
Silicon Valley Is Now Public Enemy No. 1, And We Only Have Ourselves To Blame - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/28/blowback-silicon-valley-is-now-public-enemy-1/
======
alecco
The level of denial of the problem in this thread is astounding. It will only
exacerbate the issue.

We are not heroes out of an Ayn Rand novel. We don't live in a bubble, we live
within a rich and complex society. We better learn empathy towards the rest if
we don't expect to get forced to give back. There are many social issues,
youth unemployment being one of the worst.

And we, techies, are in a great position to promote social development instead
of short-sighted and selfish corporate profits, to promote a free internet
where users are in charge, to help out others who don't have our talents.

A lot of technologies we use (Internet, Web, Unix/BSD) were financed in good
part by the public.

Or you can keep aiming for 6-figure salaries with a sports car. And a bottle
of anti-depressants.

~~~
corresation
This growing strategy of doing a top post that purports to respond to
caricatures of other people is tiring, but is increasingly common (I would
wager that an average depth query for HN posts would show a strong trend
towards decreasing).

Yes, someone said the post is hyperbolic drivel. You can argue subjectively
whether that is true or not, but simply calling it "denial" is not a credible
way of responding to it.

And FWIW...public enemy #1? Linkbait garbage. The "hero tech genius of SV"
remains an absolutely common media story, and SV companies remain among the
most respected and adored names. Comparing them with banks, or claiming that
they're perceived as a public enemy, is indeed, hyperbolic drivel.

Some people protested a bus in San Francisco. Cue hysterics and gross-
overreactions.

~~~
alecco
Society is starting to get tired of the tech industry exceptionalism. You see
it in many places, off-line.

~~~
avn2109
Society outside of NYC/SF/a few other places has never heard of the tech
industry or it's exceptionalism. The middle of the country doesn't know that
we exist. And in NY, our claims of grandeur are drowned out by the
overwhelming swagger of the finance guys.

~~~
Crito
My parents thought that "Silicon Valley" was "that 90's thing". Many Americans
haven't paid attention to it or heard about it since the dot-com burst.

I have also several times encountered the idea that _" there are no more
software jobs, they all went overseas"_. Of course that has no basis in
reality, but that is one of the themes about the tech industry that is
perpetuated by various forms of media.

~~~
Crake
>"I have also several times encountered the idea that "there are no more
software jobs, they all went overseas". Of course that has no basis in
reality, but that is one of the themes about the tech industry that is
perpetuated by various forms of media."

One of the smarter guys in my physics class was convinced that programming was
a dead end career. I was perplexed since he read a lot of science and tech
news and seemed pretty up to date on things in general.

------
rayiner
The article lacks surprising self-awareness in a lot of respects, but I want
to focus on one specifically: "Today’s companies are increasingly destroying
the value of existing companies to create the next generation of products and
services."

It's not just that people are mad at Silicon Valley companies for competing
with existing industries. It's that they're mad about Silicon Valley companies
riding roughshod over the web of compromises and understandings that exist
between these industries and the people affected by these industries. And
summarily dismissing all of these concerns as merely political protection for
existing players, as libertarian leaning people are wont to do, doesn't cut
it.

As Silicon Valley companies leave cyberspace to enter meat space, the biggest
realization they will have is that managing interactions with other humans
becomes tremendously more important. On the internet, websites are sandboxes.
In real life, every thing a company does has effects on other people. E.g.
AirBnB can't do whatever they want on their website, but the rentals they
broker are real apartments in real buildings with real neighbors, who have
their own concerns that have nothing to do with AirBnB's profit motive.

------
nostrademons
Two things came to mind reading this:

1\. Marc Andreesen's "Software is eating the world" investment theory.

2\. The history of the robber baron era in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.

Technologies like steamboats, steel, railroads, oil, etc. also arose first in
industries where they were "strictly beneficial" and let people do things they
couldn't otherwise do. But by the early 1900s, they'd started eating other
industries. The automobile eliminated the professions of carriage drivers and
horseback riders. Oil eliminated the whaling industry. Textile manufacturing
moved from water-power mills in New England to steam & oil-powered mills in
the South. The largest single occupation in 1900 was "domestic servant" \- by
the 1950s, it no longer existed, because home appliances had completely
replaced the job.

All of these involved significant dislocation of workers, and the
corresponding political blowback. There was a large anarcho-communist movement
in the U.S. from the 1890s to 1920s [1], including violence and bomb scares
[2]. We almost became a fascist country in 1933 [3], a "counterrevolution" of
sorts to FDR's New Deal.

But that doesn't mean we'd want to return to a world where we didn't have
cars, horseshit lines the streets, whales are extinct, everybody sleeps at
dusk, and the bulk of the population works in textiles or domestic service.
The process of getting here wasn't easy, but all of the political upheaval and
human dislocation was very necessary to build the world we have now.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States#Early_American_anarcho-
communism)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

~~~
goggles99
> _The largest single occupation in 1900 was "domestic servant" \- by the
> 1950s, it no longer existed, because home appliances had completely replaced
> the job._

So my neighbor's domestic servant must be imaginary then right?

I think it just changed names. It is now called "domestic worker". U.S. Census
suggests that the number has only declined about 21% from 1900(927,402) to
2012 (726,437). It is suspected though that current statistics are off by
about half (because of unreported undocumented workers) so the actual numbers
likely have grown, (even per household).

You think a vacuum, dishwasher, mixer, blender, washer/dryer and microwave
reduces the work that much? Be sure to express this to your significant other.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You think a vacuum, dishwasher, mixer, blender, washer/dryer and microwave
> reduces the work that much?

Yes, but their availability also increases the socially accepted standards of
housekeeping, etc., enough that the actual labor doesn't change at all.

------
segmondy
Nah, Incompetent Politicians, Wallstreet/Banks are still public enemy No. 1.
Perhaps people that live in the SV area who are not in the industry consider
the tech industry an enemy because they have been priced outside of homes and
are feeling left behind. Those outside of SV don't consider SV an enemy or
even think about them.

~~~
27182818284
They are #1, but it is safe to say that SV is trending. I've heard bad shit
from people that live in Oakland, people in the Midwest that have never been
to SF or Oakland, and increasingly on the net I see grumpiness building. All
anecdotal, of course, but I do see it.

------
JohnTHaller
This is, honestly, a pretty silly article since it is cherry picking certain
bad apples and setting it against the backdrop of the bus protests in San
Francisco (mostly the last round of gentrification protesting against this
round of gentrification). Yes, SF's housing market is crap, which is a
combination of absurd laws and regulations plus demand. Tech workers wanting
to live there are helping on the demand side, but that's about it.

As for disruptive industries, cherrypicking AirBnb and Uber isn't
representative of the vast majority of the industry. Airbnb enables about 1/2
of its users to illegally sublet their apartments in cities like NYC. And its
annoying a lot of the folks out here. But does that make other tech companies
bad? Uber, from various anecdotal insider reports, seems like a pretty shady
company that tried to operate illegally in multiple cities but is being
reigned in. Does that make other tech companies bad? King.com got absurd
trademarks for their game designed to extract money from unsuspecting players
and is now using those trademarks to inhibit competition. But does that make
other tech companies bad? Yes, Apple price fixed the whole book publishing
industry and Google bought and killed off multiple products people liked and
Adobe costs too much and all three of them conspired to keep tech wages down.
And Facebook is an immense privacy-gobbling behemoth that won't let you
install their Android app unless you let them read your SMS messages. But does
that make ALL other tech companies bad?

Realistically, it's a combination of the fact that some companies are now big
enough to actually throw their weight around money/size wise the way other
industries do -- Industries that get kickbacks, govt handouts, etc on things
like corn and oil that most of America hates -- and the fact that the bad
actors are getting a decent amount of press for their bad actions. But that
doesn't make all tech companies bad. Nor does it make the actors engaging in
these actions all bad. And it certainly doesn't make the average wage earner
at a company working for a living worthy of harassment.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>As for disruptive industries, cherrypicking AirBnb and Uber isn't
representative of the vast majority of the industry. Airbnb enables about 1/2
of its users to illegally sublet their apartments in cities like NYC. And its
annoying a lot of the folks out here. But does that make other tech companies
bad? Uber, from various anecdotal insider reports, seems like a pretty shady
company that tried to operate illegally in multiple cities but is being
reigned in. Does that make other tech companies bad? King.com got absurd
trademarks for their game designed to extract money from unsuspecting players
and is now using those trademarks to inhibit competition. But does that make
other tech companies bad? Yes, Apple price fixed the whole book publishing
industry and Google bought and killed off multiple products people liked and
Adobe costs too much and all three of them conspired to keep tech wages down.
And Facebook is an immense privacy-gobbling behemoth that won't let you
install their Android app unless you let them read your SMS messages. But does
that make ALL other tech companies bad?

You know, it doesn't make _all_ tech companies automatically bad, but in
statistical terms, it sure as hell _establishes a pattern_.

Once is accident. Twice is coincidence. _Thrice is enemy action._

~~~
JohnTHaller
First, name me an industry that doesn't have 3 companies that have done
something bad. Education? Medicine? Even grandmothers? Nope, sorry.

Second, basically EVERY company is a tech company these days. Honestly, Uber
and Airbnb aren't even really tech companies. They just use tech. Like
virtually every other company.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>First, name me an industry that doesn't have 3 companies that have done
something bad.

Why? That would imply I don't believe the tech industry's malignity is just a
further example of capitalism's more general malignity.

------
cylinder
This is hyperbolic drivel; obviously TC is trying to create something out of
nothing to drive clicks. Average lay people don't know about the stories
referenced in this article and could not care less. Step out of the echo
chamber!

~~~
je_bailey
I concur with this assessment. There are people outside of silicon valley who
care about silicon valley. Much like there are a ton of people who watch
reality tv and think that it's real. Since this is HN there are probably a
larger then average number of readers who would fall into this camp.

But for the most part. Nobody outside of that region cares. I'm on the east
coast, SV isn't in the news, it's not a concern, nobody here that I am aware
of here can be bothered to care what happens.

------
argumentum
> Silicon Valley Is Now Public Enemy No. 1

No, it isn't.

For evidence, watch the Daily Show (a fairly mainstream liberal show) take on
the Google bus incidents.*

Yes, there is animosity, some of which is deserved, _towards rich people_ ,
some of whom are in the "tech industry".

But very few people without an agenda to push hold anywhere near the level of
vitriol promulgated by the "tech press" (really a euphemism for crappy
tabloids).

Keeping a sense of proportion _is not denial_ ..

* [http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-january-23-201...](http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-january-23-2014-anjan-sundaram)

------
snowwrestler
It's another step forward in the maturation of the Internet technology
industry, which grew up, with the Internet itself, under a regime of benign
neglect.

That time is over, as evidenced by the growing impingement of regulations,
taxes, law enforcement, spying, and now populism on what Internet technology
companies are trying to do.

I don't see any reason to believe that Internet technologies are somehow
unique or special enough to avoid these sorts of interactions and conflicts
with the rest of broader society.

Many CEOs and investors of Internet companies seem to think of themselves as
self-made and self-contained leaders who are naturally free from the
constraints of other industries. The leaders of railroads, steel mills, oil
companies, car companies, real estate, etc. once saw themselves the same way.
Now those industries are tightly hemmed with regulations at the local, state,
national, and in some cases international levels. Internet companies will be
too--especially as they tread onto these turfs.

I'm not saying this is good--I'm just saying it's reality.

To fight back, the Internet industry will need a strong presence in Washington
and in politics. But that goes against the pseudo-libertarian culture, so they
don't have one, aside from the few biggest companies like Google and Facebook.

The hardest part is that there is no natural political home for the Internet
company mindset today. The Democratic Party, while in line with the social
leanings of Internet leaders, is also home to the populist movements taking
aim at Silicon Valley's riches and entitlement.

And while part of the Republican Party is in line with the economic and
regulatory mindset of Internet companies, it does not hold the reigns of the
party. It is at least sharing them with Tea Party and religious grassroots
movements that most Internet company leaders are personally uncomfortable
with.

------
ForHackernews
Wow, check out the comments on that article. Are we sure this isn't a parody?

> Scott Johnson · Managing Director at New Atlantic Ventures

> Like the Yankees, and Patriots, Harvard, and Oracle, Siilicon Valley has a
> swagger that comes from repeated success. So of course there is growing
> resentment toward the region. Bask in it. The resentment is just admiration
> manifested as envy.

------
lifeisstillgood
If we have the audacity to disrupt entire industries, we should have the
audacity to take on the most pressing problems facing our communities

this.

~~~
Crito
Just because Uber wants to disrupt the Taxi industry does not mean that they
have any obligation or ability to also fight malaria, human trafficking, stop
world hunger and terrorism, or house the homeless.

By all means, it would be ideal if the people getting rich would devote some
of their wealth and, after retirement, perhaps some of their time, to tackling
these problems. Bill Gates has been doing great work advocating this sort of
philanthropy and we should all encourage that.

Uber isn't a charity though, their mission statement isn't fighting these
problems. If they want to make corporate donations to charities, that is
_fantastic_ , but they are not a charity themselves. Expecting solutions from
them to these problems is unfair.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Really? You think people elsewhere in the USA care about the Echo Chamber's
opinions of itself? If anything tech companies are public enemy no. 2 (no. 1
being the NSA) because they don't respect users' privacy.

If Silicon Valley was located anywhere else in the USA and not in the San
Francicso Bay Area would things ever have gotten this bad? How much of the
problem can be blamed on the tech industry and how much of it can be blamed on
the area's notorious politics (beg Twitter to stay within city limits, invest
10 billion dollars for the high speed rail link to downtown San Francisco,
refuse to build more housing to meet demands, complain about tax paying tech
workers forcing the poor out of the area).

------
smoorman1024
Anyone else notice that the anchors at the beginning of the paragraph don't
have a reference:

<a>attacks on private buses</a> <a>stalkers of Google executives</a>

------
dancric
There are lots of good comments here, and as the writer, I do appreciate all
of them.

One element of this story, which was hard to really spend the time on, is the
public's difference in perception regarding disruption of other technology
companies, compared to its perception of industrial and service based
industries. The public doesn't seem to care when a company like Intel takes on
a company like Fairchild Semiconductor. Part of the issue is a lack of
technical sophistication, so it is difficult to separate competitors based on
their products. The more important reason, though, is that technology
devouring technology is easily understood as progress. 500 engineers lost
their job at one firm, but a new firm is hiring 500.

Now take a look at the service disrupters like AirBnB, Uber, etc. First,
unlike technical disruption, the public understands the businesses here very
well. It's a hotel. It's a taxi. It's a laundromat. Second, there is a
distinct feel that these new companies are not playing by the rules, whatever
those rules might be (it doesn't help that these companies publicly flaunt the
rules either). Third, and most importantly, there is far more perception of
the people losing their jobs, rather than the gain these companies are making
in terms of labor flexibility.

There are plenty of greenfield companies out there (Nest, DeepMind, Climate
Corporation are acquisitions in the last month that come to mind). But the
region is not _exclusively_ doing that kind of progress anymore, and so we
shouldn't be surprised when people aren't immediately positive about the
changes taking place anymore.

~~~
nostrademons
I think that you're painting "the public" with a very broad brush. A more
accurate model might be that people are happy when new options become
available to them, ambivalent when stuff goes on that doesn't impact them,
annoyed when people speak negatively about what's important to them, and angry
when what is important to them is taken away from them. This is a pretty
universal model, but the specifics differ depending on _what_ is important to
a person.

My girlfriend and I love AirBnB. It's allowed us to visit some pretty remote
locations on very short notice at very reasonable prices. I have a friend who
is surviving off the income from AirBnBing out her apartment. Probably, her
neighbors don't like it. The hotel industry _certainly_ doesn't like it.

I have friends in SF who similarly love having Uber available, because it's
got them home late at night after a night at a few bars. As part of the yuppie
tech demographic in the Mission, they are also hated by some of their
neighbors.

What's changed isn't what's going on in the world, it's who is now angry
enough to speak to the media. Somebody who finds a great weekend getaway on
AirBnB isn't going to write a story about it or talk to a TechCrunch reporter;
they will write a review on the site so that other people can have a similarly
great experience. Somebody who loses their job because their hotel can't
compete against AirBnB is both plenty angry and now has plenty of time to
complain to the media.

I'm reminded here of reading Foucault in college, and specifically the role of
the discourse in society. Foucault's central theory was that control of _what
can be said_ in the public sphere reflects power dynamics in a society. When
public mindspace like the media starts leaning in a certain direction, it
doesn't necessarily mean that reality has changed underneath. Rather, it means
that certain interests have organized and care deeply enough about a certain
issue that they're willing to spend time making sure that public belief swings
a certain way on that issue.

------
wavefunction
It's pretty rough out there right now if you're not a techie, something that's
easy to forget. The people responsible for this are the political and lobbying
business class who have driven a larger share of the nation's wealth towards
that same lobbying business class in a feedback loop that seems to have no end
to its rapaciousness.

So you've got a bunch of people who work service or working-class jobs feeling
the squeeze even more than the middle-class which is rapidly disappearing. We
are the 'available' symbols of their real targets. Maybe it's time to pick
sides, or encourage 'both' sides to work something else out. Otherwise it will
be plenty of techie cannon-fodder for the mobs while the private helicopters
make like Saigon.

There is so much lifestyle media shoving wealth and opulence in everyone's
face 24/7\. It's one thing when it seems like maybe you might access that at
some point in your life, and another where it seems to be there to taunt you.

------
alecco
How come this story doesn't get above the fold?

23rd and clearly more upvotes than several older stories. Is this a technical
issue or a mod issue?

[http://i.imgur.com/peD9gk2.png](http://i.imgur.com/peD9gk2.png)

~~~
vellum
Techcrunch is probably one of the sites that gets automatically penalized.

[http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-
really...](http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really-
works.html)

------
bonemachine
Am curious as to what the "public beaches" thing is in reference to (being as
the links don't seem to be working in the original article):

    
    
       Some of the blows have been self-inflicted,
       like venture capitalists who compare progressivism
       to Nazism or who block access to public beaches.
    

I mean, I know that libertarian types (in SV and elsewhere) don't seem to put
much stock in this "public property" concept, generally, but is there some
particular local controversy they're alluding to here?

~~~
diogenescynic
Here's the story and discussion from earlier:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7135206)

Vinod Khosla, a billionaire investor, is trying to keep Martins Beach access
private.

~~~
bonemachine
Yep, pretty creepy. But thanks for the tip!

------
justinzollars
Another poorly written argument in a string of media narratives.

------
kremlin
Kind of annoying that the first paragraph's links don't actually link to
anything, I was interested in those would-be links.

------
cyphunk
These articles that treat each section heading as it's own poetic moment, as
if each were meant to be a haiku, are getting old.

------
computerslol
"This is an exceptional period for the most exceptional region in the
country."

wow.

------
goggles99
There seems to be a lot of people here who think that technology ate up all
the jobs.

Actually the largest number of jobs that have disappeared are from the
manufacturing industry. There is a few reasons behind this. Trade agreements,
heavy regulation of pollution and over demanding unions made it far cheaper to
have China (and the rest of the world) manufacture everything for us. The
other reason is that people in the US have changed. They don't want to do
these jobs anymore. They are lazy and feel entitled to better jobs (though
they aren't qualified for them). People would rather go an permanent
disability or welfare. There are literally thousands of labor and
manufacturing jobs sitting unfilled in the US today. Jobs that US citizens
used to do.

Couple this with the lost jobs that illegal Mexicans do today (jobs that
"American's won't do"), and we have found 3/4 of these mysteriously
disappearing jobs. This has nothing to do with Silicon Valley or technology in
general. It is about policy and attitude.

It is ridiculous to make claims that Technology has displaced 18-20% of
American workers in the last 15-20 years. Why do I say 18-20%? Because the
true unemployment today (by more traditional US counting) is currently at 30%.
I'll, give you 10-12% for being in a bad economy - thus a loss of 18-20%.

Show me how this is the fault of technology (and I don't mean from a
sociological standpoint - that is a whole other argument).

~~~
mikeyouse
Everything you just wrote was ignorant and fairly abhorrent, but provides a
pretty great caricature of the arrogance of Silicon Valley, so for that I
applaud you.

    
    
        They don't want to do these jobs anymore. They are lazy
        and feel entitled to better jobs (though they aren't
        qualified for them). People would rather go an permanent
        disability or welfare. There are literally thousands of
        labor and manufacturing jobs sitting unfilled in the US
        today. Jobs that US citizens used to do.
    

The US has lost 40% of its manufacturing jobs since 1980
([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrN](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrN)).
Even still, there are 245,000 manufacturing jobs currently open. However, over
11 million Americans are still unemployed
([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrQ](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrQ)).

    
    
        Couple this with the lost jobs that illegal Mexicans do 
        today (jobs that "American's won't do"), and we have found
        3/4 of these mysteriously disappearing jobs.
    

Over 1 million illegal immigrants left the US in the aftermath of the
financial crisis
([http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rs...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rssnyt))
and the number hasn't markedly increased in the last 6 years
([http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-
imm...](http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-
immigrants-1-01.png)), yet we have persistently high unemployment and low
labor-force participation in concert with baby boomers retiring. Why does the
job market still have 8 million more unemployed than openings
([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrT](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrT))?

    
    
        Because the true unemployment today (by more traditional
        US counting) is currently at 30%. 
    

There's no measure whatsoever that shows unemployment at 30%. The _most_
inclusive rate (U6 -
[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrS](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrS))
shows us at about 13%.

~~~
goggles99
> _The US has lost 40% of its manufacturing jobs since 1980
> ([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrN](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrN)).
> Even still, there are 245,000 manufacturing jobs currently open. However,
> over 11 million Americans are still unemployed
> ([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrQ](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrQ))._

Of course there is only 250,000 jobs open, It's a declining industry. You
don't see the Sears, Home Depot, Dell, or HP (to name a few) doing much hiring
while they are doing layoffs (contracting) do you? This was partially my point
(thanks for backing it up with sources).

My other point was that even when these jobs exist, people don't fill them. If
we had 5 million of these same jobs open, how many people (besides legal and
illegal immigrants) would fill them.

We have lost 7m+ manufacturing jobs and have 11m unemployed. That is a big
percentage. It is estimated that innovation cost only 20-25% of those jobs.
The reasons that I mentioned before cost us the rest. Also consider that US
consumption of manufactured goods since 1990 has tripled. Even if Technology
and innovation cost us 50% of manufacturing jobs, the rise in consumption
should have more than compensated for it.

Don't forget the other jobs that are lost when a factory town loses it's
factory. The barber, the local tax guy, the corner market ETC. They all go out
of business and the employees and owners have been going on unemployment, then
welfare, then disability for years. For every two lost factory jobs, there is
at least one axillary job lost.

> _Over 1 million illegal immigrants left the US in the aftermath of the
> financial crisis
> ([http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rs...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rs...))
> and the number hasn't markedly increased in the last 6 years
> ([http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-
> imm...](http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-imm...)),
> yet we have persistently high unemployment and low labor-force participation
> in concert with baby boomers retiring. Why does the job market still have 8
> million more unemployed than openings
> ([http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrT](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrT))?_

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There are still an
estimated 12 million illegals here. More than half arriving while the US was
riding the dotcom and housing bubbles (They came here for jobs while the
perceived wealth was plentiful and no citizen "needed" these jobs anymore)

> _There 's no measure whatsoever that shows unemployment at 30%. The most
> inclusive rate (U6 -
> [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrS](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrS))
> shows us at about 13%._

30% is a bit of a stretch, I admit - but don't believe the Census Bureau
cheaters. The numbers they give are all based on careful and changing criteria
and technicalities. This sheds some light on what I am talking about.
[http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/real-unemployment-
rate-30/](http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/real-unemployment-rate-30/)

Now just imagine in govt size/jobs had not grown by 40%+ in the last decade.
Unemployment would be way worse.

Not sure how your post proves that my statements are _ignorant and fairly
abhorrent_. You only go on to reinforce what I am saying.

~~~
mikeyouse

        Now just imagine in govt size/jobs had not grown by 40%+
        in the last decade. Unemployment would be way worse.
    

Ugh. Please do some basic research before spouting off this nonsense.
Government employment grew by 1.5% in the last decade. -
[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs4](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs4)

    
    
        30% is a bit of a stretch, I admit - but don't believe
        the Census Bureau cheaters.
    

So you'd rather trust a random site that confirms your biases? The only source
for their 30% number is a poll by IBD/TIPP. The same firm that predicted John
McCain would win the youth vote 74% - 22%. I'll leave that takedown up to Nate
Silver: [http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-
this...](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-
aka-nate.html)

    
    
        Of course there is only 250,000 jobs open, It's a declining industry.
        You don't see the Sears, Home Depot, Dell, or HP (to name a few)
        doing much hiring while they are doing layoffs (contracting)
        do you? This was partially my point (thanks for backing it up with
        sources).
    

You literally said Americans were too lazy and entitled to fill all of the
open manufacturing jobs. Now you agree there aren't any manufacturing jobs?

    
    
        My other point was that even when these jobs exist, people don't
        fill them.
    

That's simply not true. The rate of unfilled manufacturing jobs is the same as
it was in 2006, as it was in 2001.
[[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs6](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs6)].
The overall rate of unfilled jobs per unemployed American is just coming off
its lowest point in history
[[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs7](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs7)].

    
    
        Not sure how your post proves that my statements are ignorant and fairly abhorrent.
    

Your view that people aren't working because they are too lazy or the illegals
took all the jobs is not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Please attempt to
develop the slightest bit of empathy and respect for your common man.

~~~
goggles99
> _Ugh. Please do some basic research before spouting off this nonsense.
> Government employment grew by 1.5% in the last decade.
> -[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs4](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs4)
> _

I like how you pick and choose numbers to suit your points. Are you a
statistician or a marketer? By size/jobs I am referring to contracted jobs
also. I would almost throw fake disability on top there too (that the current
administration almost actively encourages so cooked up unemployment numbers
look better).

> _You literally said Americans were too lazy and entitled to fill all of the
> open manufacturing jobs. Now you agree there aren 't any manufacturing
> jobs?_

Huh? What part of "250,000 jobs open" means none open?

> _That 's simply not true. The rate of unfilled manufacturing jobs is the
> same as it was in 2006, as it was in 2001.
> [[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs6](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs6)].
> The overall rate of unfilled jobs per unemployed American is just coming off
> its lowest point in history
> [[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs7](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs7)]._

Rate relative to what? changing and skewed unemployment numbers? I can't even
read your acronym described statistic charts. They are wrong half of the time
and have reasons beyond the context of the survey the other half. Here is a
statement from a great article from Mike Rowe (I would dare say that not many
have more hands on experience with laborers) on the state of today's workers.

[http://profoundlydisconnected.com/cnn-viewer-has-
questions/](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/cnn-viewer-has-questions/) _Last
week, I spent a few hours with the head of labor relations for one of the
largest engineering firms in the world. He has thousands of positions open
right now. Literally, thousands. After Katrina, his firm poured many millions
of dollars into workforce development down in the Gulf. They trained — for
free — hundreds of workers in a variety of positions that offered all kinds of
opportunities to advance. The pay was fair. The benefits were solid. But the
program ultimately failed. Why? Because virtually every single trainee decided
it was just too damn hot. I’m not even kidding. They just didn’t want to work
in the heat. And so … they didn’t.

In the next few years, this company anticipates 15,000 new openings for
welders and pipe-fitters in the southeast. And the head of recruitment has
absolutely no idea where the workers will come from. That should scare us
all._

> _Your view that people aren 't working because they are too lazy or the
> illegals took all the jobs is not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Please
> attempt to develop the slightest bit of empathy and respect for your common
> man._

Well if you have 245k jobs sitting there, and you have a bunch of people (many
with families) practically going hungry, I would say that is lazy, not sure
what you would call it. People in America have traditionally moved to the
jobs. A company could build a factory out in the middle of nowhere and a town
would spring up around it. No longer. Today people move to the local
welfare/disability office. There is no arguing that the fundamental work ethic
of Americans has changed dramatically over the past 30 years.

IF I see 12 million illegals in the US and 3/4 of employable ones employed -
then I see 10 million citizens crying out for help because they cannot find a
job, Who an I supposed to be empathetic for? Someone who broke a law and
entered our country illegally? or someone who came here or was born legally?

I never stated that we should deport illegals either, I am just stating what
happened to jobs. If 8m illegals are employed today, and 20 years ago it was
2m - to me that means that 6m jobs were filled by them that could have been
filled by citizens. Does that simple math add up? Maybe those jobs wouldn't be
filled because Americans won't pick peaches anymore. That is why I said that
they are lazy. They would rather be a leech on their fellow citizens then be a
janitor. How is that not lazy?

I am getting sick of this thread. You are going way off topic of my statements
and taking them way out of context so go ahead and have the last reply. I
won't be looking at it.

~~~
mikeyouse
I'm providing facts that directly refute your claims and you're responding
with anecdotes from partisans while ignoring all the evidence. It's rather
sad.

I agree that nothing productive will come out of this 'debate', so good day. I
hope you find some compassion in your life.

------
michaelochurch
Underwhelming article.

There is some value in it. The focus of the current crop of VC darlings _is_
competitive. Instead of "let's build something new", it's "let's use VC rocket
fuel to blow up something old, and get rich amid the chaos". That culture
exists because of the VCs' emotional need to feel superior; it's not the fault
of the engineers.

The overarching theme of betrayal and decline in Silicon Valley is worth
noting. California used to represent a Middle Path between the historical
extremes of class warfare (culminating in violent revolt) and acceptance of
subordination (culminating in persistent, generational slavery). You could Go
West, find clean air and cheap land, build something awesome, and win just by
_outperforming_. You didn't have to fight or cower, you could walk away and do
your own thing and be really good at it. You weren't trying to destroy or
humiliate or "disrupt" incumbents. You just went to a place where they were
irrelevant and (to borrow from Havel) lived in truth.

That living in truth probably ended around 1990. Now, Valley startups are the
new face of status quo assholes, except with several times the arrogance and
hubris. Let's make one comparison based on how departing employees are
treated. Banks (and law firms) give severance when they fire people, and
consider those who leave to be alumni. VC darlings ruin the reputations of
those who part them. Banks have honest layoffs when business is bad. VC
startups have bullshit PIPs. That's just one example. On external and internal
matters, whether your focus is on customers or employees or the environment,
Wall Street is _far_ more ethical than any of these VC darlings are. It's not
even close. And unless you end up as an architect or data scientist or in R&D,
the work in tech proper isn't actually any more interesting than what's in
finance (and the latter is compensated much better). Most software engineers
end up as drones churning tickets they don't care about, which is _far_ worse
than being a quant at a hedge fund. (The work in finance isn't inspiring in
the "I'm changing the world" sense, but it's tolerable and often fun.)

Wall Street also is not afraid to reward excellence, while Valley companies
form no-poach pacts that put a ceiling on engineer compensation and force the
best ones either into management or into hedge funds once they have kids.

What is Silicon Valley now? It's a finishing school for the spoiled, snot-
nosed, spawn of the old establishment, whose parents pull connections to make
it look like their mediocre progeny actually built something while all the
work was done by H1-B indentured servants and clueless 22-year-olds getting
0.01% equity while working 90 hours per week.

Silicon Valley deserves to be Public Enemy #1 (although, in fact, I don't
think it is; it's not nearly as hated as we in the HN bubble believe) but the
reasons are far more numerous and much deeper than what the OP describes.

~~~
nostrademons
There's a lot of historical revisionism here. Silicon Valley was built on the
defense industry. Lockheed Martin established a factory here to build Polaris
nuclear missiles to literally "blow something up" (specifically, Russians).
Fairchild Semiconductor got its funding from Fairchild Camera and Instrument,
which got its start making bombsights and gunsights for the U.S. military.

Going back farther, manifest destiny was all about stealing land from the
indigenous people who weren't as technologically advanced and gifting it to
settlers to spread our cultural values.

If you look at the large-scale history of the world, it basically consists of
"blowing up something old", usually literally. On a micro-level there's a lot
of good that goes on in the world, but if you want to be big enough to get
into the history books it usually consists of crushing your opposition enough
that they don't get to write the history. Usually if someone spins a narrative
of idealism that involves doing good for the world, they're trying to
manipulate you. We can be good to _each other_ , but when it comes to the
whole world as a closed system, it will remain the world, which is the sum
total of all the good and bad and jockeying for power that goes on in it.

------
briandh
> That has been a fair assessment historically, but that is no longer the
> case. Today’s companies are increasingly destroying the value of existing
> companies to create the next generation of products and services

The automobile destroyed the value of existing companies, too.

