> North American oil is suddenly worth twice as much
That doesn't make up for the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of American capex at risk in the Gulf, for example Exxon's tens of billions of dollars of capex in Qatar's LNG supply chain or Chevron's monopoly as the sole upstream producer in Kuwait and the KSA.
Any potential profit they could have made from North American extraction (which itself is questionable due to the significant processing requirements for North American crude) would itself have been eaten away by losses that have already been incurred in the Gulf.
The ONG industry has very low net margins (around 4% for integrated ONG), which means any shock is catastrophic, let alone a crisis such as the current one.
> Would the world be safer (or more endangered) if Iran had a nuclear weapon
A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear KSA, UAE, Qatar, Turkiye, Egypt, and Oman.
We literally had a war between two nuclear armed states barely 1 year ago (India-Pakistan) [0], and a standoff [1] that almost became a war [2] between two other nuclear armed states (India-China) barely 5 years ago. Additionally Iran and Pakistan had a border conflict barely 1 years ago [3] as well that also almost spiraled
The world is already crazy enough as it is - more states with nuclear capabilities would dramatically increase the risk of an actual nuclear war.
Edit:
> Not sure if North Korea is a good example, but is that not a detente? Bad for the NK people, but not a geopolitical crisis.
The PRC has committed to denuclearizing North Korea [4] in order to unlock a trilateral FTA between the PRC, SK, and Japan, which led NK to become closer to Russia in order to build second strike capabilities against both the US as well as China.
At some point, this will force SK and Japan to seriously consider going nuclear, which incentivizes Taiwan and potentially even the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam to join the scramble - and would cross multiple red lines for the PRC.
India-Pakistan only ended because the US and the Gulf intervened after India struck PAF Nur Khan which is located barely a couple hundred feet from the Pakistani Army's GHQ as a warning about decapitation strike capabilities after Pakistan launched Fatah-IIs.
India and China didn't go to war because Gen Naravanne unilaterally decided against firing artillery at Chinese positions in Rechin La and Russia intervened to mediate between China and India.
MAD is truly mad. What can happen will eventually happen, and the more countries have nuclear capabilities, the harder it becomes to push back against their use, becuase at some point someone will decide to press the button.
Nor does it actually reduce conflict - it instead incentivizes proxy conflicts between states, as can be seen with Myanmar (India and China both meddling), Afghanistan (India and Pakistan both meddling), Syria (Russia versus NATO+), Libya (Russia versus NATO+), etc.
> Has anyone felt like the news out of this war has been more tightly controlled than other recent conflicts...
Internet access in Iran has been spotty after the massacres in January.
Also, even Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza-Lebanon news and "OSINT" is tightly controlled - the legal, logistical, and technical tools needed to limit access and control of information are well in the reach of any nation now, and even most police departments across much of the world.
> Isnt this silly when you can calculate the chance of war in Iran by oil futures instead
This is why I'm opposed to prediction markets - they're gamified futures contracts (unsurprising given the founders at Kalshi are ex-Citadel and why Intercontinental Exchange executed growth equity rounds with Polymarket). A lot of degenerate gamblers are basically being taken to the cleaners as they lack the experience to actually mitigate risk or understand how to strucure futures contracts.
And an actual insider has much easier and much more legally defensible alternatives to conduct insider trading than using a platform that has KYC requirements.
> Makes me wonder if it's just because WFH proved it works, so why not hire from Krakow?
As someone in the room when those decisions were/are made, pretty much.
Additionally, when the COVID recession began (before the stimulus package) most employers were laying off employees on work visas or giving them the option to open and expand offices in their home country.
A lot of senior Indian and Polish Googlers took the offer, and that's how you saw the massive Google expansion in India and Poland over the past few years.
Additionally, the Indian, Polish, Israeli, Romanian, and other governments are giving massive subsidizes to attract GCCs, while states like NC and GA which used to offer subsidizes to open offices in RTP became much less responsive and inefficient due to domestic politics (turns out it's easier for local politicans to be elected on culture war topics instead of tech hub expansion).
I can pick up a phone right now and get connected with senior bureaucrats in Czechia, Poland, and even the UK and India in a day if I offer to open a $20M R&D hub - most US states don't do that anymore.
Edit: can't reply
> For better or for worse, the most desirable places in the US not only refuse to participate in the race to the bottom anymore
Absolutely, but tbf, you don't really need subsidizes to attract business in an already established hub becuase the ecosystem already exists and the risks and mitigation strategies are well understood.
A subsidy helps when I am entering a new or unknown ecosystem to mitigate risk.
Additionally, local governments in the major hubs like NYC (even under Mamdani) and SF are fairly responsive to business needs and requests.
This is why I keep harping that in the world we live in today, American SWEs need to live in the major tech hubs because the density of employers and opportunities is significant, which reduces risks of becoming structurally unemployed as a SWE.
For better or for worse, the most desirable places in the US not only refuse to participate in the race to the bottom anymore, they actively pursue a vendetta against well paying tech jobs opening up (see: Amazon HQ2 in NYC)
For other readers, this is why things like nationalism are important (and so heavily taboo). They're the most effective antidote to this kind of immorality. Unions are an ok compromise, but still allow businesses to leave (rust belt, etc). I’m assuming above poster is an American and is happy to do business, live, etc in America while hollowing out its base for the sake of profits. Paying taxes does not absolve this kind of anti American behavior.
We need elites whose goal is to help their fellow Americans, not rootless capitalists willing to sell out their countrymen for profit. The goal of business is not to make money, it’s to enrich the people.
Employees on work visas are the first and easiest employees to lay off because we don't see our insurance premiums rise when laying them off (it's what most of us did early during COVID). And now with the $100K fees we have no incentive to hire most employees on a work visa anyhow.
Hear that sound? It's the sound of GCCs opening in Poland, Romania, Israel, and India with those employees who were on work visas in the US now in charge.
If you remain in a major tech hub like the Bay or NYC where you are close to early stage capital, you are secure as it gives you a density of established and early stage employers which makes job hunting easier.
If you are in an inshoring hub like Atlanta, RTP, Denver, Minneapolis, or Pittsburg you're in big trouble.
If you are remote first and lack a network of friends and colleagues in the Bay and NYC who can personally vouch and refer you for roles at their companies you're in big trouble.
If you are a bootcamp grad, you are also in trouble so get the cheapest online degree you can that forces you to take a real algorithms and systems programming class.
Edit: can't reply
> The matter of fact nature of your reply sounds highly, personally anecdotal. Given the confluence of moving parts from AI and policy/politics alone, let alone potential regional instability and the effects on US financial markets, it’s really impossible to speak to the next quarter, let alone year/years. Not saying your prediction is not correct, but few are
Well, duh. This is an anonymous forum, not a research paper. That said, I am speaking from my personal experience, and a couple of other decisionmakers on HN have also voiced similar sentiments on here.
It's free advice - take or don't. It's not my problem. To quote Buck Strickland, "I ain't yo daddy".
The matter of fact nature of your reply sounds highly, personally anecdotal. Given the confluence of moving parts from AI and policy/politics alone, let alone potential regional instability and the effects on US financial markets, it’s really impossible to speak to the next quarter, let alone year/years. Not saying your prediction is not correct, but few are.
For bleeding edge R&D, we still hire domestically because the capacity, network, and capital remains in the US, but these roles will overwhelmingly be in the Bay or NYC as I mentioned above, and will overwhelmingly recruit from a handful of top programs with an established track record.
Most HNers are median or below median (that's how medians work because life is a Gaussian distribution) so a large portion will be negatively impacted.
Sam who did his BSCS at Michigan State and Sandeep who did his MSCS without a thesis at SUNY New Platz will be negatively impacted, but Sarah who did her BSCS at UT Austin or Sarita who did her MSCS with thesis at UIUC will be hired.
Similarly for L1/2, it ain't happening unless you have a proven track record at a US comparable office like MSRL Bangalore, but that candidate would have ended up at a top CS program doing an MS/PhD anyhow and have a relatively easy path to immigrate to the US.
Basically, the same funda that exists in India about university tiers for hiring has returned to the US, but a lot of HNers aren't ready for this level of competition.
The difference between Kamal who is slogging at a mid-level SWE at Infosys in Indore and Karl who's working as a SWE at Cisco's NC office is marginal - both are going to be made structurally unemployed, with Kamal's work going to be automated with a CodeGen LLM in the hands of a junior SWE, and Karl's job being moved to a Cisco GCC in India, Eastern Europe, or LatAm.
The only way either can protect themselves is to find a way to end up at a top employer in a major hub.
Edit: can't reply
> What do you mean
Basically, it's best for all of us (be us SWEs, PMs, VCs, or SEs) to assume that we are average or below average, as that allows us to think strategically and defensively, thus allowing us to reduce our risk and take any advantage that we can.
That requires a level of competitiveness and strategic thinking that some may find distasteful, but it's the only way you can survive in the industry long term.
It doesn't mean hurt or negatively impact anyone always, but it requires one to be realistic and recognize that we are not in a stag-hunt but a Hobbesian trap.
It depends on the tier of H1B hiring. I think you study/studied at an INI so your peer group has more in common with Sarah and Sarita instead of Sam, Sandeep, Karl, or Kamal.
In a lot of cases, Sandeep used to be Kamal, and these are the Desis on H1Bs or L1s who are getting laid off or forced to consider moving back to India, the UK, the EU, Australia, etc.
Tracks, I guess. MSDS@UCSD, MSA@GT, MSCS@CMU all got jobs at meta, IBM, amazon. First two in the bay, third one as well I think. MSCS@NCSU got an internship at amazon but did not get full time yet. MSCS@NEU also did not get anything yet. CS@Columbia did not get anything, but EE@Columbia (semicon stuff) got one in bell labs NJ.
Although naturalization is pretty difficult, I guess it's still a good deal to return at 30 with 4cr starting wealth.
> Although naturalization is pretty difficult, I guess it's still a good deal to return at 30 with 4cr starting wealth.
Yep. That's what Chinese nationals in the US began doing in the early 2010s when China was developmentally similar to India today - the cost/reward ratio diminished due to the GC backlog.
Does that matter if the headline is conclusive of the article result? Financial Times is a costly subscription. Furthermore those details, while interesting, do not change the outcome of the article.
It's not that numbers are a farce but different industry segments are doing better or worse than other.
HN being a tech forum that now increasingly skews East and Midwest (heck, it's not even 7am yet in the West, but look at the degree of engagement on here) means most HNers are impacted by a slowdown in tech hiring, which exacerbates the sense of pessimism.
And tbf, if you aren't working in a tech hub like the Bay or NYC, you are going to be screwed if you are laid off - employers increasingly restrict remote work to those employees who have proven internal track records, and inshoring hubs like in RTP, Denver, Atlanta, etc are on the chopping block.
That doesn't make up for the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of American capex at risk in the Gulf, for example Exxon's tens of billions of dollars of capex in Qatar's LNG supply chain or Chevron's monopoly as the sole upstream producer in Kuwait and the KSA.
Any potential profit they could have made from North American extraction (which itself is questionable due to the significant processing requirements for North American crude) would itself have been eaten away by losses that have already been incurred in the Gulf.
The ONG industry has very low net margins (around 4% for integrated ONG), which means any shock is catastrophic, let alone a crisis such as the current one.
reply