Job sector growth (after revisions down) has been almost entirely within the healthcare industry which is quite unsustainable. We can't all get rich being a middle man between the doctor and our neighbors. Outside of that sector we're seeing economy-wide shrinkage and stagnant wage growth with a decrease in real wages relative to inflation.
This is a recession - it will be a full-on depression if we get a doveish Fed chair... it might be one anyways, we'll need extremely adroit action to recover into a healthy economic state.
But hey, DOW go up and that's all we care about, right?
> We can't all get rich being a middle man between the doctor and our neighbors
I'm not familiar with the healthcare sector. Is this where the job growth is?
The country is getting older and I expect there would be a lot of demand for non-AI-replaceable nurses and elder care. Many of those workers have also been deported or scared out of the country.
Healthcare job increases should not be unexpected as the country ages, deaths outnumber births in 21 states (as of this comment), the demand for care will only grow over time.
> As of 2024, 18% (61.2 million) of Americans are 65 or older, according to Census Bureau data. The national population over the age of 65 has more than doubled since 1980, with three-quarters of that growth occurring in the 21st century. The 65 and older group grew by more than 26.2 million people, a 74.6% increase, during that time.
> The number of Americans ages 65 and older is projected to increase from 58 million in 2022 to 82 million by 2050 (a 42% increase), and the 65-and-older age group’s share of the total population is projected to rise from 17% to 23%. The U.S population is older today than it has ever been. Between 1980 and 2022, the median age of the population increased from 30.0 to 38.9, but one-third (17) of states in the country had a median age above 40 in 2022, with Maine (44.8) and New Hampshire (43.3) at the top of the list.
It is very unlikely the work done by CNAs, RNs, physical therapists, and others providing this population care can or will be automated.
To be fair, the healthcare employment flows are small (1.6M) compared to the total employment stock (160M+ people). And you would expect the healthcare labor supply to increase to match the bulge created by the baby boom. I don't think this means we will all be a healthcare middle man though; it assumes this large flow is permanent, and overstates the fraction of the labor stock.
The Trump clan literally does not care. The most pressing issues are to further legalize crypto so that the whales (including Trump's World Liberty Fund) have an exit. So there is a family/industry crypto conference at Mar a Lago while the economy is crashing:
I mean, even ignoring the recent GenAI narrative, vast portions of the economy have already been significantly automated for decades.
Additive Manufacturing, industrial robotics, the Internet, and the proliferation of computers had already made large portions of manufacturing and low skill white collar jobs redundant by the mid-2010s.
Furthermore, the brutal reality is most businesses can generate revenue growth just by concentrating on the 90th percentile and above of households [0], (edit: or at best the 70th percentile of households of income [1]).
For example, despite all the love Costco gets on HN - the reality is it only targets customers within the top 50% of households by income [2]. You may delude yourself into thinking that you are a thrifty underdog when you shop at Costco, but the reality is most Americans cannot and will never be able to afford Costco, and Costco doesn't want or need their business.
A K-Shape Economy is actually the historical norm.
This is my suspicion. I imagine, if you don't care about the majority of the population, you might as well reduce the economy to circular transactions between corporations and between 1%ers and the businesses catering to them.
Circular Transactions mean something else and are orthogonal to this conversation.
That said, the reality is that the 70th percentile of household income nationally is a little over $130K [0] and the US is a country with a population of around 341 Million people.
Therefore, you can have a self-sustaining consumer market with around 100 Million Americans who are members of households earning above $130k a year - you would end up with a significantly larger TAM than targeting the bottom 70%.
Most skilled (SWE, Accounting, Law), semi-skilled (Automation Engineer, Mechanic), civil service (Police, Teachers, Local government employees, Military), and union employees all marry people within this strata and remain in that strata.
Doesn't this mean you get siloed economies? That is, the people below the 70th percentile have their own (maybe multiple) ecosystems? Quite similar to india1,india2 and india3 in the late 2010s. This should bring about income mobility right?
Exactly! And yes - you are seeing the developing of a concept similar to India or China 1/2/3 in Western markets now.
The reality is, America1 or France1 has tastes and sensibilities closer to India1 or China1 instead of America3. As such, there's no point targeting America3 or France3, because it doesn't dramatically grow your TAM the same way India1 or China1 could.
This is why Walmart and Amazon began pivoting heavily into the India and China consumer market in the mid-2010s.
The India 1/2/3 concept that Blume Ventures came up with is a modified version of a similar mental model we used to analyze China back in the 2000s and 2010s which itself is was forked from the principle of market segmentation.
Everyone loves to talk about neuromancer but missed when gibson went on to write a half dozen even more prescient books about exactly this process and its eventual consequences.
I personally am thankful to Gibson, and some other cyberpunk authors, for the ample warning they gave; many things ended up prescient. (Not that I heeded that warning enough, alas.)
> Additive Manufacturing, industrial robotics, the Internet, and the proliferation of computers had already made large portions of manufacturing and low skill white collar jobs redundant by the mid-2010s.
I think a much more realistic explanation than robotics and 3d printing is the outsourcing of the social and environmental costs of industrialization to countries willing to bear it, like China, Vietnam and Mexico.
Containerized shipping, email, and computerized logistics have made globalization efficient, and therefore inevitable.
Low skilled manufacturing had already left the US by the early 1990s with stragglers leaving by the early 2000s.
Heck, I used to live in LA as a kid at that time in the 90s and 2000s and the sweatshops (yes we had sweatshops) sewing clothes for Gap were staffed by undocumented Mexican, Korean, Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese migrants in the Fashion District.
On the other hand, even highly paid manufacturing segments like automotive had already normalized industrial robotics by the early 2000s [0].
Basically, income mobility was already dead by the 1990s [1]. The difference is most Boomer HNers were insulated by that because it is clear almost everyone on HN who grew up during that era grew up in a 50th percentile and above household back then and wasn't the head of a household in the 1980-2005 period.
I don't have a direct answer but I hope this will help anyway.
I have found that https://archive.today/, https://archive.is/ and https://archive.ph/ don't resolve correctly when using quad9 or cloudflare dns servers. To work around that I use other dns servers for their name resolution. Maybe you're experiencing a similar issue?
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks? Thus nobody buying anything.
It could be possible to have high GDP with low paychecks… it basically means the entire economy mostly consists of the wealthy few buying and selling things to each other. It is easy to see how that could happen if more things become automated.
You could imagine a world where there are only two people who own anything, and the entire economic productivity is generated by robots owned by those two people creating things and selling them to the other person, who uses those things for their robots to work with. You could produce tons and tons of things with no workers, and the GDP would keep growing.
Of course, the high GDP doesn’t mean everyone is fed and sheltered. Having a functioning and growing economic market is required for capitalism to serve its purpose of providing for the citizens, but it isn’t the ONLY requirement. If the form capitalism takes as we move into the future is one that stops providing for enough of its citizens, it won’t be able to sustain itself. I think there are things we can do to shift our capitalism to do a better job of providing for everyone, but there are a lot of forces fighting against that.
> It could be possible to have high GDP with low paychecks… it basically means the entire economy mostly consists of the wealthy few buying and selling things to each other.
A similar thing happens when people talk about "total debt" in an economy. I like to bring up the scenario of 3 people trading a shiny rock around in a circle. Each time seller doubles the price and agrees to defer payment.
In this way, three kids can spend recess at school running the nation's average household debt to near-infinity! There are a few flavors of GDP calculation, but I expect it could yield some similarly odd results.
In both cases, the map is not the territory, and the metric is indirect/imperfect.
Capitalism works due to the "free market" which maps a large number of producers to a large number of consumers in an efficient way. When the market ceases to be sufficiently free, capitalism starts to falter. It may be regulation, it may be monopoly, it may be monopsony, it may be dysfunction of the judiciary system that fails to protect property rights, etc.
A system of only two parties trading the entire economic output of a country would be utterly un-capitalist, more like two kings trading in products of their kingdoms. No doubt that any social institutes would have been subjugated by these two parties.
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks?
I joked with my manager when we were having a conversation about everyone being asked to use more AI, as an obvious precursor to keeping fewer employees to do the same amount of work: the end state of AI will be an AI manager having career conversations with the AI employee, discussing raises and bonuses.
The ironic part really is that the average middle management job is probably among the more simple jobs you can automate away with AI at scale. Tell it your metrics, your targets, and other relevant info, and it can feed directions down to employees at scale.
I don't buy this at all. There's significantly more to management than tracking and hitting metrics. You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
I'm sorry, but vomiting up another bulleted list is NOT management. Its giving orders and then culling the % that don't comply. Wildly different things.
> You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
Which is why it’s surprising that management is salivating at the idea of replacing employees and expecting 1 employee to do the work of 10 with the help of AI agents. If the value you bring is to manage people, you shouldn’t be happy at the idea of fewer people having jobs.
> You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
How many human managers actually do that, though? How many websites performed satisfactorily before AI arrived? How well has technology matched what consumers really need or want? Maybe, as a society we have underperformed and nescient AI performs well enough (or even better) in comparison.
On one hand richest top 1% own 30% of the total US wealth (and services/goods for the rich is a booming sector) but on other hand their wealth depends on a fully functioning economy. If 99% of population will be excluded form the economy top 1% will not be able to keep their current wealth either (even if they still be comparatively better off).
I worry that some fraction of those 1%ers have the hope that this is where AI will lead to in the end: You don't need the 99% if they can actually be replaced with robots.
Or, if that doesn't work (because the robots are too dumb), you can at least split off the economy into a "poor" and a "rich" part that are mostly disconnected from each other.
I don't see how the rich don't understand this. Guess they just think it won't happen to them and they'll be smart enough to cash out of America and go elsewhere before everyone else looses.
It seems like we are long way from robots building robots. So they need humans. Maybe the last people with jobs will be building that first generation of robots that still need humans.
> It seems like we are long way from robots building robots.
I think it's very possible some of these folks have convinced themselves otherwise, and have largely eliminated the folks who'd say "you fucking idiot, no" from their lives over the decades.
They know. That’s why they’re investing in things like land and building castles. They know the future they’ve designed. They’re already laying the foundation needed to win total power.
Would you rather be a billionaire in a world of millionaires, or a millionaire in a world of penniless peasants? What we're seeing now is the billionaires' answer to this question.
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks?
I’m suspecting something like Soylent Green, but perhaps with more proactive action taken to free up resources by removal of masses who are no longer producing enough value to justify their expenses.
Following up, I believe eventually it will all be replaced by something much more resembling feudal power. Where bound servants provide service labor in exchange for protection/survival. Something like fuedalism but without the agricultural focus of manorialism.
> but perhaps with more proactive action taken to free up resources by removal of masses who are no longer producing enough value to justify their expenses.
How bout we remove the heads of the wealthy and hoist them on petards outside their former dwellings instead? We don't need to justify the removal of these cancerous lumps of flesh we call "the elite". We don't need them. THEY NEED US.
The problem is that it seems like wealthy people (capital owners) might be able to sustain the economy between themselves, which is basically what we're seeing.
Whether or not it is a good plan depends upon how much faith they have in their doomsday bunkers and robot armies to protect them from the masses during the transition.
The economic condition strains even the jargon of economists. Is the economy booming if unemployment is booming? What does it even mean? Is the economy really booming or is it really just inflation? I feel like they need to be more specific as to what they mean. Or as was said elsewhere here "But hey, DOW go up."
~400k documented/authorized workers leave the US labor market through death (55+) or retirement (Boomers, ~4M/year still retiring) every month. Immigration is down, and net migration was likely close to zero or negative in 2025. Unemployment is relatively low, but there is robust evidence of widespread underemployment and it taking 6-12 months for the unemployed to find jobs. My analysis is that companies are reaching for historical ZIRP era returns in a macro with higher rates (which will likely remain higher with the neutral rate closer to 2.5-3%) through "cost efficiency" whenever possible, by offshoring, nearshoring, and avoiding hiring as long as their systems and processes continue to function "good enough."
Deportations have pushed wages up in some examples (Texas healthcare industry) due to employers having to hire authorized workers to replace undocumented workers who would work for lower wages, but I have not seen broad data on this topic, citations welcome.
The economic metrics are masking a brutal worker economy, being held up by labor shortages (but shortages not yet sufficient to improve labor power), AI capital investment, and healthcare jobs (which will remain durable and in demand due to a rapidly aging US population) is my thesis.
> but there is robust evidence of widespread underemployment and it taking 6-12 months for the unemployed to find jobs
A really ignored aspect of this is that gig work is pretty prevalent once someone loses a stable job. This masks the unemployment with underemployment. There were headlines a while back about booming small business registrations as a sign of a booming economy. Turns out it was just a bunch of people registering businesses so that they can DoorDash
Culper Research had a thesis that a material amount of DoorDash gig workers were undocumented, I'm unsure how it panned out. I agree gig work platforms are a contributing factor to masking economy health indicators as well as underemployment.
Deportations are down from my understanding. Most people think deportations are up due to the “shock and awe” ice operations. The current administration, as with prior administrations, has no intentions of actually reducing the amount of cheap labor whether they are undocumented or not.
The main impact is from fewer workers entering the country clandestinely from Mexico due to the current administration’s enforcement of the border and the general impression of immigrants being treated poorly by administration. Illegal border crossings are now at a 50 year low.
because the jobs they do enable a lot of BS jobs, go
unfilled and actually need to be filled to create other
job growth while someone in the labor market for a long
time is likely in a comfortable job that will be
realized to be unnecessary and already replaced by
disruption from newer lower pay equivalents.
(Also GDP is in USD which means it is down 30% in many senses.)
> I don't really think retiring boomers play the same role in the economy.
~3M+ deaths during the pandemic pulled forward a labor supply shock that would've happened more slowly over time, due to structural demographics ("Demographics are destiny", fertility rates never recovered after the 2008 GFC in the US [economic shocks destroy fertility rates], population has been held up with net immigration for the last half decade). Boomers have investments and real estate equity in some cases, Medicare and Social Security in others (with some overlap), and have constant demand for healthcare and other elderly goods and services. They make up almost 20% of the population.
Certainly, there is a bifurcation between undocumented worker jobs (agriculture, high physical labor healthcare, food industry) and documented worker jobs Boomers are retiring from. The latter is relevant for my points on labor market dynamics, the former is distinct because it is unlikely documented workers are going to flow into these low wage, low quality of life jobs without higher wages and worker protections (as one would expect). You see this with employers and farmers complaining there are no workers for them.
The data shows older workers are absolutely playing a material part in the economy, both as consumers and workers.
> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000. The 55+ population increased by 42 million (from 57 million in 2000 to 99 million today [2022]), a 74% increase. Total employment in the age cohort increased by 113%.
All well and good if you are employed, well off and rich. But if AI starts eliminating jobs, even being rich may not help you in the coming crash. Why a crash ? Most people will not be able to buy anything other than a bit of food and pay their rent, if they are lucky.
I doubt we will see most of these impacts for 10 to 20 years. I wonder if this is a reason Trump wants low interest rates ? With low rates the rich can borrow at a low fixed rate and purchase items like Gold and Land. Then when rates have to raise, more $ for them.
I truly believe the goal is to bring blue cities back to the 70s through 90s. Dangerous, gritty, dilapidated, horrible schools, corrupt government. But it will be cheap to rent and artsy 20 year olds / older homosexuals without children will enjoy it
That expectation only holds together if you think of consumers as a single monolithic cohort. But prices can stay high and price out most consumers as long as there is a minority of rich ones still able to afford it:
It's only reasonable if you ignore literally everything that capitalism has done in the last 50 years.
Prices can only go up because to do otherwise harms shareholder value. None of the COVID inflation prices have come back down even though supply recovered. Prices continue going up.
That's if AI goes full singularity. Barring this scenario, it might be the end of while collar dream and social mobility in general, but not nessarily the catastrophic "nobody buys anything" change
I don’t see 70 million Americans transitioning from white collar “knowledge worker” to plumbers and electricians in the 18 months the hype men are quoting. Many don’t even have the physical capabilities for it.
I'm not seeing that either. I rather thought of white collar work being devalued rather than disappearing. By "end of white collar dream" I meant that you won't be making good money with it, because it would be commoditized with all workers being pretty much the same as far as employers concerned - but there will not necessarily be less work to do. And you will probably be able to afford food, clothes and shelter.
What article is not mentioning is this, for the US:
Private sector: + 687,000
Government sector: – 319,000
Total: + 181,000
---
The government sector doesn't produce virtually anything that counts toward GDP, so GDP growth relates not to 181k of total employment growth but to 687k of private-sector growth.
So, no, this is not about eliminating jobs and a few people getting rich.
It is about statistcs, and lying to force the agenda.
I'd also argue that some services provided by the gov't help towards GDP. An example being the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and them helping to recoup funds from scams and returning the money to victims who would then spend their money and increase the "Consumption" in GDP.
A lot of government spending is (again, technically) them giving money to the folks who spend the money to produce GDP-y things. NASA hires Boeing, ICE buys cloud services from Microsoft, the military buys Starlink, etc.
This feels like such a weird non-sequiter argument, but I can't exactly put my finger on it. This comment seems to be asserting (1) government jobs don't produce value and (2) GDP is the only thing that matters.
I'm ignoring the fact that I don't actually know how government sector jobs contribute to or affect GDP.
Seems like by this logic, why not just cut ALL government jobs? Obviously that's a terrible idea...
I'm very skeptical of the idea that somebody working on, say, nuclear security "doesn't produce virtually anything," while a privately-employed rent-a-cop counts as productive GDP growth.
Even if we take your premise as given, isn't ~700,000 a pretty terrible number? Last year's headlines were, 2024 job growth was much lower than previously estimated, at only 1.5 million. 2023 was 2.7 million. Even if we put that down to pandemic recovery, typical pre-pandemic numbers were around 2 million outside of recessions.
Gift link for folks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-02-18/us-econom...
Job sector growth (after revisions down) has been almost entirely within the healthcare industry which is quite unsustainable. We can't all get rich being a middle man between the doctor and our neighbors. Outside of that sector we're seeing economy-wide shrinkage and stagnant wage growth with a decrease in real wages relative to inflation.
This is a recession - it will be a full-on depression if we get a doveish Fed chair... it might be one anyways, we'll need extremely adroit action to recover into a healthy economic state.
But hey, DOW go up and that's all we care about, right?
> We can't all get rich being a middle man between the doctor and our neighbors
I'm not familiar with the healthcare sector. Is this where the job growth is?
The country is getting older and I expect there would be a lot of demand for non-AI-replaceable nurses and elder care. Many of those workers have also been deported or scared out of the country.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1r21tdv/oc...
https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/january-jobs-report-unemplo... | https://archive.today/9gdEO
Healthcare job increases should not be unexpected as the country ages, deaths outnumber births in 21 states (as of this comment), the demand for care will only grow over time.
https://usafacts.org/articles/america-is-getting-older-which...
> As of 2024, 18% (61.2 million) of Americans are 65 or older, according to Census Bureau data. The national population over the age of 65 has more than doubled since 1980, with three-quarters of that growth occurring in the 21st century. The 65 and older group grew by more than 26.2 million people, a 74.6% increase, during that time.
https://www.prb.org/resources/fact-sheet-aging-in-the-united...
> The number of Americans ages 65 and older is projected to increase from 58 million in 2022 to 82 million by 2050 (a 42% increase), and the 65-and-older age group’s share of the total population is projected to rise from 17% to 23%. The U.S population is older today than it has ever been. Between 1980 and 2022, the median age of the population increased from 30.0 to 38.9, but one-third (17) of states in the country had a median age above 40 in 2022, with Maine (44.8) and New Hampshire (43.3) at the top of the list.
It is very unlikely the work done by CNAs, RNs, physical therapists, and others providing this population care can or will be automated.
There does not appear to be a recession.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME
I think it’s fair to say we are in a strange economic environment and no one can clearly say what the situation is.
To be fair, the healthcare employment flows are small (1.6M) compared to the total employment stock (160M+ people). And you would expect the healthcare labor supply to increase to match the bulge created by the baby boom. I don't think this means we will all be a healthcare middle man though; it assumes this large flow is permanent, and overstates the fraction of the labor stock.
> Job sector growth (after revisions down) has been almost entirely within the healthcare industry which is quite unsustainable.
Someone has to wipe our Boomer arses. An aging population means more healthcare and less of everything else.
> Someone has to wipe our Boomer arses. An aging population means more healthcare and less of everything else
And a much more intense shift to financialization.
Pension funds tends to target an IRR of around 20-30%, and it is they that are the biggest pools of capital that funds invest.
You ain't hitting that amount of IRR without an extreme degree of financial ruthlessness.
The Trump clan literally does not care. The most pressing issues are to further legalize crypto so that the whales (including Trump's World Liberty Fund) have an exit. So there is a family/industry crypto conference at Mar a Lago while the economy is crashing:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/goldman-nasdaq-ceos-headlin...
I mean, even ignoring the recent GenAI narrative, vast portions of the economy have already been significantly automated for decades.
Additive Manufacturing, industrial robotics, the Internet, and the proliferation of computers had already made large portions of manufacturing and low skill white collar jobs redundant by the mid-2010s.
Furthermore, the brutal reality is most businesses can generate revenue growth just by concentrating on the 90th percentile and above of households [0], (edit: or at best the 70th percentile of households of income [1]).
For example, despite all the love Costco gets on HN - the reality is it only targets customers within the top 50% of households by income [2]. You may delude yourself into thinking that you are a thrifty underdog when you shop at Costco, but the reality is most Americans cannot and will never be able to afford Costco, and Costco doesn't want or need their business.
A K-Shape Economy is actually the historical norm.
[0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-of-the-top-1...
[1] - https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/
[2] - https://www.businessinsider.com/how-costco-sams-club-shopper...
This is my suspicion. I imagine, if you don't care about the majority of the population, you might as well reduce the economy to circular transactions between corporations and between 1%ers and the businesses catering to them.
Circular Transactions mean something else and are orthogonal to this conversation.
That said, the reality is that the 70th percentile of household income nationally is a little over $130K [0] and the US is a country with a population of around 341 Million people.
Therefore, you can have a self-sustaining consumer market with around 100 Million Americans who are members of households earning above $130k a year - you would end up with a significantly larger TAM than targeting the bottom 70%.
Most skilled (SWE, Accounting, Law), semi-skilled (Automation Engineer, Mechanic), civil service (Police, Teachers, Local government employees, Military), and union employees all marry people within this strata and remain in that strata.
[0] - https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/
Doesn't this mean you get siloed economies? That is, the people below the 70th percentile have their own (maybe multiple) ecosystems? Quite similar to india1,india2 and india3 in the late 2010s. This should bring about income mobility right?
Exactly! And yes - you are seeing the developing of a concept similar to India or China 1/2/3 in Western markets now.
The reality is, America1 or France1 has tastes and sensibilities closer to India1 or China1 instead of America3. As such, there's no point targeting America3 or France3, because it doesn't dramatically grow your TAM the same way India1 or China1 could.
This is why Walmart and Amazon began pivoting heavily into the India and China consumer market in the mid-2010s.
The India 1/2/3 concept that Blume Ventures came up with is a modified version of a similar mental model we used to analyze China back in the 2000s and 2010s which itself is was forked from the principle of market segmentation.
Why doesn't it make sense to target america2,3 though? What's a reason that wouldn't also apply to india2,3?
Everyone loves to talk about neuromancer but missed when gibson went on to write a half dozen even more prescient books about exactly this process and its eventual consequences.
I personally am thankful to Gibson, and some other cyberpunk authors, for the ample warning they gave; many things ended up prescient. (Not that I heeded that warning enough, alas.)
I propose we should care about the majority of the population, and not do that.
> Additive Manufacturing, industrial robotics, the Internet, and the proliferation of computers had already made large portions of manufacturing and low skill white collar jobs redundant by the mid-2010s.
I think a much more realistic explanation than robotics and 3d printing is the outsourcing of the social and environmental costs of industrialization to countries willing to bear it, like China, Vietnam and Mexico.
Containerized shipping, email, and computerized logistics have made globalization efficient, and therefore inevitable.
Low skilled manufacturing had already left the US by the early 1990s with stragglers leaving by the early 2000s.
Heck, I used to live in LA as a kid at that time in the 90s and 2000s and the sweatshops (yes we had sweatshops) sewing clothes for Gap were staffed by undocumented Mexican, Korean, Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese migrants in the Fashion District.
On the other hand, even highly paid manufacturing segments like automotive had already normalized industrial robotics by the early 2000s [0].
Basically, income mobility was already dead by the 1990s [1]. The difference is most Boomer HNers were insulated by that because it is clear almost everyone on HN who grew up during that era grew up in a 50th percentile and above household back then and wasn't the head of a household in the 1980-2005 period.
[0] - https://unece.org/sites/default/files/datastore/fileadmin/DA...
[1] - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44705
https://archive.today/ZU7Wt
Archive.today (and all of its mirrors) have been unusable for me over the last week or so.
Prior to that it was incredibly unreliable; but I've only had success using it once (trying all mirrors) in the last couple of weeks.
Does anyone have recommendations for alternatives?
I don't have a direct answer but I hope this will help anyway.
I have found that https://archive.today/, https://archive.is/ and https://archive.ph/ don't resolve correctly when using quad9 or cloudflare dns servers. To work around that I use other dns servers for their name resolution. Maybe you're experiencing a similar issue?
What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks? Thus nobody buying anything.
We'll gain so much efficiency that the economy will evaporate.
The markets can't survive on capital alone.
LOL. Like a diet focusing on a single macro. When all that is left is capital, then that is an unhealthy diet.
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks? Thus nobody buying anything.
It could be possible to have high GDP with low paychecks… it basically means the entire economy mostly consists of the wealthy few buying and selling things to each other. It is easy to see how that could happen if more things become automated.
You could imagine a world where there are only two people who own anything, and the entire economic productivity is generated by robots owned by those two people creating things and selling them to the other person, who uses those things for their robots to work with. You could produce tons and tons of things with no workers, and the GDP would keep growing.
Of course, the high GDP doesn’t mean everyone is fed and sheltered. Having a functioning and growing economic market is required for capitalism to serve its purpose of providing for the citizens, but it isn’t the ONLY requirement. If the form capitalism takes as we move into the future is one that stops providing for enough of its citizens, it won’t be able to sustain itself. I think there are things we can do to shift our capitalism to do a better job of providing for everyone, but there are a lot of forces fighting against that.
> It could be possible to have high GDP with low paychecks… it basically means the entire economy mostly consists of the wealthy few buying and selling things to each other.
A similar thing happens when people talk about "total debt" in an economy. I like to bring up the scenario of 3 people trading a shiny rock around in a circle. Each time seller doubles the price and agrees to defer payment.
In this way, three kids can spend recess at school running the nation's average household debt to near-infinity! There are a few flavors of GDP calculation, but I expect it could yield some similarly odd results.
In both cases, the map is not the territory, and the metric is indirect/imperfect.
Capitalism works due to the "free market" which maps a large number of producers to a large number of consumers in an efficient way. When the market ceases to be sufficiently free, capitalism starts to falter. It may be regulation, it may be monopoly, it may be monopsony, it may be dysfunction of the judiciary system that fails to protect property rights, etc.
A system of only two parties trading the entire economic output of a country would be utterly un-capitalist, more like two kings trading in products of their kingdoms. No doubt that any social institutes would have been subjugated by these two parties.
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks?
I joked with my manager when we were having a conversation about everyone being asked to use more AI, as an obvious precursor to keeping fewer employees to do the same amount of work: the end state of AI will be an AI manager having career conversations with the AI employee, discussing raises and bonuses.
The ironic part really is that the average middle management job is probably among the more simple jobs you can automate away with AI at scale. Tell it your metrics, your targets, and other relevant info, and it can feed directions down to employees at scale.
I don't buy this at all. There's significantly more to management than tracking and hitting metrics. You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
I'm sorry, but vomiting up another bulleted list is NOT management. Its giving orders and then culling the % that don't comply. Wildly different things.
> You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
Which is why it’s surprising that management is salivating at the idea of replacing employees and expecting 1 employee to do the work of 10 with the help of AI agents. If the value you bring is to manage people, you shouldn’t be happy at the idea of fewer people having jobs.
> You have to actually do the hard part of interacting with people and understanding their needs and so on within the context of work.
How many human managers actually do that, though? How many websites performed satisfactorily before AI arrived? How well has technology matched what consumers really need or want? Maybe, as a society we have underperformed and nescient AI performs well enough (or even better) in comparison.
On one hand richest top 1% own 30% of the total US wealth (and services/goods for the rich is a booming sector) but on other hand their wealth depends on a fully functioning economy. If 99% of population will be excluded form the economy top 1% will not be able to keep their current wealth either (even if they still be comparatively better off).
I worry that some fraction of those 1%ers have the hope that this is where AI will lead to in the end: You don't need the 99% if they can actually be replaced with robots.
Or, if that doesn't work (because the robots are too dumb), you can at least split off the economy into a "poor" and a "rich" part that are mostly disconnected from each other.
I don't see how the rich don't understand this. Guess they just think it won't happen to them and they'll be smart enough to cash out of America and go elsewhere before everyone else looses.
They think the robots will soon be good enough to replace the human workers.
Including the security roles that ensure the unemployed workers don't forcefully express their dismay at being redundant.
It seems like we are long way from robots building robots. So they need humans. Maybe the last people with jobs will be building that first generation of robots that still need humans.
> It seems like we are long way from robots building robots.
I think it's very possible some of these folks have convinced themselves otherwise, and have largely eliminated the folks who'd say "you fucking idiot, no" from their lives over the decades.
They know. That’s why they’re investing in things like land and building castles. They know the future they’ve designed. They’re already laying the foundation needed to win total power.
Would you rather be a billionaire in a world of millionaires, or a millionaire in a world of penniless peasants? What we're seeing now is the billionaires' answer to this question.
> What will the economy consist of when there are no more paychecks?
I’m suspecting something like Soylent Green, but perhaps with more proactive action taken to free up resources by removal of masses who are no longer producing enough value to justify their expenses.
Following up, I believe eventually it will all be replaced by something much more resembling feudal power. Where bound servants provide service labor in exchange for protection/survival. Something like fuedalism but without the agricultural focus of manorialism.
> but perhaps with more proactive action taken to free up resources by removal of masses who are no longer producing enough value to justify their expenses.
How bout we remove the heads of the wealthy and hoist them on petards outside their former dwellings instead? We don't need to justify the removal of these cancerous lumps of flesh we call "the elite". We don't need them. THEY NEED US.
The problem is that it seems like wealthy people (capital owners) might be able to sustain the economy between themselves, which is basically what we're seeing.
Looks like this is their plan but it's too early to say if it's a good plan.
I think it's a good plan. You don't really need pleb laborers and consumer practices when you can just have automated laborers and patrician goods.
Whether or not it is a good plan depends upon how much faith they have in their doomsday bunkers and robot armies to protect them from the masses during the transition.
"Every society is three meals away from chaos"
The economic condition strains even the jargon of economists. Is the economy booming if unemployment is booming? What does it even mean? Is the economy really booming or is it really just inflation? I feel like they need to be more specific as to what they mean. Or as was said elsewhere here "But hey, DOW go up."
Honest question, as
a) the AI narrative is annoying if not intellectually dishonest as so much money is invested in it
b) this requires a trigger warning
But if we are counting no. of payrolls: might this statistic hide the effect which mass scale deportations had?
Note: not an US citizen
~400k documented/authorized workers leave the US labor market through death (55+) or retirement (Boomers, ~4M/year still retiring) every month. Immigration is down, and net migration was likely close to zero or negative in 2025. Unemployment is relatively low, but there is robust evidence of widespread underemployment and it taking 6-12 months for the unemployed to find jobs. My analysis is that companies are reaching for historical ZIRP era returns in a macro with higher rates (which will likely remain higher with the neutral rate closer to 2.5-3%) through "cost efficiency" whenever possible, by offshoring, nearshoring, and avoiding hiring as long as their systems and processes continue to function "good enough."
Deportations have pushed wages up in some examples (Texas healthcare industry) due to employers having to hire authorized workers to replace undocumented workers who would work for lower wages, but I have not seen broad data on this topic, citations welcome.
The economic metrics are masking a brutal worker economy, being held up by labor shortages (but shortages not yet sufficient to improve labor power), AI capital investment, and healthcare jobs (which will remain durable and in demand due to a rapidly aging US population) is my thesis.
> but there is robust evidence of widespread underemployment and it taking 6-12 months for the unemployed to find jobs
A really ignored aspect of this is that gig work is pretty prevalent once someone loses a stable job. This masks the unemployment with underemployment. There were headlines a while back about booming small business registrations as a sign of a booming economy. Turns out it was just a bunch of people registering businesses so that they can DoorDash
Culper Research had a thesis that a material amount of DoorDash gig workers were undocumented, I'm unsure how it panned out. I agree gig work platforms are a contributing factor to masking economy health indicators as well as underemployment.
We are short DoorDash, Inc - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690430 - October 2025
DoorDash: Unauthorized Dasher “Backdooring” Scheme Props Up Delivery Operations, Undermines Safety, and Unravels as Immigration Enforcement Widens - https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cc91fda7-4669-4d1b-81ce-a0b... - October 23rd, 2025
Deportations are down from my understanding. Most people think deportations are up due to the “shock and awe” ice operations. The current administration, as with prior administrations, has no intentions of actually reducing the amount of cheap labor whether they are undocumented or not.
The main impact is from fewer workers entering the country clandestinely from Mexico due to the current administration’s enforcement of the border and the general impression of immigrants being treated poorly by administration. Illegal border crossings are now at a 50 year low.
In terms of just the US part of what's going on, this sounds very accurate.
I don't really think retiring boomers play the same role in the economy. I think a ~3 million immigrant gap is pretty significant: https://theworlddata.com/net-migration-statistics-in-us/
because the jobs they do enable a lot of BS jobs, go unfilled and actually need to be filled to create other job growth while someone in the labor market for a long time is likely in a comfortable job that will be realized to be unnecessary and already replaced by disruption from newer lower pay equivalents.
(Also GDP is in USD which means it is down 30% in many senses.)
> I don't really think retiring boomers play the same role in the economy.
~3M+ deaths during the pandemic pulled forward a labor supply shock that would've happened more slowly over time, due to structural demographics ("Demographics are destiny", fertility rates never recovered after the 2008 GFC in the US [economic shocks destroy fertility rates], population has been held up with net immigration for the last half decade). Boomers have investments and real estate equity in some cases, Medicare and Social Security in others (with some overlap), and have constant demand for healthcare and other elderly goods and services. They make up almost 20% of the population.
Certainly, there is a bifurcation between undocumented worker jobs (agriculture, high physical labor healthcare, food industry) and documented worker jobs Boomers are retiring from. The latter is relevant for my points on labor market dynamics, the former is distinct because it is unlikely documented workers are going to flow into these low wage, low quality of life jobs without higher wages and worker protections (as one would expect). You see this with employers and farmers complaining there are no workers for them.
The data shows older workers are absolutely playing a material part in the economy, both as consumers and workers.
Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47065194 - February 2026
Seven economic facts about prime-age labor force participation - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/seven-economic-facts-abou... - July 1st, 2025
New Research of U.S. Labor Force Participation and Employment Finds Shrinking Prime-Age Worker Population Being Filled by Older Workers - https://www.ebri.org/content/new-research-of-u.s.-labor-forc... - August 23rd, 2024
Are Older Workers Propping Up The U.S. Economy? - https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp... | https://archive.today/sKeyE - August 9th, 2022
> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000. The 55+ population increased by 42 million (from 57 million in 2000 to 99 million today [2022]), a 74% increase. Total employment in the age cohort increased by 113%.
All well and good if you are employed, well off and rich. But if AI starts eliminating jobs, even being rich may not help you in the coming crash. Why a crash ? Most people will not be able to buy anything other than a bit of food and pay their rent, if they are lucky.
I doubt we will see most of these impacts for 10 to 20 years. I wonder if this is a reason Trump wants low interest rates ? With low rates the rich can borrow at a low fixed rate and purchase items like Gold and Land. Then when rates have to raise, more $ for them.
> I doubt we will see most of these impacts for 10 to 20 years
Have you been to Seattle lately?
I was in Seattle around 8 years ago. If I go tomorrow, will I notice any real difference?
The number of unsheltered homeless people has doubled in that time.
I truly believe the goal is to bring blue cities back to the 70s through 90s. Dangerous, gritty, dilapidated, horrible schools, corrupt government. But it will be cheap to rent and artsy 20 year olds / older homosexuals without children will enjoy it
It doesn't make sense. If there is a collapse in demand, prices will follow.
It's also reasonable to expect prices to go down if there is a productivity boom.
That expectation only holds together if you think of consumers as a single monolithic cohort. But prices can stay high and price out most consumers as long as there is a minority of rich ones still able to afford it:
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/bifurcated-how-the-...
Like they are gonna buy all the flour and tshirts at high prices?
The op didn't say that scarce goods would become something only the rich could afford, they said no one would buy anything.
How many bags of rice do rich people buy on average, would you say?
Suppose it depends how many serfs they've got. /cynical
It's only reasonable if you ignore literally everything that capitalism has done in the last 50 years.
Prices can only go up because to do otherwise harms shareholder value. None of the COVID inflation prices have come back down even though supply recovered. Prices continue going up.
People spend less of their income on basic needs than they did 50 years ago.
Housing breaks that somewhat, but on average people consume more of it (larger, higher quality spaces), so it isn't really apples to apples.
That's if AI goes full singularity. Barring this scenario, it might be the end of while collar dream and social mobility in general, but not nessarily the catastrophic "nobody buys anything" change
I don’t see 70 million Americans transitioning from white collar “knowledge worker” to plumbers and electricians in the 18 months the hype men are quoting. Many don’t even have the physical capabilities for it.
I'm not seeing that either. I rather thought of white collar work being devalued rather than disappearing. By "end of white collar dream" I meant that you won't be making good money with it, because it would be commoditized with all workers being pretty much the same as far as employers concerned - but there will not necessarily be less work to do. And you will probably be able to afford food, clothes and shelter.
What article is not mentioning is this, for the US:
Private sector: + 687,000
Government sector: – 319,000
Total: + 181,000
---
The government sector doesn't produce virtually anything that counts toward GDP, so GDP growth relates not to 181k of total employment growth but to 687k of private-sector growth. So, no, this is not about eliminating jobs and a few people getting rich. It is about statistcs, and lying to force the agenda.
> The government sector doesn't produce virtually anything that counts toward GDP…
By a very narrow, technically-correct view, sure.
Preventing, say, people starving to death, dying of preventable disease, unchecked fraud, invasions by other countries, etc. probably helps GDP a bit.
I'd also argue that some services provided by the gov't help towards GDP. An example being the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and them helping to recoup funds from scams and returning the money to victims who would then spend their money and increase the "Consumption" in GDP.
I was just editing my comment to say the same, yeah.
> The government sector doesn't produce virtually anything that counts toward GDP,
This sounds very wrong?
It's largely correct in the "everyone who died in 2025 consumed significant quantities of the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide" sense.
How is that, I don't get it?
> Gross Domestic Product (GDP) includes consumer spending, government spending, net exports, and total investments.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp
A lot of government spending is (again, technically) them giving money to the folks who spend the money to produce GDP-y things. NASA hires Boeing, ICE buys cloud services from Microsoft, the military buys Starlink, etc.
This feels like such a weird non-sequiter argument, but I can't exactly put my finger on it. This comment seems to be asserting (1) government jobs don't produce value and (2) GDP is the only thing that matters.
I'm ignoring the fact that I don't actually know how government sector jobs contribute to or affect GDP.
Seems like by this logic, why not just cut ALL government jobs? Obviously that's a terrible idea...
This probably goes hard if you work at a SaaS company that monetizes interest on micro-loans or something.
I'm very skeptical of the idea that somebody working on, say, nuclear security "doesn't produce virtually anything," while a privately-employed rent-a-cop counts as productive GDP growth.
Even if we take your premise as given, isn't ~700,000 a pretty terrible number? Last year's headlines were, 2024 job growth was much lower than previously estimated, at only 1.5 million. 2023 was 2.7 million. Even if we put that down to pandemic recovery, typical pre-pandemic numbers were around 2 million outside of recessions.