Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
1–10 of 148 posts
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#2Author states that Silicon Valley corporate structures are more egalitarian when measured against traditional firms. Author attributes this to a more progressive, 'stakeholder' culture in SV.
Question: human capital is disproportionately more important to building value in the tech sector than it is in the broader economy (think mines, manufacturing etc). Isn't it more likely that a more equitable equity split is a pre-requisite for success in SV as opposed to being a consequence of it?
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#3This article conflates Libertarians with Republicans which I don't think makes sense in Silicon Valley. Yes, nationwide they tend to be in the same group but not in the valley.
Judging from comments on HN the valley does sound quite libertarian but not the kind that register and vote Republican. It seems more intellectual and based in logic while Republicans are more about dogma and scoring political points.
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#4Since I moved to California and the Bay Area, I have to say I've encountered more smarmyness and arrogance than in Houston Texas. This by itself isn't a negative indicator. However, if you couple it with a tendency for people to judge you by "your cover," then it is. The real attitudes of people, and how they differ from stated ones, are a big part of the downsides of a milieu like the "Gilded Age." Success itself is a part of the problem here. Success attracts attention, both good and bad, making it necessary to bias for false negatives in various interactions. This encourages the "echo chamber" effect.
I wonder if Silicon Valley isn't reaching some sort of gradual saturation. The number of people who pretend to be upbeat and curious versus the number who actually are is disturbing to me.
(EDIT: To be fair, this may well be because I'm on the wrong side of the filtering membrane.)
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#5"There is a growing body of research that shows that companies that limit their high-low wage ratios and distribute generous option plans consistently outperform more traditional, inegalitarian firms."
I'd love to know more about this growing body of research.
A basic Google search yields the ten most profitable firms: Gazprom, Exxon Mobil, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, China Construction Bank, Apple, BP, BHP Billiton and Microsoft[1].
I don't get the sense that oil companies and big banks are egalitarian in their approach to employee equity. What am I missing?
[1] http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/perfor...
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#6Author states that Silicon Valley corporate structures are more egalitarian when measured against traditional firms. Author attributes this to a more progressive, 'stakeholder' culture in SV. Question: human capital is disproportionately more important to building value in the tech sector than it is in the broader economy (think mines, manufacturing etc). Isn't it more likely that a more equitable equity split is a p…
This a good point. Investment banks also generally have a very high percentage of employee ownership (50%+) because so much of their value is their employee base.
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#7Author states that Silicon Valley corporate structures are more egalitarian when measured against traditional firms. Author attributes this to a more progressive, 'stakeholder' culture in SV. Question: human capital is disproportionately more important to building value in the tech sector than it is in the broader economy (think mines, manufacturing etc). Isn't it more likely that a more equitable equity split is a p…
I believe the stakeholder culture is because tech companies often have the potential for rapid growth. For example, a barbershop's capital is mostly human, but there isn't a big chance it will IPO. This means the best barbers don't have much incentive to choose their barbershop based on equity in the compensation package.
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#8Since I moved to California and the Bay Area, I have to say I've encountered more smarmyness and arrogance than in Houston Texas. This by itself isn't a negative indicator. However, if you couple it with a tendency for people to judge you by "your cover," then it is. The real attitudes of people, and how they differ from stated ones, are a big part of the downsides of a milieu like the "Gilded Age." Success itself is…
Every gold rush attracts hucksters. Each time there's a tech boom, there's a wash of entrepreneurs, etc who have no real track record at anything and often aren't genuinely passionate about technology, just getting rich or famous. It comes and goes.
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#9There needs to be a corollary to Betteridge's law of headlines: if a headline reads "Why is not happening", that means it most definitely is happening (or has already happened).
Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age
#10"I would be surprised if there were any new industry in the history of capitalism that distributed its economic rewards to its employees as widely as Silicon Valley has."
Wall street has been distributing most of it's profits to employees in the form of bonuses for decades. Though unlike SV, it get criticised heavily (a lot unfairly IMHO) for it. Having worked in both, I feel they are full of the same 'type' of people.