Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

I propose we should care about the majority of the population, and not do that.

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.)

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?

It's the same principle why India1 doesn't target India2 or India3 - it negatively impacts brand positioning for marginal gain.

That's why you find different companies targeting different subsegments of a market globally.

Additionally, we do live in a globalized world, so a brand that is at the lower rung in one market may try to upscale their value by targeting the upper portion of another market. You see this with Walmart which targets America2 but uses a different strategy to target China1 (Sam's Club China) and India1 (Best Price, Flipkart).

Conversely, a China1 or India1 brand can also try and successfully build market share in America2 and America3 in a manner that an America1 brand wouldn't want to do due to brand prestige implications. This is why you see SHEIN and Temu's popularity amongst America2 and America3 or Wellspun becoming the primary supplier for textile goods for Walmart and TJX.

I guess, the idea is that you cannot target both America1 and America3 with the same product. Take into account that America3 doesn't have a lot of disposable income in the first place, and going after a similar target audience in another country becomes a much more sensible choice than trying to expand into a different audience in your own.

> What's a reason that wouldn't also apply to india2,3?

If I understand correctly, it would also apply to India2-3, that's why nobody's proposing 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com