I think there are many arguments against AOC's comments, but I agree that PG here is misrepresenting her point.
I don't think anyone reading PG's blog is clueless about the power of compounding or the difference between salary and wealth through asset growth.
Her point is essentially whether the entire capital system is "fair." And to be fair to PG I don't think AOC articulated a particularly strong point either.
The term "validity" is thrown around a lot but there's no universal measure of psychometric validity. In simple terms, something is valid if it's predictive of something else that is useful (usually a behavior or another construct). There's plenty of studies that investigate the validity of love languages around things like marital satisfaction etc. More importantly, for the purposes of this study which is just based around self-reported preferences (and not psychometric properties), validity doesn't really matter. Reliability does, and there are is plenty of research around the reliability of these scales.
That's a really powerful self-discovery. Obviously some people are more introverted than others, but introversion has more to do with how we handle (over)stimulation than it does desire for social connection and acceptance. Humans are incredibly social creatures by nature. Even the most introverted people usually want connection.
The differences between men and women are usually not as dramatic as standup comedy and television make them out to be. The differences aren't dramatic, but they are statistically significant.
I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of all this"
I was a management consultant ages ago and worked on large capital projects. In my experience (as the article mentions) it was a mix of:
1. Red tape & public "input"
2. Layers of contractors and subcontractors, each taking their slice
3. No real incentives for governments to be cost sensitive. Usually capital projects last well into the next administration.
4. Too many cooks in the kitchen and consultations
I respectfully disagree. A lot of the capital projects mentioned in this article (like NYC subway station) are municipal or state projects, which don't have the ability to print money like the feds.
There's a lot that's not going right for Europe, but it's interesting to see that two things in the US have really stunted the middle class: student loans and monetization of real estate as a store of wealth. Essentially the financialization of everything is making people poorer.
Buzzfeed really feels like an "ends justify the means" kind of business. Cheap, tabloid news funding "real" journalism. There's merit to the idea, but under the financial pressure of a public corp, my money is that what little actual journalism they do will slowly die off.
The "only" thing left? Housing/land has long been the most durable store of value in history and that wont change. It's not as liquid as Crypto and requires laws to enforce private property. But if society collapses, we'll have bigger things to worry about and even Bitcoin can be "seized" via violence/coercion.
I don't know if "% of total returns" is a fair metric. As a percentage of market cap, they still dominate the S&P500. Not to mention every asset manager has to own them otherwise they risk looking stupid. They're today's bluechip, for better or for worse.
I struggle with any article that uses the word "never." We use black (or near to it #101010) on our mobile app. It's great for usability and makes select use of colors standout.
So much hate. Whether or not it has legs, it's an interesting proof of concept. Reminds me of the early days of internet where people weren't afraid to explore crazy ideas.
Not to mention, as the author mentioned, there's a (likely) scenario that pure cloud providers become a low-margin commodity. We've already seen this play out. Even with lock-in, to attract new customers, you'll be competing mostly on price.
I don't think anyone reading PG's blog is clueless about the power of compounding or the difference between salary and wealth through asset growth.
Her point is essentially whether the entire capital system is "fair." And to be fair to PG I don't think AOC articulated a particularly strong point either.