
Is Silicon Valley getting too big for its boots? - manish_gill
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/technology-and-politics
======
adventured
Jealously is always an ugly thing.

The technology sphere is one of the few in the US economy that is still fully
functional, dynamic, often fast growing, highly innovative, and wildly
profitable. It's also one of the few in which you can still get very wealthy
starting from very little, and do it fairly quickly.

The parts of the country mired in perpetual erosion, from Detroit to Baltimore
etc, are extremely envious of Silicon Valley. The truth is, Silicon Valley has
separated itself off from the collapse that the rest of America has
experienced, and it has been able to do so because so much of tech is still a
free market. That free market has produced bountiful wealth, and outsized
influence that goes with it, while much of the rest of the country has stopped
producing new wealth.

There simply are no other fields in which I can spend $100 tomorrow and set up
a new business (AWS, or a dedicated server, and off you go). I need no
permission. I need no lawyers. I need no zoning permits. I need no
environmental studies. I need no retail space or warehouse. I need no tv spot,
newspaper ad, or yellow pages placement. I need no consultants. I need no
incorporation to get started. I don't need an army of workers. I don't even
need to buy any software. I'm limited only by ... me. Oh and I need a $150
Windows XP machine with notepad and a free copy of WSFTP from 1997 that would
run equally well on Windows 95, with a shitty $50 17" LCD monitor - and most
of that hardware you can pick up for free from lots of sources.

~~~
obviouslygreen
You're pointing out the advantages of development as a field and assigning
them to Silicon Valley as if the two were identical. Not only that, you're
pointing out Detroit et al as though industry were totally location-dependent,
without any consideration to one of tech's greatest strengths (for many of
us), that you can work in the field from just about anywhere.

Accusing Silicon Valley detractors of jealousy and envy contributes absolutely
nothing to the discussion, particularly when they are talking about the
culture of a place and you are conflating it with an industry.

~~~
adventured
No, actually what I pointed out is that Silicon Valley has benefited
tremendously from riding said field. I did not say Silicon Valley == tech
sector; it's the greatest embodiment of it. The only reason Silicon Valley has
the culture it does today, is courtesy of the technology sector and the wealth
that has come with it. I'm not confusing the concepts, they require each
other. The reason FWD.us is able to make waves is because of the wealth and
influence the technology sector has made possible.

You can attempt to work in a field from just about anywhere, but that's not
how most companies are started, that's not how talent pools, that's not how
rich geographic ecosystems of labor + capital are formed, and that's not how
Big Things happen. You'll also find, education from anywhere is not as
beneficial as the total punch of collaboration + social + network value of
actually going to MIT or Stanford or Wharton or Harvard et al.

There are very good reasons why so many of the great tech companies have come
from Silicon Valley. There are very good reasons why - in the age of being
able to 'work from anywhere' - Silicon Valley continues to be Silicon Valley.

14 out of the youngest 25 members of the Forbes 400 are products of Silicon
Valley.

~~~
jbooth
"The only reason Silicon Valley has the culture it does today, is courtesy of
the technology sector and the wealth that has come with it."

I'd give a fair amount of credit to the universities, the gold rush and the
acid craze, too. Tech culture didn't just pop into existence at unixtime 0.

~~~
theklub
Don't forget, Hewlett Packard - Founded in 1939 in Palo Alto...

------
diego_moita
I am surprised by the attitude from people here to this post.

In its 3 points the common theme in the article is that the geeks don't
listen, are self-centered, don't care about others, ... yada-yada. I know this
talk very well because it is what I hear from my wife most of the time, about
a thousand things.

Now, in political terms it is irrelevant if this is correct or not. In a
democracy the perception of a majority is the truth, despite any logical
consistence. If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care".
Logical coherence alone doesn't buy you empathy. We need to avoid the label of
arrogant if we want any kind of political influence.

I think it is worth thinking a little more carefully about the article. Not on
whether it is correct or not, but if this perception is common or not.

[edit] Typo [/edit]

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, that's all well and good, but it reminds me of some douche with a camera
going to a black/muslim/white/whatever neighborhood, insulting everyone, and
then when people get pissed, "I TOLD you they were uncivilized!".

The first graf of the article starts with the author being butthurt about
geeks not finding the economist as relevant as the author/employee does
(disclaimer: I used to subscribe, either their quality has notably declined
the last 5 years or I've gotten smarter).

The rest of it is place-ism about how geeks should stay out of politics and
leave it to the oil companies and defense contractors where it belongs.

It's not reinforcing geek stereotypes to point it out as a crap article.

~~~
jljljl
Where does the author say geeks should stay out of politics?

I'm not seeing "place-ism" in the article the same way you are. The author
appears to be disputing the arrogance and isolationism often attributed to
Silicon Valley by pointing out that groups like FWD.us are getting involved in
political discussions. He seems to celebrate the fact that Silicon Valley is
getting involved in the "politics-as-usual"

------
brotchie
"IF YOU'RE an engineer in Silicon Valley, you have no incentive to read The
Economist,"

Wow, "unnamed tech entrepreneur", I strongly disagree.

I have yet to find a news source that competes with the Economist. Just
reading a single issue cover-to-cover gives you an unparalleled snapshot of
what's going on around the world. They aren't afraid to use technical jargon,
and are pretty brutal about the assumed knowledge of their readership.

If I were able to touch only a single thing outside the technology "bubble";
the Economist would be my #1 choice.

Disclosure: I have no current, or prior, relationship with the Economist. I
have merely benefited enormously and grown a lot as a person using the
knowledge that I've gained reading it (or listening to the audio edition) over
the past few years.

~~~
icebraining
Aren't you missing the point a little? The context were incentives in social
events; (s)he's saying that unlike in places were reading the Economist might
be valued (or even expected) by peers, SV isn't one of them. (Not that I would
know)

------
rdl
A know a _lot_ of Silicon Valley people who love The Economist; I'm actually a
subscriber just so I can read it on the iPad. OTOH, I rarely read The New
Yorker.

If the author of that article would like to visit Silicon Valley and see what
it's like first-hand, I'd be happy to show him or her around. I promise no
lame parties, and plenty of people who care deeply about policy, direction and
magnitude of scientific, technical, economic, and social progress, etc.

------
mindslight
> _Among the biggest political debates this year—gun control, immigration
> reform, deficit reduction—I see few signs of solutionism at play._

This single sentence ultimately highlights the failings of the entire
philosophy that created the article. The reason he sees few "signs of
solutionism" is that specific solutions for these problems abound, the
"debate" is over which is acceptable. The author enjoys living in a world
where whomever expends the most effort repeating their viewpoint through mass
media eventually wins "political consensus" and some centrally-dictated
incremental change gets made for their favored direction. Of course if you're
a professional journalist who is ultimately supported by vested interests that
align with your views, this is a great world to live in.

The fact that something as amazingly straightforward to solve as gun "control"
(hint: there's two very simple solutions) is _still and always_ "up for
debate" just shows the brokenness of that system. It's not particularly
surprising that techies, having chosen _doing_ instead of _talking_ all their
lives, want to focus on ways to move the world forward instead of expending
energy on the quagmire of politics.

(Of course none of what I said is addressing the looming problem that this
"tech uber alles" philosophy gets watered down and ends up letting hackers
comfort themselves that technically-deficient but socially-popular centralized
websites are empowering individuals rather than merely different masters, but
that's a topic for a different day)

~~~
Androsynth
This article is incoherent and mostly hand waving. The fact that everyone is
disagreeing with it for different reasons either speaks to its shallowness or
to the fact that it is just wrong about the valley being ideologically
homogeneous.

The part you put in parenthesis is the true problem that every hacker should
be contemplating every day.

------
d0gsbody
Although I do enjoy the Economist's coverage of subjects like Africa, EU
politics, book reviews, and obituaries, I find their coverage of American
politics to sometimes be very sub-par. A couple of examples:

\- Endless war-mongering. They pushed heavily for the disastrous war in Iraq.
After the Boston bombing, they asked whether America was getting complacent.
They post a lot of stuff implying that America should go to war in Syria.

\- Their coverage of American presidential politics is horrible. In 2000, they
endorsed George W Bush, a political scion who was clearly an anti-intellectual
and bit of a fool, over Al Gore, a visionary vice president who had co-
presided over the longest economic expansion in American history. In 2004,
after 4 disastrous years, their "endorsement" issue was titled "Incompetent vs
Incoherent".

This stuff, especially the war-mongering, has made me care a lot less about
the Economist than I did when I was, say, 18. Given that SV is a very forward-
looking place, it is unsurprising that the Economist is less respected than it
is in many other locales.

~~~
refurb
So what you're saying is that you don't like The Economist because their
biases don't align with yours?

~~~
jbooth
In the case of the economist, it's pretty jarring to see a magazine normally
full of facts and figures turn into a political hack job when it comes to
covering US politics.

Bush comes into office with a balanced budget and a recession, passes a really
big tax cut that brings us into deficits, they applaud. Passes an expensive an
inefficient medicare expansion, they're silent.

Obama comes into office with a trillion dollar deficit and a near-depression
on his hands, passes tax cuts and a stimulus bill while attacking healthcare
costs, and he's "presiding over a spending problem". Nevermind that he's been
cutting discretionary spending since 2010.

It's not that their biases don't align with mine -- it's that their biases are
so transparently hacky that it destroys any credibility the rest of the
magazine has.

~~~
refurb
You don't think your oversimplifying the situation? There was more going on
when Bush took office than just a balanced budget.

BTW, Obama isn't attacking healthcare costs, he's expanding coverage. The cost
part comes next.

~~~
jbooth
Sure, there was a recession, which I alluded to, and other stuff, well, I was
working with a few sentences, not a book.

The CBO graded obamacare as reducing medicare costs (the biggest driver of our
budget deficits). Expanding coverage should have a positive impact on costs,
too. But I agree that expanding coverage was at least as important the bill's
authors.

I wasn't trying to oversimplify the situation more than is necessary for a few
sentence summary -- and people could disagree with my characterization. The
coverage towards each president from the Economist is enlightening though,
especially when you divorce it from policy or compare their coverage of
similar policies from both administrations. That's where the hackiness comes
in.

~~~
refurb
Fair enough. Your original post just came across a little "this is how it is".

Keep an eye out on the cost when the ACA fully rolls out. I'm in the industry
and it's not turning out the way people predicted.

------
jordn
I'm not familiar with the precise aims of FWD.us but if it's coming across as
to the public as wanting to ease the regulations so that they can "fire
Americans" and "recruit cheaper software engineers from abroad", I think they
might have a PR problem.

~~~
Roboprog
Once you get past the splash page on the fwd.us web site, the heading is "The
Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform".

What else is that supposed to mean, spin not withstanding? (although it might
not be so much "fire Americans" as "lower salaries for existing employees")

------
conover
The dig at "big data" was interesting. The article contends that their are
"subtler, wiser ways of thinking in fields that it may not be suited (such as
politics)". I wonder what "subtler and wiser" ways the article is referring
to? Later on, it admits that Zuckerberg et. al. had to resort to lobbying to
try get things done. So is lobbying the "subtler, wiser" way of thinking? If
it is, I'm personally ready for something new.

Edit: My comment should not to be construed as support for fwd.us, it's
policies or "big data" applied to politics. It just seems like that
unqualified "subtler, wiser" is meant to imply that people should stay at home
and let the _real_ political players play.

~~~
eruditely
I really don't see how it says to "let the real political players play". They
probably just think they have better 'method' than big data.

I have my own viewpoints about big data, but they could stop with the mystic
nonsense and just actually specify what they're talking about, but that does
not mean they implied that "the real political players play".

~~~
conover
"Interestingly, Mr Packer takes all this to be a sign that the tech industry
may be showing signs of maturity. Rather than airily rise above the fray, or,
worse, try to produce a technological fix to a political problem, it, or at
least those elements represented by FWD.us and the grizzly political hacks it
has hired, has chosen to dive deep into the political mud."

In this section, I take "maturity" to mean that Zuckerburg et. al. have had to
emulate what others have done: "diving deep into the political mud". A
technological or any other type fix seemingly cannot work (according to this
commentator). Only big money (elements represented by FWD.us) and "political
hacks" can get the job done. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

------
venomsnake
From what I have read (still not made my attempt to move to the Valley) it is
very interesting mix of people that are liberal in social sense and
libertarian in economic one with some general anarchism just for the fun of
it. It is a bit tough for a non hacker to grok the culture.

------
squozzer
My take on it is this --

1) The Economist piece is really a reference to a New Yorker piece.

2) The author seems to be indulging in schadenfreude / triumphalism over the
"new" SV strategy of engaging in politics.

It's a rather stinky bit of smugness really.

If any locale has gotten too big for its' boots, it's NYC, especially the
borough that provides The New Yorker with most of its' readers. This is both
fact and more importantly, a very common perception by those who live outside
the five boroughs.

As far as "playing ball" politically, I'm sure the author, if asked nicely,
can cite numerous instances where ball-playing has hurt both their personal
interests and what they perceive to be the "national / global interest."

So to the author I would say, "Be careful in your wish-making."

------
tdees40
"So it is reasonable to be wary of an industry of rich and powerful men
eliding its own interests with that of the country at large, or of claims that
techniques appropriate to fix problems in one field can be applied mutatis
mutandis in another."

Words to live by.

------
segmondy
Too big for its boot? IT industry in US makes more money than Entertainment
Industry. IT industry is the top field in this country via the sheer amount of
money we make. Yet we have very little influence in Washington. We are just a
bunch of nerds and geeks. Download a public file that someone shouldn't have
made world readable, you get prosecuted and jailed. Damn nerds! We have been
bare feet for too long. We don't even have boots, let alone get too big for
our boots. IT needs to lobby the hell out of DC, lobby/bribe, whatever they
call it. The laws being passed should be passed on behalf of our industry, not
to protect dying industries.

------
kabanossen
Read Steven Johnson's post about Packer's article, interesting and clarifying

<https://medium.com/the-peer-society/410c644cebe4>

~~~
tropicalmug
And the HN discussion:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5745444>

------
wisty
tl;dr: The economist has sunk to playing the man, not the ball.

~~~
sbuk
It's been relatively "tabloid" for a couple of years. In fact I go as far to
say that the majority of publications (including The Times, the NYT, and other
highbrow broadsheets) have gone down this route. Journalism seems to think
it's voice is the only voice we should listen too, trouble is, it rarely knows
what it's talking about.

~~~
garysweaver
I wouldn't go so far as to say the Economist rarely knows what it is talking
about. I'm a subscriber, and I thought I don't support all of its views, I
think it is still a very intelligent and thoughtful publication. If you're not
a subscriber, maybe you try it out for a while in earnest before making an
assessment.

~~~
sbuk
I _was_ a subscriber and avid reader for around 15 years. I'm speaking from
experience.

Edit: I stopped my subscription because the once challenging publication has
become, IMO, far too populist.

------
paganel
> Meanwhile, a good old-fashioned lobbying effort continues in Washington; the
> New York Times reports a push to ease regulatory oversight of the hiring of
> foreigners and the firing of Americans.

I thought we were past the corn-laws way of thinking, or anyway I was
expecting better from The Economist. Plus, and most important, it's
economically disadvantageous in the long term.

------
spacecadet
all your base.

------
sultezdukes
There was no reason for me to read any further as soon I hit

 _It is a place where bland libertarian fantasies about technology replacing
(or "disrupting") politics are welcomed_...

