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

Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#71

Post by cpeterso »

kyllo wrote: post #48
pyoung wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he did a good job at making the distinction. Not sure if you got the jist of it, but he clearly states that despite the heavy libertarian leaning culture, SV overwhelmingly voted for Democrats the last few elections, indicating they were not on board with the Republican platform. My take on it is that SV is 'liberaltarian', in that they prefer small, efficient, decentralized organizational structures, but tha…

My take on it is that SV is 'liberaltarian', in that they prefer small, efficient, decentralized organizational structures, but that they also recognize the need for social welfare as a stabilizing force. That's how I see it as well. The fact is, that there is a strong demand for social insurance/welfare services (e.g. health insurance, unemployment stipends, retirement pensions, etc), and the supply of those service…

> "Liberaltarians," I think, believe that we're better off letting the government provide the social insurance services to everyone, so that citizens' access to them is no longer dependent on employment, which will increase liquidity in the labor market and take some of the risk out of entrepreneurship.

Also, employer-funded health insurance is a drag on US companies that must compete with foreign companies that can rely on government health insurance/services.

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#73

Post by dmix »

Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #69
dmix wrote: post #43

> True libertarians would be repulsed at the thought, but the success of Silicon Valley even suggests that governments could do much more to encourage these kinds of internal compensation structures, in the name of better business and social cohesion. (Not to mention old-fashioned fairness.) Wait, what part did the government play in how tech-companies compensate their employees fairly? Or does he mean the government…

The author appears to intend that latter meaning, where SV companies have more egalitarian ownership structures on their own, but that now that we've seen the results, the government should encourage those structures more broadly in the economy. Actually, the government plays a small part already in how high-tech companies share equity with employees, through preferential tax treatment for Incentive Stock Options. Yo…

Corporations can still distribute revenue and equity as they please. It's a legal structure for taxation and liability.

The state forcing corporations to distribute their earnings or equity a certain way is a massively more intrusive structure.

If that was done, it would likely be single handily the greatest manipulation of markets and private assets ever done by a government in modern history.

If an egalitarian equity structure legitimately benefits the companies, they will adopt that structure. If they don't then their competitors would do it as a competitive advantage. Unless it really doesn't benefit the companies and therefore requires the state to involuntary make them do it?

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#74

Post by cdugg »

What's so great about being progressive? Aren't progressives the people who want to re-distribute other people's money? And what on earth is so dreadful about the gilded age? The greatest increase in the standards of living in the history of the US happened in the gilded age. By this idiot newyorker writer's logic, we are supposed to dread and avoid the entrepreneurs that dropped the prices of kerosene, steel and other commodities, facilitated rapid industrialization and improved the living standards of everyone. Why are the billionaires of today (sergei, larry, Zuck etc) any different in nature than the billionaires of those times? Except for the crony capitalists that got in bed with the government, what is wrong with great success and wealth?

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#75

Post by aaronbrethorst »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental error of this piece is that it assumes that if you vote Democratic, you're by definition not a one-percenter. What? Much of the article is devoted to making the opposite point: that the SV elite overwhelmingly support the Democrats.

Political affiliation seems like a red herring in a two party system. It wouldn't surprise me if people in SV vote democrat because they don't like certain things associated with the republicans (religion , anti-gay rights, guns , whatever) rather than agreeing wholesale with the democratic party manifesto.

You just enumerated a significant portion of the de facto Republican agenda. Also, as 2004 demonstrated, voters normally vote for what they like instead of against what they dislike.

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#76

Post by cpeterso »

stephencanon wrote: post #38
brown9-2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but he clearly states that despite the heavy libertarian leaning culture, SV overwhelmingly voted for Democrats the last few elections, indicating they were not on board with the Republican platform. The author seems to use this fact to negate the idea that many in SV lean libertarian: If libertarianism is so rampant in Silicon Valley, why are they voting for higher taxes and funding a big government liberal by such…

> what is the "Los Gatos" in reference to? Presumably the town of Los Gatos (a relatively wealthy suburb of San Jose). Why Los Gatos in particular? I have no idea.

I think "Los Gatos" just made for a catchy, alliterative title.

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#77

Post by rndmize »

paul wrote: post #61
smacktoward wrote: post #19

The fundamental error of this piece is that it assumes that if you vote Democratic, you're by definition not a one-percenter. But this is just wrong. There are lots of one-percenters who vote Democratic. They just mostly feel more strongly about cultural-liberalism issues than they do about economic ones. But when it comes to economic issues, these folks still tend to lean rightward; they overestimate the degree of s…

The fundamental error of this piece is that it assumes that if you vote Democratic, you're by definition not an engineer. (not really, but to me it makes as much sense as your statement) How does being a part of the evil "one percent" make you any less qualified to have or hold a variety of political views? If anything, I've found that having more money makes me more aware of issues like unemployment, health care, et…

> How does being a part of the evil "one percent" make you any less qualified to have or hold a variety of political views?

I don't think this is what he's saying. It's that one percenters have an inherently greater voice on political issues (if they so choose) and that as a result, the national debate has been warped to focus on the issues and perspectives they consider important.

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#78

Post by tomkarlo »

dyno12345 wrote: post #60
tomkarlo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

50%? That's way better than any SV firm

It's not quite apples to apples. Bankers get paid way more (so they sell off less of their stock) and they are also often paid in RSUs or other forms of stock comp that can't be sold for several years. Tech workers are generally paid with stock that vests each year, and if they're smart they'll sell that down immediately (as they still generally have lots of future stock they're still exposed on, from a portfolio perspective.)

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#79

Post by jjoonathan »

nostromo wrote: post #56
onemorepassword wrote: post #54

One foundation of the entire argument seems to be that support for the Democratic party makes SV progressive. However, in a global context only the minority left wing of the Democratic party could be called progressive. Also, a simpler explanation for the large support for the Democrats would be that SV consists of intelligent, highly educated and well-informed people that wouldn't dream of supporting the extremist,…

I think that's correct. Anecdotally, my personal network in tech seems to side with Democrats for reason like environmental protection, global warming, gay marriage, abortion, and olive branch foreign policy; not because of economic reasons like union support, wealth redistribution, or strengthened regulators.

Makes you wonder if the Republican party isn't intentionally taking the wedge-issue craziness to 11 only so that they can rebrand next election cycle and yank the mat out from under the Democrats. Given the effectiveness of Romney's rush-to-the-center in the 1st debate against Obama, the thought has to have crossed their minds. The timing (tossing last election to win the next one) makes sense because next election they won't be running against a relatively popular incumbent. They don't have anything to gain by doubling-down on the losing side of every social issue on the list -- their core demographic will vote R regardless -- but a pull-the-mat strategy could net them tons of wealthy individuals from the "socially liberal economically conservative" camp.

Re: Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age

#80

Post by jiggy2011 »

dmmalam wrote: post #68
onemorepassword wrote: post #54

One foundation of the entire argument seems to be that support for the Democratic party makes SV progressive. However, in a global context only the minority left wing of the Democratic party could be called progressive. Also, a simpler explanation for the large support for the Democrats would be that SV consists of intelligent, highly educated and well-informed people that wouldn't dream of supporting the extremist,…

Yea, in real terms the Democratic party are more right wing than the UK Conservative party.

On a policy level that may be true, however I would guess that many members of the conservative party are ideologically more right wing than the average democrat and would prefer to see the party move to the right. They have to maintain a more centrist position to be electable.
Post reply on HN