An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption • Hacker News Board

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#21

Post by JackFr » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #6

hndude wrote: post #3

Any additional evidence (either for or against) the claim that government pays for tech advances, while the private sector is who sees a return from that?

Federal spending accounts for 44% of basic research spending. at one point, it was as high as 70%. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern... Generally, the pattern has been that government and university funded researchers make the early discoveries, and then corporations do the research towards applying them. Universities benefit from patents, but the federal government doesn't.

One of the things that makes research "basic research" is that there isn't an obvious financial incentive for it. IBM, AT&T and Xerox at the height if their monopolies could afford to do some, but in general it's a financial loss on the timescale of a human or a corporation.

But what we see sometimes (alternative energy, drug research, e.g.) is government funding of applied research, and that isn't good for the market or the science, and should be called out.

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#22

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #18

plankers wrote: post #2

Can confirm, was a contractor in Silicon Valley. The "narrative" these executives sell is little more than an opiate for their fleets of highly-paid engineers to feel like they're justified in having a salary several times higher than the contractors they work with on a daily basis.

Huh don't self employed contractors make more in terms of $ to cover the extra costs 3x is norm in the UK.

This is how I know it from Germany but in the US most contractors seem to make less than employees.

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#23

Post by technobabble » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

Books mentioned in the article:

- How American Work, American Business, and the American Dream Became Temporary by Louis Hyman

- The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy by Mariana Mazzucato

- Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas

edit: formatting, copy paste issues (argh)

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#24

Post by JackFr » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #15

malvosenior wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber disrupted taxi companies. AirBnB disrupted the hotel industry. Both used technology to get there (there were no apps to hail taxis anywhere near feature parity with Uber for instance). They also leveraged the distribution mechanisms of the app store to reach scale. > Wasn't their "innovation" flaunting the law to gain a temporary advantage before regulation leveled the field again? Whether you view it that way o…

Uber and airbnb outcompeted them by offering lower prices and disregarded obviously outdated laws. The phone was what actually disrupted the industry not the actual services.

> disregarded obviously outdated laws

That's disruption?

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#25

Post by paulgrant999 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #15

malvosenior wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber disrupted taxi companies. AirBnB disrupted the hotel industry. Both used technology to get there (there were no apps to hail taxis anywhere near feature parity with Uber for instance). They also leveraged the distribution mechanisms of the app store to reach scale. > Wasn't their "innovation" flaunting the law to gain a temporary advantage before regulation leveled the field again? Whether you view it that way o…

Uber and airbnb outcompeted them by offering lower prices and disregarded obviously outdated laws. The phone was what actually disrupted the industry not the actual services.

> and disregarded obviously outdated laws.

I'm sorry. Did you just say that Uber and AirBNB can unilaterally break the law, because they deem them "outdated"?

What do you think a class action suit, on behalf of all those people, who are following the laws, to claw back profits from Uber/AirBNB would do to your "outcompeting" companies?

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#26

Post by paulgrant999 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #5

> For instance, the same year the government loaned $535 million to solar-power company Solyndra, it also loaned Tesla $465 million. “Taxpayers footed the bill for Solyndra’s losses—yet got hardly any of Tesla’s” gains, she says. Solyndra has become “a byword for the government’s sorry track record when it came to picking winners,” a story that has helped keep regulators at bay, she says. I'm no Tesla fan, but that's…

So your argument is, the government should be asking for "convertible bonds"?

...

right?

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#27

Post by wpietri » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #5

> For instance, the same year the government loaned $535 million to solar-power company Solyndra, it also loaned Tesla $465 million. “Taxpayers footed the bill for Solyndra’s losses—yet got hardly any of Tesla’s” gains, she says. Solyndra has become “a byword for the government’s sorry track record when it came to picking winners,” a story that has helped keep regulators at bay, she says. I'm no Tesla fan, but that's…

That is how loans work. But in a free-market economy, loans also come from professional lenders, who price loans according to risk. Government loans made to further industrial policy are necessarily subsidies, which is not how loans work.

From the view of the economy as a whole, it can work out fine, in that we tax the profits of the successful companies. (Although a great deal less than we used to.) But it does rather put a hole in the myth of self-made men and the companies they built from nothing.

I'll also note that Silicon Valley has a university at the heart of it. We fund a great deal of research, and we should. We also subsidize education in a variety of ways. But the first version of Google was developed by grad students as part of their student work, and Google today hoovers up quite a number of recent graduates from schools are either publicly run or receive a great deal of government assistance. It's a highly interdependent system. I think that's great, but don't think our myths acknowledge that.

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#28

Post by JackFr » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #4

I’m not sure what this articles point is. Disruption as called by Christensen, Andreeson, Thiel, etc all talks about displaced jobs and industries. I don’t think this is unknown. It’s just that the benefits outweigh the costs (to some). So this isn’t an alternative history more than it is just a weird anecdote or two without follow-up. I’m not sure what Wired is as a magazine any more. It really needs knowledgeable e…

> I’m not sure what this articles point is. ... > So this isn’t an alternative history more than it is just a weird anecdote or two without follow-up.

It's weird. The article seems to be a book review somehow cast as a news article or thought piece. Read as a book review it's a perfectly reasonable and informative.

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#29

Post by Retric » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #21

empath75 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal spending accounts for 44% of basic research spending. at one point, it was as high as 70%. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern... Generally, the pattern has been that government and university funded researchers make the early discoveries, and then corporations do the research towards applying them. Universities benefit from patents, but the federal government doesn't.

One of the things that makes research "basic research" is that there isn't an obvious financial incentive for it. IBM, AT&T and Xerox at the height if their monopolies could afford to do some, but in general it's a financial loss on the timescale of a human or a corporation. But what we see sometimes (alternative energy, drug research, e.g.) is government funding of applied research, and that isn't good for the marke…

Locking up applied research at companies often creates a lot waste as several companies do the same research and don’t share their results outside of patents/products.

Re: An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption

#30

Post by 01100011 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #22

C1sc0cat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh don't self employed contractors make more in terms of $ to cover the extra costs 3x is norm in the UK.

This is how I know it from Germany but in the US most contractors seem to make less than employees.

Depends. If you're a talented engineer you stand to make a lot more money as a contractor if you stay busy and set your rates appropriately. The average salary in my area is $140k for a senior software engineer. As a contractor I could make $110-150/hr which could be $170k at the low end once the extra taxes paid by contractors are taken into account. None of those numbers include normal state and federal income taxes which would apply equally to both. Also being a corp entitles you to play a few tax games which let you reduce your tax burden slightly.