This kind of casual anti-technology attitude among European politicians is part of the reason we are in this mess.
Source: am a startup in the EU.
Say, at-will employment exists in California and that's just one simple example off the top of my head.
In Germany, an employee is near impossible to fire.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer...
You also want to consider what your taxes fund – for example, a startup founder probably benefits from proximity to two of the best university systems in the country and the better quality of life means you get more top people in your employee and networking pools. The ultra-rich are going to leave but a founder who isn’t already in the top income bracket is making an economically rational decision.
Just look at how many software patents the EPO keeps printing.
And that capital was started by major government investment in semiconductor manufacturing.
And barely 20-25 years ago, Dutch firms like Philips NV and NXP Semi were both major players in the electronics and software industry, yet squandered their lead.
The issue is European leaders in both the private and public sector just don't care for technology, are overwhelmingly from legal and non-STEM financial/consulting backgrounds. The capital flight due to the Eurozone crisis also played a role, but Israel was also heavily impacted by that as well.
Fast forward 20 years and Europeans will be hopelessly dependent on SpaceX just like they are on big tech now.
They're billionaires because they invested in tech that the whole world is dependent on now. Chastising them shows that European technophobic bureaucrats still don't get it.
It doesn't say that "escaping Earth" is an inherently bad thing, it simply highlights the perils of outsourcing digital infrastructure to certain billionaires who wish to do so. Which is a valid concern.
That's not an anti-tech stance, quite the opposite!
The implication is that it should not be an oligarchy but a democracy that inhabits other planets - which is indeed a valid stance.
The issue is not going to space. The issue is supporting a system where a single entity controls it, supporting a dictatorship.
Which is funny, because the US had this stance. At least under WW2 and the cold war.
Who know what happened, the US population allowed corporate greed to take over - what a shame.
This is not "anti-technology"-- it is just a potshot at Elon Musk.
You could also accuse it of mixing up issues of infrastructure independence, wealth inequality and increasing plutocratic tendencies. All of those do deserve a nuanced discussion (instead of a single catchphrase).
But labeling this as as "anti-technology" is simply incorrect, and we need to do better than that.
> Europe’s lack of industrial dynamism owes in large part to weaknesses along the “innovation lifecycle” that prevent new sectors and challengers from emerging. These weaknesses begin with obstacles in the pipeline from innovation to commercialisation. Public sector support for R&I is inefficient due to a lack of focus on disruptive innovation and fragmented financing, limiting the EU’s potential to reach scale in high-risk breakthrough technologies. Once companies reach the growth stage, they encounter regulatory and jurisdictional hurdles that prevent them from scaling-up into mature, profitable companies in Europe. As a result, many innovative companies end up seeking out financing from US venture capitalists (VCs) and see expanding in the large US market as a more rewarding option than tackling fragmented EU markets. Finally, the EU is falling behind in providing state-of-the-art infrastructures necessary to enable the digitalisation of the economy.
from https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3...
It's almost like people are confusing the contents of the comment with the comment itself, expressing their disdain for the legal burden of the EU by downvoting a comment mentioning that fact.