
The Trouble with Silicon Valley - rbanffy
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/wheres-my-flying-car/603025/
======
rjkennedy98
I think the worst part of Silicon Valley is this idea that everything is a
technical problem.

Traffic issue? Let's not solve the political problems to make public
infrastructure, uber, self driving cars, (even tunnels underground) will save
the day!

Education? we need iPads in schools delivering "personalized" education.

Every issue across the board is like this.

Its all B.S. and somehow they have convinced "educated" people that their
vision is only correct one. They have co-opted the imagination of elite
Americans and that is their biggest crime.

~~~
spaced-out
>Traffic issue? Let's not solve the political problems to make public
infrastructure, uber, self driving cars, (even tunnels underground) will save
the day!

If you follow the politics of the Bay Area, you would know that tech companies
do lobby for infrastructure and housing improvements, and are even willing to
put up their own money to fund it.

These proposals are generally DOA because the most powerful voting block,
property owners, will aggressively oppose anything that may threaten the
appreciation of their "investment".

~~~
ethanbond
It’s time for Georgism. We’re all victims, even the corporations and the mega-
rich. Capitalists and socialists alike ought to be able to get behind it at
least as a vast improvement over the status quo.

~~~
chongli
I love the idea of a land value tax, but it has about as much chance of being
approved by the landed gentry (let’s call them what they really are) as any of
the other measures that threaten their “investment.”

~~~
aeternum
I also like the idea and there should be a way to phase it in slowly so that
it does not tank property values. Referendums that increase property taxes do
get passed regularly.

A big issue with LVT is that it seems it can easily result in displacement of
residents. Long-time homeowners, especially those on fixed income may not be
able to keep up with the increasing tax and will be forced to sell.

------
_bxg1
I think one of the problems is that software developers are focused on domains
that you can do with _just_ software (and just expertise in software). Domains
where something can be prototyped in a weekend, with no research or regulatory
hurdles or real-world knowledge. Something you can just put on the internet
and let it go. This leads to a huge number of business ideas that are either
a) for developers, or b) really superficial like "X but with software".

I think there's a huge market opportunity for programmers who are willing to
dive deep into other fields, and coordinate closely with people who don't work
or think the same way that they do. Domains where _the point isn 't the
software_. Governance, energy, industrial design, scientific research, etc.
These are areas that seem ripe for software-based improvements, but have
gotten orders of magnitude less attention than, say, cloud hosting.

I don't think the blame lies with a single party: software developers are
biased by a desire for agility and being in control, but members of the above
domains are probably also not taking the initiative they should be to solicit
these kinds of solutions.

What if there were a conference that specifically paired software developers
with these other hard-to-penetrate industries, as a cross-pollenation
exercise? I wonder what would come of it.

~~~
non-entity
I've seen positions for "scientific programmers" that seem pretty interesting
and I imagine a lot of those fields could be helped with software, but always
want a PhD in the domain field.

~~~
_bxg1
That sounds like more of a "you're a scientist but you write bespoke code as
an effort-multiplier". What I'm talking about is, you go and talk with people
in those fields and figure out what they waste their time doing, and build
generalized tools that can amplify effort and improve process at a much
grander scale.

~~~
spaced-out
At one time I thought that would be my dream job, which is why I got a minor
in Physics. I ultimately went and got a job at a normal tech company because I
realized:

1\. Working in that field, funding is often tied to government grants, so I
would have been making a lot less money, and likely working harder.

2\. Little to no opportunities for advancement, or even having your ideas
heard, because you'll be the only one in the room without a PhD, in an
industry where those 3 letters are literally everything that matters.

3\. Even people with PhD are treated like crap in the hard sciences. I have a
friend that has a PhD in biology, makes less than 1/3rd of what I do, and
works longer hours.

If we as a society want the best minds to go into those fields, we need to pay
those people more.

~~~
_bxg1
What if people started software companies tailored to those segments and sold
to them as customers, instead of trying to get hired there?

~~~
spaced-out
I haven't looked into that, but in my anecdotal experience the problems are:

1\. There is simply less money in that line of work because it's tied to
government grants.

2\. The Physics field (which I have direct experience in) is dominated by old
people with PhDs. They're very smart people, but also tend to be stubborn, and
(again generalizing) are not too keen on listening to the opinions of people
who don't have a PhD.

------
malvosenior
> _We could focus, as journalists tend to do, on the depredations of the
> connected life. As Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have devoured the online
> world, they have undermined traditional media, empowered propagandists, and
> widened America’s political divides._

At least they lead with this so you know that it's going to be another
mainstream media piece lamenting their lack of influence in the world.

------
buboard
what if the extrapolations from the past are wrong? Perhaps people don't work
on faster airplanes because they don't need faster airplanes, but instead they
want to avoid traveling altogether. sci fi ideas from the past are nice, but
they were based on linear extrapolations from their contemporary reality --
faster horses indeed. imho the primary focus of innovation at this time should
be biotech for life extension , eradication of disease and hunger.

Faster roads in an increasingly remotely-connected world does not seem very
forward-looking, instead the world needs faster networks , cleaner cities, the
ability to become independent from megacorps, and decent communities that can
be enjoyable to live in. economists or technologists often claim to know what
people want, but maybe they 're not being observant of what makes people
unhappy

------
whakim
While there are plenty of problems with Silicon Valley, I'm not sure that we
should lay slow growth and widening inequality in the US at tech's doorstep.
For one, the timelines don't even align: inequality has been growing (and
growth slowing) since the 70s and 80s, not only in the United States but also
in most other developed countries. Neither is the author particularly well-
versed on the economics of inequality - during much of the 19th century (i.e.,
the Industrial Revolution), inequality continued to increase even though there
was an upturn in certain indicators such as real wage growth and health
outcomes. The author even seems to admit this at one point, so at the end of
the day the piece simply boils down to "Tech is bad, so we should figure out a
higher-growth industry to make bets on."

------
shhshahassa
> they have undermined traditional media, empowered propagandists, and widened
> America’s political divides.

An incredible statement from the Atlantic. The lack of self awareness is
astonishing.

