Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#101

Post by graycat »

dkyc wrote: post #29
terminalshort wrote: post #3

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

It's not even clear that the premise is true. There's lots of 'research' done in the big tech companies. The biggest reason why companies don't seek to emulate "Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE", is probably that it reads like a list of textbox examples of "companies that failed to execute on their research findings", so clearly there was something wrong with this approach.

It can appear that some famous companies pursue pure research as a source of public luster.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#103

Post by suriya-ganesh »

zkmon wrote: post #25

>> Scientists are driven by curiosity Ok, then why do they get affected by funding? The truth is, today there is not a scientist, artist, researcher or writer who is not driven by funding. The era for curiosity-driven science is was over a long time ago. The direction of research or science is all driven by funding.

Lets say the scientist takes $0 home (which is ridiculous btw). even then you would need the almighty "funding" to setup a lab, recruit participants, etc.

Anybody doing science at a University is definitely doing it at a significant discount to their salary (phds are paid ~$50K at the high end) at a private company.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#104

Post by cgh »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #73
twobitshifter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

> Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. To be fair share owners also like the stock price to go higher, they also like dividends (and higher dividends would tend to drive the stock price higher too), but an X% increase in share price caused by buybacks is favoured over an X% dividend because it isn’t immediately taxed.

Also, I believe in the US ordinary dividends are taxed at the income tax rate which is much higher than the capital gains rate.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#106

Post by fn-mote »

Macha wrote: post #67
xixixao wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

That would not make the share price number go up, which in turn means it doesn't make the leadership's net worth number go up, which means the leadership won't make that choice.

The leadership’s net worth is going up based on their compensation plan including stock options, regardless. If you are more explicit about your assumptions it might be easier to believe or refute the argument.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#107

Post by fundad »

echan00 wrote: post #9

this is great except nobody who should read this article is reading it

The people who should read this article and won't are actually an anti-growth movement. The silicon valley bros I work with are lapping up the sabotage because they want a lower standard of living in America and less science and innovation because they are already comfortable enough. Their sites are set only on the short-term gains of anti-Muslim and anti-abortion sentiment and "though talk" on immigration. Results are not that important. They claim that there would be enough funding if universities funded it with their endowments.

The anti-government sentiment is frankly anti-American. Even the ones who are naturalized don't know the basics about how ballots are validated ("If my wife vote with a provisional ballot, couldn't just anybody?"). I thought there was some testing for naturalization but it must be easy to cheat.

Anyone who convinced themselves that "economic anxiety" was actually a thing should talk to any MAGA or "centrists" about the present state of the economy.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#108

Post by fkyoureadthedoc »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #61
7thaccount wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing against research universities as good stuff does occur there, but it just seems like it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. I think it helps to have scientists and engineers closer to the problem and who don't have to spend a huge amount of their time writing grants and training grad students.

Having worked in corporate labs they really were great and it's a shame they're disappearing. It's not only share buybacks, I would include offshoring, DEI, and a consolidation of management power as major factors in the destruction these labs. The pipeline has been so bad for so long now that it would take a miracle to get things started again. The last org I worked at offshored the most promising work to China. Due…

I'm not really seeing how the blacks and women ruined corporate research, can you expand on that more? Are you saying they were all retarded and without enough white, Asian, and Indian men nothing could be accomplished?

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#109

Post by aleph_minus_one »

xixixao wrote: post #59
twobitshifter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

> Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

They could, but why should they? Which advantage get the shareholders from this?

The only reason why a company with excess profits "should" pay the employees more is if

i) for a given role, the expected results of potential applicants varies a lot (i.e. the company has an incentive "to hire the best of the best")

ii) the market for these exceptional talents is tough (i.e. if the company does not hire the best, someone else will; additionally, if the company does not pay the employees really well, they will be poached)

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#110

Post by nucleogenesis »

xixixao wrote: post #59
twobitshifter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

The only people who matter are shareholders. Employees are a means to the end of making money for the owners of the company whether through stocks or other kinds of ownership.
Post reply on HN