v45h

I'm not saying it isn't necessarily a bubble, but the bubble analogies tend to be as lazy of thinking as speculating a never ending upward trend.

Creating utility/value from achieving network effects (something pretty common) isn't really comparable to issuing loans to people who cannot afford to pay them back, regardless if you think there's overvalued speculation or not.

Is it only shady because you believe Walmart employees are not paid enough as is?

Doctors can choose to moonlight and get paid extra, and I don't think anyone is complaining about that. And overtime is certainly a thing.

Coming from Walmart's perspective, I'm assuming it just seemed like a smart business decision rather than something maliciously intended. Like hey look, we can make our customers and employees happier in a profitable manner thereby keeping up with our competitor (Amazon).

If the employees have complaints about this then I guess perhaps it can be called into question. But at the end of the day won't most employees be happy about this?

Perhaps SV has a lot of hero worship but I feel as though comments such as these commit the same folly. They're focused on Andreessen and not the ultimate point being made.

Andreessen's base point is that whether you like it or not, millions of jobs are going to get taken away and millions more jobs are going to open up elsewhere. The question is, how do we get society to be better at adapting to this change?

If you truly are concerned about building a society that benefits everyone, this is the question that should be discussed/answered.