Is Silicon Valley getting too big for its boots?
economist.com
economist.com
The technology sphere is one of the few in the US economy that is still fully functional, dynamic, often fast growing, highly innovative, and wildly profitable. It's also one of the few in which you can still get very wealthy starting from very little, and do it fairly quickly.
The parts of the country mired in perpetual erosion, from Detroit to Baltimore etc, are extremely envious of Silicon Valley. The truth is, Silicon Valley has separated itself off from the collapse that the rest of America has experienced, and it has been able to do so because so much of tech is still a free market. That free market has produced bountiful wealth, and outsized influence that goes with it, while much of the rest of the country has stopped producing new wealth.
There simply are no other fields in which I can spend $100 tomorrow and set up a new business (AWS, or a dedicated server, and off you go). I need no permission. I need no lawyers. I need no zoning permits. I need no environmental studies. I need no retail space or warehouse. I need no tv spot, newspaper ad, or yellow pages placement. I need no consultants. I need no incorporation to get started. I don't need an army of workers. I don't even need to buy any software. I'm limited only by ... me. Oh and I need a $150 Windows XP machine with notepad and a free copy of WSFTP from 1997 that would run equally well on Windows 95, with a shitty $50 17" LCD monitor - and most of that hardware you can pick up for free from lots of sources.
I would argue that for company that is going to be based of of something web-related (since you mentioned AWS), a Linux based work environment would be as productive, if not more productive than Windows 95 (or XP).
I agree with the gist of your comment though, that you can get up and running extremely cheaply. But thanks to the huge efforts and progress in free software, you can even do so without compromising in most areas.
Somebody with just basic computing skills (who is not going to understand Linux), able to run Windows XP, can get started right now, learning and building. They can pursue that knowledge to whatever extent they're willing to work for it.
You can literally, as a 19 year old that just knows how to surf and use Windows XP or basic computing, source a junky 2004 era machine for free, fire up notepad, teach yourself to write simple web applications (in whatever language, eg php), leveraging the web for knowledge (or even libraries for books), leverage dirt cheap hosting, and off you go. And yes, there are a lot of ways to go about this, obviously.
Accusing Silicon Valley detractors of jealousy and envy contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, particularly when they are talking about the culture of a place and you are conflating it with an industry.
You can attempt to work in a field from just about anywhere, but that's not how most companies are started, that's not how talent pools, that's not how rich geographic ecosystems of labor + capital are formed, and that's not how Big Things happen. You'll also find, education from anywhere is not as beneficial as the total punch of collaboration + social + network value of actually going to MIT or Stanford or Wharton or Harvard et al.
There are very good reasons why so many of the great tech companies have come from Silicon Valley. There are very good reasons why - in the age of being able to 'work from anywhere' - Silicon Valley continues to be Silicon Valley.
14 out of the youngest 25 members of the Forbes 400 are products of Silicon Valley.
Is it easier for a software startup to succeed in Silicon Valley? Probably. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. The most compelling thing about the software industry is that you can start and run a company from literally anywhere in the world.
My issue with your mindset is that you're only considering "big" companies. For every Facebook there are hundreds or thousands of startups, many of them profitable or otherwise successful, and many of them not located in Silicon Valley.
I'd give a fair amount of credit to the universities, the gold rush and the acid craze, too. Tech culture didn't just pop into existence at unixtime 0.
Plus, the universities + tech sector have worked extremely well in tandem. They fund each other, one with labor talent, the other with money being donated back.
That's not true. You can develop software anywhere but you cannot fully sell, recruit, and support being outside the central economic places. There are exceptions (if buying is just a click without a sales force) but there is a hard limit of scale.
Not to mention Baltimore is extraordinarily dangerous, with their crime rate and murder rate being through the roof.
Who said Silicon Valley was the only place you can create a tech company? New York has nearly all the structures you could ever possibly ask for to do so. Baltimore does not however, nor does Detroit.
This kind of intellectually lazy and arrogant attitude will only serve to alienate SV further from the rest of society, which, not coincidentally, is one of the core arguments of most recent criticism directed at SV.
You cannot, for instance, buy a $10K CNC machine and start building production cars because you will find yourself mired in red tape for until you are completely broke and never ship a single unit. Because of that, Detroit, the place known for cars, never got to see any real innovation beyond what the established players could generate and eventually started to die out as a result. That is not a failing of Detroit, just a failing of the industry Detroit is known for.
People who work in SV are just like people anywhere else, yet how many times a week is there an article published railing on the culture for not focusing on more important problems like cancer, poverty or something similar? Its almost like SV is the child and everyone else is the "Tiger Mom" triggering the rebellion and resentment.
So what? People say this all the time. I can't remember how many times I hear this about other fields (oh no, smart kids are going to Wall Street instead of curing cancer).
Just sack up, accept the fact that the real money is in areas of the economy that aren't necessarily (at least on their face) the most socially useful (e.g. banking in the case of Wall Street, advertising in the case of Silicon Valley) and that this fact will always rub people the wrong way. People in Silicon Valley are making a lot of money doing whatever it is that they're doing. Do they really need adoring approval from everyone else?
I have about as much to do with Silicon Valley tech culture as I do with Tibetan monk culture (I have spoken to people in both, but am not involved in either), but even I couldn't help thinking that this sounds like a lot of sour grapes and unfulfilled schadenfreude.
First of all the fact remains that there is an age discrimination hurdle present in most parts of the country (almost opposite in Silicon Valley where apparently they discriminate against the old).
Second starting out in an area surrounded by individuals who are more likely to embrace your ideas and progress and in general be more open minded leads to faster progress, regardless of if you succeed or fail. If the idea works great if not then you find out faster and move on but at least you don't have to spend time dealing with unrelated hurdles.
Its not that Silicon Valley or MIT are some great magical places, its that the people that are already there are creating the culture that make it easier to succeed. Second regarding industry, again I agree, compare the tech industry to drug development or biotech (my area) which is so incredibly regulated and tough to get an idea approved much less tested that even big money (pharma,vc,etc) is walking away despite the obvious benefit to humanity oh and not to mention boatloads of money that could be made.
Not too long ago (say, the year 2000), the free market of the tech industry lost bountiful wealth.
Bill Gates, freshly wealthiest man in the world, laments the limited influence of his $5 billion has in US education, a $800+ billion national expense.
I'm not sure anyone in the Economist is jealous of anything. At least they get to write for an intelligent audience. I'm pretty sure at the highest echelons of SV engineering, all that you can really claim is writing PHP code to help people share dick pics and earning a lot of money.
In its 3 points the common theme in the article is that the geeks don't listen, are self-centered, don't care about others, ... yada-yada. I know this talk very well because it is what I hear from my wife most of the time, about a thousand things.
Now, in political terms it is irrelevant if this is correct or not. In a democracy the perception of a majority is the truth, despite any logical consistence. If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care". Logical coherence alone doesn't buy you empathy. We need to avoid the label of arrogant if we want any kind of political influence.
I think it is worth thinking a little more carefully about the article. Not on whether it is correct or not, but if this perception is common or not.
[edit] Typo [/edit]
The first graf of the article starts with the author being butthurt about geeks not finding the economist as relevant as the author/employee does (disclaimer: I used to subscribe, either their quality has notably declined the last 5 years or I've gotten smarter).
The rest of it is place-ism about how geeks should stay out of politics and leave it to the oil companies and defense contractors where it belongs.
It's not reinforcing geek stereotypes to point it out as a crap article.
I'm not seeing "place-ism" in the article the same way you are. The author appears to be disputing the arrogance and isolationism often attributed to Silicon Valley by pointing out that groups like FWD.us are getting involved in political discussions. He seems to celebrate the fact that Silicon Valley is getting involved in the "politics-as-usual"
In Silicon Valley, arrogance is really about ambition. There are some who want to replace political processes with crowdsourced or individual solutions. These are ambitious goals, but the problems that they attempt to address (law-making, social justice) are far more difficult than many of these people realize. The goal of disrupting current channels of social change and policy are lofty, but assuming that it can be done without help from existing institutions is arrogant, and will lead to both a toxic culture and an incredulous image, even for those of us whose ideas may have a chance of bringing about real change.
>If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care"
I think you're definitely correct on that point. Some may view playing within the existing infrastructure as pandering, but it's often one of the only ways of expressing a serious commitment to change.
Wow, "unnamed tech entrepreneur", I strongly disagree.
I have yet to find a news source that competes with the Economist. Just reading a single issue cover-to-cover gives you an unparalleled snapshot of what's going on around the world. They aren't afraid to use technical jargon, and are pretty brutal about the assumed knowledge of their readership.
If I were able to touch only a single thing outside the technology "bubble"; the Economist would be my #1 choice.
Disclosure: I have no current, or prior, relationship with the Economist. I have merely benefited enormously and grown a lot as a person using the knowledge that I've gained reading it (or listening to the audio edition) over the past few years.
You're absolutely right, but that's not the point. The point is (and I'm referencing the New Yorker article) that you don't have to leave the bubble. You can change the world, help people, etc... satisfy all your goals and dreams by pushing forward with the neo-solutionist ignore-all-that-old-crap attitude that Valley companies thrive on. The Economist isn't bad, it just focuses (very well) on the issues of today, which is as good as yesterday when you've got tunnel vision for a brand new future.
If the author of that article would like to visit Silicon Valley and see what it's like first-hand, I'd be happy to show him or her around. I promise no lame parties, and plenty of people who care deeply about policy, direction and magnitude of scientific, technical, economic, and social progress, etc.
This single sentence ultimately highlights the failings of the entire philosophy that created the article. The reason he sees few "signs of solutionism" is that specific solutions for these problems abound, the "debate" is over which is acceptable. The author enjoys living in a world where whomever expends the most effort repeating their viewpoint through mass media eventually wins "political consensus" and some centrally-dictated incremental change gets made for their favored direction. Of course if you're a professional journalist who is ultimately supported by vested interests that align with your views, this is a great world to live in.
The fact that something as amazingly straightforward to solve as gun "control" (hint: there's two very simple solutions) is still and always "up for debate" just shows the brokenness of that system. It's not particularly surprising that techies, having chosen doing instead of talking all their lives, want to focus on ways to move the world forward instead of expending energy on the quagmire of politics.
(Of course none of what I said is addressing the looming problem that this "tech uber alles" philosophy gets watered down and ends up letting hackers comfort themselves that technically-deficient but socially-popular centralized websites are empowering individuals rather than merely different masters, but that's a topic for a different day)
The part you put in parenthesis is the true problem that every hacker should be contemplating every day.
- Endless war-mongering. They pushed heavily for the disastrous war in Iraq. After the Boston bombing, they asked whether America was getting complacent. They post a lot of stuff implying that America should go to war in Syria.
- Their coverage of American presidential politics is horrible. In 2000, they endorsed George W Bush, a political scion who was clearly an anti-intellectual and bit of a fool, over Al Gore, a visionary vice president who had co-presided over the longest economic expansion in American history. In 2004, after 4 disastrous years, their "endorsement" issue was titled "Incompetent vs Incoherent".
This stuff, especially the war-mongering, has made me care a lot less about the Economist than I did when I was, say, 18. Given that SV is a very forward-looking place, it is unsurprising that the Economist is less respected than it is in many other locales.
Bush comes into office with a balanced budget and a recession, passes a really big tax cut that brings us into deficits, they applaud. Passes an expensive an inefficient medicare expansion, they're silent.
Obama comes into office with a trillion dollar deficit and a near-depression on his hands, passes tax cuts and a stimulus bill while attacking healthcare costs, and he's "presiding over a spending problem". Nevermind that he's been cutting discretionary spending since 2010.
It's not that their biases don't align with mine -- it's that their biases are so transparently hacky that it destroys any credibility the rest of the magazine has.
BTW, Obama isn't attacking healthcare costs, he's expanding coverage. The cost part comes next.
The CBO graded obamacare as reducing medicare costs (the biggest driver of our budget deficits). Expanding coverage should have a positive impact on costs, too. But I agree that expanding coverage was at least as important the bill's authors.
I wasn't trying to oversimplify the situation more than is necessary for a few sentence summary -- and people could disagree with my characterization. The coverage towards each president from the Economist is enlightening though, especially when you divorce it from policy or compare their coverage of similar policies from both administrations. That's where the hackiness comes in.
Keep an eye out on the cost when the ACA fully rolls out. I'm in the industry and it's not turning out the way people predicted.
What else is that supposed to mean, spin not withstanding? (although it might not be so much "fire Americans" as "lower salaries for existing employees")
Edit: My comment should not to be construed as support for fwd.us, it's policies or "big data" applied to politics. It just seems like that unqualified "subtler, wiser" is meant to imply that people should stay at home and let the _real_ political players play.
I have my own viewpoints about big data, but they could stop with the mystic nonsense and just actually specify what they're talking about, but that does not mean they implied that "the real political players play".
In this section, I take "maturity" to mean that Zuckerburg et. al. have had to emulate what others have done: "diving deep into the political mud". A technological or any other type fix seemingly cannot work (according to this commentator). Only big money (elements represented by FWD.us) and "political hacks" can get the job done. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
I'd argue that the 'maturity' rhetoric expresses something different. The point behind Morozov's (and others') criticism is that difficult social/policy issues cannot be solved through individual citizen/consumer action alone. I think the main criticism is that silicon valley often acts from within isolation. 'Disrupting' consumer behavior is not enough to drive social or political change in many cases.
The arrogance that people speak of when they refer to silicon valley is one of ambition. People in the valley envision replacing traditional law-making with crowdsourcing, but forging public policy is far too difficult for a solution that simple.
To those who make these criticisms, the stereotypical startup founder claiming that their product will cause meaningful social and/or political change is naive. They also make the claim that such a 'solutionist' approach will often worsen, not better, the problems that such a product addresses.
The fact that a handful of technology leaders are attempting to work with the existing political infrastructure reflects a newfound maturity in the culture - one of collaboration and modesty. Where previous technologists looked at the existing infrastructure, muttered "we can do better", and failed, these people are simply trying to say "we can help".
1) The Economist piece is really a reference to a New Yorker piece.
2) The author seems to be indulging in schadenfreude / triumphalism over the "new" SV strategy of engaging in politics.
It's a rather stinky bit of smugness really.
If any locale has gotten too big for its' boots, it's NYC, especially the borough that provides The New Yorker with most of its' readers. This is both fact and more importantly, a very common perception by those who live outside the five boroughs.
As far as "playing ball" politically, I'm sure the author, if asked nicely, can cite numerous instances where ball-playing has hurt both their personal interests and what they perceive to be the "national / global interest."
So to the author I would say, "Be careful in your wish-making."
Words to live by.
To me, the article just seemed to like a cheap jab at Silicon Valley and tech firms in general, just to get back at one of their representatives making an unfavourable statement about The Economist.
Edit: I stopped my subscription because the once challenging publication has become, IMO, far too populist.
Now, whenever I happen to read the NYTimes I'm reminded of my grand-father's advice given to me ~20 years ago: "Whatever you do, paganel, always read the newspaper edited/printed by those in power, this way you'll always know where the world is heading to". He had been a Communist mayor from a small Eastern-European village, and I have this image of him always making some time in the evening for reading the local Communist propaganda newspaper.
Compare the following two articles:
"Is Silicon Valley getting too big for its boots" [OP]
May 22nd 2013, 14:20 by T.N. | LOS ANGELES
"Feed yourself: if only Nigeria could revamp its farms" [1]
May 4th 2013 | TARABA |From the print edition
[1]http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/2157711...
I thought we were past the corn-laws way of thinking, or anyway I was expecting better from The Economist. Plus, and most important, it's economically disadvantageous in the long term.
It is a place where bland libertarian fantasies about technology replacing (or "disrupting") politics are welcomed...