all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 109 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

The actual bubble that needs to be popped is financialization. The US economy is now completely detached from productivity and is now running on speculation only through financial valuation. At the same time, people are starving, infrastructure is falling apart, the birth rate is plummeting, and suicide is on the rise. It's time to stop taking "job creators" seriously and use all this fallow professional experience and skill to restart the material economy and forget this pretend crap that keeps plutocrats busy doing nothing of any value to anyone.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The US economy is now completely detached from productivity and is now running on speculation

    Yep, the market feels like it's in max-greed mode. There was a taste of fear when the tariffs were first announced, but wallst was quick to token TACO to justify just ignoring everything. My question for the last 9+ months has been, "how long can a market willingly ignore reality?"

    I assume it will take until a critical mass of those speculators start needing to liquidate. I don't know what will trigger that, but at some point the profits come due.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My question for the last 9+ months has been, “how long can a market willingly ignore reality?”

    How long did we kick the foundations out of the US dollar when we got rid of the gold standard, and just let it float on speculation and feelings? What, 60-70 years now?

    How long has the stock market existed on the whims of people's feelings over cold hard statistics and long-term analysis?

    Markets have been ignoring reality for many decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    To be fair there's all the shit with dollar denominated oil, SWIFT, terrorist regime change on countries that don't want to play along, etc. It might not be based on any kind of fair exchange of value, but that's not quite the same as the USD's global reserve currency status being vibes-only.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Exactly. Since the end of the gold standard, the economy hasn’t been about production — it’s been about valuation.

    70 years ago, companies were built to make things: cars, fridges, tools. Today, they’re built to inflate stock prices.

    The real product isn’t goods. It’s debt, speculation, planned obsolescence.

    And now, AI isn’t replacing workers to make things better. It’s replacing them to cut costs — while real needs go unmet.

    This isn’t progress. It’s the slow collapse of a system that forgot its purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It's the slow but inevitable achievement of end-state of a system designed to re-frame and re-centralize power in the hands of the elite following the liberalization of political power.

    This is its purpose. It always has been.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    There are two sides to that story.

    There is not enough gold to match the increases in both population and productivity of the last 70 years, and you don't want just a handful of people holding gold that spikes in value through the roof.

    Smart people invest in companies that pay dividends. Speculators invest in... whatever, tulip bulbs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    birth rate is the least of our problems, which is one our University staff at my old school were complaining why the enrollment was low asf. No job market, or very low job prospects for stems= low wage cant compete with HCOl areas, hence no children.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    Im going to start physical mailings and cold emails. I'm over this job market, its AI/ATS nonsense, and the people who think its OK.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    On the one hand, it's nice to be able to have the recruiter AI agent I made write applications for me because I hate that part. After that, I can do the interviews myself just fine and I'm all good.

    On the other hand, it feels disgusting and lazy.

    But it works much better than last time I was job hunting (last year) and did everything by hand.

    It's showing me that (as far as I can tell) recruiters don't give a shit and barely read what you send them. They'll reach out as long as your LinkedIn is SEO optimised.

    Depressing but true

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's a bit redundant since the O stands for "Optimization", but it means Search Engine Optimization. Basically structure your stuff so it shows up in more searches (use popular terms in your profile, make posts with key phrases, fill out all the fields).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Time to make some real connections in the real world.

    Shit is getting scary.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Someone I was interacting with for customer service was writing with AI and was offering me servcies that didn't exist. Backfired on them when they offered a replacement for a product which was a different model (my issue is that the original model didn't suit my needs) or a refund, so I asked if they could send me a replacement that fits my use-case. The human then comes on and just sends me the same thing again...

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Robots just hire themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 21 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    that's a great notion, but in the process real roles that ARE needed are empty until someone realizes the mistake, or until people die.

    This sounds like overreaction, but what about for EMS services? 911 operations? Emergency room staffing? Nursing? Hospital IT staff?

    Having open positions, or even just insufficiently filled hours, will cause situations where there are huge ramifications.

    Just because someone isn't hired, doesn't mean the role isn't critical and needed... it means there's consequences if the need is unfilled. There's dozens (or more!) of medical professionals needed desperately that aren't being hired, ultimately due to greed (those driving the AI process here) and this results in worse care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Yep, agree with all this.

    It doesn't detract from the fact that not hiring is still a cause for the situation deteriorating. Some of the businesses are using AI as the vehicle to refuse hiring while yelling about nobody wanting to work.

    ultimately, AI is just another tool in this case for the rich to continue enriching while maximizing profit.

    I hate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    You're right: critical roles in healthcare, emergency services, hospital IT — they’re not being filled.

    Not because they aren’t needed. Because the system doesn’t reward filling them. It rewards cost-cutting, higher margins, shareholder returns.

    So we automate hiring with AI… …to justify not hiring humans.

    The machine isn’t the problem. It’s the excuse.

    We’re moving from a system that grew rich by exploiting people — with CEOs earning hundreds of times more than their workers — to one that thinks it can grow rich by eliminating workers altogether.

    But if everyone cuts staff… who will buy the goods?

    And when no one has money, who will buy what AI produces?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You've never worked somewhere that refused to fill a position that desperately needed filling?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That is a bunch of assumptions right there.

    The reality is that businesses often don't know when more people are needed, don't have the correct people making the decisions whether to hire even if needed, can't get the budgets approved even if the hiring mgmt chain is on board, can't get approval to offer competitive salaries, etc etc.

    There are a million reasons why companies don't hire when they need to, or do hire when they don't.

    Humans aren't perfectly rational, and can't create perfectly rational systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You had me, until the second-half of your last sentence. Its more like we can't rely on perfectly rational systems, because we don't comply, neither perfectly nor rationally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Can confirm

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    as if they wernt using something similar before the pandemic. they were already using software to screen out applicants by the dozens or hundreds, they are just mad because applicants are doing the same thing to write thier applications. biotech jobs love posting fake listings on the job sites

    before you had to write your own resume, and change everytime for different jobs, now AI can presumbly do all of that sloppily.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I do freelance/consultation dev work and I'd say most of my clients are having this problem right now. But this is a problem of their own doing. Most got rid of their dev teams and instead leveraged AI and less than a handful of junior devs to essentially just be prompt monkeys. I eventually get called into these places to code review the slop that got churned out and the majority of the time the solution is to start from scratch without heavily utilizing LLM's that got them into this situation in the first place. The problem is though they now need to hire competent senior level devs again. But they can't.

    They place ads on linkedin, indeed, etc and then get absolutely hammered with resumes written by AI. The vast majority of which are resumes from people that are either incredibly unqualified or are from like India. They again had to stop using AI to read them because naturally it's just pulling the bullshit from the pile of bullshit it's being fed. The ACTUAL devs that are applying get lost in the shuffle. Now they have to manually comb through all the resumes and verify that they're not AI crap before even attempting to read it.

    So it wouldn't surprise me if places are just giving up and no one is getting hired. I can speak for myself and other consultants I personally know that we're having to turn down work because we're booked solid and don't have the time. I've run out of people to refer jobs to cause we're all in the same boat.

    The industry axed a metric shit ton of people and now needs them back and they simply can't find them.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This isn't just ChatGPT vs. HR. It's a system where automation replaces human labor at every level — from hiring to production.

    I’ve just published an episode on how AI, robotics, and exponential change aren’t just transforming jobs — but possibly the entire future of the economy.

    We’re in a transitional phase. The next few years are crucial.

    So if you’re asking ‘Will AI take your job?’, the deeper question is: What happens when the economy no longer needs people?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Seems oversimplified and hyperbolic. The economy will always need people because people are the demand. And because markets are largely unpredictable, supply relies on people making strategic decisions. That will never change. Not everything can be quantified, collected, analyzed, and automated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You say the economy will always need people because they are the demand. But who buys AI systems? Other companies. Who buys weapons? Governments. Who buys logistics automation? Corporations.

    The demand isn’t from people. It’s from systems that want to eliminate people.

    This isn’t hyperbole. It’s the trend.

    We published an episode on this — not to claim we have all the answers, but to show it’s more complex than ‘people will always be needed’.

    If you’ve listened and still disagree, I’d love to hear your counterpoints. Maybe the real oversimplification is believing we already know how this story ends — before the data is even in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 60 comments in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world view that post