Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#61

Post by vram22 » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

luso_brazilian wrote: post #9

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

>Although a valid concern putting "job creation" as a goal for governments can (and in a lot of occurrences in recent history, did) backfire spectacularly.

>In the most reductive analogy it creates incentive for the government to create "hole diggers" and "hole fillers" type of jobs that, in aggregate, generate very few useful work while fulfilling this basic goal of job creation.

>I believe this "job creation as priority" approach is inferior to both the "laissez-faire" capitalist alternative and the "basic income" social democratic one.

There may be another way, that is not mutually exclusive with the other approaches. It may take longer to have an effect but could be also more permanent or effective: supporting and encouraging much more local and small self-employment and small business. (And by encouraging I mean by concrete methods, not just hand waving and "moral support" kind of stuff).

It has the effect of giving the dignity and money you get from work, without the artificial hole-digging-and-filling provided by the government (which method doesn't have the dignity if you know the work is made up just for you).

Gandhi and E. F. Schumacher (Small is Beautiful) were talking about and doing this decades ago.

There are many ways in which it can be done.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#62

Post by yongjik » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #29

yongjik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...Consumers are forced to buy your expensive product instead of cheap imported ones?

The idea that there are "consumers with money to spend" hinges on the availability of jobs that pay good wages. People without jobs aren't good consumers (most government benefits are parsimonious or heavily restricted to certain items). Free trade unquestionably allows companies to offshore jobs to countries with cheap labor, no environmental regulation, high corruption to enable bribes, or all of the above. As a co…

Your scenario may be applicable in other cases, but in the particular context of semiconductor industry, it sounds rather silly. Intel isn't a family farm raising chickens, and its competitors aren't exactly hiring subsistence farmers to draw silicon diagrams in a dim factory building 16 hours a day.

E.g., even though I'd be the first to say that Samsung is as corrupt as fuck, its fabs aren't exactly spewing toxic gas into the neighborhood (probably not any more than silicon valley companies did in the 60s), and it still (sadly) remains a choice opportunity for job seekers in Korea.

Also you have to factor in that the existence of a strong consumer class in other countries (those pesky workers in Samsung) allows many American companies to hire more people than they could if they only had the American market.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#63

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

kiba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertising industrial complex is paradoxically what employers are willing to pay for, but we humans don't need.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

You're conflating the idea of broadcasting and advertising. One is the other, but the other is not the one.

Of course advertising has a use, but without advertising it's not like you would "have to research the 85 sushi restaurants" in your neighbourhood.

Put it this way: I use adblock, I do not watch TV nor go to places which actively advertise. My life is fine, and I don't have to "actively research" anything unless I specifically want to. In fact, compared to people who don't avoid ads, I tend to spend my money a lot better... something to think about.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#64

Post by lsc » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

kiba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertising industrial complex is paradoxically what employers are willing to pay for, but we humans don't need.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

> How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes bounded by the speed of chatter, so that HN's pure market sensibilities can be satisfied? Should I just wait for customers to stumble upon the right keywords to make my product show up in their ad-free search results?

the problem is that there's a conflict of interest between the seller of a good and the buyer of a good. Every seller wants to claim that their product is better, regardless of actual reality, while every buyer would like to actually know which product is better

As you rightly point out, the buyer doesn't want to do a lot of research to find this out, but.. the problem with advertising is that advertising does not give the consumer a good idea of what is actually best because of the aforementioned conflict of interest.

I think if we are talking about reality, we mostly rely on the law here; E.g. if I go to the corner store and grab a gallon of milk, it probably won't poison me, because there are 'minimum milk' standards (my area has yet to legalize unpasteurized milk for human consumption) So I can buy the cheapest milk in the store, or the milk advertised to target my demographic, and either way, little harm is done. Worst case I spend a little more money than I'd need to.

The right answer to the research problem is something like consumer reports (though really, I think it'd work better if it integrated with cooperative retail... e.g. I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there.)

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#65

Post by petra » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

kiba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertising industrial complex is paradoxically what employers are willing to pay for, but we humans don't need.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

We don't need brand advertising to achieve any of those functions.It has negative value for consumers.

So maybe some form of advertising is useful, but it would look totally different if what drove it was consumer benefit and not producer benefit.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#66

Post by matheweis » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

kiba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertising industrial complex is paradoxically what employers are willing to pay for, but we humans don't need.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

I (mostly) agree that advertising is a good thing. I also think that there are many different kinds of advertising; some of the more blatant and intrusive perhaps being the kind that people are getting fed up with.

To run with your milk example, my wife and I recently learned of Danzeisen Dairy (http://www.danzeisendairy.com); a state-local dairy producer who recently started selling their milk in at our local grocer.

We didn't learn of them through an ad in the local paper, or a TV spot, or display ads on the web. The bottles were just there, in the local grocer.

But before anyone thinks they aren't advertising... the milk was in cutsey little glass bottles, adorned with their logo, the words "Local" - "delivered farm fresh" in retro script, and they "just happened" to be located at eye level on the milk shelf. Not advertising? Ha! ... but it wasn't blatant and obtrusive.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#67

Post by hitekker » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #28

luso_brazilian wrote: post #9

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

I am reminded of what George Orwelles wrote in "Down and out in Paris and London":

> Beggars do not work, it is said; but then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, bronchitis etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout-in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering.

EDIT: On a side note, I agreed halfway with what you're writing but the second half of your comment seems a bit more unclear/I'm not sure what you're discussing there. Could you clarify what you mean?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#68

Post by mozumder » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #28

luso_brazilian wrote: post #9

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

> We have created a gargantuan advertising industry that has zero net material gain for society

Why do people say this, when they know full well that advertising drives people to buy things, and therefore, drive the economy?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#69

Post by petra » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #64

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

> How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes bounded by the speed of chatter, so that HN's pure market sensibilities can be satisfied? Should I just wait for customers to stumble upon the right keywords to make my product show up in their ad-free search results? the problem is that there's a conflict of…

> . I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there.

Aren't you by limiting selection - limiting innovation, the ability of each one buying according to the price and other characteristics he he sees fit?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#70

Post by jessedhillon » Sat, Mar 26, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #64

jessedhillon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

> How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes bounded by the speed of chatter, so that HN's pure market sensibilities can be satisfied? Should I just wait for customers to stumble upon the right keywords to make my product show up in their ad-free search results? the problem is that there's a conflict of…

The right answer to the research problem is a digest of research results? I think you are overestimating greatly how much people care about most purchasing decisions. A false positive in my almond milk is not going to make a bit of difference, and a true positive will slightly please me for a week. For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow?

The idea that advertisers all claiming to be the best is a detriment to consumers presupposes that we need to live in a world where people only speak about empirical facts. We are all skilled in the art of bullshit detection, and we all have aspirations which can be played to as well -- frankly, life would be dull if we weren't able to attach an undue sense of optimism to a cup of coffee from that new cafe. Advertising succeeds in some part because it pushes buttons which sometimes go unpushed in our daily lives.