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

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#211

Post by tmptmp » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 3:39 AM 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.”…

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

How exactly is "basic income" superior to "hole" digging/filling type of jobs? I believe they are one and the same as far as their fundamentals are concerned, i.e. both do not create/add any value on their own to the society/economy.

Actually, I think "hole" digging/filling is superior to "basic income" as it, at least, keeps the person occupied and thus takes care of problems due to "empty mind is devil's workshop". Please correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#212

Post by Nutmog » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 3:39 AM UTC

hifier wrote: post #166

robbiep wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point of the quote: Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way. Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions. Why is he worthy of…

It's disgusting to be comparing a veteran's suffering to a beggar's.

In which direction? Is it because the veteran is a murderer while the beggar is harmless or because the veteran's suffering is more severe than the beggar's?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#213

Post by lsc » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 3:51 AM UTC

greggman wrote: post #194

lsc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 come from games. It seems like advertising is the only way to effectively "get the word out" about my new game. I'm not seeing how that's useless. I also don't see the conflict of interest. If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved. So I all I'm trying to do through advertising is inform the people who might want a game like the one I created that my game…

>If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved.

"one bite at the apple" eh?

There are a lot of small companies in America, and a lot of people do businesses under different names. "Was an officer of the company I'm about to buy from involved in shady dealings in the past" is one of those things I'd love to have my consumer research firm research, but it's not something that comes in to play as much as you think, I think. A lot of the games are written by first-timers, or people who's first try flopped because nobody played it (which is similar as to the informational content you are talking about)

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#214

Post by newjersey » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 3:52 AM UTC

tmptmp wrote: post #211

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 believe this "job creation as priority" approach is inferior to both the "laissez-faire" capitalist alternative and the "basic income" social democratic one. How exactly is "basic income" superior to "hole" digging/filling type of jobs? I believe they are one and the same as far as their fundamentals are concerned, i.e. both do not create/add any value on their own to the society/economy. Actually, I think "hole"…

Basic income is not a complete solution. It is a start. We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. We could have smaller class sizes in our elementary schools. I'd like to imagine some people volunteering to take care of kids for a few hours after school because they don't have to worry about starving for not making any money.

In short, I think people will do useful work if we just give them the ability to do so. We'd still need schools and such (preferably at no cost to the students) but I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#215

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 4:18 AM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #119

awakeasleep wrote: post #4

> “All of us in business,” Mr. Grove wrote, “have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability — and stability — we may have taken for granted.” Thats the money quote to me, and so much of what is overlooked when talking about industry and to a large extent, social welfare programs. I wish the overton window included the concept of the costs required to mainta…

Yes. And not only business leaders, but also the economists who've been giving these business leaders intellectual cover (and advising presidents) for decades now. It seems that today's high ranking economists, who are highly influential and defend their intellectual turf aggressively, rely on models which ignore/omit Mr. Grove's industrial policy insights. US consumers get cheaper manufactured goods if the US econom…

>When I see how long it takes Indiegogo and Kickstarter hardware makers to actually create their finished products -- because they have to travel to China to meet with part suppliers and manufacturers -- I wonder how much US innovation has been crippled by the policies top US economists have confidently articulated and defended for the last 30 or 40 years.

Yeah, it's actually a bit vexing when we lose one of the members of my team periodically for trips to China or Taiwan to deal with new hardware.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#216

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 4:21 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #154

Balgair wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! Fantastic comment that I woefully can only upvote once. This is why I come to HN, for thinking like this. That said, I think you are totally wrong about this. Just look at surnames: Baker, Smith, Shoemaker, etc. The actual names of people and their families were completely centered around their employment, or more generally, what it was they did all day long. Yes, this was medieval Europe, and conditionals aboun…

Alright, comments. The Bakers, Smiths, and Shoemakers were in their own sense entrepreneurs. They ran their own businesses, kept their trade within their families, and profited strictly through the fruits of their own labors rather than a capitalists willingness to give them crumbs of their efforts. Owning your own small business, or having a family owned business, is incredibly divergent from the status quo of emplo…

>Hell, we cannot even fathom an unemployment rate where would actually reasonably see a shortage of anything.

Actually, we have a dire shortage of non-luxury housing.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#217

Post by narrator » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 4:37 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #206

narrator wrote: post #136

The mystery at the center of all this is "Why is it so astronomically cheap to do the x in Asia vs the U.S?". Not just cheap as in low wage, but cheap as in finished goods costing less than the cost of materials delivered to the American factory. It's not just manufacturing. In Thailand you can live in a high rise condo with a gym and maid service and eat out every day and do some traveling for $2000/month. That life…

Any source on "1/5 the price to build the fab in Taiwan" Googling I found: "Taiwan Semiconductor, the world’s biggest custom-chipmaker, plans record spending on plants and equipment this year. It’s lavishing $12 billion on factories -- more than Intel Corp. has ever spent in a year" Which looks more like Taiwan being enthusiastic for building tech stuff rather than dirt cheap. I'm recently back from Taiwan and I'm no…

As I said in my other reply, that's just speculation to provide an example as to what they might find. I would really like someone to do some scholarly work on the subject to get to the real answers.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#218

Post by gnaritas » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #144

sp332 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the point. Sooner or later, human consumption is going to hit a wall.

Why would that happen? Where is the actual limit to anything? If we run out of land, we take the sea. If we run out of sea, we take space. And so on.

> If we run out of land, we take the sea. If we run out of sea, we take space. And so on.

This answer precludes the very real possibility that the necessary technology advances to "take the sea" or "go into space" don't come in time to be useful. Any plan that includes "things that haven't been invented yet" isn't a real plan, it's wishful thinking.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#219

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #168

cleandreams wrote: post #46

I think the rise of Trump reflects the reality of a declining middle class and the overall problem of political stability in the face of declining opportunity and economic security for most people. In business it is easier to focus on the short term win. Corporations have profited from being stateless, from offshoring and outsourcing. But it remains to be seen what the long term cost will be. I suspect the backlash w…

We already HAVE seen what the long term cost is. It's great for corporations, shareholders, and board members, yet terrible for the middle class, and thus a net negative on the country as a whole. It will only continue. That is the "long term effect". This guy is basically telling everyone from the grave to vote Trump, or Trump-like economic policies... but never utter such a thing around these parts!

>This guy is basically telling everyone from the grave to vote Trump, or Trump-like economic policies... but never utter such a thing around these parts!

I know this is going to sound tiring, but: why not Sanders?

* He's not as blatantly evil as Trump.

* He's not at all a bourgeois globalist.

* He's constantly banging on about what trouble the working class and middle class are in.

I don't see why everyone's supposed to consider Trump the default vote for people who care about class issues, since he's actually an objectively terrible candidate.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#220

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #136

The mystery at the center of all this is "Why is it so astronomically cheap to do the x in Asia vs the U.S?". Not just cheap as in low wage, but cheap as in finished goods costing less than the cost of materials delivered to the American factory. It's not just manufacturing. In Thailand you can live in a high rise condo with a gym and maid service and eat out every day and do some traveling for $2000/month. That life…

The short answer for why it's cheaper is that the west industrializing first is basically a historical accident. From of the perspective of a "make things and give them to people" optimizer, if you don't have a better reason to put things places, you'll want to put manufacturing close to people to cut down on transport waste. So, it's cheaper in Asia because prices convey information, and the information is "more things should be built in Asia because Asia has much more population than thing-making".

Another angle is asking why people are willing to spend so much money to put manufacturing in the US. Skilled workers is part of it. Another is having a low-corruption society, and all the advantages that social capital in general brings. Yet another is having convenient access to the other capital that your company needs to do business with in order to function. Like, if all the sub-components are built in the US, and your sub-component is being sold to US manufacturers, moving your facility offshore means a lot of shipping costs and delays.