To be clear, women’s work before World War II was more than just the dishes. If you look at the guidebooks published for housewives back then, you’ll see that they were expected to have quite a few skills that most households now generally outsourc to external businesses:

• Feeding the family. This was more than just cooking. They were expected to process foods from a much less processed state (much more butchery of meats and cleaning and processing of vegetable products, dairy products, baked goods), and then preserve foods for out-of-season consumption (pickling, preserving in jams/jellies, home canning, drying, and in some cultures smoking). Much of this work is now done by the industrial food processing industry so that we can buy cans or jars or boxes of the stuff that’s already processed or partially processed. Even our fresh foods have been cleaned and sorted and trimmed to mainly just the edible parts.
• Making and maintaining textiles. We see bits of this surviving into knitting and crocheting as hobbies, but back before the rise of cheap apparel it was important to be able to clean and repair clothes that we’d now just take to our local dry cleaner.
• Maintaining the house itself. Home improvement is masculine coded today, but a lot of the stuff that qualifies as home maintenance was traditionally the work of a homemaker. Plus things like heating the house required active involvement of keeping fires burning and fuel on hand.
• Making household consumables. Homemakers were making their own soap, their own candles, and all sorts of little tools.

The economic shifts that come from women leaving the home for the paid workforce are all over, and some of them are pretty pronounced. But it’s important to remember that women worked hard before they ever got paid for it. Life was toil.

It’s not actually a clear inverse relationship on the individual level, even if the data shows a correlation at the national level.

There are a few things happening that complicate the analysis at the individual level, too:

• Wealth/income are correlated with age, and 40 year olds tend to have both higher incomes and lower fertility rates than 25 year olds.
• Wealth also correlates with race, for better or for worse, and there have always been persistent differences in birth rates by race.
• The sample sizes aren’t big enough to show whether the very rich (95th+ percentile) actually reverse the trend, to where being richer is correlated with higher birth rates, where the curve ticks back upward at very high incomes.
• The correlation is actually the other direction when looking at the individual incomes in certain countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway), and the effect is stronger when looking at men and their incomes.

Other country level data also suggest that there are big cultural factors in birth rates as well.

All in all, the relationship between income and fertility is complicated, with lots of other factors at play.

Ed Zitron publishes a lot of pretty biased reporting.

The core thesis is sound, though:

• Anthropic and OpenAI’s revenue comes in from customers.
• The revenue does not translate into profits, because their capital expenditures investing in future capabilities is quite high, and because their operating expenses are also quite high, to where their revenue doesn’t even cover their ongoing compute cost.
• The actual money Anthropic and OpenAI have to spend at a loss comes from their investors.
• The customers are largely vulnerable to shocks and are themselves reliant on investor cash rather than a profitable business model of their own, and are essentially subsidizing a lot of the demand for the core services that Anthropic and OpenAI provide.

Taken together, the whole ecosystem is currently relying on a continued influx of cash from investment: investors taking equity in these companies, lenders/bondholders charging interest on borrowed money, otherwise profitable businesses like Google and Meta steering their other profits into investment into AI.

And so if there’s a shock to investment activity, such as if there’s a war in Iran causing an energy crisis and a global recession in real economic activity, that might translate into a cash crunch, as the investors pull back right at the time that the customers start defaulting on their payments. And if you remove the middleman startup businesses that pay Anthropic and OpenAI more than they receive from their own customers, the underlying “real customer” demand at the actual unsubsidized prices charged by Anthropic and OpenAI will plummet.

I’m not a tech guy, but I am a business/finance guy, and I’m not seeing where the analysis is wrong. The argument is always that there’s a runway to profitability, and they just need to take off before they run out of runway. And we can argue about whether they will or they won’t get to takeoff, but if the business is relying on more runway being built because they know for sure they don’t currently have enough runway to take off, that’s a shaky situation to be in. Even if everyone is clamoring to be their runway-building partner today.

Ed Zitron has a piece out talking about how even if Anthropic and OpenAI are bringing in revenue, most of it is coming from startups in such a way that their revenue will evaporate if the underlying startups crash, especially because the underlying cost of operating remains high (and where improvements in the underlying tech go towards improving performance rather than making operations cheaper).

To me, it’s a pretty persuasive argument that failures at any one part of the web of businesses and funds involved (even if completely unrelated to the AI industry) will cause stress on all of them, because they’re so interrelated in a web of relationships.

I think it’s more accurate to say “You will die for Epstein so that the oil class stays wealthy.”

There have been examples of postponements of elections for emergencies (most notably, the mayoral primaries in New York scheduled on September 11, 2001 had to be postponed for 14 days later), I’m not aware of any instance of an actual changing of swear-in dates being postponed.

Fuckery can still happen, but I’m more worried about threats and governmental terrorism that suppresses votes on the election day that moves forward as scheduled rather than actually moving the election schedule itself.

Still interesting to see how it is implemented in neighborhoods and buildings that are over 150 years old. I think the Smithsonian museums in our capital are actually the most interesting examples, because many are old buildings whose historical character were preserved, but where wheelchair ramps, railings, and elevators were tastefully and functionally installed many decades or more than a century after the building was originally constructed.

And perhaps the best thing about the ADA is the sidewalk requirements. It doesn’t much matter why a sidewalk developed a raised crack when the ADA requires that it be fixed.

I’m not even disabled, but I’ve pushed baby strollers in different cities (including outside the US) enough to realize how nice it is to be in a city where all the sidewalks and public buildings are ADA compliant.

But lots of things can be pre ordered before they’re actually available.

Services are an obvious example: I can buy tickets to a movie or a live event that will happen at some point in the future. Same with really any tickets or prepaid reservations, like plane tickets or hotel reservations or certain types of restaurant reservations.

But it can happen with all sorts of consumer goods, too. I can put in orders for stuff to be made to order: handmade/custom jewelry or shirts or mugs or commissioned artwork, a pizza that won’t be made until I order it, etc.

For businesses, their supply chains require advance planning and ordering. The people who make peanut butter generally have the peanuts ordered before the start of the growing season, so they’re buying peanuts that might not have been planted yet. The grocery store chain might be buying peanut butter before it’s made.

When pork futures prices drop low enough, McDonald’s will snatch up those contracts and take delivery of a bunch of pork to make McRibs and make them available for a limited time. At the time they buy the contracts (that is, order the pork), the pigs might not even be alive yet, much less slaughtered and processed.

None of this is defending the memory contracts, but the idea of buying things in the future is pretty common in the economy.

Are you talking about battery storage itself being about $126/MWhr? Yeah, that incorporated into the solar+battery LCOE, because solar itself is $31, battery is $126, and the weighted average of how much energy is expected to come directly out of the solar panels onto the grid (at $31) and how much is expected to be stored for later ($31 plus $126) averages out to $53, presumably because most demand matches the daytime solar curve and doesn’t need to be stored for later.

Which graph? I linked to a PDF with a ton of graphs.

It’s because fuel is such an insignificant percentage of the overall cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear power. Increasing the complexity of the reactor in order to make the fuel use more efficient is basically a nonstarter, economically.

Oh, I agree.

I was a big, big nuclear proponent 20 years ago. But seeing how Vogtle and VC Summer played out, and how that “cheaper” and more “scalable” AP1000 design put Westinghouse into bankruptcy, basically turned me off from the economics of nuclear power.

Oh, and because of how utility generation is paid for, ratepayers in Georgia will be paying for the Vogtle construction and cost overruns in their electric bills for the next 75 years, as the nuclear plant is shielded from competition by price regulators (state Public Utilities Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), so even if newer and better technology comes online, customers in 2080 will still be paying for 2020 technology.

The technology is still neat but I don’t believe there’s an economic future for civilian nuclear power generation. Not anymore.

Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just approved a new construction of a reactor for the first time in 10 years, to the Bill Gates backed Terra Power. Cool, except it’s projected to cost $4 billion and the government is expected to cover half the cost, to build a reactor with 345 MW of capacity.

In contrast, solar panels cost about $1 million per MW, so an equivalent amount of peak capacity from solar would cost about $345 million, or about 1/12 the price. Solar won’t run all day, but the nuclear plants will also continue to cost money to run after construction is complete.

Looking at the different LCOE estimates of each type of power generation shows that advanced nuclear is around $80/MWhr and solar+battery for all day demand tracking is about $53/MWhr.

Basically nuclear is only economically viable with government support at this point, and we should be asking whether we’d rather have the government support towards other forms of energy.

You buy guns to feel safe.

I buy guns to feel dangerous.

We are not the same.

Lots of non-American banks don’t want to deal with the rules, so it’s easier for them to just say that they won’t open accounts for Americans.

It’s not discriminatory.

I mean it quite literally is discriminatory, but it’s legal and justified discrimination.

Yes, but the economies of scale of cargo transport generally mean that the percentage of the total cost attributable to fuel cost is usually pretty small.

Take bananas, for example. If they cost $0.70 per pound at the store, how much fuel could have been used getting a pound of bananas from the plantation to the port, shipped from that port to a port in the United States, then from that port to a distribution center, then to the store? So what would doubling the price of fuel do for the price of bananas?

With more expensive items, shipping (and therefore fuel) is an even lower percentage of the total input costs.

The price of goods will go up with the price of fuel, but not as much as a lot of people seem to assume.

I wonder how those specific buyers’ household incomes are. Part of the “k shaped recovery” from COVID is that some people genuinely are richer than ever.

If 10% of US households make more than $250k/year, and richer households are more likely to buy new cars (and buy them more frequently), it might very well be that the $1000/month payments are being paid by those who can easily afford them, while the $300/month payments are the ones actually causing financial strain on average households.

Every once in a while there are multiple parties structuring a deal where someone is left with a bad deal when it’s all said and done. As a consumer, you just have to make sure it’s not you.

But take, for example, the early days of Moviepass. You pay a cheap subscription to a service, and they buy you unlimited mobile tickets at the theater. Too good to be true in the long term, but in the short term it was a good way to spend some money that venture capitalists were giving away basically for free.

Businesses aren’t always smart. Sometimes they make financial mistakes and it’s your duty as a responsible consumer to punish those businesses for those mistakes.

In the case of dealer/manufacturer/financing incentives and the individual salesman commission, sometimes the kickback/fee scheme leaves someone else holding the bag. If you can negotiate a lower sticker price because it comes with some predatory terms on financing, but there’s no penalty for prepayment, it might make the most sense to take the low sticker price (made possible by the lender paying the dealer a kickback for the loans), finance at high rates, and then pay the whole thing off as soon as you can, so that you get the “discount” without having to pay high interest/fees, then you walk away with a good deal in exchange for just a little bit more hassle and paperwork. Sometimes the incentives swing the other way, too, where the lender is affiliated with the manufacturer and needs to juice sales volume by offering below-market rates on financing. As long as you can actually see how everything works and you can find the pain point, it may be possible to get a good deal and dump the bad deal on some faceless corporation for them to worry about.

Complex but direct. People consume resources. Find me the example of people who don’t and I’ll concede this point.

You don’t need to dip into the negatives to show that one group of 1000 people consumes less resources than a group of 10 person. If personal resource consumption varies by several orders or magnitude between individuals, where one private jet trip over the course of a day can represent more than the annual consumption of someone else, then it is very easy to show that the correlation between population size and aggregate net resource consumption is weak.

The emissions were just taking place in a way you chose not to measure.

No, running the same analysis by place of consumption doesn’t significantly change things, because the biggest drivers of greenhouse emissions are still local consumption: transportation (especially air travel), heating, and things like concrete manufacturing (where the concrete tends to cure on site).

Ocean-based shipping is so energy efficient on a joules per kg (or per cubic meter) per kilometer traveled that shipping a container 10,000 km from Shanghai to Los Angeles uses significantly less energy and emits lower carbon emissions than a 1,000 km route over land.

My point is simple: anyone who believes that climate change is solved by depopulation is dead wrong. We should still be working to reduce emissions in places that have stagnant or dropping populations, because everything we’ve seen in the last 50 years (which you describe as a selective period, but I select that period because it’s been the worst in world history for carbon emissions and climate change) is that countries significantly increase their resource consumption right around the same time they slow down their population growth.

You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point as an argument for the status quo, that what we as humanity are doing enough. No, I’m arguing that actually making the right changes are going to be orthogonal to population growth. Decarbonization is important, and needs to be done, even if you Thanos snap half the world’s population, because there’s nothing stopping the remaining humans from being even more resource hungry.