Also, will they subsidise and keep their manufacturing base in-house or follow the US/EU in out sourcing to cheaper countries...
Jesuschrist!, this have not been true at any point or place in history. People become more conservative when they become richer, which it makes sense, if you are wealthy and have lots of resources it suits you that the status quo remains.
The RICH liberal elite is "progressive" as long as their income is not touched.
The idea that professionals are more liberal formed one of the arguments in the book "The End of History".
"Rich" in this case means not living in poverty. It doesn't mean billionaire.
In the US things like NIMBY are in essence a conservative position taken by the middle/upper-middle class. The same happen with the school they choose for their kids, the self-segregated gated communities they live, the companies they work for and the closed social circles they frequent.
They CLAIM they are progressive. But supporting your also-white-upper-middle-class-professional gay colleague is a far cry from the things that leftism are really concerned about, like income inequality,gentrification,environmental destruction, third-world labor exploitation,imperialism. On these topics your liberal FAANG friends at best do nothing about it and at worst they are the cogs supporting the oppression machine.
So there's not really much overlap between liberals and the left - it's only the case in America, where the left is really emaciated, where liberalism and leftism become conflated.
Nobody complains about gentrification because some hipsters moved to neighborhood, or even because they opened one of those atrocious coffee shops. The main complain is that the, intended or not, result is that low-income people, the people more at risk in the country are thus driven away from historical neighborhoods and pushed more and more to the margins (both literal and figurative) of society.
BTW, some ironic thing I've noticed is that many people will retort with "Well, that's how the economy works, supply and demand and all of that, besides, the original owners of the properties will make bank", but when the same dynamics is done to them by rich foreigners buying houses in western cities and driving the prices to the sky they scream murder.
The notion that tech workers are not substantially more liberal than average contradicts both my first-hand experience and the available data. This isn't surprising, or evidence of some anti-conservative agenda, since tech workers often exist at the confluence of both geographic distributions and educational backgrounds (usually bachelor's degree or more) that are more liberal than average.
But still, I'm really curious as to how you justify the claims you're making in this comment.
A center-right party.
In other words, the claim that tech workers are not liberal says a lot more about the perspective of the person making the claim than it does about tech workers. Tech workers are much more liberal than the general population. How many would qualify as liberal under this political delineation? Probably a single digit percentage.
Your typical tech worker will tend to be neoliberal, espousing socially liberal values but having much to lose economically and practically from touching the existing power balance or decreasing inequality in any meaningful way. The highest paid tech workers will tend to work for FAANGs that increase global inequality or at least contribute to entrenched interests.
You say this, yet the overwhelming majority of tech workers - especially those at FAANG companies, as per the donation data - choose to find the party that favors increased taxation, regulation, and government spending. At Netflix 98% of political contributions went to democrats. This is a staggering disparity. How you manage to conclude that this is indicative of neoliberal views (decrease public spending and regulation, less taxes) is a puzzle to me. Again, this seems to be an attempt to categorize tech workers as conservative by categorizing views common to both conservatives and liberals (e.g. preferring a capitalist economy over a command economy) as conservative.
>Again, this seems to be an attempt to categorize tech workers as conservative by categorizing views common to both conservatives and liberals (e.g. preferring a capitalist economy over a command economy) as conservative.
This is the exact crux of the matter if you consider the premise of most left-wing parties. They will naturally see the Rep-Dem divide as Capitalism and Capitalism-Lite. Looking at the continuation of policies under Clinton-Bush-Obama (especially in foreign policy) this is not entirely without merit. This is often humorously depicted as a drone shooting civilians but with a gay pride flag sticker on it. If you were to plot those policies on some sort of graph and compare them to left-wing parties, I think the comparison would probably be clearer. I don't know if anyone has done that yet.
Ultimately, this is due to a confusion around the term liberal itself. Since the other party skews to the right compared to the OECD average, the Dems become qualified as left-wing instead of center-right, although it is true that this has fluctuated historically if you look at FDR. A coastal Democrat tech worker will think that they support gay marriage or drug legalization and believe that pretty much makes them broadly left-wing while at the same time working for a surveillance capitalist business. In the end you get places like Silicon Valley with homeless people roaming the streets next to some of the wealthiest humans in history. Yet most tech workers there would fully believe themselves to be progressive and working for a world fundamentally different to the one today, with power balances completely different.
A tech worker (or anyone) who supports gay marriage, drug legalization, increased taxes, more government spending and a host of other liberal views is indeed a liberal as per the definition used by the overwhelming majority of people. Anti-capitalism isn't a mainstream liberal view. It is a far left view. Extremely few liberals, both in the US and abroad, support the replacement of a capital economy with a command economy. It's been interesting hearing about why you choose to categorize one of the most liberal demographics in the country as conservative. But for the sake of not repeatedly going down this tangent with so many other people as you go through life, I hope you understand that this is not at all the perspective most other people have. And making statements based on this perspective comes off a absurd to many, many people.
In the American context, parties are skewed to the right compared to the Western average. This means that center/center-right parties like the Dems are perceived as left-wing whereas far-right parties like the Reps are perceived as right-wing. Sanders would be an example of a populist center-left politician by average Western standards, but he is qualified as far-left. His rise to prominence has led to clear tensions within the Democratic party structure.
Even among the far left, few parties today even question capitalism but rather advocate for a hybrid system, so it is not a question of being strictly anti-capitalist. Even taking this into account, there is a clear chasm between a typical liberal Dem voter and a center-left/centrist voter in the Western average, and a clear sense from the modern left-wing that Dems and Reps are more similar to one another than to them. This debate is burdened by the fact that the word "liberal" tends to mean "center left" in the US and Canada but but is used in the classic sense elsewhere. Note that the OP you originally replied to did explicitly say that FAANG friends WERE liberal! But this got lost in translation as based on your American-inspired perspective an American liberal is supposed to be indistinguishable from the left-wing, whereas this would be seriously questioned elsewhere.
Essentially the point I'm trying to make before we got lost in the specifics is that not seeing the Dems as center/center-right is indicative of a very specific American perspective. At the end of the day, tech workers overwhelmingly profit from inequality, a very free market, outsourcing, capital accumulation, and other classic neoliberal facets, while at the same time maintaining socially-liberal values other matters. They stand to lose greatly from a different partition of society, since by definition they are already among the chief beneficiaries.
Furthermore the average Silicon Valley tech worker is also substantially more liberal than the average American Democrat. I say this having spent 5 years working in Silicon Valley, and another 4 years in university in Silicon Valley. The statements you're making about tech workers - profiting from inequality and free markets - applies just as much to Canada and most Western European countries. Arguably it applies even more to export-oriented European countries like Germany with economies that are much more dependent on globalized trade. And absent from your comment is tech workers' responses to these developments. I've seen many more people striving to tackle inequality in tech than elsewhere. The "different partition of society" is something much more popular in Silicon Valley tech companies than the rest of the country. Sanders got more donations from Silicon Valley than Clinton in the democrat primary in 2016, for instance. The average tech worker is substantially more liberal than the average person I met in Europe.
The characterizations you're making starkly contrast with both my firsthand experience, and the available empirical evidence. Your (and the above commenters') assertion that tech workers are not working to tackle inequality, environmental challenges, or other liberal causes seems to be rooted in an assumption that no wealthy demographic would every support those things, rather than conclusion based on evidence or experience. How long have you worked at a Silicon Valley tech company? How much firsthand experience do you have with the people you're characterizing?
About the time that book was written a friend working in finance said at a party, now that the war on communism is won the war against the middle and working class is on. To bad the suckers won't realize until it's too late.
Not surprisingly people took that word to mean a great many different things!
I think you are confusing left and liberal. Which was a good short hand last century.
Liberal thinking requires exposure to art, travel, education. These all cost money.
Rich people protecting their money is not conservative.