> It requires an accounting perspective on the inflows and outflows of an ongoing process and not just a small slice of data.
Correct, but we don't have that information so we have to rely on a best guess. We're not dealing with code here where everything is known exactly.
> Yet, the main question for actually measuring the (firm and investor expected) impact of AI is whether that rate of headcount growth has changed without the stock price going down.
Stock price is not necessarily a proxy for headcount either. Some companies have much lower headcounts per stock price (for example, Nvidia).
> That is, is it now proposed by management and accepted by investors that the firm will henceforth require less human labor in order to deliver on the present expected value of future free cash flow.
You are just talking without thinking now are you? It makes no sense. Human labor and free cash flow are probably correlated, but one isn't a proxy for the other. First you relate stock price to headcount and then you say "that is" and then you suddenly relate cash flow to headcount. Cash flow and stock price are correlated per industry, but it's also a very loose one.
> You cannot infer anything about this question from the data shown.
False. I only need to infer a tiny bit in order to falsify your extremely strong claim.
> For this, you would need to look at net hires year after year and prove that a growing percent thereof are H1-Bs.
Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data?
Correct, but we don't have that information so we have to rely on a best guess. We're not dealing with code here where everything is known exactly.
> Yet, the main question for actually measuring the (firm and investor expected) impact of AI is whether that rate of headcount growth has changed without the stock price going down.
Stock price is not necessarily a proxy for headcount either. Some companies have much lower headcounts per stock price (for example, Nvidia).
> That is, is it now proposed by management and accepted by investors that the firm will henceforth require less human labor in order to deliver on the present expected value of future free cash flow.
You are just talking without thinking now are you? It makes no sense. Human labor and free cash flow are probably correlated, but one isn't a proxy for the other. First you relate stock price to headcount and then you say "that is" and then you suddenly relate cash flow to headcount. Cash flow and stock price are correlated per industry, but it's also a very loose one.
> You cannot infer anything about this question from the data shown.
False. I only need to infer a tiny bit in order to falsify your extremely strong claim.
> For this, you would need to look at net hires year after year and prove that a growing percent thereof are H1-Bs.
Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data?