    - 4y ago
- benjaminwootton 4y ago
  Agreed. It was blatantly obvious that the cure was worse than the disease, and that at best the restrictions could just kick the can down the road a while. It was also covered up by printing cash at enormous scale. Now when the economy starts bleeding, supply chains struggle and inflation moons, people try and pin it on Putin and deny they ever supported it. It’s cognitive dissonance at best? incredible dishonesty at worst.
  - implements 4y ago
    > It was blatantly obvious that the cure was worse than the disease, That's not how I remember it - governments locked down to prevent health systems collapse while a vaccine was created, tested and scaled for mass production. After successful vaccine deployment restrictions were lifted.
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      Three huge assumptions here - "health system collapse" was the inevitable outcome of any other approach to dealing with Covid. "health system collapse" is worse than all of the other present and future side-effects, including the effects of denying healthcare to huge numbers of people over the past 2.5 years. "health system collapse" didn't happen anyway. At least where I am (UK), it's increasingly clear that our response to Covid has blown open all of the existing cracks, and it's hard to say that we "saved" the NHS.
      - benjaminwootton 4y ago
        3 weeks for me to get a remote GP appointment right now. This will be killing more people than Covid ever did, so we are in the red before we even get onto anything else.
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    It'll be like the wars in Iraq and Libya. Vitally important at the time, but you can't find anyone now who will say they supported them. Then again, how can you blame people? Most people do what they are told, and the person who glared at you last year for breaking some Covid rule or the other could equally likely have a conversation with you today about some horrible outcome they've had thanks to Covid restrictions, and never link the two.
- Nimitz14 4y ago
  Gas prices. I'm perplexed that you somehow missed the connection.
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    How did the US screw up being the world's biggest producer of natural gas, and being energy independent?
    - Nimitz14 4y ago
      Gas as in fuel. Are you being deliberately dense? Anyways you're changing the topic now. Glad I could help you understand how the ukraine war affected the US economy. Good day.
      - jryhjythtr 4y ago
        >Are you being deliberately dense? No, I'm not from the US, so the colloquial usage of "gas" as "fuel for cars" slipped my mind. The US is also a net exporter of crude oil, so all I've said so far still applies. How has the Ukraine war affected gasoline prices? Are you just talking about the state you live in, or US-wide?

sbarre 4y ago

I think the whole "many predicted" statement that several large tech companies have used to thin out all the pandemic hires is cover for the fact that they boom-hired during the pandemic knowing full well they would very likely have to shed those hires when things went back to pre-pandemic levels and the opportunity for short-term profit was over. Shopify called it a "bet", which was a surprisingly honest way of framing it, by at least admitting to the risk and uncertainty that existed around all their growth. Also saying "many predicted" is less culpable than saying "we kinda knew we'd have to eventually do this, but hey short-term profits, right?"

wbl 4y ago
Tech projects aren't tightly tied to revenue increases.
edouard-harris 4y ago
That seems a bit unfair. Every successful founder is irrationally optimistic about their own business — that's partly how they became successful in the first place. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that Zuck, Lütke, the Collisons, and many, many others all made the same wrong directional bet and ended up over their skis for perfectly sincere reasons. In case one has trouble recalling, way back in the dark ages of 2.5 years ago, when these investments were first being made, neither the duration nor the outcome of the pandemic were at all clear to anyone.
- sbarre 4y ago
  Who said anything about fair? When has fairness ever factored into business? If a company sees an opportunity to make money, short or long term, they take it. That's just good business, right? There is a cold calculation that happens.. If we do this, will we come out ahead at some point in the future? Yes? Then do it. If "this" means hiring a ton of people that you might have to let go in the future, then so be it. That's how all companies operate, all the time. The difference here is that the time between hiring and layoffs has compressed, and the bets that companies make are shorter term.. Hire thousands of people, drive massive quarterly profits for a while, then let a bunch of them go. Thank you for your service. This is how a lot of existing industries work already.. Warehouse/factory work, seasonal work like construction and farming/fishing.. That's why those industries have unions too, because if this becomes a repeating pattern, the average worker suffers from poor job security and constant upheaval for the sake of corporate profits. I said this in the discussion around Shopify's layoffs as well: as a worker in tech looking for a job, you need to start thinking about how much your role contributes to the bottom line, and also about the timing of your hiring. If you are hired during rapid growth, then assume your job security is much lower, because your employer is making a bet, as opposed to planning for a calculated and safe long term expansion.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Who predicted this? Every investor who continued to buy stock in these companies as they doubled in price, along with companies like Peloton, Zoom, Carvana. The laptop class genuinely believed we'd never do anything in-person again.

philod 4y ago

Most large fast going tech companies "predicited" this but that doesn't mean they really believed it. The alternative at the time was to say..."we grew 100% in the last two years but with covid restrictions limiting etc wr think that growth will be more like 80% and revenue down x%" that would have sent massive shocks to investors and stocks would have dropped overnight as companies like Meta had been setting a long precedent of "beat and raise" with their earnings calls. Essentially everyone was hoping it would continue as they didn't want to see equity and comp and valuations down. What's funny is that it all happened anyway over the course of the year. Believe me from first hand experience there were many people in these companies raising flags late last year that it can't continue but were essentially ignored. Hope is not a strategy!

Aeolun 4y ago

All the big tech companies that are now laying people off? I mean, they probably believed what they wanted to believe, but that’s a very human failing.