OpenAI isn't publicly listed so it's hard to tell how this affects them from a "share price" concept. However for a company that's not public and only has capital from financing rounds and revenue, this gives OpenAI a lot more flexibility for the future and hedges risk while maximizing upside.
Yes. We don't have a sku with OpenAI but we may soon have one and they will be competing with others already in the pipeline. Recall the recent AMD acquisition of ZT Systems' engineering wing and now manufacturing by Sanmina.
The high concentration of tech companies that are spending on AI are also the ones controlling the narrative including the funding, success criteria, and communication. We are more likely to see minor corrections that effect individual companies but don't impact the market enough overall.
Tell that to their actual customers. At some point, State Farm or Eli Lilly is going to say "hey, we spent $1B on AI and fired 10,000 people. Where's all that efficiency you promised?"
That first sentence sounds so like 2008-land. House of cards is a house of cards. If 1 + 1 = 2, the market will discover it. The 1 + 1 = 3 narrative can only be controlled for so long.
It's less of an illusion but more that the reality is separating into two, one which we live and breathe as day-to-day working class/consumers and another that caters to the market makers of government & private sector.
This seems like an opportunity for more high rise mixed use buildings that do not have essential functions on the bottom floors. The older SFH's were probably most effected and newer SFH's despite stricter building codes are not resistant to this extreme weather patterns long term. The government needs to incentivize development that benefits economies of scale and disincentivize "disposable"/"perishable" development.
God forbid someone learns business and has produced multiple successful businesses in some of the most forward looking, technical fields. That does not immediately disqualify their ability to know technical topics and if even may signal quite the opposite. This level of elitism often among the HN crowd creates an echo chamber that stifles innovation since it arbitrarily discriminates the dissemination & mixing of ideas that aren't fully "technical". These guys understand the concepts and can communicate with each other with that shared understanding and constructs. It's wild but that's how the top people within the field may chat, simply, efficient, and pointedly.
Comp at Netflix is all salary whereas the other ones include equity. For some reason, this is not taken into account and thereby skews the whole discussion.
Yeah, it's so weird looking at these when they're not "total comp". When I worked at Google, half my W2 income was equity.
It just misleads other companies that are competing for the same talent. "Why is everyone taking a different offer? Our salary is above Google!" but startup equity != RSUs, which you can autosell and treat as cash that shows up every month, just like salary.
Pay cut when the market goes down and pay raise when the market goes up? Sure there's volatility involved but these stocks beat the market on average and drive close to 15% of some indices (i.e. FAANG at 15% total market cap of VTI). Those RSU's drive more wealth creation among FAANG employees than not over the long term.
It’s only data salaries, which are lower than software engineering salaries at most companies as compared to Netflix. The reason being Netflix considers everyone as softwaRe engineers and pays them the same wages, while other companies don’t.
It's really hard to compare apples to apples if you bring equity into things. Even for large publicly traded companies where the employee's equity is liquid. What value do you use for the equity that makes sense to simply add to salary? Equity value when granted? When vested? When eventually sold?
I don't see how ignoring the majority of a persons income is more reasonable than estimating based on reasonable extrapolations.
Not to mention that the article literally says "work for Netflix, get rich" based entirely on the fact that they are ignoring non-salary compesation. It's an outright idiotic conclusion to be drawn.
Because the stock market is efficient, the market price of the equity grant at the moment the employee receives it will be very close to the expectation of the price the shares will sell for when the employee decides to sell them discounted a little to account for the fact that the employee is probably not a professional investor (and consequently won't be quite as efficient as a pro would be at choosing the best time to sell).
1. Russia has definitely chosen the optimal time to act. Grain harvest is down everywhere due to drought except...Russia (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62149522) and they naturally benefit. Based on the heating/cooling cycles, the Ukraine land will produce better harvests in the next 10-20 years. So we see Russia impacting Western countries and alliances with grain/oil. China & India are happily importing said oil. Russia still is enjoying its victories in the information war on the West. Obviously militarily, Russia is behind where they would like to be.
2. It's also important to note that artificially low interest rates have allowed businesses to charge more for the same goods/services (sometimes less with "shrinkflation") since consumers/businesses have access to higher lines of credit. High demand inventory is turning over, unemployment is still low, and wages remain stagnant.
The whole point of minimum wage is to ensure that employer wages to employees to exceed some level of poverty. If there is still flexibility within the wage amount, then the floor needs to be raised higher so the employer can't play within this gray space.
This thinking seems to assume that employers are unable to choose how, when, and where they employ people. At some point it's cheaper to automate the job than hire someone to do it, or simply put money into higher ROI generators.
