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

The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#201

Post by ovi256 »

Retric wrote: post #197
michaelochurch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rings true and people always seem to forget that it's much easier to innovate when the cost of living is lower. The problem, or the balance that must be struck, is that it's hard to innovate without being surrounded by other innovative people. You need a city with a critical mass of innovative, talented people and a low cost-of-living. California in the 1970s had that. I don't know what the 2013 analogue is, or…

Except the critical mass is something like 3 people. So, yes people help but having 1,000 or 1,000,000 innovators around you makes little difference.

For a proof-of-concept early-stage lean startup, no, number of trained people you may hire around you is not a key issue. As soon as you want to move fast and hire people to help you industrialize the business model you found, having trained people of key specialties around you is going to be necessary. I think the jury's still out on whether remote work can replace this.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#202

Post by RougeFemme »

babesh wrote: post #179
robomartin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding. Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point. I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500…

Its not always the direct innovation that government creates, is the seeding of an environment that allows the innovation or prevents the rise of extreme elements: Agricultural and mining state colleges in the US, UC system, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, bringing electricity to rural areas during the Great Depression, public work projects that allowed artists to keep on producing works of art, the Spac…

Absolutely agree. The government sows the seeds and the next generation and private entities harvest them.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#203

Post by RougeFemme »

Retric wrote: post #196
robomartin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding. Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point. I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500…

The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic…

Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#204

Post by venus »

contingencies wrote: post #195
venus wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you're reading a lot into my comment that I didn't intend. I have nothing against any of those things. I am just pointing out that you don't just "move to Asia"; there are tradeoffs to be made. > then stay in your home culture and pontificate about how great your country towns are Really uncalled for IMO. I have lived and worked extensively in Japan and Thailand and visit the region multiple times a year. Like m…

I'm not on the attack, I'm just sayin'. For example, Singapore is a bastion of fascist conservatism, plain and simple. The fact you even mentioned it as a potential destination shows that you are either hyper-conservative or that you haven't had much long term experience in the region. Visiting and living are two different things. I agree there are pros and cons to everywhere, but comparing a beach in Asia to a count…

You're not on the attack, you're just sayin' that I'm "either hyper-conservative or [..] haven't had much long term experience in the region". Right.

I mentioned Singapore because it's a city in Asia that speaks English, thus making it substantially more accessible. It's also a clean, modern, livable city. I probably wouldn't live there but I know plenty of people who do and it's hardly a bad place, especially for a startup.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#205

Post by Retric »

khuey wrote: post #200
Retric wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a house is cheap, having the local infrastructure to support houses is expensive. Letting people build unlimited housing without restriction is a terrible idea. What we need is a tax on new houses that covers local infrastructure needs. We don't do this because developers have long fed on subsidies of there external costs by local governments.

We call those taxes property taxes, but thanks to prop 30 in California the situation there is totally messed up too.

Property taxes are a poor approximation of external costs even excluding prop 30. Most obviously there paid after the fact and the county needs infrastructure up front.

Consider you add a new subway stop in an area and suddenly people want to replace single family dwellings near it with apartment buildings. The region paid for that subway expansion, but a few well connected developers stand to make a killing. When you get down to it Zoning is really an ideal way for local politicians to shift the benefits of public infrastructure into well connected private hands.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#206

Post by bokonist »

philwelch wrote: post #185
bokonist wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let [us] not use FDIC as a crowbar" Who's "us"? I don't work for or have any power over the government or FDIC.

You're not a citizen?

I am a U.S. citizen. But that does not mean I use the words "us" or "we" when discussing the actions of a government bureaucracy. I'm sure I have a few shares of Microsoft in some mutual fund, but that does not mean I use the word "we" when discussing the actions of Microsoft.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#207

Post by khuey »

Retric wrote: post #205
khuey wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We call those taxes property taxes, but thanks to prop 30 in California the situation there is totally messed up too.

Property taxes are a poor approximation of external costs even excluding prop 30. Most obviously there paid after the fact and the county needs infrastructure up front. Consider you add a new subway stop in an area and suddenly people want to replace single family dwellings near it with apartment buildings. The region paid for that subway expansion, but a few well connected developers stand to make a killing. When yo…

It depends on how the project is funded. Some improvements (such as bringing city water/sewer to an area on the outskirts of town or paving a dirt road) are typically funded via special assessments on the affected property. The local government can then sell bonds secured by the future revenue stream and pass along the financing cost to those who see the benefit.

Subway extensions typically distribute costs over a wider population (the regional/state/federal government paying for large chunks of it). On some level this makes sense. A special assessment on the areas within X feet of a subway station would likely be prohibitively costly for property owners, and the entire region benefits from better transportation infrastructure with more benefits. On the other hand, the person who owns the property across the street from the new subway station is benefiting much more than someone who lives on the other side of town. Perhaps a combination of special assessments and general revenue funding is more appropriate for this scenario? You're certainly correct that the current system transfers a lot of public value into private hands. The Central Subway in SF is going to make some property owners in Chinatown very wealthy.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#208

Post by bearmf »

khuey wrote: post #167
bearmf wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real estate market separated into 60% government-owned cheap housing and 40% privately owned expensive housing strangely reminds me of NYC with its rent control/stabilization policies. Most of the current problems will not go away with government owning buildings instead of landlords. If the prevailing rate is low enough, a black rental market will soon form for government-owned units in desirable locations. What I…

In many areas (including the Bay Area) the government won't allow private developers to build new housing (via zoning laws etc.)

There is no abstract "government" doing it. It is the work of people who do not want new housing to be built for some reasons. They probably have lots of influence in local governments.

Local governments are small and arguably inefficient, it is easy for special interests such as homeowners to influence them. But there is a long tradition of local government in US and they have real power. The solution here would be for higher-level (state) government to intervene, keeping in mind interests of all state residents and not only homeowners.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#209

Post by harryh »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #189
harryh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, you're looking for something that never existis. This stuff is hard man. To do things that are hard you often have to get down in the muck and deal with shit you don't feel like dealing with. Welcome to life. I'm sure that DaniFong has to do that all the time for her energy project. But hey, write everything off as a social problem if that's the excuse you're looking for to let yourself off the hook. Everyone's g…

Well thanks for being a jerk about it, but it's not like I'm doing nothing with my life. I'm just so far choosing lines of work that keep me out of infrastructure negotiations with municipalities, and I'm only 23. We'll see.

Hey, you're right I was being a jerk. I was in a bad mood (for completely unrelated reasons). Sorry about that.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#210

Post by robomartin »

Retric wrote: post #196
robomartin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding. Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point. I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500…

The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic…

You are choosing to assign the entire value of the internet to government. This is folklore that is nothing less than nonsensical. If your goal is to "destroy" my argument you have to do far better than that.

The ARPANET was going to go absolutely nowhere without private enterprise rescuing it from obscurity and launching it into every-day life like a rocket.

Government did not PLAN the internet as we know it today. They didn't even have a clue.

Back before the internet got launched to the masses the masses were using services such as Compuserve, AOL and a number of others. The "internet" was going to evolve out of one of these efforts one way or another. It just so happened that industry found something that could be leveraged to make this happen and they did. In fact, I believe Compuserve was one of the first to offer it to it's millions (yes, millions) of customers.

It's almost like the idea of giving some guy credit for the invention of the wheel. What, nobody else was going to invent the wheel if he did not? Nonsense.

For every government project that resulted in a successful transfer to private industry there's probably ten or more that are still sucking money out of all of us and are useless.

Government-funded initiatives are very important, but, please, don't give them god-like attributes as if claiming that without government programs humankind would still be rubbing two sticks together to make fire.

Post reply on HN