[saidnooneever]

i read it as most likely people will lose their retirements if the companies goes bust. is that correct? in my country now they move to new pension model which will allow more aggressive investments with them. i am worried it will just get sent to these bros and i'll work until i die.

[iLoveOncall]

No, it's wrong.

Amazon is worth $2.81T right now and only represents 4.03% of the S&P500.

So a $1T share would represent less than 2% of the S&P500. This is significant for a single company, and 6% for 3 shit-tier companies (SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic) is even more significant, but we're far from "losing retirement if they go bust"-levels.

[smugglerFlynn]

I wish we would start paying proportional attention to business news, instead of treating AI (or any other "cutting edge") companies as economy-defining and giving these 50+% of the attention.

It is especially telling if we try to list out all the psychological biases at play:

  - Availability & salience bias - vivid, memorable things feel more important than they are
  - Narrative bias - humans tend to think in stories, and AI tells plenty
  - Recency and novelty bias — new things feel more consequential than established ones (this one already drives like 80% of all HN content btw)
  - Proportionality neglect - people are bad at intuitively grasping what percentages mean, even if they see the stats
  - Social proof and reflexivity - coverage signals importance, and drives more coverage
  - Status quo invisibility - things that work reliably become invisible (surprisingly, HN is really good in terms of working against this bias, I feel like at least 5% of all posts are some niche "inner daily workings" topics)
  - Speculation premium in attention - uncertainty generates more discussion than certainty
  - In-group signaling - cutting-edge things are status markers among influencers

[rtkwe]

On the other hand if you remove the gains from AI related companies the bull market basically disappears. [0] It makes up a small part of the market over all but if the market had been trading sideways for 3+ months people would be feeling quite differently about the economy.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/ai-is-carrying-the...

[ben_w]

I've recently learned a new finance term, "float", and I want to check if this makes a difference to this discussion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_float

I hear S&P 500 is weighted on float rather than on market cap, while Nasdaq 100 is based on market cap.

[eru]

Yes, that's mostly correct. Many indices are weighted by something like free float.

[outside1234]

Yes, and in this case, it means that SpaceX will only be approximately 0.1% of the SP500.

[HWR_14]

NASDAQ will be weighted by 3xfloat upto 100% when SpaceX goes public.

[petesergeant]

One of the places you could have learned this would be the article itself:

> most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.

[SlinkyOnStairs]

You're not modelling the contagion here. The problem is that while any single one isn't that big a share of the S&P 500, similar companies do make up a lot collectively. Excl some non-tech/AI firms:

NVIDIA Corp NVDA 8.02%

Apple Inc AAPL 6.53%

Microsoft Corp MSFT 4.84%

Amazon.com Inc AMZN 4.01%

Broadcom Inc AVGO 3.36%

Alphabet Inc GOOGL 3.32%

Alphabet Inc GOOG 3.09%

Meta Platforms Inc META 2.23%

Micron Technology Inc MU 1.71%

Advanced Micro Devices Inc AMD 1.19%

Oracle Corp ORCL 0.99%

That's 40% of the S&P 500.

And if anything happens to the AI bubble all of these go down together. While they won't all go to zero and cause a "-40%" overnight, Nvidia's rise is so meteoric that they will trigger a -8% and the rest's valuation has more than doubled since 2023. Even Apple, which isn't much of an "AI company", is still following the AI-tech hype.

If Nvidia eats shit, and the others go -50%, that translates to an overall ~-24% on the stock market.

Before any contagion outside the tech industry is considered. Look at the Dotcom Bubble and a -40% to -50% crash is quite plausible.

[lanstin]

Unlike OpenAI or SpaceX, a lot of those tech companies are raking in the money. meta, google, amazon, apple all have huge cash flows. They will be buffered by this money - in dot com time, the money wasn’t already there, just the eyeballs. And while Cisco, which like Nvidia sold actual things, took a long time to regain their stock price, they made money selling actual things all along. On the other hand, there is more debt now than in dot com. I wouldn’t be surprised by a fifty percent decline, but it will be different than dot com for sure.

[SlinkyOnStairs]

> And while Cisco, which like Nvidia sold actual things, took a long time to regain their stock price, they made money selling actual things all along.

This is the key comparison. It's not the "Pets dot com" side of the DotCom bubble, but the Telecom Bubble that followed. (All the AI startups that just repackage someone else's inference will go the way of Pets dot com, but their economic impact is minimal)

Certainly, Big Tech has massive cashflows. But those cashflows were priced into the 2023 valuations.

That is what makes the current valuations so ominous. Just a correction back to 2023 would be enormous. And as you note, a lot of these companies are taking on debt, dumping huge investments into AI. They're worse off than they were in 2023. Oracle may straight up go bankrupt.

[baggachipz]

The issue with nvidia is that they're "selling" most of their product to companies taking out debt to fund the purchases. The company explodes, nvidia's booked but not-yet-existing profits go poof. They're also giving most of these companies the money to buy their own products. Looks sweet on a balance sheet, doesn't represent reality in any sense.

> Oracle may straight up go bankrupt.

And nothing of value would be lost.

[irishcoffee]

I wish I could upvote this more. This is the point. Everything is so incestuous now that the problem isn't 2% here or 3% there, it'll be a catastrophe of epic proportions.

I do not want things to go kaboom, the CAPE index seems to indicate that what I want isn't relevant.

[bwfan123]

> Everything is so incestuous now that the problem isn't 2% here or 3% there, it'll be a catastrophe of epic proportions

Google and Amazon fund Anthropic which returns the favor with cloud purchases at these hyperscalers. So, google and amazon show increased earnings (via anthropic share markup) and increased cloud revenues via anthropic purchase. SpaceX didnt want to be left behind, so, it signed a deal with Anthropic.

Meanwhile capex at hyperscalers, VCs, PE etc is funding the party. Capex is not a concern to anybody as it doesnt appear on either revenues or earnings at the hyperscalers.

Downstream is partying from all the spending (server makers, chips, disk etc).

Whats not to like ! this is a perpetual money machine. Lets partay !

[djeastm]

That's if everyone were acting perfectly rationally, but a world in which those three companies go bankrupt would have everyone panic selling every equity possible like it's the endtimes.

[iLoveOncall]

Anthropic and OpenAI maybe, but I don't think anyone gives a flying fuck about SpaceX, and everyone knows its value is nowhere near a trillion.

[calmworm]

Unfortunately not everyone knows that. See some comments in this thread.

[andrepd]

They will drag the rest with it.

[saidnooneever]

thank you

[DanielHB]

If they go bust won't it likely trigger a massive market crash? Afterall index funds will be forced to sell other US stocks to buy them, bringing their values down. Non-passive investors will predict that and divest even more and so on...

And that is on top of the IPO companies losing value themselves, this seems likely to trigger a doom-loop until the market reaches a low enough value. This will likely trigger layoffs and companies reducing spending and investments further depressing the economy. Added inflation from oil prices and war.

This doesn't seem like one big balloon ready to burst, but more like a house suspended by hundreds of balloons and they are about to be ran over by an airplane.

[baggachipz]

Yeah, think dot-com crash all over again, but probably worse IMO. Problem is, there really isn't a safe place to hide when this all happens. Some are less unsafe, like funds which track dividend-yielding stocks, or gold I guess (but that's just a speculative value store like bitcoin).

[DanielHB]

I don't know about your country, but in Sweden you can choose where part of your investment money (I think 40%) gets allocated. On top of that you can choose where 100% of your private pensions are allocated.

Also some EU pension funds are already in the process of divesting from US markets...

[f6v]

> Also some EU pension funds are already in the process of divesting from US markets...

And where will they go to?

[DanielHB]

I mean, the US public markets is about 49% of the worlds market so it is not like there aren't other options. Divesting doesn't mean moving everything out and pension funds also invest in non-public markets.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/124-trillion-global-stock-m...

[saidnooneever]

maybe they will sell our pensions to BRICS :')

[moffkalast]

The reason they're doing that is because traditional European ponzi scheme pension systems don't work with shrinking populations, so actually we're working till we die in either case unless automation taxes pay for it.

[Arn_Thor]

You've been told a lie. Productivity has increased every step of the way even as populations shrink and the elderly cohort grows. Most of those productivity gains, i.e. the added value produced by each worker, has gone to shareholders' profits. If we had a reasonable tax system that captured more of that surplus value (which mostly goes offshore and does not in fact "generate more jobs"), then we'd have no problem at all funding the pension systems, and much more.

[munksbeer]

> You've been told a lie. Productivity has increased every step of the way even as populations shrink and the elderly cohort grows. Most of those productivity gains, i.e. the added value produced by each worker, has gone to shareholders' profits.

You mean our pension funds?

[Arn_Thor]

I was going to be glib and say "a thimbleful" but let's really look at it.

Firstly, pension funds hold some share of stocks, but far from all. Second, pension funds hold a share of a pie that's not all that came out of the bakery. The bakery made a lot more dough, but much pie was spent (horribly mixing metaphors) to buy assets like property and private investments. So in reality pension funds hold a fraction of a fraction. Third, pension funds invested in equity is a replacement for the old pension systems of yore where companies were forced to set aside money and invest smartly to fund guaranteed income pension plans. They don't have to do that anymore. Instead they contribute to a 401(K) or similar in other countries, which lowered their costs and reduced company risk. For listed companies, those savings went to the shareholders, of which pension funds were just a fraction of a fraction.

I hope this illustrates that we, the salaried workers, see only a small fraction of the value created by increased productivity.

[munksbeer]

No, it really doesn't. I think you're quite mistaken. Ultimately, most shares are held in funds which are pension or other personal wealth funds, and those are held by billions of ordinary people.

[Arn_Thor]

In the US, public and private pension funds directly hold about US$9.9trn of corporate equities, out of US$83trn of the publicly traded market (ignoring non-public wealth extraction which I also mentioned). That is about 12%. After allowing for pension exposure through mutual funds, we might be nearer to 20%. The Fed’s corporate-equity category also already includes ETF shares, so you can’t simply add “ETFs” on top without double-counting.

You've ignored the broader point about distribution. The Fed show that the top 1% own about half of corporate equities and mutual fund shares. So saying that shares are held by “billions of ordinary people” is quite wildly misleading.

My point wasn’t that ordinary workers own no shares through pensions or retirement accounts. But it is a limited and very unequally distributed channel for returning productivity gains to labor. It doesn’t make “shareholder profits” equivalent to “workers’ pensions.”

The key is that the wealth generated by workers makes its way into private pockets at many stages along the chain. Much of it never even makes its way to shareholders, neither through stock value increases nor dividends.

[Nasrudith]

Surplus value is a propaganda myth from Marx along with other trivially disproven delusions like LVT. Tell me what work is being done by whom in a wine cellar as the vintage matures after harvest?

"Reasonable" is doing herculean amounts of work as usual, as it is implicitly operating under a thief's logic that the target didn't really deserve it anyway therefore if I steal all of it I will be justified.

We see the same shit when regiemes 'nationalize' segments of the economy and then wonder why instead of miraculously getting better without the 'exploiters' things turn to shit and absolutely nobody wants to trade with them. Empathy such a foreign concept to them that they don’t understand why merchants refuse to trade with those who steal businesses wholesale. Whose only response when confronted about their crimes is lame whataboutisms and victim blaming.

[Arn_Thor]

fine, strip out the words "surplus value" and "reasonable" if they truly blind you to the point.

Let's say, "If we had a tax system that captured a greater share of the increase in profits resulting from higher productivity (which mostly goes offshore and does not in fact "generate more jobs"), then we'd have no problem at all funding the pension systems, and much more."

[saidnooneever]

each few years the pension age rises 69 for me now, but it will likely go up further. much further up is beyond the average life expectancy...

[sscaryterry]

Yep, I'm sure in 25 years time, when I "should" retire, the retirement age will be 75, meaning another 10 years of work, so I have 35 left :) At least!

[onemoresoop]

Too bad it's getting harder and harder to find employment after you're in your 50s

[endemic]

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

[bluGill]

Which is why I have several different sets of savings for retirement. I have no choice about working now, but I hope to retire early in a few years, and my other savings just need to get me through until the official retirement income starts.

[Ray20]

> unless automation taxes pay for it

But this doesn't solve the problem in any way; it simply leads to production drop.

I mean, this is literally the logic of every communist government in the 20th century. They had the same logic that "given the mechanization of agriculture, food practically produces itself; you just need to throw a seed in the ground and give it a couple of tractor rides, and the earth will do the rest. Therefore, we need a tax on such activity, because we have enough resources to feed everyone".

In other words, it's literally a pure tax on automation. The results were mass deaths from starvation every single time.

[ab5tract]

There were so many contributing factors to those famines but my understanding is that it was far and away the broken incentives for reporting failures as successes to avoid immediate head chopping.

There has yet to be an attempt at a centrally planned economy that actually had accurate data to plan with.

Not advocating for central planning but the important point is that these failure modes are possible under any tyrannical regime. For an example of where capitalist competition fell down in a similar way, look no further than the Irish potato famines.

[Ray20]

> it was far and away the broken incentives for reporting failures as successes to avoid immediate head chopping

Actually, no. What you're describing is more of a part of the next stage, designed to solve the already existing problem of famine, rather than its cause.

When communists come to power, they don't try in the first place to reorganize food production under strict centralization; this directly contradicts Marxism, according to which the state gradually withers away as a communist society is built. They simply try to redistribute what is already being produced in a more fair manner, to force peasants to contribute their "fair share" to society.

This causes production to plummet, people are dying of hunger, and only then the government takes control of organization of food production, and only after that do the factors you mentioned become relevant.

But the famine itself under communism, at least in its initial, most massive iteration, is not a consequence of a tyrannical regime, but is a consequence of the "taxation policy" being pursued.

[buntsai]

Not sure that is the historical timeline for Collectivisation in USSR and definitely no China. Collectivisation and Land Reform was a primary goal in itself in China from the 1950s. Communist Liberation was 1949 so right from the onset.

"state gradually withers away as a communist society is built" is 19th century Marx. I think 20thc Leninism, in practice, had a less sanguine view of the evolution of the state. The NEP was a tactical move. You could argue that Mao was always suspicious of state and party machinery which inherently had reactionary and counter revolutionary tendencies. However even when he was Mobilising the Masses, it was not restore to "autonomy" to the people but to clear the deck for further revolution. In Mao Zedong thought, "autonomy" is a very bourgeoisie.

[gwerbin]

Surely redistributing food (still effectively central planning) produced by a large number of peasant farmers is exactly equivalent to redistributive taxes on a very small number of very wealthy people who have captured the productivity gains of automation. Let's just dispense with the entire field of economics, all that fussy declining marginal utility and indifference curves, and just make a real zinger of an analogy.

[Ray20]

Yes, it's EXACTLY equivalent. If you read the works of the communists who implemented all of this, you'll find literally the same arguments about unjust wealth created by productivity gains of automation (mechanization).

[pbhjpbhj]

Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

It's absolutely correct that we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone. We can even give everyone comforts. It's mostly greed that prevents it. Greed that capitalism spends $trillions cultivating by brain-washing us all to want more and never be satisfied.

[sph]

You are correct but

> It's mostly greed that prevents it

Greed is a human axiom. Anything that depends on humans not being greedy isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That's why capitalism won, despite its many faults: it requires human greed to function.

[onemoresoop]

If that were the case why so much brainwashing is needed?

[MarkusQ]

Because its the only way the people who would like to be in power and can't manage to produce anything anyone else wants can see to get themselves put in charge: convince enough other people that despite their freedom, high standard of living, etc. they are somehow oppressed.

[Ray20]

Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

No, I don't think so. From a historical point of view, everything is quite clear: after communists came to power, the most severe famines occurred even before this totalitarian dictatorship is build, as a consequence of these very tax policies, the purpose of which is "easily feed, clothe, house everyone".

Totalitarian dictatorship comes later, as the problem transform to "we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone, but they don't want to, so we should force them"

[gwerbin]

Pretty sure the Bolsheviks developed their bloodthirsty authoritarian tendencies well before the revolution was even won.

[pbhjpbhj]

Could you expand on your second paragraph - I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying you think we're not able to provide for basic necessities with our current level of technical ability and available workforce?

[Ray20]

Our ability to do this is more of a fact. But the socialist distribution system completely destroys this ability.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

> Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

Do you think perhaps there is a reason why any communist regime quickly devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship?

[arkh]

Originally pensions were created so people who could not work would not be destitute.

The fact it became an all-inclusive all-year-round vacation reward is an anomaly which is getting corrected. Too bad for us we're the generations holding the bag.

[pbhjpbhj]

At 60/65 (women/men) years old pensioners could contribute a lot to society in their last decade or more of active life.

Caring for grandchildren, running clubs and societies, giving their experience to local politics.

At 60, women who had daughters at 30, whose daughters just had children would be well placed to help with childrearing.

These sorts of things got lost in UK with equality and the pensions crisis.

[pbhjpbhj]

There was a response about starting businesses. I consider those in their 60s to be capable of contributing to financial systems (eg businesses), I was just focusing on social aspects that have seemingly been lost with societal/political changes. So it was contribution in the non-financial sense I was particularly thinking of.

I suppose when we look at things like the 4-day week, we imagine more time and energy available for social cohesion. Or I do at least.

[romanovcode]

The gamble is that you either succeed or fail. If you try nothing you'll work until you die regardless.

Current system: Work until you die.

New system collapses: Work until you die.

New system lucks out: Probably get returns (pension).

[rvba]

I doubt that a FAANG programmer from hacker news has to work till they die. You are doing something wrong.

Current system isnt great but works. Just fear uncertainity doubt here.

[dgellow]

Not everybody on HN is in a comfy FAANG role

[Normal_gaussian]

Id go so far as to say that the majority are not.

[nervousvarun]

I'd go so far as to say the VAST majority are not.

"back of the napkin" logic:

~2M FAANG employees (source: Gemini & this includes all types of employees...is your avg Amazon delivery driver regularly reading HN?)

~10M HN users (source: Gemini (via HN post :)) )

[rvba]

You mean 22k unique visitors per day making 13k comments and tons of web scraping bots?

Data from 2022, so if we multiply it by 2 I would say 26k real hacker news users.

Wasnt the stat that for 1 creator there are 10 commenters and 1000 viewers?