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

121–130 of 148 posts

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

#121

Post by declan »

jacoblyles wrote: post #109
cmdkeen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well feel better - there is no right/left divide in America. By the standards of anywhere else there is only very right / slightly less right. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled off was convincing Americans that anyone to the left of Attila the Hun was a Communist... What I find odd is that the article equates libertarianism with Rand and the Koch brothers, as if no other type exists. There's also a hint of con…

The Democratic Party is trying to gobble up more of the economy to spend through the federal government, the Republican Party is trying to make it eat less. How are they not left and right?

And under George W. Bush the Republican party created the Department of Homeland Security, the purpose of which is arguably to "gobble up more of the economy to spend through the federal government." And engaged in new excesses of deficit spending (since exceeded by Obama, true).

The broader point is that politics is multidimensional. It's not just one axis. The history of tech policy votes in Congress is a good example that's close to HN home.

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

#122

Post by declan »

dietlbomb wrote: post #116

Does it strike anyone else as odd that everyone in the Silicon Valley software industry has nearly unanimous views on social policy? I've never been to Silicon Valley, but I have spent my entire life and career among engineers, and I have observed diverse views on such issues as gay marriage, climate change, abortion, etc.

There's selection bias: some engineers may choose to move to the SF bay area in part because of the perceived views on social policy. One example of this is SF's Castro district especially a few decades ago.

Speaking as someone who lives on the SF peninsula, I think it's fair to say there's near-uniformity of views on gay marriage (though drive an hour east and that will flip). Climate change, on the other hand, is an area where reasonable people even in this area are more likely to disagree.

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

#123

Post by btilly »

HeliasVlastimir wrote: post #117
btilly wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a straw poll at work some years ago we found that a hypothetic economically liberal, and socially liberal party would handily trounce both Democrats and Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if the same holds fairly broadly among people in IT. As the old joke goes, "I can't vote Democratic because I want to be able to spend my money, and I can't vote Republican because of what I want to spend my money on!"

By economic liberal do you mean left wing? Economic liberalism usually refers to right wing economic policies.

I meant the usual thing.

Right wing economic policies. Left wing social policies.

So relatively low taxes, less bureaucracy, balance the budget, etc. But also gay marriage, equal rights for a variety of groups, and science based environmental policies.

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

#124

Post by skaevola »

cmdkeen wrote: post #82
paul wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well feel better - there is no right/left divide in America. By the standards of anywhere else there is only very right / slightly less right. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled off was convincing Americans that anyone to the left of Attila the Hun was a Communist... What I find odd is that the article equates libertarianism with Rand and the Koch brothers, as if no other type exists. There's also a hint of con…

There's a wonderful short story by Orson Scott Card titled God Plays Fair Once Too Often concerning this.

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

#125

Post by joonix »

YokoZar wrote: post #108
joonix wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that those projects would be profitable only if they were permitted in limited areas only. A broad lifting of regulation would result in sprawl, not density. Look at Houston. Everyone would avoid expensive, dense areas by building out further and further into the land, and in the Bay, there's a ton of undeveloped wooden land that developers would have no problem replacing with tract homes if they were able to do…

Of course, there is room for urban planning. But it's quite telling that none of these projects are starting even in the "downtown" areas adjacent to caltrain stops, which is exactly where you want growth to happen. If a peninsula city actually wanted to prevent sprawl, they'd build up the urban core rather than force people to commute from more permissive cities in the east bay.

Yeah, but this planning begins at a very local level. The NIMBYs are only concerned about their views being blocked and could not care less about the sprawl occurring 30 miles away.

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

#126

Post by olalonde »

johngalt wrote: post #13
stcredzero wrote: post #4

Since 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…

Tech Cycle: 1. Small groups of dedicated technologists create a large step forward in technology. Generally becoming wealthy. 2. People following money all pile in. Pretenders abound; both founders and investors. 3. It becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. How do you tell the difference between someone who is legitimately experienced and someone who's skill is putting on appearances? 4. Big crash a…

Obligatory Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

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

#127

Post by thecage411 »

jacoblyles wrote: post #105
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,…

Reasonable, honest, thoughtful people vote Republican for good reason. For example, they are more likely to support good governance. Blue states and massive public debts go hand in hand[1]. In my experience, the number one most common quality that distinguishes the rare Bay Area young Republican is a love for sustainable budgets and a belief in the immorality of a government knowingly running an unsustainable deficit…

From the link: "When looking at the list, it’s hard to miss how the costs seem to break down according to the red-blue political divide."

I love arguments that invite you to interpret statistics based on your biases.

No analysis given to the fact that one of the most conservative states (Wyoming) has one of the highest pension liabilities per capita or that one controlled by Democrats (West Virginia) has one of the lowest.

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

#128

Post by cmbaus »

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…

I've never heard the term "Limousine liberal," but I'm fond of the french expression: La Gauche Caviar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_caviar

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

#129

Post by svdad »

CleanedStar wrote: post #95
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,…

Yes, the Democratic party is not left wing on either a global scale, as you say, or even on a historical scale. The Democrats used to support the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps to put people to work. Massive government projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification Administration were instituted. More recently the Democrats have been about "ending welfare as…

All the older people are, in fact, at Google. The average age of software engineers there is much higher than you might think.

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

#130

Post by xyzzy123 »

btilly wrote: post #123
HeliasVlastimir wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By economic liberal do you mean left wing? Economic liberalism usually refers to right wing economic policies.

I meant the usual thing. Right wing economic policies. Left wing social policies. So relatively low taxes, less bureaucracy, balance the budget, etc. But also gay marriage, equal rights for a variety of groups, and science based environmental policies.

Totally agree that such a party would be great.

Does left wing social policy include e.g. universal welfare, health care and access to education though? Or are you thinking mainly of "liberal" rather than "left wing"?

Part of the problem is that left wing social policies cost money and have to be administered, conflicting with low taxes and less bureaucracy.... :(

Post reply on HN