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

New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#51

Post by sharemywin »

sheepmullet wrote: post #34
throwaway2048 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is much dispute that developers tend to come from upper middle class families, which is exactly what the parent said. He didn't say they must come from there.

> I don't think there is much dispute that developers tend to come from upper middle class families, which is exactly what the parent said. I’d love to see some data. Of course if you work at the kind of companies that only hire people with a top CS degree then you might be led to believe that. In my experience though it’s not the case. The majority of people in my office grew up lower middle class.

which still isn't extreme poverty.

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#52

Post by sharemywin »

fzeroracer wrote: post #7
ojbyrne wrote: post #2

I don’t think anybody questions the fact that the “elite” (i.e the wealthy) are conservative. The 1% generally are. But the rest of the population of Silicon Valley generally aren’t.

While I haven't worked in SV yet, my experience across the tech sector has been somewhat similar. Developers tend to be socially liberal in a few areas but strongly conservative when it comes to issues of regulation, taxation and so forth. A lot of that is I believe because they tend to come from upper-middle class families or relatively more stable upbringings. It can make discussing some of the various social issue…

It's also because they aspire to be part of the investment class.

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#53

Post by sharemywin »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #28

Seems like a weird juxtaposition to me that the word “liberal” is being used to imply the support of more government regulations when by definition those restrictions are restricting someone’s freedoms (sometimes for the best IMO). It reminds me of the old Norm MacDonald joke where because of abortions and the death penalty, there’s no way for him to vote for a party where nobody is killed.

Rich American economic conservative: The government shouldn't regulate industry. Rich American economic liberal: The government should regulate industry except mine.

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#54

Post by iamnothere »

goatlover wrote: post #42
proginthebox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberalism is always against an axis. As such, there are two different factors in liberalism, Social and Economic. The so-called liberals in America Liberals are socially liberal but economically conservative. While American conservatives are economically liberal but socially conservative.

So American libertarians are the true liberals?

A number of them refer to themselves as "classical liberals" in an attempt to reclaim the continental definition of liberal, but in the US media at least it feels like the definition has permanently shifted. This makes it awfully confusing when discussing US politics internationally. (Maybe one day we'll align our language with the rest of the world, and maybe one day we'll adopt the metric system too.)

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#55

Post by virmundi »

goatlover wrote: post #42
proginthebox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberalism is always against an axis. As such, there are two different factors in liberalism, Social and Economic. The so-called liberals in America Liberals are socially liberal but economically conservative. While American conservatives are economically liberal but socially conservative.

So American libertarians are the true liberals?

Yes. The common use of the word Liberal means Progressive. Progressives, while sounding like they want progress, want regulation of anything they don't like. They want to regulate speech. They want to regulate the energy source that would have prevented Global Warming, nuclear. The list goes on. Welcome to the Liberals of modernity.

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#56

Post by iamnothere »

geff82 wrote: post #43
uncle_d wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it seems to be used in the USA - someone left-leaning that may well support more government intervention in the name of fairness. Classical liberalism in contrast focuses on the liberty of the individual through limiting government.

I am a „liberal“ German and I really have a hard time to translate that correctly. I am neither conservative, liberal nor libertarian. German „liberalism“ and how it is seen in most countries is a distinct mix of all of them, but not in the extremist sense: while we european liberals like to be conservative in private, we accept and promote civil liberties (including abolishing death penalty and being allowed to smok…

You may still fall under the US definition of libertarian, which is a fairly broad spectrum. There is a split within libertarians, which used to be denoted by so-called "big L" Libertarians (Libertarian Party) and "small l" libertarians, but I haven't seen those terms mentioned as much lately. In general US libertarianism is a spectrum like any other political ideology, and you'll see people who represent extreme versions of it (think "muh roads" meme), some who fall more toward the traditional classical liberal position, and some who are more left leaning (communitarianism and neigboring groups, some Greens as well).

I think because we only have two major parties here, outlying groups tend to mix together more, even when they have substantial disagreements in their philosophy. As a whole, we are also less well-educated about alternative political systems, which makes the discussion more confusing for everyone involved.

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#57

Post by happytoexplain »

virmundi wrote: post #55
goatlover wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So American libertarians are the true liberals?

Yes. The common use of the word Liberal means Progressive. Progressives, while sounding like they want progress, want regulation of anything they don't like. They want to regulate speech. They want to regulate the energy source that would have prevented Global Warming, nuclear. The list goes on. Welcome to the Liberals of modernity.

My observations don't align with yours, though your writing is possibly emotionally driven. I don't think "progressives", on average, want to legally regulate nuclear power and speech in harmful ways. But mostly, I don't understand the implication that progress as in "progressive" is mutually exclusive from regulation. Can you clarify where that comes from?

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#58

Post by virmundi »

happytoexplain wrote: post #57
virmundi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The common use of the word Liberal means Progressive. Progressives, while sounding like they want progress, want regulation of anything they don't like. They want to regulate speech. They want to regulate the energy source that would have prevented Global Warming, nuclear. The list goes on. Welcome to the Liberals of modernity.

My observations don't align with yours, though your writing is possibly emotionally driven. I don't think "progressives", on average, want to legally regulate nuclear power and speech in harmful ways. But mostly, I don't understand the implication that progress as in "progressive" is mutually exclusive from regulation. Can you clarify where that comes from?

Let's take nuclear. Jimmy Carter and the Liberals of his age were against recycling of fuel. They regulated that all spent fuel had to be stored in a super complex system that protected humanity from the fuel. The regulations are so onerous that to this day many power plants in the US are stockpiling their spent fuel because we can't build a facility that actually satisfies the requirements due to other regulations.

Another example, the Liberals want to ban hate speech. When pressed the definition of hate speech is any speech that contradicts their own. They don't hold to the Enlightenment ideal of discussing radical views. Instead, if anyone appeals to science, hard science, that disagrees with one of their many incoherent points, that person is banned from the Academy.

Finally, take SF. This city likes to describe itself as one of the most Liberal in the country. Those same Liberals have effectively priced out the majority of middle-class Americans. You know? The one they supposedly love. They did this through zoning regulations. Buildings can only be so tall. You can have only so many families per unit. They can only exist in certain locations. All of the regulation adds up to the problems SF faces today.

In a general sense, there is also the moral regulations the modern Liberals put on us. They continue to enforce the plantation on the black population, and will for decades to come. Liberals hold blacks as perpetual children. They need welfare because they are poorly educated and oppressed by the white man. Now step back and you'll see that they are oppressed by whites: white liberals. For 60 years or more Liberal cities like Chicago, LA, New York all have done nothing to improve the lots of blacks. They are kept as subsistence levels. Those Liberal bastions could have improved housing. They could have improved education. They could have withheld resources to force a change in the individual to learn and improve. They have done nothing. Like children, they shouldn't marry. The Liberals have rigged the welfare laws at all levels to destroy the home by excluding the father. Again, the list goes on. I leave it to reader to research this on their own.

In the end the Liberal of today is the authoritarian of yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WEh51z1H_o

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#59

Post by iamnothere »

fzeroracer wrote: post #7
ojbyrne wrote: post #2

I don’t think anybody questions the fact that the “elite” (i.e the wealthy) are conservative. The 1% generally are. But the rest of the population of Silicon Valley generally aren’t.

While I haven't worked in SV yet, my experience across the tech sector has been somewhat similar. Developers tend to be socially liberal in a few areas but strongly conservative when it comes to issues of regulation, taxation and so forth. A lot of that is I believe because they tend to come from upper-middle class families or relatively more stable upbringings. It can make discussing some of the various social issue…

As an alternative perspective: perhaps discussing the social issues is more difficult because their immediate self-interest (and that of their families) lies towards lower taxation, less regulation, and so on. In my experience, all people tend to protect what is theirs first, although they will cloak this intent behind language that makes it more ambiguous. Appealing to people's sympathy just isn't an effective strategy, as humans aren't actually as charitable as we pretend to be.

If you can convince people that their long-term self-interest must include the broader community, you may be more likely to get somewhere than pointing out the challenges experienced by other people. In any case, you're unlikely to make any headway against people who are buying private islands and have "escape plans" to get them out of the country. (These people already understand the risk and believe they have factored that into their decisions.)

Re: New Study Indicates Silicon Valley’s Elite Are Not as Liberal as They Think

#60

Post by clairity »

virmundi wrote: post #58
happytoexplain wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My observations don't align with yours, though your writing is possibly emotionally driven. I don't think "progressives", on average, want to legally regulate nuclear power and speech in harmful ways. But mostly, I don't understand the implication that progress as in "progressive" is mutually exclusive from regulation. Can you clarify where that comes from?

Let's take nuclear. Jimmy Carter and the Liberals of his age were against recycling of fuel. They regulated that all spent fuel had to be stored in a super complex system that protected humanity from the fuel. The regulations are so onerous that to this day many power plants in the US are stockpiling their spent fuel because we can't build a facility that actually satisfies the requirements due to other regulations.…

this second comment is much more constructive than your first one, because you criticized specific policies for their results. let's keep putting aside the tribal and partisan language and come together to brainstorm and debate solutions.

and yes, we need to ease nuclear regulations, protect all speech, and fix regulations around housing (including the regulation of interest rates through freddie/fannie).

a key fix to everything you said about the suppression of black folks (and most of the rest of us) is a return to a progressive tax system. a few decades ago, the US taxed the 1% at up to 90%, didn't have a separate capital gains tax, had an inheritance tax that encouraged industry, and didn't have corporate tax shields (along with encouraging immigration). and thus we prospered.

Post reply on HN