5 ms·

For those who don't know what's going on in Korea, KOSPI is up 3x in the last year and a large amount of HBM employees have made huge amounts of bonus pay. This

by x313 2mo ago

For those who don't know what's going on in Korea, KOSPI is up 3x in the last year and a large amount of HBM employees have made huge amounts of bonus pay. This has led to an insane FOMO frenzy in a society that's already very competitive. Add to that, stock gains in Korea are often used to finance housing purchases (or real estate investment) so many retail investors are scared of being "locked out" of housing (which is a requisite status symbol for dating or marriage) if they're not making the same capital gains others are. Currently Korean social media is full of stories of leveraged day traders who've gotten rich the past year, HBM employees who've made bonuses worth decades of salary (e.g. memes of Samsung employees in luxury cars), etc. Lots of comments along the lines of "everyone is getting rich except me". It's all reminiscent of the crypto frenzy in the US a few years ago but way more intense and concentrated.

vasco 2mo ago
Housing usually is needed for living. Not a status symbol for dating. I see how it can help the same way as not starving to death will also help with dating, but the framing is odd.
- x313 2mo ago
  Referring to ownership, not renting
  - vasco 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Mogzol 2mo ago
      What are you trying to say, that everyone should own a house? Surely you realize that is not a possibility for many, if not most, young people around the world.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        that's the problem
aunty_helen 2mo ago
I wish we had a word for this, where everyone’s getting rich, there’s a run on stocks, but prices of assets are all going up. Some people are missing out completely whereas a select few hoard wealth in other forms. And of course the government starting to notice and trying to intervene.
- uncivilized 2mo ago
  Irrational Exuberance
  - rcbdev 2mo ago
    Exoptable Money.
- anukin 2mo ago
  Roaring 20s?
- krackers 2mo ago
  Tulip mania!
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Capitalism?
anovikov 2mo ago
With housing their being so cheap, what the hell is the problem anyway? It's impossible to have expensive real estate in a country that's dying out fast.
- Barrin92 2mo ago
  >It's impossible to have expensive real estate no it's very possible because in an aging country people relocate to a handful of cities. 50% of South Korea's population now lives in the Seoul metropolitan area. The real estate that's getting cheaper is the one decaying in the countryside. It's like saying Russia can't have expensive real estate because the country is big, what matters is where people are actually moving.
  - SturgeonsLaw 2mo ago
    Cities in Australia consistently rank in the top 5 most expensive real estate indices and we ain't short of space here, it's just not many people are interested in living in a dusty Outback desert. And for many, if the property is not within 10km of the Sydney or Melbourne city centre, it might as well be in the dusty Outback desert.
    - apparent 2mo ago
      I'd think Starlink will help change this. Not for living in the actual dusty Outback (which has its own risks/dangers/inconveniences), but for living in many other places in Australia that are lovely and not too far from desirable areas.
      - atwrk 2mo ago
        Most people want to live where other people live, for reasons ranging from social connections to access to services and infrastructure. I doubt broadband access access plays even a small role.
        apparent 2mo ago
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 2mo ago
> housing (which is a requisite status symbol for dating or marriage I get that culture is hard to change, but it still seems easier than changing the economics. There are men and women out there who presumably are interested in partnering up; at some point you'd think biology will take over irrespective of which achievements have been unlocked. What's stopping them?
- numpad0 2mo ago
  System of education? The current form of it have nudges and blockers everywhere to stop population explosion leading us all into Soylent Green type situation.
- lottin 2mo ago
  Social status is a big part of what makes a person attractive especially if you're a man.
  - stickfigure 2mo ago
    Sure, but - by definition - half the population is below average social status. At least here in the US, those people are still partnering up.
    - spwa4 2mo ago
      Oh, you forget - we lie about social status, including to ourselves. Women and men. And as for what determines status ... first rule of social interaction: you can't ask a woman her age and you can't ask a man his wage (in other words: humans are social animals and this information is only available through playing the social game of deception). So in practice 80% or so of the population is below "average social status". People who don't absolutely need to pair up (historically women can't earn, but require, money and men can't take care of a home/place to sleep, but have to), will refuse to pair up with someone below their signaled social status. In other words: there are TWO average social statuses. First, there is what people believe their own social status is. Second there is what people, on average, see as others social status. In a "natural" human society, it's basically impossible for anyone over 25 or so to "pair up", unless they have a partner, which is not common at all. Since social status ALSO determines the distribution of food, at that point the first real period of weakness (you get sick, you hurt your leg, you ...) is the end. You can delay this by forming cliques, but not by that much. Oh and of course, that has an analog in our society. Look how much a plumber gets paid (ie. it's pretty disappointing), despite the shortage. There are low status and high status jobs, and even where it doesn't make sense they determine pay. E.g. there are a lot of cities with a total glut of lawyers ... it makes no sense to give 7 figure wages for people when 70% of whom can't find work, but we do. By contrast there is an incredible shortage of construction workers, and still they're not paid half what a lawyer gets. Rather we'll get immigrants to do it. Why? Because a great many people would rather signal that they're above manual labor than get 7 figures a year. In other words: I will live in destitution rather than admit I'm low social status, even if low social status would pay well. Oh and don't forget credit cards: 80%+ of people worldwide consider feeling rich (and showing off) more important than, ironically, money. Note also the many complaints about the economy, which are never about having or not having money, the big complaint seen everywhere is that people who don't have money "feel poor". One might think it should be perfectly normal to not have money and feel poor. Which also is the big lesson in investment that's coming up: countries will raise inflation to any level rather than cut expenditures. That's how we got to 20% inflation in the 80s. That's how Argentina or even Zimbabwe got there. Ie: when we're getting close to that point, for the love of God, don't buy government bonds. Preventing obvious human habits from destroying us seems to me the best reason to really give developing AI your best effort. Because the whole "job destruction" argument has a hole in it you could fit a planet through: people don't want to do the destroyed jobs. What do you think is the best: AI taking jobs? Or, that we force young people into nursing, plumbing, construction, ... through more and more extreme measures and making everyone a lot poorer? That's how the system rebalances after all, make people poorer until the plumbing gets done. Those are the choices. AI it is. At least for me.
cyanydeez 2mo ago
They've also driven a noticeable drop in stock prices in the closing minutes that have been used by quant algos to squeeze even more money out of the market as the leverage is a unmanaged algo that was predictable and could be driven up before it had to force trades. It's not just the gambling of people, but the systematic use of bots to squeeze leveraged vehicles.

by x313 2mo ago

vasco 2mo ago

Housing usually is needed for living. Not a status symbol for dating. I see how it can help the same way as not starving to death will also help with dating, but the framing is odd.

x313 2mo ago
Referring to ownership, not renting
- vasco 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Mogzol 2mo ago
    What are you trying to say, that everyone should own a house? Surely you realize that is not a possibility for many, if not most, young people around the world.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      that's the problem

aunty_helen 2mo ago

I wish we had a word for this, where everyone’s getting rich, there’s a run on stocks, but prices of assets are all going up. Some people are missing out completely whereas a select few hoard wealth in other forms. And of course the government starting to notice and trying to intervene.

uncivilized 2mo ago
Irrational Exuberance
- rcbdev 2mo ago
  Exoptable Money.
anukin 2mo ago
Roaring 20s?
krackers 2mo ago
Tulip mania!
inigyou 2mo ago
Capitalism?

anovikov 2mo ago

With housing their being so cheap, what the hell is the problem anyway? It's impossible to have expensive real estate in a country that's dying out fast.

Barrin92 2mo ago
>It's impossible to have expensive real estate no it's very possible because in an aging country people relocate to a handful of cities. 50% of South Korea's population now lives in the Seoul metropolitan area. The real estate that's getting cheaper is the one decaying in the countryside. It's like saying Russia can't have expensive real estate because the country is big, what matters is where people are actually moving.
- SturgeonsLaw 2mo ago
  Cities in Australia consistently rank in the top 5 most expensive real estate indices and we ain't short of space here, it's just not many people are interested in living in a dusty Outback desert. And for many, if the property is not within 10km of the Sydney or Melbourne city centre, it might as well be in the dusty Outback desert.
  - apparent 2mo ago
    I'd think Starlink will help change this. Not for living in the actual dusty Outback (which has its own risks/dangers/inconveniences), but for living in many other places in Australia that are lovely and not too far from desirable areas.
    - atwrk 2mo ago
      Most people want to live where other people live, for reasons ranging from social connections to access to services and infrastructure. I doubt broadband access access plays even a small role.
      - apparent 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

stickfigure 2mo ago

> housing (which is a requisite status symbol for dating or marriage I get that culture is hard to change, but it still seems easier than changing the economics. There are men and women out there who presumably are interested in partnering up; at some point you'd think biology will take over irrespective of which achievements have been unlocked. What's stopping them?

numpad0 2mo ago
System of education? The current form of it have nudges and blockers everywhere to stop population explosion leading us all into Soylent Green type situation.
lottin 2mo ago
Social status is a big part of what makes a person attractive especially if you're a man.
- stickfigure 2mo ago
  Sure, but - by definition - half the population is below average social status. At least here in the US, those people are still partnering up.
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    Oh, you forget - we lie about social status, including to ourselves. Women and men. And as for what determines status ... first rule of social interaction: you can't ask a woman her age and you can't ask a man his wage (in other words: humans are social animals and this information is only available through playing the social game of deception). So in practice 80% or so of the population is below "average social status". People who don't absolutely need to pair up (historically women can't earn, but require, money and men can't take care of a home/place to sleep, but have to), will refuse to pair up with someone below their signaled social status. In other words: there are TWO average social statuses. First, there is what people believe their own social status is. Second there is what people, on average, see as others social status. In a "natural" human society, it's basically impossible for anyone over 25 or so to "pair up", unless they have a partner, which is not common at all. Since social status ALSO determines the distribution of food, at that point the first real period of weakness (you get sick, you hurt your leg, you ...) is the end. You can delay this by forming cliques, but not by that much. Oh and of course, that has an analog in our society. Look how much a plumber gets paid (ie. it's pretty disappointing), despite the shortage. There are low status and high status jobs, and even where it doesn't make sense they determine pay. E.g. there are a lot of cities with a total glut of lawyers ... it makes no sense to give 7 figure wages for people when 70% of whom can't find work, but we do. By contrast there is an incredible shortage of construction workers, and still they're not paid half what a lawyer gets. Rather we'll get immigrants to do it. Why? Because a great many people would rather signal that they're above manual labor than get 7 figures a year. In other words: I will live in destitution rather than admit I'm low social status, even if low social status would pay well. Oh and don't forget credit cards: 80%+ of people worldwide consider feeling rich (and showing off) more important than, ironically, money. Note also the many complaints about the economy, which are never about having or not having money, the big complaint seen everywhere is that people who don't have money "feel poor". One might think it should be perfectly normal to not have money and feel poor. Which also is the big lesson in investment that's coming up: countries will raise inflation to any level rather than cut expenditures. That's how we got to 20% inflation in the 80s. That's how Argentina or even Zimbabwe got there. Ie: when we're getting close to that point, for the love of God, don't buy government bonds. Preventing obvious human habits from destroying us seems to me the best reason to really give developing AI your best effort. Because the whole "job destruction" argument has a hole in it you could fit a planet through: people don't want to do the destroyed jobs. What do you think is the best: AI taking jobs? Or, that we force young people into nursing, plumbing, construction, ... through more and more extreme measures and making everyone a lot poorer? That's how the system rebalances after all, make people poorer until the plumbing gets done. Those are the choices. AI it is. At least for me.

cyanydeez 2mo ago

They've also driven a noticeable drop in stock prices in the closing minutes that have been used by quant algos to squeeze even more money out of the market as the leverage is a unmanaged algo that was predictable and could be driven up before it had to force trades. It's not just the gambling of people, but the systematic use of bots to squeeze leveraged vehicles.