5 ms·

Again seeing some blaming poor immigrants for this in the very first answers. Meanwhile, where do the money for OpenAI and the SpaceX IPO comes from? Who got h

by Arodex 4mo ago

Again seeing some blaming poor immigrants for this in the very first answers. Meanwhile, where do the money for OpenAI and the SpaceX IPO comes from? Who got hold of so much money? How did they got hold of it? And here's the killer question: would they, and the rules and system supporting them, change in any way if there were less immigrants?

cyanydeez 4mo ago
it can't be those 8 guys with >50% of the wealth! no sir, it must be all those poor people taking up the poor people's space they were alotted in 1995.
groundzeros2015 4mo ago
What do you mean? Trillions move through the stock market every day from pensions, mutual funds, foreign governments, 401ks. And professional trading. I’m sure many immigrants had money on the IPO as well?
- Supermancho 4mo ago
  The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
  - groundzeros2015 4mo ago
    Equal treatment sounds good to me. Which point are you responding to?
    - Supermancho 4mo ago
      > I’m sure many immigrants had money on the IPO as well? Either it's bad faith or you don't understand the implications. Either way, GL with whatever.
      - groundzeros2015 4mo ago
        Immigrant groups like Chinese and Indians are more financially savvy and successful than the average American.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  These trillions that go to SpaceX and whatnot are trillions that aren't going to building more homes, nor increasing wages. Not even as a second-order effect.
  - philsquared_ 4mo ago
    There is no "trillions that go into SpaceX". You and others seem to have a massive misunderstanding about how the stock market works... they could have sold 10 shares at $50 and still have a valuation in the trillions... Market cap does not mean they have that money in hand or even that it is being taken from someone else... They literally sold less than 5% of the total shares in the ipo by the way...
inglor_cz 4mo ago
No amount of money will help jurisdictions that still refuse to permit new buildings in face of a constant influx of people. You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  But even if/when the law finally allows more building, you will have to compete with a richer, and richer, and richer upper-upper-upper class - both people and firms - who will price you out.
  - ecshafer 4mo ago
    The rich only buy so many homes. Its close to a pigeon hole problem. If there are 10 houses and 11 people, the homes are going to go up in price until the 11th is homeless (or moving away to somewhere cheaper). If there are 100 people, its the same issue except magnified, this is what happened in the bay area. Significantly more people than homes. But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand. It will also be less attractive as an investment vehicle, because they will demand less rent.
    - Arodex 4mo ago
      >The rich only buy so many homes Oh, don't worry, they also buy land to build luxury condos for the upper-upper class - that can't buy but can still pay rent. >But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand No, the price won't drop. The market is extremely inelastic. These homes are collateral for other investments of the super-super-super rich (people or organisations). It is better to keep them vacant rather than drop their value by lowering the rent, which would cascade to their leveraged investment. This is why: - rents only go down when there is a big generalized financial crisis, otherwise they never go down. The best that used to happen was that rent stayed stagnant while wages rise, but that isn't happening... - you see so many empty appartements and retail spaces everywhere. I mean, there a a HN front-page story about vacant spaces a day ago. You should read it.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

by Arodex 4mo ago

cyanydeez 4mo ago

it can't be those 8 guys with >50% of the wealth! no sir, it must be all those poor people taking up the poor people's space they were alotted in 1995.

groundzeros2015 4mo ago

What do you mean? Trillions move through the stock market every day from pensions, mutual funds, foreign governments, 401ks. And professional trading. I’m sure many immigrants had money on the IPO as well?

Supermancho 4mo ago
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
- groundzeros2015 4mo ago
  Equal treatment sounds good to me. Which point are you responding to?
  - Supermancho 4mo ago
    > I’m sure many immigrants had money on the IPO as well? Either it's bad faith or you don't understand the implications. Either way, GL with whatever.
    - groundzeros2015 4mo ago
      Immigrant groups like Chinese and Indians are more financially savvy and successful than the average American.
Arodex 4mo ago
These trillions that go to SpaceX and whatnot are trillions that aren't going to building more homes, nor increasing wages. Not even as a second-order effect.
- philsquared_ 4mo ago
  There is no "trillions that go into SpaceX". You and others seem to have a massive misunderstanding about how the stock market works... they could have sold 10 shares at $50 and still have a valuation in the trillions... Market cap does not mean they have that money in hand or even that it is being taken from someone else... They literally sold less than 5% of the total shares in the ipo by the way...

inglor_cz 4mo ago

No amount of money will help jurisdictions that still refuse to permit new buildings in face of a constant influx of people. You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem.

Arodex 4mo ago
But even if/when the law finally allows more building, you will have to compete with a richer, and richer, and richer upper-upper-upper class - both people and firms - who will price you out.
- ecshafer 4mo ago
  The rich only buy so many homes. Its close to a pigeon hole problem. If there are 10 houses and 11 people, the homes are going to go up in price until the 11th is homeless (or moving away to somewhere cheaper). If there are 100 people, its the same issue except magnified, this is what happened in the bay area. Significantly more people than homes. But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand. It will also be less attractive as an investment vehicle, because they will demand less rent.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    >The rich only buy so many homes Oh, don't worry, they also buy land to build luxury condos for the upper-upper class - that can't buy but can still pay rent. >But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand No, the price won't drop. The market is extremely inelastic. These homes are collateral for other investments of the super-super-super rich (people or organisations). It is better to keep them vacant rather than drop their value by lowering the rent, which would cascade to their leveraged investment. This is why: - rents only go down when there is a big generalized financial crisis, otherwise they never go down. The best that used to happen was that rent stayed stagnant while wages rise, but that isn't happening... - you see so many empty appartements and retail spaces everywhere. I mean, there a a HN front-page story about vacant spaces a day ago. You should read it.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]