Area Journalist Partying Too Hard
uncrunched.com
uncrunched.com
Well sure, that does happen, but I think this is painting a picture that's a bit unrealistically towards the opposite direction now. There are some people who live a sort of rich-ascetic lifestyle, and there are some old Hondas, but it's not really the norm. There are so many high-end cars that what might cause people in other parts of the country to do a double-take barely raises eyebrows in SV (oh, another Porsche). And there really are a lot of quite fancy houses in the Valley; driving through Palo Alto and vicinity (Atherton, Woodside, ...) doesn't give you the impression of a humble, down-to-earth neighborhood. And, at bars, it is super-common to hear people discussing money and deals and "acquihires" and IPOs and valuations (even people who aren't doing any of that themselves, but are just caught up in the whole scene/idea/fantasy).
I find it weird that Arrington of all people would claim that the conversations are all about ideas, not money, when so much of TechCrunch's reporting was always about valuations and financing and exits. Is he arguing that his journalism is completely unrepresentative of the Valley?
Though you can find corners that exude more of a non-biz-oriented hacker ethos, like Noisebridge. My brief impressions of SuperHappyDevHouse (have gone 3 times) were sort of in that direction also, with the feeling that a lot of money was probably in the vicinity (random stuff would seemingly get paid for magically, e.g. some VC sponsoring beer), but people didn't talk about it much. They even have a comic about that vs. "other Silicon Valley parties": http://www.flickr.com/photos/progrium/2126533900/
But when I went through Woodside the first time, I definitely had a mental Whoa! moment. Some of those places felt crazy off the scale.
Maybe it was just the surprise of it, since I hadn't really seen that kind of estate anywhere in SV before then. Or maybe the woodsy aspect of it (even the billionaires don't get that kind of forest in LA). But it seemed like big showy displays of wealth to me.
Also: If someone isn't flaunting their wealth, they're by definition blending in. How the hell is Arrington supposed to find the non-flaunters in the world to figure out where they are and aren't? He can't, he can only know about the ones in the industry he intensely follows (and I'd argue he isn't actually doing that either).
Oh Mike, your feel-good sweet-nothings are as hollow as ever.
"But there is another side to the Valley. One where people are building truly innovative companies. Where founders aren’t driven by seeing their name on tech blogs or tweeting a picture of themselves with their new investors, M.C. Hammer or Ashton Kutcher.
There are truly excited inventors, designers and programmers here, some of the brightest people in the United States, who are trying to build something that will fix a problem in the world. This is why I love working in Silicon Valley.
Where else in the world would people try to make a better and more efficient taxi service, thermostat or tool for revolt? Where else would they reinvent education, the Boy Scouts and even government? And there are those who are helping the economy, creating services that enable people to find new forms of income.
Once you are able to navigate through the sludge of pandering and ostentation, you can see there is truly magical work taking place.
Luckily for people who live outside the bubble of Silicon Valley, there is a wonderful group of creators here who believe that everything is broken and that technology, creativity and guts can actually fix it."
But the one thing I know for sure is that if you 'get rich', be it from the lottery or a company IPO or a relative you never knew dying and leaving it to you, how you will react is not predictable. Money changes your attitudes and if you are not careful your values, and that can lead to profound changes in people in unexpected directions.
You said:
"but that part of the article felt a bit less authentic to me"
You are both right. That's know as the "to be sure" part.
NYT does that as do other "responsible" media. The idea is to be circumspect and present an opposing side to be complete. So someone can't say the article is biased and people (like Arrington) can't easily take pot shots.
Do a search for "nyt "to be sure"" for just the last 24 hours and you will see some examples.
Here is an example from http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/
"The summary statistic that comes from this data is the gross domestic product. It has its faults, to be sure, but it is the best single figure we have to tell us how well we are doing, economically."
Pretty much anywhere. It comes down to a fitting individual, of which there simply more in the SV. There's nothing magical about SV that suddenly makes an otherwise average person start designing a better thermostat.
I work on Wall Street and visit my family in the Silicon Valley regularly. If this is true then traders and investment bankers rarely talk about money, they talk about trades and deals.
I've identified with both Silicon Valley and Wall Street at various points and can state with a fair amount of confidence that the cultures are highly similar, right down to the more-virtuous-than-thou strain that runs deep through both.
And niggas always gotta high cap
Showin' all his boys how he shot em
But real gangsta-ass niggas don't flex nuts
'cause real gangsta-ass niggas know they got em
And everythings cool in the mind of a gangsta
'cause gangsta-ass niggas think deep
Up three-sixty-five a year 24/7
'cause real gangsta ass niggas don't sleep
EDIT: Song for those unfamiliar (NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAkoI'm not invited to these parties, but a legitimate answer to this question is "because they're fun". I'm not sure why he is so bothered that people want to hold lavish parties; if I was invited, I'm sure I'd go. There's no reason to spend your entire life working.
It appears as though the author is trying counter stupid/unfair generalizations with more of the same.
Wow. Someone needs to travel a little bit.
Has no one else picked up that the only reason Arrington responded was because Bilton very obviously was taking a stab at MA in his Techrunch days. Who else was proudly posting pics and tweets about MC Hammer at the TC after parties, or blasting TC headlines about Kutcher being at an event.
Who knows if this is even true but I can believe there are a few millionaires who drive older cars. What I don't understand is why they would do this since newer cars are much safer with advanced safety systems.
It doesn't have to be a flashy new car either, a new Ford or Handa would have so many safety advantages over an older car.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/drivestyles-of-the-rich-an...
I mean, basically some people feel they need to be flash, others find their cars to be more utilitarian.
I don't buy Arrington's views, specially when this man hasn't been to other "rich" parts of the world (e.g. Switzerland, Germany, northern Italy, Sweden, Norway, etc.) and categorizes "the world" as his narrow geographical observations.
Most millionaires in the US drive American-made cars that are 2 - 5 years old.
EDIT: It's actually not "most millionaires" -- only 20%: http://www.thomasjstanley.com/blog-articles/395/Millionaire_...