What's interesting is the creator of the site has listed on their linkedin that they're ... wait for it ... a co-founder at some generic AI startup with the goal of using AI agents to automate away manual jobs.
Fascinating. I was able to escape the suffering by simply not purchasing a top hat. An interesting lesson that the pursuit of conspicuous consumption is the root of one’s own suffering.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
I'd argue it's not about selling everything. Instead, avoid buying things by default and trying to keep up with the Joneses. You don't need to move to the wilderness, you just need to choose to escape consumerism.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
Trying to be gentle here but this is pretty out of touch.
- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.
- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
I just grabbed random things I've seen from behavior in other people. If you don't fall victim to those consumerist traps, then that's legitimately great.
Yes, I absolutely know folks who buy new phones every year, and who lease new cars and upgrade every 3 years. Most of whom really can't really afford to do these things but do it anyway and end up in increasing debt.
And sure, buy clothes from Walmart if you have a Walmart location near you. I just picked the nearest big-box store to me, for some reason Walmart doesn't have much of a presence out where I am.
(The takeaway I got from the game is "don't try to buy the hat, it's a trap". I'm curious what your takeaway was?)
I think I just took issue with what seemed like trite advice about what it takes to win at life or whatever. Your other comment on the thread cleared it up well enough:
> I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage.
and I agree with that completely. I can definitely get behind not buying the hat (or buying a cheaper hat) but at some point it's not a hat, it's a vehicle that you need to get to work or a home repair or medical bill or something and your options become a) buy the cheap thing (and buy it again in six months when it breaks and is now more expensive) or b) walk away and suffer the consequences. I've done both, and neither really feels like winning.
> Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
Look around where your posting and remember that Apple has an upgrade program as well as most US cell carriers that will push you to upgrade your phone. Let a lone the thousands of Apple product release threads where people brag about buying the latest and greatest device.
> Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
Now I’m confused, are Target brands considered fancy?
I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage. There are absolutely people who don't make enough to survive - and that's a bigger problem of course.
At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".
Thanks, I caught the WarGames reference. Is there anyone not familiar with it? It's one of those pieces of widespread internet lore (though, of course, I actually watched the movie too, back in my youth).
I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)
I feel like I'm missing something here. Was this supposed to be a game? I just kept clicking and reading and clicking and reading. I finally gave up. If the goal is to tell a non-interactive story, I'd rather just scroll...
I find this exact attribution very unlikely; this article is from April 2026 and the term "permanent underclass" is used in this way since at least 2025.
In fact, the repo says:
This is my social commentary on the "Permanent Upper Class" philosophical virus that has spread through San Francisco tech communities like the plague in the last year or so. You can read the original blog post [here].
While the game tells a grim story, my goal with this is to show how ridiculous this way of thinking is. I'm actually more optimistic that humans will find a way to prevent this future but if we don't then I suppose none of us will don top hats for eternity.
The real message is that, even if you don't get rich and can't buy that clothing item that is 10x your nest worth, your work can provide for your needs and your family - rent, groceries, helping extended family...
(Worked at a couple of startups, didn't get rich, but had good experiences, paid for family needs, and put aside investments for the future.)
Yep, this is basically the world today. The only difference in the real world:
"What if I told you you can buy that $10 hat today using borrowed money that you don't have, pay $1/year interest for the rest of your life until you pay it back, but you have to earn $2/year more in order to have $1/year more to pay, but to earn $2/year more, your company has to earn $3/year more"
"Oh and you also need to buy insurance for that $10 hat because it's not yours, and you have to pay us for the insurance we're going to buy in addition to the insurance you're going to buy to insure us from you, so that'll be another $1, or you have to make $2 more to have $1, or your company needs to make $3 more, so now your company needs to make $6/year more"
"Oh and we're also going to devalue the $ so you actually need to make $10/year more because a $ won't be worth that much in a couple years"
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.
- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
Yes, I absolutely know folks who buy new phones every year, and who lease new cars and upgrade every 3 years. Most of whom really can't really afford to do these things but do it anyway and end up in increasing debt.
And sure, buy clothes from Walmart if you have a Walmart location near you. I just picked the nearest big-box store to me, for some reason Walmart doesn't have much of a presence out where I am.
(The takeaway I got from the game is "don't try to buy the hat, it's a trap". I'm curious what your takeaway was?)
> I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage.
and I agree with that completely. I can definitely get behind not buying the hat (or buying a cheaper hat) but at some point it's not a hat, it's a vehicle that you need to get to work or a home repair or medical bill or something and your options become a) buy the cheap thing (and buy it again in six months when it breaks and is now more expensive) or b) walk away and suffer the consequences. I've done both, and neither really feels like winning.
Look around where your posting and remember that Apple has an upgrade program as well as most US cell carriers that will push you to upgrade your phone. Let a lone the thousands of Apple product release threads where people brag about buying the latest and greatest device.
> Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
Now I’m confused, are Target brands considered fancy?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/sheddata...
In that game, if you played "well" you ended up destroying the world. The only winning move was, indeed, not to play.
At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".
I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)
---
[1] https://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy/
though I would argue the current state is more reflective of reality...
cheers
[1]": https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/opinion/ai-labor-work-for...
(Gift article)
In fact, the repo says:
and links to https://www.jasonwu.ink/signals/2026-05-27-permanent-upper-c...A lot of electronic contracts are done like that and... nope, not clicking it... Mmmmm.... nope.
Super cool concept
(Worked at a couple of startups, didn't get rich, but had good experiences, paid for family needs, and put aside investments for the future.)
"What if I told you you can buy that $10 hat today using borrowed money that you don't have, pay $1/year interest for the rest of your life until you pay it back, but you have to earn $2/year more in order to have $1/year more to pay, but to earn $2/year more, your company has to earn $3/year more"
"Oh and you also need to buy insurance for that $10 hat because it's not yours, and you have to pay us for the insurance we're going to buy in addition to the insurance you're going to buy to insure us from you, so that'll be another $1, or you have to make $2 more to have $1, or your company needs to make $3 more, so now your company needs to make $6/year more"
"Oh and we're also going to devalue the $ so you actually need to make $10/year more because a $ won't be worth that much in a couple years"