
How Silicon Valley Fuels an Informal Caste System - edward
https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal-caste-system/
======
prepend
This is an odd use of of the term caste. Or even class. Both of these imply
low or no mobility within social hierarchies. But I don’t think this is the
case.

“An Outer Party member could reach the Inner Party by chancing into an early
job at a lottery-ticket company (such as Facebook or Google) or by becoming a
successful entrepreneur. But that’s rare; most of the Outer Party prefers
working for the Inner Party, gradually accumulating equity through stock
grants and appreciating real estate.” -If you look at the bios of VC “inner
party” people, very few were born VC. Many became VC based on their work
experience. The quote calls this a “lottery-ticket” experience implying that
there’s no free will involved with the shift between statuses.

The article also calls out the difficulty of moving from service to skilled
worker “outer party”-“The Service Class will likely never be able to
drive/shop/handyman enough to rise to the Outer Party, at least not without
additional training or skills.“

This is really odd because how else would you change status of not through
training or skills? Complaining about randomness for skilled->VC and also
about need for education for service->skilled seems like a mixed message.

Caste means a rigid hierarchy with no ability to change or even being born
into ones status and no or limited marriage between castes [0]. This is not
the case based on the level of mobility into and out of status that clearly
breaks the definition of caste. This old paper from 1999 shows 24% of firms
led by just Chinese or Indian immigrants [1]. So obviously they could not have
been born into Silicon Valley castes if they are new to the US altogether.

The mobility to enter, exit, and change between these four defined statuses
seems, to me, to disprove the entire premise of this article.

Perhaps the article would be more accurate if addressing issues of wealth and
wealth segmenting social constructs like marriage, socialization within
communities, etc.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste)
[1]
[http://wwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_502ASR.pdf](http://wwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_502ASR.pdf)

~~~
amarkov
The traditional American dream is that you change your status through making
friends and simple hard work. If you're the hardest working and most dedicated
Walmart sales associate, you'll quickly become a manager, and you can iterate
on that at least until you're a regional director or something.

From that perspective, it's weird to look in on a typical Silicon Valley
company, where it's understood that only people with specific technical
knowledge are qualified to make important decisions. And it's downright scary
to look at Uber, where the drivers have no internal mobility even in theory.

~~~
prepend
I’ve worked exclusively in tech for the past 30 years for 10 orgs or so. I
learned new skills through formal and informal training. Not your Walmart
example but I both progressed organically and joined company teams. Nowhere
was there a static tech team without mobility. Maybe I’m just lucky but even
giant banks and Gov orgs had career ladders.

If anything this is less of an issue in tech than other industries.

Tech knowledge isn’t innate, no one is born with it. So it’s good that
decisions are made with people who have specific tech knowledge. It’s also
good that tech knowledge is one of the most democratic, accessible, and
learnable knowledges out there. I know dozens of high level tech leaders who
have no degree at all, a couple with no high school diploma and one who
dropped out of middle school.

------
raincom
Social classes existed before; when revolutions occurred, the composition of
each class and the composition of society into classes change.

Just like there are almost 50% of women in a society, the bottom social class
(in terms of power, money, etc) is huge. So, whatever mobility one perceives
is in the bottom class: moving from $15 hour security guard job to $150K jr
dev job.

People from non-American countries recognize this. However, in America, the
bottom class since WWII till late 1970's, had a nice job, pension, a home, two
cars, with one spouse working; this created the illusion of 'class less'
society in America.

When one says that there is no mobility, we are comparing the life of today
with that of post-WW2 middle class era.

Even if we look at John Rawls, his difference principle does not eradicate
classes. Basically, that principle in one version is same as "a rising tide
lifting all boats"; in another version, it is fair to lift some poor boats
higher than other boats, even at the expense of the latter.

~~~
landryraccoon
One reason I don’t think the caste system analogy holds is because you can’t
overthrow Silicon Valley with a violent revolution. You can maybe destroy it,
but it can’t be stolen. A caste system is arbitrary, a meritocracy is not.

The article even admits this implicitly by saying that skills and training are
necessary to be admitted to the inner party. Farmers may overthrow the
hereditary monarchy because frankly the monarchs never had anything but
historical accidents and tradition for their position anyway. But if farmers
overthrow google who’s going to keep the servers running? Who’s going to fix
bugs, manage projects, write code?

The same people will end up running everything anyway, because they are the
only ones who know how to do it.

------
tdevito
I used to be an Instacart Shopper and I'm currently taking a web development
bootcamp in Manhattan and now I'm on track to make more money than my parents
ever did, which is a win in my book. I will do everything I can to make it the
next step to the "Inner Party", but what if I don't? Does that mean I "lost at
life" if I only end up Upper Middle Class? This author is trying to push a
neo-marxist victim ideology onto anyone not in the "Inner Party", and it's
insulting. I am not a victim of anything, certainly not some impenetrable
"caste system".

~~~
pizzetta
Maybe Wired knows that and all they are doing is trying to create discord in
order to have more engagement and drive more views.

~~~
prepend
You make a good point. I am trying to explain old wired vs. new wired. Old
wired was really trying to do something- connect people, unleash potential,
whatever something they gave a damn. New wired is trying to sell more to the
dwindling audience created by old wired.

They may be just as smart, but wired’s old dumb stories (“The Future is Push”)
were at least earnest.

------
nannotequalnan
i've lived for long periods inside and outside SV, which I'll flatter myself
into thinking gives me an insider and outsiders perspective.

i share the author's sense of horror that SV is becoming a dystopia led by
tech elite that think they're building a utopia, but literally have little to
no meaningful contact with people that live two or more rungs below them on
the socioeconomic ladder.

------
timavr
It is really weird if we talk about issues from Marxist class struggle
framework.

Homelessness exist because rich don’t care, which is an empty argument.

The better argument is that we don’t have systems in place to deal with the
problem. Let’s build them.

~~~
1986
Such systems cost money, generally collected through taxation. At least in the
US, the rich have largely demonstrated that they would rather direct money
towards lobbying against a rise in taxation on them, than to the taxes that
would fund such a system. So at its core, "the rich don't care" isn't an empty
argument, but rather an accurate assessment of one of the root causes.

~~~
sokoloff
It's perfectly possible to care about an issue supported by taxation and still
be opposed to higher general taxation.

I'm very much pro-UBI, yet anti government waste. Too much of government acts,
or at least appears to act, as little fiefdoms, employing people with
relatively comfortable salaries, no market pressure, and little other controls
to ensure they run tightly, efficiently, and effectively.

If you want to raise taxes to _only_ fund UBI, I'm in. If you want to raise
taxes because you don't like that some monkeys have more bananas and you think
society could make better, unspecified, use of those bananas, I'm against.

~~~
extralego
Your views exemplify selfish priorities and an uncaring worldview. If you care
about others, let it be reflected in your behavior and people (like me) will
stop doubting you.

Is your issue with government in the abstract or _your_ government?

If the latter, the caring solution is to change the government through voting,
vocalizing and organizing. Governments are instituted to maintain a level of
civility in a society. Naturally, poverty erodes the means for civility so
governments in civilized nations around the world successfully apply their
government as an organization sufficient for this task. If that sufficiency
falls below their approval, they repair it.

If your issue concerns government in the abstract, then quite simply: _you
don’t care about people in poverty_. If you can’t find the decency to be
honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

UBI prioritizes your economy, not your neighbors in poverty. Note _Socialists
do not support UBI_ and for anyone concerned that socialists simply want
handouts, this should table that argument once and for all.

Social programs prioritize caring for _people_ by:

\- Decoupling access to basic commodity needs from the whims and woes of the
market

\- Built-in protections from abuse. Uncaring folk like to criticize welfare
cash recipients as dishonest and lazy. Social programs that avoid cash also
avoid this potential altogether.

~~~
mathgladiator
Are we going to play empathy Olympics?

The problem is that you can't decouple commodity needs from the market because
life is suffering.

~~~
germinalphrase
I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. Is this a moral argument about the
value of suffering? That suffering is inevitable so lack of access the market
can/should be ignored?

------
_zachs
Dang! If only having a good learning and work ethic wasn't so hard!

------
thedevilslawyer
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as
an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

\- John Steinbeck

Are you temporarily embarrassed?

You may not realise it, but you could be a temporarily embarrassed
millionaire. Do you plan to someday in the future have more money? Are you
concerned that your taxes are too high, because someday you might pay too much
tax. Do you ride the bus only because this year you can’t afford that luxury
car you’re going to have? Do you live pay cheque to pay cheque like most
people just because you haven’t had your lucky break.

[0]
[http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/](http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/)

~~~
joefourier
HN might not exactly be the right audience for this message, given the nature
of Ycombinator.

And even on an average American software engineer salary, it's not extremely
challenging to become a millionaire - you just have to be frugal and save a
large percentage of your salary for a decade or two (depending on your
compensation & stock options).

~~~
Simon_says
Keep in mind that a millionaire meant something entirely different when this
phrase was first uttered. It'd be something closer to $10 million in wealth
today. Today being a millionaire just means you won't eat cat food when you
retire.

~~~
prepend
A frugal engineer on an $98k adjusted salary can pretty easily make $10M over
a 45 year career. Not accounting for huge windfalls from stock, etc.

The median salary for an electrical engineer was $97,970 [0]. If you invest
$50k/year at 6% return you get $10M in 45 years.

Of course this requires pretty massive discipline. But it’s easy in the sense
that if you go to a good stem school, get a job and keep it, and don’t get
sick, anyone can do it.

Of course 6% is super conservative as the total return of the s&p over 90
years is 9.8% [1]. If was you could get that rate somehow, you only have to
save $15k/year.

Of course this is really hard in the sense of willpower, discipline, etc. And
there’s certainly bad luck that make it not 100% certain, but it’s an open
path to anyone in America (and other countries). Even for $10M.

[0] [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/mobile/...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/mobile/home.htm) [1]
[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-
average...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-
annual-return-sp-500.asp)

~~~
RugnirViking
1) who is getting 6% annual return on small amounts of money and where? 2)
casually investing half of your salary before tax. That works out to around
65% of your money after tax if we're being conservative. If you were able to
do that, I say spend that 65% of income that is just free income presumably if
it's not going to rent or food. 45 years of massively more comfortable during
the prime of your health and brain function is probably worth it over
eventually being very rich in your later years

~~~
prepend
It’s not convenient, and certainly not casual, but there are many doing this
in a variety of configurations. Check out the Financially Independent, Retire
Early folks.

Wouldn’t it be super strange if it was casually easy for everyone to earn
$10M. Comically, if it was, then we’d have hyper inflation until it got hard
again.

I provided a link to the s&p history. Check it out. Anyone who can open a
vanguard account can buy an s&p index. Of course maybe you’re wondering who is
getting 6% risk-free and the answer is no one.

Past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns, but it’s a good idea
anyway. Check out Buffet’s bet on whether index funds will beat the
professional hedge fund managers in a 10 year period [0].

My point is that while very difficult due to discipline and with some risk, it
is possible if you set your mind to it. As opposed to say, winning the lotto
which has no reasonable way for a hard working person to pay out. So if you
want to join the inner circle, it’s better to just get training and work hard
for 45 years than to win the lotto.

You can certainly trade this for being “massively more comfortable” if that’s
your preference. Most people do.

Every time I look at my Netflix viewing history over long periods I kind of
wish I hadn’t traded hard work for “massive comfort.”

[0] [http://blog.longnow.org/02018/02/09/warren-buffett-wins-
mill...](http://blog.longnow.org/02018/02/09/warren-buffett-wins-million-
dollar-long-bet/)

