
Silicon Valley’s Inequality Machine: A Conversation with Anand Giridharadas - kaboro
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/02/silicon-valleys-inequality-machine-anand-giridharadas/
======
crushcrashcrush
Wow, this is a really, really powerful piece.

I love his analogy to people in Finance - how they are unabashedly "about that
life" \- and they're upfront about it.

After traveling across the US, I realized I prefer my wealth and power desires
out in the open. Inordinate wealth is hidden so insidiously in the valley. We
don't really dress in wealth signals, or even drive in wealth signals (as
opposed to NYC or Miami.) - the subtler cues to social status are things like
an Au Pair or private yoga lessons or an address in Menlo Park, Atherton,
Woodside or Palo Alto. But they dress like us, and they drive in the same
luxury cars we do.

And yet, they are so, so far above us.

~~~
scarejunba
In _The Big Short_ you read about how the guy in the baseball cap and jeans is
probably a fund manager doing really well. The guy in the suit is about to go
ask for more money because he's not doing so hot.

It's the same principle in Silicon Valley.

The status symbol _is_ being enough of a hot shot to not have to play by the
rules of status.

~~~
jacobsimon
Relevant: [https://qz.com/369338/this-is-what-makes-dressing-down-a-
sta...](https://qz.com/369338/this-is-what-makes-dressing-down-a-status-
symbol/)

~~~
badfrog
> Observers must believe the nonconforming individual is both aware of the
> norm and able to conform to it, but deliberately decides not to. A
> nonconforming behavior that seems unintentional or dictated by lack of a
> better alternative—such as ragged clothes on a homeless person—will not lead
> to a positive impression.

This part is super interesting. You need to be able to wear the baseball cap
and jeans while letting people know that you _could_ be wearing a fancy suit
if you cared about their norms.

~~~
golergka
It's not about the absence of taste, it's about the opposite of taste – is
much more pronounced and intentional

Also, this send to be a great quote:
[https://youtu.be/FlzZhGr8G9w](https://youtu.be/FlzZhGr8G9w)

------
badfrog
Anybody have a legal way to read the full text without paying?

~~~
tfang17
outline.com

~~~
jason__
Yes. I needed this. It eliminates the strange scrolling behavior and other web
mess.

It does not, however, allow me to read the full article.

------
jason__
>The first third has been ungated given the importance of this subject. To
read the whole interview, be sure to...

This is incredibly ironic. Techcrunch's (partial) release of this article is a
perfect example of what the author describes: excluding those who can't afford
to pay while pretending to act in the interest of all.

>And, at the heart of what I’m trying to establish with the book, is how they
have then turned around, and in response to this exclusion, and the anger it
generates, sought to pass themselves off as change agents who can fix the
problem that they are complicit in causing, and who can fight the fire that
they helped set.

------
alkibiades
this dude is the biggest pseudointellectual of our time. he basically just
spouts what every other progressive is saying but somehow is labeled as a
genius for that.

~~~
thundergolfer
To your first sentence, since when has he played the intellectual? He's a
writer. Sure he does a few talks here and there, a few interviews. Nothing
really deserving of your labelling.

Your second sentence is spot on though. "Win-winism" is just a repackaging of
age old leftist theory.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" 'Win-winism' is just a repackaging of age old leftist theory."_

Lefist theory? It sounds solidly right-wing to me.

The article's author writes:

 _" What win-win-ism says is, the best way to help the least among us is to do
what's good for the richest and most powerful."_

That sounds to me very much like Trickle-down economics[1], of which Reagan
was the champion.

Do you consider Reagan a leftist?

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics)

~~~
thundergolfer
The "leftist theory" is the description of the right-wing ideology that Anand
calls "Win-winism". I'm not saying that "Win-Winism" is right-wing.

------
scarejunba
The funny thing is that he talks about how Zuckerberg probably sees himself as
the emancipator. This is true for a hell of a lot of us, even those of us who
haven't made it yet.

It's true. But there's a slight difference. No one has faith in the
government. There are only those who are see themselves as powerless in the
face of this and those who see themselves as the agents of change. The
Messiahs have been commoditized.

~~~
rexpop
I have a lot more faith in government—which has proven to be democratic, on
occasion—than corporations which offer no levers of consumer control, and lie
constantly.

~~~
toasterlovin
A few words in favor of corporations: at least they can go out of business and
be replaced by something else.

~~~
gotocake
Yeah, or just declare bankruptcy and rebrand. So long Cambridge Analytica! Oh
hello Emeradata, gosh you seem so familiar. Oh well, I’m just going to putter
off in my VW TDi and smoke a lovely Altria cigarette.

~~~
rexpop
These are great examples of how Capital survives PR disasters, and the
implosion of one legally defined corporate body is as irrelevant to tracing
the consolidation of economic power as a change of clothes is to the tracking
of an cheating spouse: colorful circumstantial evidence of their treachery,
but a distraction from the bigger picture.

------
01100011
I stopped reading when he equated reduced lifespans to the wealth gap. In my
experience(my own family included), the shortened lifespans relate to poor
lifestyle choices(i.e. type II diabetes and not choosing to change post-
diagnosis). I'm not saying the wealth gap is good, just that, with logic like
that, I can't take this piece seriously.

Also, while I think it's great that folks want to level the field and reduce
the wealth gap, the likely outcome will be that the ultra rich will evade
taxes like they always do, while the $1-10 millionaires will be pulled down to
appease the masses. I don't lose sleep over some mildly rich tech bro. They're
not the problem. It's the ultra rich that are holding all the cards and
controlling our destinies.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Firstly, if you think the reduced lifespan thing is wrong and you're trying to
convince us, you should probably cite a source.

Secondly, your approach is bad. The "I found one thing I think is false (but
never bothered to look up) so I'm dismissing the whole article" is your right
of course, but I don't know if it makes for an informed member of the
discussion.

~~~
01100011
> if you think the reduced lifespan thing is wrong I don't, and I'm not sure
> how you got that out of what I wrote. I have no doubt that there is a
> correlation. I just have personal opinions as to why that correlation exist
> which conflict with the idea that lower incomes _caused_ the reduced
> lifespans. If you're disciplined enough to amass wealth, you're probably
> disciplined enough to maintain good health. Sure, there are other factors,
> such as access to better medical care. In many cases though, access to
> medical care cannot make up for poor lifestyle decisions.

If I read an article and encounter flawed logic, I am less inclined to
continue investing time into exploring the author's thesis.

