I'm guessing they're talking about the "startups" who hemorrhage money on a trendy office location and uncomfortable chairs.
It'd be cool if we had a different name for being several rounds deep, private, and profitless.
For examples, I didn't even have to leave the linked article:
- The link off the article: "Silicon Valley's reality: The party is over"
Yes, the whole 16 hour work-day for potentially valueless-shares "party." Excuse me if I'm not wearing my party hat. You'd never see "Coal miner's reality: The underground rave is over", nor would you see them taking a shot at executive compensation in the banking industry.
- From the article: "Margaret Quigley, 27, a techie with some coding experience, is on the hunt for a job in San Francisco...there is literally Airbnb — for cats!...'Do I see value in the platform?'.. she has also rejected multiple sales job offers"
Ah yes, the non-programmer vague "sales techie" living in the modern day political and corporate Gomorrah and a trivialization of the tech industry. Yes, quip about some startup no one has heard of and avoid talking about a company like SpaceX that is inarguably changing the world by doing things at the scale of NASA.
- "The candidate wanted more money, the opportunity to work from home three days a week and to set the hours. Six months ago the company scrapped free in-office yoga and massages."
Again, trying to paint tech workers (with these demands, he/she was likely an engineer) as spoiled, pampered children.
The rare/uncommon perks exist because it's hard to find people capable of doing the engineering work, and once you find those people, it's very easy for them to be ground down to a nub. Funny that CNBC isn't brave enough to talk about the perks that politicians receive from lobbying groups.
The media's skadeglädje for tech could be because tech made media worthless. Easier than ever for anyone to publish stuff and block ads.
The media calls these large companies "startups" because the companies themselves do it. Because it makes them sound hip and trendy and worth investing in.
No doubt there are companies like SpaceX doing notable stuff. No doubt they are a minority. AirBnb for cats exists. Vessyl exists.
Well, remember what working in the media is like. It's an industry where writing opportunities are contracting, advertising is stronger than ever, pretty much all but the top tier of newspaper is writing clickbait, it's perceived that there's little prospect of it getting better, and they compete with Congress for major institution least respected by the public.
I wouldn't consider schadenfreude a paranoid theory, I'd consider it the expected outcome. It's hard to avoid wondering how much of the general tone of opinion in the media is a direct reflection of the fact that they aren't doing well. (Are they worried about the "1%" precisely because a couple members of the .01% are buying up their entire industry, and they see the .01% showing up in the reporting chain? I've seen people similarly wonder if part of the reason academia is so pessimistic in their writing is that their world really is in terrible shape and the sense of immanent collapse is scaring everybody.)
I think you have a very misaligned perception of the general world. Most people don't even know what a startup is unless your in a major city and the perception is pretty positive overall.
For I find the perks exist less to attract engineering talent and more to achieve that perfect blend of easy party money and college party life that serves as a nearly 100% efficient system of wealth redistribution from the top 0.01% to the top 10%. That said, I think the disappearance of facebook and twitter from the Internet would be approximately as inconvenient as a philosopher's strike.
"Script kiddies new reality: amateur hour is over."