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.
What if the intended takeaway was something else like this?
"Jumping so late onto the bandwagon by buying shares like that is for losers! Winners are people bold enough to be entrepreneurs who make the stuff and sell the shares. (Like I'm going to do, because I'm smarter than that crow.)"
I must warn that it isn't the most charitable random-ass-theory of a stranger's worldview... but it would resolve the apparent inconsistency.
We know what the intended takeaway is because the author helpfully explained it in a blog post [1], and it's way less cynical than what you guessed:
> A world where a majority of the population is suffering is not a world good for anyone. Even from a selfish perspective, does you making it into the elite class mean the people you care about will too? Who wants to eat caviar alone on the moon?
I agree, though I would have stopped at the first sentence.
> Are we the Baddies? Yes, and how interesting. I could vibe a game about that.
The author's actual take is way less cynical. It seems he wanted to point out that a world where you try to save yourself at all costs while the majority suffers is not a good world.
There’s a lot more ways automation can turn out than “permanent underclasses”. It’s kinda like how some people build planes without supporting crashing them into things
It's simply: saving yourself (by getting rich or whatever) before AI puts us all out of a job is not good, because the majority of the world will suffer and that's not good for anyone.
I wasn't expecting this to get the visibility it did... but I want to say thank you to everyone that took a few minutes of their precious time to play through this.
I made this on a whim yesterday. It's inspired by many of my experiences talking to folks in the AI space. While it paints a grim picture, I still have hope that we'll find a way out of this mess in the future.
I also want to give some recognition for the visual inspirations here. The characters are inspired by one of my favorite indie games: Death's Door. I played this in Seoul a few years ago and ended up not sleeping the entire night just to play it. It's very affordable (even for undercrows), and will probably inspire many more of my future works. Not getting paid to say this - I simply think birds are cool.
Remember - if you keep grinding, you might just be able to don that top hat...
If crypto was a bunch of autodidacts speed running the history of finance, then AI is speed running the history of religion. This whole "permanent underclass" thing seems like it's just the Rapture in secular clothing.
It's interesting watching each new generation relate to the rat race, but this current framing seems toxic. The economy is not a zero sum game. I worry about the amount people coming into the work force now thinking that unless they acquire generational wealth by 30 then they've wasted their life. That's a recipe for unhappiness.
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?
- Do you really need to keep your children in school or contribute to their higher education, when you can just let them roam free on the streets or better yet, work down at the factory and earn their keep?
- Do you really need children at all, when an AI digital pet might satisfy that need much more economically?
- Do you really need expensive dental crown implants or dentures, when you can whittle yourself some chompers out of beechwood and call it a shuccshesh?
- Do you really need to own a home in a neighbourhood that is safe and close enough to your place of employment, when you can rent in a rough area of town and spend hours commuting on public transport?
> 77 percent of low-income households can cover an unexpected $400 expense, though many must cover it with disposable income or short-term credit... 43 percent of low-income households unable to weather small expense shocks might be able to pay them with access to additional credit.
I'm not sure if credit is the ideal solution, nor if additional credit would be beneficial.
Generally, lots of debt, but they still do it. I know people who go into debt for “fun” purchases, then complain that their credit card bills are so high they can’t afford anything
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...
Of course ai execs are going to say AI will automate every job, but only a fool believes it. I guarantee we will still have tedious manual work in 25 years. People have been saying this for years.
I mean do the math... Who buys anything from the robot overlords if we're all jobless? How do states exist without tax revenue? Why would anyone pay money to get a factory full of robots to make something if nobody's going to I buy it? Somebody please answer that last one
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"
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.
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.
What if the intended takeaway was something else like this?
"Jumping so late onto the bandwagon by buying shares like that is for losers! Winners are people bold enough to be entrepreneurs who make the stuff and sell the shares. (Like I'm going to do, because I'm smarter than that crow.)"
I must warn that it isn't the most charitable random-ass-theory of a stranger's worldview... but it would resolve the apparent inconsistency.
We know what the intended takeaway is because the author helpfully explained it in a blog post [1], and it's way less cynical than what you guessed:
> A world where a majority of the population is suffering is not a world good for anyone. Even from a selfish perspective, does you making it into the elite class mean the people you care about will too? Who wants to eat caviar alone on the moon?
I agree, though I would have stopped at the first sentence.
--
[1] https://www.jasonwu.ink/signals/2026-05-27-permanent-upper-c...
So he's obviously on the winning side of this transaction. Hopefully the losing side is someone who isn't you. Maybe it's a VC fund.
This is filthy undercrow talk!
are we not all slaves to the top hat?
Are we the Baddies? Yes, and how interesting. I could vibe a game about that.
> Are we the Baddies? Yes, and how interesting. I could vibe a game about that.
The author's actual take is way less cynical. It seems he wanted to point out that a world where you try to save yourself at all costs while the majority suffers is not a good world.
See: https://www.jasonwu.ink/signals/2026-05-27-permanent-upper-c...
There’s a lot more ways automation can turn out than “permanent underclasses”. It’s kinda like how some people build planes without supporting crashing them into things
He isn't building a plane but a device.
What does the device do? He doesn't know.
Understandig how the hammer falls tells you where to stand to avoid it.
Unless the hammer ultimately destroys the world. And it seems our escape rocket is no more.
Write what you know.
I grok that as the author having a sick sense of humor. I like it....
When did peddling dietary supplements and crypto go out of fashion?
When AI took the spotlight.
Maybe he strongly supports UBI or a national dividend and understands how automation makes these much easier.
The author explains his opinion in a blog post, and it's not that: https://www.jasonwu.ink/signals/2026-05-27-permanent-upper-c...
It's simply: saving yourself (by getting rich or whatever) before AI puts us all out of a job is not good, because the majority of the world will suffer and that's not good for anyone.
I wasn't expecting this to get the visibility it did... but I want to say thank you to everyone that took a few minutes of their precious time to play through this.
I made this on a whim yesterday. It's inspired by many of my experiences talking to folks in the AI space. While it paints a grim picture, I still have hope that we'll find a way out of this mess in the future.
I also want to give some recognition for the visual inspirations here. The characters are inspired by one of my favorite indie games: Death's Door. I played this in Seoul a few years ago and ended up not sleeping the entire night just to play it. It's very affordable (even for undercrows), and will probably inspire many more of my future works. Not getting paid to say this - I simply think birds are cool.
Remember - if you keep grinding, you might just be able to don that top hat...
Cheers loves!
Money is the root of all evil.
Are you familiar with Molleindustria? [1] (Oiligarchy, Unmanned, Every Day The Same Dream)
I think your game would fit quite well in that collection of "political" indie games. Which, in my opinion, is high praise.
--
[1] https://www.molleindustria.org/
Ah yes, arbeit macht frei
If crypto was a bunch of autodidacts speed running the history of finance, then AI is speed running the history of religion. This whole "permanent underclass" thing seems like it's just the Rapture in secular clothing.
It's interesting watching each new generation relate to the rat race, but this current framing seems toxic. The economy is not a zero sum game. I worry about the amount people coming into the work force now thinking that unless they acquire generational wealth by 30 then they've wasted their life. That's a recipe for unhappiness.
Save money. Skip the top hat.
> This whole "permanent underclass" thing seems like it's just the Rapture in secular clothing.
The Left Behind version of the Rapture.
> Save money. Skip the top hat.
That's kinda the lesson of the game, how pointless it is, right?
yeah
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.
Once I realized I couldn’t decline, I left the website and left the top hat on the table.
That's easier to do in a video game, but I guess the real life analogy would be to sell it all and move off-grid to Alaska?
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?
Let's continue:
- Do you really need to keep your children in school or contribute to their higher education, when you can just let them roam free on the streets or better yet, work down at the factory and earn their keep?
- Do you really need children at all, when an AI digital pet might satisfy that need much more economically?
- Do you really need expensive dental crown implants or dentures, when you can whittle yourself some chompers out of beechwood and call it a shuccshesh?
- Do you really need to own a home in a neighbourhood that is safe and close enough to your place of employment, when you can rent in a rough area of town and spend hours commuting on public transport?
I don't think any of those fall under the umbrella of consumerism. So no, that's not a continuation of my list at all.
Looking after your health or taking proper care of your kids is really not in the same category as spending less on veblen goods.
(I'm noticing that people are getting very different messages from this game.)
The items he listed are far more expensive and recurring the car and electronic purchases.
How does that go for Americans who cannot afford to pay for a $400 surprise expense out of pocket?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/sheddata...
That was debunked as a misleading interpretation, e.g. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/all-topics/financial... . The graph very specifically says "...using cash or its equivalent".
> 77 percent of low-income households can cover an unexpected $400 expense, though many must cover it with disposable income or short-term credit... 43 percent of low-income households unable to weather small expense shocks might be able to pay them with access to additional credit.
I'm not sure if credit is the ideal solution, nor if additional credit would be beneficial.
Generally, lots of debt, but they still do it. I know people who go into debt for “fun” purchases, then complain that their credit card bills are so high they can’t afford anything
Let them eat crow.
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.
Sell what all? Isn’t everything just for rent now?
Your reply reminded me of the free game Oiligarchy by Molleindustria (which made quite a few indie hits in my opinion).
In that game, if you played "well" you ended up destroying the world. The only winning move was, indeed, not to play.
I think OP is referring to the 80's movie WarGames - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames
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 :)
---
[1] https://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy/
But rent is due
Fun fact: Crows never pay rent.
In case you're wondering, there are 106 CEOs / companies, and at 107 it just loops around.
PRs to add web-llm welcome ;)
though I would argue the current state is more reflective of reality...
cheers
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 sense a nod to https://papersplease.fandom.com/wiki/The_Republia_Times
How does it come up with the CEO and business' name? I assume there's gotta be finite number and the game has to end (?) Anyways, sick game.
There's a pre-generated list with 106 entries, and when it reaches the end of that list, it loops around.
CAWn't believe how hard this hits
Of course ai execs are going to say AI will automate every job, but only a fool believes it. I guarantee we will still have tedious manual work in 25 years. People have been saying this for years.
I mean do the math... Who buys anything from the robot overlords if we're all jobless? How do states exist without tax revenue? Why would anyone pay money to get a factory full of robots to make something if nobody's going to I buy it? Somebody please answer that last one
Reminded me of a book called Finite and Infinite Games
It’s a book I have tried to read 10 times. It’s to complicated, my context window is to limited.
The one by Simon Sinek? I've just picked it for reading this week
James P. Carse - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989.Finite_and_Infini...
So that's how you become a galactic civilization!
It never ends…
Super cool concept
Yeah, the numbers will eventually overflow if you play long enough, it seems doesn't end.
hey when does this game end?
Depends on the lifespan of said crow.
never stop grinding
Well done! Fun and satirical
Cool stuff hits hard
I feel stupid but I could not bring myself to click the "sign" button and continue gameplay.
A lot of electronic contracts are done like that and... nope, not clicking it... Mmmmm.... nope.
I honestly love the look of the website. It makes me want to play/make a 2d scroller.
thank you! and noted ;)
Beautiful
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.)
I tried to decline the job, but rent was due
Brilliant
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"
This is quality
no it isn't actually
This is a play on words from this (excellent) NYTimes Opinion piece by Jasmine Sun [1] titled "Silicon Valley is bracing for the permanent underclass"
[1]": https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/opinion/ai-labor-work-for...
(Gift article)
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:
and links to https://www.jasonwu.ink/signals/2026-05-27-permanent-upper-c...