Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#151

Post by xivzgrev » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

powera wrote: post #50

I stopped reading this when I got to "Why do these smart, quantitatively trained engineers, who could help cure cancer or fix healthcare.gov, want to work for a sexting app?" - there was the cover article in Time Magazine not less than 2 weeks ago about these very engineers fixing healthcare.gov, and describing why they don't do it permanently (government procurement is awful and almost always unrelated to actual ski…

Yup i stopped at same point.

I'd add a point. It's also because young people don't fully grasp the cost / benefit analysis - they don't know the pain, and they don't know how to develop & implement the solution.

I might have a cool idea to cure cancer, but it'd be a difficult search to even figure out if it's been done before: lot of learning to do.

Whereas a quick scan of app store and talking with a few buddies tells me if my idea for a sexting app has been done.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#152

Post by alaskamiller » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

noname123 wrote: post #150

Cookingboy wrote: post #148

This article got a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong, and I'm saying that as someone who did work for Cisco, then a YC startup, and is now working for Google. I think one of the fundamental differences in culture between the "old" and "new" is that the older businesses think about BUSINESS first and technology is the tool to thrive in that business, whether it's enterprise software of networking infrastru…

> I love Silicon Valley, but I'd hate for this place to turn into "app valley". Isn't it good to sell shovels during a gold rush? I think now is the perfect time to build SaaS sites with "Enterprise/Startup/Hacker" pricing plans that function similar open-source tools. e.g., Heroku (AWS with more fluff), e-mail marketing tools, customized web hosting, Parse (backend for mobile apps), Airbrake.io (real time error repo…

Good to sell shovels in a gold rush but it's best to build a business that lasts.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#153

Post by MicroBerto » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:37 PM UTC

ryanmarsh wrote: post #120

Like another commenter said "The substance/cool chasm is real" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7386061 It is and I'm loving it. The last thing I need is a wave of smart kids taking all of the low hanging fruit in un-cool flyover country (or what DHH has called the Fortune 1 Million). Right now I'm staring at an ocean that other people don't want to fish because the water is too cold. I'm working on something ver…

Came here to say the exact same thing. I am working on something that I personally consider very sexy, but most hardcore techies do not. It brings about opportunity, even if what I'm doing is extremely boring to most others.

I don't know if I needed to read 7000 words on the subject, but I overall agree with the thesis. I do know some brilliant guys working at old guard technical companies though -- those golden handcuffs are hard to cut!

The problem is, this sector has created a different "bubble" of sorts, which has largely attracted a lot of "brogrammers" to the game who aren't in it for what most of us consider the right reasons. There seems to be a very low signal to noise ratio out there, and it's a huge reason why I don't bother a lot of startup meetups and the like.

I don't believe the bubble will truly last. The ones left standing will be those who are truly passionate about it -- they have the knack -- especially if they can navigate hardware and software.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#154

Post by 205guy » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:41 PM UTC

mjolk wrote: post #39

flgb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The private company is making use of community owned resources so the community should have a say

Are they using more than the road?

They were and are using the curbside public transit bus stops. There is a local regulation stating that any non-public-transit use of the bus stop (including stopping, standing, and parking) is subject to around $250 in fines (and probably immediate towing for parked vehicles). This should apply to any non-transit vehicle: private passenger car, delivery truck, ride-share (taxis with city-regulated licenses/medallions sometimes get special transit privileges), and obviously a private bus. This is understandable because the efficiency of the transit buses depends on them being able to quickly make stops, which they can't do even if a car is dropping off a passenger in the bus stop. SF residents were complaining that they had received this fine simply for being caught dropping off a passenger with no transit bus nearby. Yet the Google buses continued to use public-transit bus stops at regular times, sometimes hindering the public-transit bus, and never received a fine that I have heard of.

Under a recent agreement, the google buses will pay $1 per use of the public bus stops. On the one hand, this option is not available to the general public, only to large corporations with enough money. On the other hand, if the city strictly enforced the law, large corporations with enough money would just go purchase local businesses with commercial loading zones, and use those for the buses--not an ideal situation either (having commercial real-estate and loading zones tied up for transit).

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#155

Post by dalke » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:41 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #103

dalke wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is primarily located in Mountain View, in Santa Clara county. My question was how much of San Francisco's street infrastructure - a different city and county - was supported by Google. Did Google pay "a lot more" than the citizens of the city, as SteveGerencser suggested? The residents and businesses in SF pay about $1 billion in property taxes. How does that compare to specifically Google's contribution? Who…

You're backpedaling. Previously, you said: > I thought they didn't pay anything until this January Now that I've pointed out three ways they pay for SF city infrastructure, you're moving the goalposts. > Google is primarily located in Mountain View But they still have thousands of desks in their San Francisco office space. Also, every employee on those shuttles is either paying SF property tax or paying rent that, in…

Indeed! But more out of ignorance than backpedaling. I'm apparently 7 years out of date, since the SF office opened in October 2007.

bizjournals.com says 2,500 seats, which is 2nd place after Salesforce at 4,000. Tied for 3rd is Lucasfilm and Twitter, with 1,500 each, and Zynga in 4th with 1,300.

(Take those numbers with a grain of salt. I see others say that Twitter has 2,000 employees in SF.)

Regardless, my questions stand: 1) why compare a company's taxes to an "average person"'s taxes, instead of to the citizenry as a whole, 2) just how much does Google bring into the city in direct taxes, compared to the private citizens? 3) is that sufficient compensation for how the company uses the street infrastructure?

Yes, of course the employees on those shuttles are paying taxes. The full analysis would need to look at who would living there if there were no buses, and the level of taxes they pay in that case.

For example, the buses are subsidized transport that provide an effective untaxable salary increase, which is a tax shift away from the city. Fuel cost alone is $10/day/vehicle, and TCO is $48 using AAA's estimate of $0.6/mile. SuperShuttle charges $17 to get to SFO, so $10/day is deliberately low-balling it.

This means that someone making $80K/year from Google/Mtn View, with subsidized transport, gets an effective $2,500+/year raise, and can outbid someone in the city making $81K/year. In which case, the city ends up with lower taxes.

I never said this wasn't complicated, only that there are reasonable arguments for why some people could consider the "buses are better than ..." thesis "having no sound basis (as in fact or law)".

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#156

Post by dalke » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:43 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #133

dalke wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic was if there are any arguments where "a carpooling system that gets dozens of cars off the road and allows each passenger to reclaim ten working hours a week [can be] classified as frivolous." I listed three that I considered to be reasonable in that context. They have come up in various discussions I've read about the situation. I fully realize that my view of "reasonable" is not universally shared. For on…

FWIW on #3, Google has been pushing for rezoning the North Bayshore area (the area by its campus, north of 101 around Shoreline) for mixed-use ground-level retail + high-rise apartments since I got here in 2009. This plan would create about 1100 housing units within walking distance of campus, taking that many cars (or more, including spouses) off of 101, off of Shoreline, and probably out of SF or Mountain View wher…

Yay! Thanks for the update.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#157

Post by wtracy » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

api wrote: post #113

jmsduran wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't blame people choosing to work in other business areas rather than putting their efforts in fixing government, curing cancer, improving medicine, rebooting our space program, fixing education, etc. Why? Because it's honestly very hard work, often with little recognition and less pay. People trying to innovate or 'disrupt' these fields are up against deep rooted political institutions, large corporations with m…

"fixing government, curing cancer, improving medicine, rebooting our space program, fixing education, etc." I think a big part of it is less pay. Important things pay very little compared to frivolous metoo.io apps and social advertising and whatever. Capitalism is a greedy optimizer. When it finds a local maximum it goes all in. It does not explore the fitness landscape.

>

Upvoted specifically for this line. That strikes me as a key insight into the free market's strengths and weaknesses.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#158

Post by bsder » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

The problem is that the VC "lottery" creates a short horizon.

The sexting app cashes out in 18-24 months.

The semiconductor company won't cash out for 5-7 years, if ever.

Want to fix the misallocation? Make the capital gains tax more than income tax instead of less. Suddenly all the smart boys will be off to companies that have profits instead of growth.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#159

Post by api » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:48 PM UTC

wtracy wrote: post #157

api wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"fixing government, curing cancer, improving medicine, rebooting our space program, fixing education, etc." I think a big part of it is less pay. Important things pay very little compared to frivolous metoo.io apps and social advertising and whatever. Capitalism is a greedy optimizer. When it finds a local maximum it goes all in. It does not explore the fitness landscape.

> Upvoted specifically for this line. That strikes me as a key insight into the free market's strengths and weaknesses.

I've thought this for a long time. Ultimately I think it's that private enterprises must have a low appetite for risk. The only time you see private enterprises investing in fundamental R&D or otherwise really exploring, it's when they are either so huge that they have immense cash hoards (e.g. Google) or they are monopolies with guaranteed cash cow income streams (e.g. the old Bell Labs). The vast majority of private enterprises cannot risk investing in anything without a very high probability of return, and that means being conservative and doing things that have already been proven to work. (Or that are only a slight deviation from things that work, or that build on already proven tech, etc.)

Governments have immense disadvantages too. They are slow and inefficient and are absolutely horrible at taking things the "last mile" from lab prototype to product. Governments flat out suck at "shipping." Yet they have the ultimate guaranteed income stream -- taxes -- and so can afford to invest in "high risk, high payoff" R&D and basic science that might never produce direct payoff (but may produce large indirect payoffs later).

The optimum seems to be, as with many things in nature, a balance. There may also be third options that have yet to be discovered, such as innovations in finance that enable risk to be spread more intelligently.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Youth Problem

#160

Post by rayiner » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

jmsduran wrote: post #99

powera wrote: post #50

I stopped reading this when I got to "Why do these smart, quantitatively trained engineers, who could help cure cancer or fix healthcare.gov, want to work for a sexting app?" - there was the cover article in Time Magazine not less than 2 weeks ago about these very engineers fixing healthcare.gov, and describing why they don't do it permanently (government procurement is awful and almost always unrelated to actual ski…

I don't blame people choosing to work in other business areas rather than putting their efforts in fixing government, curing cancer, improving medicine, rebooting our space program, fixing education, etc. Why? Because it's honestly very hard work, often with little recognition and less pay. People trying to innovate or 'disrupt' these fields are up against deep rooted political institutions, large corporations with m…

Its a cop-out. If SV wanted to tackle the big problems, the legal costs of playing in D.C. wouldn't hold them back. Lobbying revenues for the top 10 firms in DC combined are probably $250m per year. Facebook could buy all the top players in DC for a few decades with what it spent on WhatsApp. Citing legal challenges is just cover for the fact that there is more money in sexting than curing cancer.