Its easy to tease out why alleged Silicon Valley and other 1% liberals can pretend to care about the 99% by "saying" they are for higher taxes and more government delivered services like universal health care! First they can always in the future, as in the past, arrange to dodge higher tax rates to pay for these via lobbyist arranged exemptions and of course by hiding/taking most of their profits overseas - now that they have made our world so "cosmopolitan" & done so much "global economic integration" to the effect of transferring much of their manufacturing to China, Mexico et al. Then government delivered services more and more end up being massive wage "top off" subsidies to big businesses who via flooding labor markets with immigrants and threatening of offshore arrange to pay ever more professions less than a living wage. For example it is often said that universal health care is a big cost saver for businesses, because they don't have to provide money for workers medical needs. And again just because the government provides essentially wage substituting social welfare subsidies to businesses does not mean that businesses end up paying more taxes to fund those gov services. Often the government taxes what's left of the middle class down into poverty, and or takes on more national debt to pay for those gov services which common citizens have to pay for via reduced gov services in other areas and economic monetary exchange damages resulting from a high national debt.
1
Considering that this survey is still under peer review, NYT has jumped the gun here.
Specifically, which/how many tech elite "were hippies and draft resisters, as enthusiastic about LSD ad microprocessors..." v. not?
Consider the age range of the interviewees, they would have little knowledge of labor unions accomplishments and probably grew up during a time when labor unions were excessively maligned in the media compared to massive corrupt corporate practices. Were they informed of Labor's contributions to the working class prior to answering the survey?
Specifically, which/how many tech elite "were hippies and draft resisters, as enthusiastic about LSD ad microprocessors..." v. not?
Consider the age range of the interviewees, they would have little knowledge of labor unions accomplishments and probably grew up during a time when labor unions were excessively maligned in the media compared to massive corrupt corporate practices. Were they informed of Labor's contributions to the working class prior to answering the survey?
1
"Many of Silicon Valley’s pioneers . . . hippies and draft resisters, as enthusiastic about LSD as about microprocessors, and they brought to their work the tenets of the counterculture."
Yep, right-on! The navel-gazers turned a whole new generation's gaze downward, to devices in the palm of a hand, at about the same angle. What's new?
Yep, right-on! The navel-gazers turned a whole new generation's gaze downward, to devices in the palm of a hand, at about the same angle. What's new?
1
What is similar among democrats, republicans, liberals, libertarians, techies, etc is an absolute distain for the rest of the world beyond the USA. Bring international racism and war back into the discussion, and most of the parts of the USA look the same. What a shame.
Political analysts such as Thomas Frank have advanced the notion that the Democratic Party abandoned its working class membership in labor unions partially to appeal to wealthy technocrats, and that is the cause of its failure to support the struggling labor movement or its members who eventually were seduced by Donald Trump. The findings of this study that signify anti-union bias among tech leaders would seem to support that notion. It neither bodes well for this industry, the Democratic Party or our country which is struggling under the weight of income inequality.
4
The people you polled are generally younger. They haven't sent their children and grandchildren to college. When they reach the age of expenses that are huge after tax expenses, they may dramatically change a few of their thoughts.
I think respondents and readers are smart enough to notice that one does not get environmental protection or Resource management without regulation. Define your terms
1
This is such a good article. I wish that you had not quickly taken it off the front page. Silicon Valley needs to be exposed for their anti-labor practices... and their push to bring in ever more immigrants to replace American engineers.
4
Supporting middle class workers is the essence of being a Democrat. The tech elites are all talk and no action when it comes to helping America to thrive.
4
The below is one of the most oversimplified and politically ignorant paragraphs that I've ever read. While I don't claim to be a member of any political party, I have most closely identify with a Libertarian philosophy. To boil any political philosophy down to a single sentence which isn't even an accurate representation of it is dangerous and misleading. The NYT can and should do better.
The Stanford study thoroughly debunks the idea that tech is lousy with libertarians. The researchers asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: “I would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.”
The Stanford study thoroughly debunks the idea that tech is lousy with libertarians. The researchers asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: “I would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.”
As the good 'liberals' they are, the Silicon Valley's tech companies want everybody to be regulated, except for themselves. They're business people first, and whatever comes in second place is a distant second.
2
Maybe they are LOLI, liberal outside and libertarian inside. A derivative of NIMBY. Or enlightened narcissism unless you are infringing on their belief system. I am no fan of the Google kid making dubious rationalization why there are fewer female SV denizens simply because he probably didn't have a social life; however, demanding him fired sounds a bit princess to me. Intolerance and extremism go both way. While there is a limit one should tolerance - for example, there is no place for racism - by definition the liberal should be more tolerance. And SV's politics makes Barry Goldwater Jr look like a raging liberal
Remember that these are the CEO's and founders.
The politics of the rank and file in Silicon Valley are much less libertarian, though they are well-represented among engineers, as they are among other scientists.
The politics of the rank and file in Silicon Valley are much less libertarian, though they are well-represented among engineers, as they are among other scientists.
People from California are good at inventing Computers but they do not have the Political know how to do anything else. New York is the Political Powerhouse sending immigrants cross country so these "techs" can cut costs. In no shape or form can California dominate the entire Country - every region fights for it's own piece of the argument, even Virginia where Congress proceeds is in a power struggle with their argument
It does not surprise me that the technology elite is socially liberal, but to call them "liberal" is not the whole truth. To be socially liberal is easy -- it takes nothing from your wallet. To be a real liberal (social AND economic) means supporting policies that will give people opportunity, a far wage and a fair shot.
I'm glad to hear that many of these technology elites support higher taxes on the rich and redistributive policies, but that they don't support labor unions and regulation is telling. Most working people want a say in where they work and how and and want to bargain for a decent wage. They don't want charity.
Many people in the Bay Area or Silicon Valley resemble these technology elites. They think of themselves as liberals, but alas, they are not.
I'm glad to hear that many of these technology elites support higher taxes on the rich and redistributive policies, but that they don't support labor unions and regulation is telling. Most working people want a say in where they work and how and and want to bargain for a decent wage. They don't want charity.
Many people in the Bay Area or Silicon Valley resemble these technology elites. They think of themselves as liberals, but alas, they are not.
9
I simply feel they fear regulations will be written to stifle innovation and limit disruption. Which literally kills their business.
After all, much of this is written by politicians influenced by lobbyists. Those lobbyists represent traditional businesses who hate change.
After all, much of this is written by politicians influenced by lobbyists. Those lobbyists represent traditional businesses who hate change.
2
“There’s one obvious difference between those time periods,” Dr. Malhotra said. “That difference is the rising influence of the technology industry in politics.”
Two other differences are that (1) the E.U. is going after large American technology titans and (2) that, in many crucial tech markets, there's serious competition. Look at the fight amongst Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc. to lead in the move to the cloud. That's ferocious competition, if one is paying attention. Some of these companies are leveraging dominance in a core market but they are fighting like cats and dogs for the new markets.
Microsoft had effectively zero competition in its main markets and dominated the poorly-financed up-and-comers who were challenging it (Netscape, etc.). And the E.U. and China weren't using varying degrees of arbitary law to boost their own champions at that time. (They had no alternative champions to Microsoft)
I think these differences are more salient. Tech is getting politically active now because they feel threatened, not because they have more power! Look at the choo choo train of court cases coming out of Europe. And the fall of net neutrality because of the lobbying power of the telecom companies. That's not what power over gov't looks like.
Two other differences are that (1) the E.U. is going after large American technology titans and (2) that, in many crucial tech markets, there's serious competition. Look at the fight amongst Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc. to lead in the move to the cloud. That's ferocious competition, if one is paying attention. Some of these companies are leveraging dominance in a core market but they are fighting like cats and dogs for the new markets.
Microsoft had effectively zero competition in its main markets and dominated the poorly-financed up-and-comers who were challenging it (Netscape, etc.). And the E.U. and China weren't using varying degrees of arbitary law to boost their own champions at that time. (They had no alternative champions to Microsoft)
I think these differences are more salient. Tech is getting politically active now because they feel threatened, not because they have more power! Look at the choo choo train of court cases coming out of Europe. And the fall of net neutrality because of the lobbying power of the telecom companies. That's not what power over gov't looks like.
Every person is in favor of some regulations and against others. To speak of "regulation" in the abstract is no more enlightening than to report that 97% of respondents are in favor of "food", while 3% are unsure. Every time a news outlet treats "regulation" in this way, it undermines the general discourse, and disgraces itself. This kind of news is not fit to print. Surely there is more room in the NYT for clear reporting and analysis of our various regulatory options and their impacts. Why is your food writing so much more nuanced and incisive than your policy analyses?
15
indeed, talking about regulation in generalities does not add any value. very aptly pointed out.
3
Well, yes. But I do think everything said here should be limited to the myopic vision of the "tech elite" that were surveyed. So, I never interpreted regulation to be a general sort, but limited to regulation in the tech industry.
And reading the study, that is basically what was asked. But I would suggest looking at Table 7: You will find that those surveyed don't like regulation in the tech industry but are pretty fine with it in the finance/banking & pharmaceutical sectors.
And reading the study, that is basically what was asked. But I would suggest looking at Table 7: You will find that those surveyed don't like regulation in the tech industry but are pretty fine with it in the finance/banking & pharmaceutical sectors.
1
Clearly the options for answers in the Libertarian questions were not mutually exclusive, since none of the columns add to 100%. However, a 44% libertarian number for Democrats - Democrats! - is mind-blowing.
2
So the Tech Monarchs believe in higher taxes and wealth redistribution? Oh, yeah. And John D. Rockefeller was famous for handing out dimes to children.
3
Oh please. They support immigration because they want lower wages. The NY Times has made that clear.
11
They are glibertarian piggies. Exactly like their sterotype.
Those who comment for the Times on politics generally get their factual premises wrong.
For example Google libertarian and negative income tax. Then read. Maybe even think. Yeah, fat chance.
But alas. The Times young experts lack these tools.
Those who comment for the Times on politics generally get their factual premises wrong.
For example Google libertarian and negative income tax. Then read. Maybe even think. Yeah, fat chance.
But alas. The Times young experts lack these tools.
That these wealthy tech elites are considered liberals should ring alarm bells for anyone considering themselves "liberal".
6
ctrl-alt-del the whole lot and their messianic megalomaniacal self-aggrandising hypocrisy.
6
I think you mean alt-f4.
2
Why would we pay any attention about the attitude and political stance of 30-something old billionaires, products of immense lack, monopoly, and quirkiness of e-business. How stupid and self-demeaning a 40 something years old, like myself, should be to listen with awe what one Zuckerberg or such have to say in politics. I realize they will pay for their politicians, they are their mouthpieces. Sick and tired of Silicon Valley being the pride of the nation in everything and the rest are hillbillies.
4
Pay attention to what they "do", not what they "say." They don't call it "silly dot CON Valley" for nothin'.
5
The tech companies tend to be as liberal as their Chinese counterparts. Just look at the Bay Area where these so called liberal scions are using private buses and ferries to upend whole neighborhoods by driving overworked techies from their beds to the office and back. Look towards Apple. They are turning the clock back to the 1800's by creating a company town where no one needs to leave the campus and most of their pay will never leave either . . . Liberal? Hahahaha. Larry Ellison will tear off your head if you mistakenly call him one.
16
Silicon Valley politics is the unholy marriage of unbridled 'free-market' neoliberalism wrapped up libertarian iconoclasm. What do you expect?
It is the worst of both worlds.
Thank you very much.
It is the worst of both worlds.
Thank you very much.
6
CEOs of tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple can afford to be liberal: They don't pay taxes, as shown in this chart: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-big-companies-that-avoid-...
5
Wealthy and socially elite people who are self-interested and disdainful of those in classes lower than theirs. Quelle surprise!
4
Peter Thiel is not an innovator.He is an investor only interested in business and money.Let the gay billionaire move to Texas where he could see what unfettered government does to gay rights.The fact that he has been taken in by Trump tells you all you need to know about him.
17
Greed is the root of all evil.
It is the destroyer of societies and always has been.
It is the destroyer of societies and always has been.
5
Self-interest and greed.
6
So they are simply what a European would call a "Social Liberal".
2
I believe Farhad, and the study's authors, misinterpret the data. Given the results, the ideology I identify here is one of modern Libertarianism: From hyper-Individualism and modern science (anthro/soc/psych/bio/neuro) comes the respondents' Liberal values, and from the shibboleth of Entrepreneurialism comes their small/anti-gov/union position.
3
It's all about the Benjamins.
1
Is the useless animation of moving computer keys really necessary for this article. It provides no additional information. Seems much like a flashing neon sign at a mini-mart, doing nothing but attracting attention!
1
You write: “That difference is the rising influence of the technology industry in politics."
You might more accurately have written, "in Democratic politics."
Tech, the capital of the 21st century, has seized the Democratic Party. The Democrats are now the party of capital, not labor. The social issues, with their associated media fuss, provide cover for this ugly reality.
You might more accurately have written, "in Democratic politics."
Tech, the capital of the 21st century, has seized the Democratic Party. The Democrats are now the party of capital, not labor. The social issues, with their associated media fuss, provide cover for this ugly reality.
4
In other words, Silicon Valley is no different than any other self-serving actor whose political leanings are not fixed but evolve based on gaining the most at any point in time.
6
There is one way in which techies are more compassionate than most Democrats: they are more and more boycotting cruelty products (animal flesh, dairy, eggs) and funding efforts to replace these atrocities with cruelty-free products (plant-based and cellular-grown analogues).
When people say they are liberal but support the abuse of the defenseless for their own trivial, fleeting moments of taste entertainment, I see them as the worst hypocrites. Silicon Valley is leading the way towards an ethical food system.
When people say they are liberal but support the abuse of the defenseless for their own trivial, fleeting moments of taste entertainment, I see them as the worst hypocrites. Silicon Valley is leading the way towards an ethical food system.
3
Of course Silicon Valley entrepreneurs don't want any regulation. In this regard they are just old-fashioned exploiters of the public. They have to accommodate to a multi-cultural millennial work force, with their liberal social attitudes. That is where all the talent is. But when it comes to the bottom line, they are just as dedicated to lying, cheating and stealing as any Wall Street financier.
7
These tech billionaires are not mysterious. They are capitalists. The only difference between them and the tycoons of the past is that they deal in tech instead of oil. They are not liberal, they don't care about the poor, the environment, Healthcare, education, war, etc. They only care about money. They promote liberal ideas because it's economically expedient.
However, they need to be cautious about organized labor because strong unions represent an existential threat to their greedy, parasitic lifestyle. We will never truly prosper until the middle class is organized and has strong and powerful representation in the political sphere.
However, they need to be cautious about organized labor because strong unions represent an existential threat to their greedy, parasitic lifestyle. We will never truly prosper until the middle class is organized and has strong and powerful representation in the political sphere.
7
To quote the article teaser "tech elite", which equate to the maligned 1%, but since they are liberals/leftist/Democratic, it is ok that they are the 1%. I find it disturbing that this group of 1%'ers feel it is appropriate to try to influence politics. This particular group (facebook/google/amazon/apple/et al) do not represent the values of most Americans any more than California, or New York do. I am always concerned to hear them talk about redistribution of wealth, (ie: universal basic income, higher taxes, etc) while at the same time hiring foreigners, and sending jobs overseas. Heck, they would probably be opposed to a lot of this schemes they "embrace", or "endorse" if it had significant financial impacts on their personal wealth, or that of their company, as evidenced by their desire for less regulation.
2
I think Farhad, and the study’s authors, have misinterpreted the results of the survey. To me, the ideology herein is pretty clearly a modern Libertarianism. It is a Libertarianism informed by the twin shibboleths of meritocracy and entrepreneurialism augmented with modern ethics and science.
1
American use the term liberal to define the supporters of a massive government, strong public policies, massive immigration etc...
Here, in Europe, we use the term socialist. In fact, liberalism was developed by philosophers opposed to the big government and to the State.
So if you are an american liberal, which mean that you are in fact a socialist, you can come in France, my country, a socialist heaven, where every ambitious person dreams of one thing : to leave this nightmare.
Here, in Europe, we use the term socialist. In fact, liberalism was developed by philosophers opposed to the big government and to the State.
So if you are an american liberal, which mean that you are in fact a socialist, you can come in France, my country, a socialist heaven, where every ambitious person dreams of one thing : to leave this nightmare.
1
This nuanced position - not left, not right - is neither new nor nameless. it's called "centrist."
Silicon Valley Techies aren't liberal or conservative. They are simple hyper-narcissists. They favor immigration and DACA simply because it gives them more access to youthful, below market labor which they do not have to retrain and whose healthcare costs will be significantly lower than the costs associated with retraining an existing US employee. That's not liberalism, it's greed, plain and simple. This is coming from someone who was born and raised in the 94010 zip code.
3
I think this, and the study’s authors, have misinterpreted the results of the survey. To me, the ideology herein is pretty clearly a modern Libertarianism. It is a Libertarianism informed by the twin shibboleths of meritocracy and entrepreneurialism augmented with modern ethics and science.
1
Makes perfect sense: complete freedom for the technologists with the obligation and costs of maintaining civic order shifted to someone else, to be named later. Oh I get it now. They are the direct descendants of the Babyboomers, the "Worst Generation"!
Note that there are no responsibilities laid on the people!
So what this study found is the rise of the neoliberal democrat. I.e. a person who supports progressive policy as long as it does not affect their comforts. That is not democratic or progressive at all.
It seems what this study is missing is the essential foundations and definitions of "Democrat", "Liberal", "Progressive". These Tech "Leaders" (eye roll), may identify as Democrat but their values say otherwise. When a gun is pointed to their head on policy you better believe they will go the more conservative route.
This is why the Democrats lost in 2016 and will continue to lose. They basically are aiding in class warfare. These rich guys want wealth distribution but they are against unions? They want wealth distribution but want it to be easier to fire someone? These two ideas are not compatible. I hope and a pray for Tech to fall. And lucky for me I think its already starting to happen.
It seems what this study is missing is the essential foundations and definitions of "Democrat", "Liberal", "Progressive". These Tech "Leaders" (eye roll), may identify as Democrat but their values say otherwise. When a gun is pointed to their head on policy you better believe they will go the more conservative route.
This is why the Democrats lost in 2016 and will continue to lose. They basically are aiding in class warfare. These rich guys want wealth distribution but they are against unions? They want wealth distribution but want it to be easier to fire someone? These two ideas are not compatible. I hope and a pray for Tech to fall. And lucky for me I think its already starting to happen.
3
I'm curious, are you saying:
1. We shouldn't believe their responses in this survey?
2. They don't vote for higher taxes for things like education, libraries, other public services? Donate to Dems? Are more liberal on a number of social issues and vote this way?
1. We shouldn't believe their responses in this survey?
2. They don't vote for higher taxes for things like education, libraries, other public services? Donate to Dems? Are more liberal on a number of social issues and vote this way?
1
Bay Area, In many ways they are Progressive by sharing an east tolerance for the economy of their country to fail. They are the descendants of the "Babyboomdrs", the "Worst Generation" and that explains it all. Internal conflict is a dead giveaway.
Dignifying anyone as an "elite" will be sure to skew their priorities. Once someone's achieved a certain level wealth and adulation, they come to believe in their own omniscience. An expertise that was once confined to arcane technologies miraculously expands to encompass all knowledge, where it's really just the ego that's expanding. Take for example an earlier incarnation, Michael Bloomberg; his great wealth convinced him that he was New York's one indispensable man, even to point of purchasing an illegal third term. He is, as many of these newer techies are, socially liberal, because it allows them to feel good about themselves, but are unwilling to support actual policies that will cost them or their colleagues a dime.
2
You can hold all the progressive social viewpoints you want, but if you're not economically progressive, those viewpoints are hollow. That's why actual progressive movements are labor-based.
"I support addressing inequality, but I have no desire to address the root cause of that inequality."
That's modern liberalism.
"I support addressing inequality, but I have no desire to address the root cause of that inequality."
That's modern liberalism.
6
I have thought the term "political science" wrongfully describes a mental exercise that bears little resemblance to science. Nothing in it tolerates relevant fact or logical rules. They all just make it up as they go along and then invent a new word to lend importance to the thought.
Actually the data collected by these researchers would seem to suggest that rather than liberal or conservative, tech entrepreneurs are above all meritocrats. In their world, one's value depends on skills, and among the universe of skills intellectual acuity ranks highest. They think that their elevated position is not dependent on luck, or resources society has put at their disposal, but their own innate abilities. Opposition to regulation is not incompatible with support for redistribution, because they see themselves as the creators of a new and better world, but one that conforms to their vision.
This is not a world that I value much. For one thing, absence of labor protections places those deemed outside the meritocratic elite at the mercy of that elite. Those elites might be benevolent (hence the redistribution), but the underlying assumption of that model is that the elite deserves its elevated position, while everyone else must get in line to beg for charity. All work is valuable, whether it results in the latest app, an educated society, a clean environment, or even a functioning washer.
This is not a world that I value much. For one thing, absence of labor protections places those deemed outside the meritocratic elite at the mercy of that elite. Those elites might be benevolent (hence the redistribution), but the underlying assumption of that model is that the elite deserves its elevated position, while everyone else must get in line to beg for charity. All work is valuable, whether it results in the latest app, an educated society, a clean environment, or even a functioning washer.
9
You said: "They think that their elevated position is not dependent on luck, or resources society has put at their disposal, but their own innate abilities." While I agree with your comment in general, I think this is a bit mistaken: I do think given their techo-utopian vision, and hence influence from a number of sciences, they recognize that at least initially people are not equal, start in the 'same place', and sometimes undeserved "natural" events take place, thus some level of "benevolence" (as you say) is required. I think they graft this, which comes from living in a generally Liberal society, onto their general Libertarian ideals.
1
I live here and grew up here and saw tech from the 80s til now. He nailed it. He is not mistaken.
2
I guess I don't understand, then, why they would be benevolent and favor redistribution? Why doesn't their meritocratic ethos apply to everyone?
Like I said, I generally agree with the comment, except for this quibble, which seems to me needs explanation. Why help people? Why not go off and create Elysium for example?
Like I said, I generally agree with the comment, except for this quibble, which seems to me needs explanation. Why help people? Why not go off and create Elysium for example?
One part of this story does not seem to make sense: "The Stanford study thoroughly debunks the idea that tech is lousy with libertarians... Fewer than a quarter of the tech elite agreed with that view [that they would prefer government to do nothing but provide defense and police protection 'so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.'] Democrats were almost twice as likely to agree, and Republicans agreed by huge margins."
Is this supposed to mean that Republicans DISagreed by huge margins and Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to DISagree?
Is this supposed to mean that Republicans DISagreed by huge margins and Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to DISagree?
If you want to understand why tech employees distrust unions look no further than the Bart union strikes. Why should unskilled Bart employees make six figure salaries rather than spending the money upgrading a system from the 70s. This makes transit miserable for everyone else including all low waged employees that don't have the luxury to shutdown all public transit in the Bay when they want more money.
It seems the other commenters didn't read, "They are overwhelmingly in favor of economic policies that redistribute wealth, including higher taxes on rich people and lots of social services for the poor, including universal health care." I have voted at every opportunity to increase taxes.
It seems the other commenters didn't read, "They are overwhelmingly in favor of economic policies that redistribute wealth, including higher taxes on rich people and lots of social services for the poor, including universal health care." I have voted at every opportunity to increase taxes.
4
You're using the talking points of anti-union propagandists and corporate media outlets here. Very few BART employees make six figures, and even if they do, they're not your enemy! I always find it so rich that we point our finger at union employees trying to make a living wage in an exorbitantly expensive housing market when our corporate/high income tax rate is around the lowest its been since 1930. Anti-union propaganda has been so effective in America over the past few decades.
Public austerity programs since the '80s that have decimated American infrastructure budgets are the biggest reason BART is terrible. Good for you for voting for higher taxes; now start actually supporting unions. Otherwise, you're a walking contradiction.
Public austerity programs since the '80s that have decimated American infrastructure budgets are the biggest reason BART is terrible. Good for you for voting for higher taxes; now start actually supporting unions. Otherwise, you're a walking contradiction.
5
Tech elites generally have a simple political philosophy. It isn't conservative or liberal. It is *pragmatic*.
On every issue, they balance individual liberty, societal value, and practicality. Redistribution has huge societal value, and so they weigh that more than the negative impact to individual liberty. Many regulations have limited societal value while being less-than-practical and an infringement on liberty... they oppose such regulations. But other regulations have more positives, so tech elites support them.
Surge pricing, for example, is the natural result of market supply-and-demand, and so the practicality of it trumps any perceived associated negative societal value. Climate change has huge negative societal impact, so regulation that tackles that issue is often worth it.
On every issue, they balance individual liberty, societal value, and practicality. Redistribution has huge societal value, and so they weigh that more than the negative impact to individual liberty. Many regulations have limited societal value while being less-than-practical and an infringement on liberty... they oppose such regulations. But other regulations have more positives, so tech elites support them.
Surge pricing, for example, is the natural result of market supply-and-demand, and so the practicality of it trumps any perceived associated negative societal value. Climate change has huge negative societal impact, so regulation that tackles that issue is often worth it.
4
I agree - I think almost everyone has a mixture of traditional liberal and conservative positions. We don't really fit into the boxes that American politics seems to require - "I'm a Democrat/Republican and I support everything in the Democratic/Republican party platform." The problem is: how do we get to the point of trusting our elected officials to work together and make tradeoffs to improve our society? We have too many absolutes these days: abortion, gun control, affirmative action, workers rights, LGBT rights vs religious freedom... Face it: we're doomed.
1
"Regulation" is a word that covers a large number of areas and regulations include the simple, the efficient, the complex and the cumbersome. I looked at the Stanford study. As far as I can tell, the researchers seemed to know next to nothing about the scope or types of regulation. Any meaningful study of people' s views about regulations has to deal with the types of regulation. My guess is that Silicon Valley pioneers favor traffic regulations, regulations on the settlement of financial transactions, on water quality, etc.
3
This article "hints" at the discovery of a non-linear, dynamic, "illogical," diverse, value system for a created homogeneous group of Silicon Valley folk. A type of profiling of a selected THEM, so different than WE, or even a yet to be delineated US.In our reality, however defined, and accepted, or not, as best as one can in a range of roles and contexts, uncertainties are alive and well.As are unpredictabilities,Randomness.Lack of total control, no matter what one does, alone or with others, once or many times.And those who pray Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or another time, and in a range of sites, choose not to " love the stranger," as their Creator ordered, in a world in disorder.What would happen if in addition to a culture-bound, formal core, of educational materials and foci people like you and me, of all types, were helped to embrace and experience diversity as a state of BEING.Uncertainty of outcomes as a welcomed opportunity to explore. Failure, of a behavior, and not as a total complex-daily-learning human being- what and not who-being greeted as an invitation to choose to make needed changes.At some level.Is not wanting to be regulated an either/or
reality?Will this diverse group of people, flawed as we all are as limited systems, be willing, and able, to right any of the unexpected outcomes of their wishes of levels and qualities of disregulation-random, chaotic -non regulation?
reality?Will this diverse group of people, flawed as we all are as limited systems, be willing, and able, to right any of the unexpected outcomes of their wishes of levels and qualities of disregulation-random, chaotic -non regulation?
Many of these people grew up when unions were declining. They may not know the history of unions in America or what they fought for. Neither party has fought to increase union representation in America or to offer meaningful reforms for employees. In Europe there is the will to limit where a citizen's private information goes. In America our private information is for sale even as we cannot get hold of our medical records.
We have set up a perfect system for information abuse. We're asked to give out our phone numbers, birthdays, and other personal information in exchange for using a site on the internet, getting a credit card, etc. but we have no guarantees that that information won't travel to other places we don't want it going. All industries need to be regulated because none of them are truly able to regulate themselves. Any elected official who believes that industries will work for the benefit of consumers, patients, or employees is lying to themselves.
We have set up a perfect system for information abuse. We're asked to give out our phone numbers, birthdays, and other personal information in exchange for using a site on the internet, getting a credit card, etc. but we have no guarantees that that information won't travel to other places we don't want it going. All industries need to be regulated because none of them are truly able to regulate themselves. Any elected official who believes that industries will work for the benefit of consumers, patients, or employees is lying to themselves.
13
Communication systems are natural utilities like power and water grids.
To be of any use, they must serve all of society.
It is illogical to have such important, society-wide institutions in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.
These tech monopolies should long ago have been nationalized to serve all the people, not the whims of a handful of lucky and/or ruthless billionaires.
Marshall Mcluhan wrote that permitting private ownership of electronic communication networks was like giving the wealthy the rights to the English language or the Earth's atmosphere.
To be of any use, they must serve all of society.
It is illogical to have such important, society-wide institutions in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.
These tech monopolies should long ago have been nationalized to serve all the people, not the whims of a handful of lucky and/or ruthless billionaires.
Marshall Mcluhan wrote that permitting private ownership of electronic communication networks was like giving the wealthy the rights to the English language or the Earth's atmosphere.
3
Not sure about the "nationalization" remark, but we need to recognize that whomever controls information, controls politics. When a small group controls what we know, they control how we think!
1
Who are the tech elite that were surveyed? Many articles about silicon valley lump all technology companies together when there are vast differences. Intel is a much different kind of company than the much newer Google or Facebook. The management at Intel or other hardware companies tends to be more engineers while management at internet companies like Facebook tend to be MBA types. But most businessmen prefer not to be regulated no matter what other political views they hold.
4
Silicon Valley is liberal on the issues that, frankly, don't matter all that much. When it comes to regulations, antitrust, and tax issues, they are just as bad as any other business sector, perhaps even more so.
11
Income redistribution and healthcare 'don't matter all that much'?
1
I've been in tech for over thirty years. I imagine that tech leaders disagree with regulations for one additional reason I didn't see here: many of their companies are based on disruptive technology which was not foreseen by the other regulations. I believe these same people would, for example, be in favor of regulations attempting to protect the environment in general, but against regulations that made it harder for them to introduce newer environmental technology products.
7
To answer the Farhad's question "But if they’re not libertarians, what accounts for techies’ opposition to regulation?"
1) We oppose it because we do not think government has the operating expertise to rollout regulations efficiently without introducing workflow bloat and red tape.
2) We are skeptical that government imposed regulations are in the best interest of social welfare and not a political agenda.
1) We oppose it because we do not think government has the operating expertise to rollout regulations efficiently without introducing workflow bloat and red tape.
2) We are skeptical that government imposed regulations are in the best interest of social welfare and not a political agenda.
5
You're not the spokesman for the tech sector.
1
WE. isn't that special.
1
Or, shorter answer, "greed."
1
I wonder how the response would change if instead of flowers it was a question about healthcare, like pricing an appendectomy (or anything medically-necessary). There must be more nuance and consistency across these views.
5
Why in the world are we not reading here about antitrust and monopolies? Companies with monopoly market positions do better for their executives. Consequently, those executives prefer weak antitrust regulation.
I believe Silicon Valley firms such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are monopolies that have, for instance, caused consumer harm and unfairly driven competitors out of business.
Where are Amazon's competitors? Why are Apple's prices still so high? Hasn't Google leveraged its monopoly position in "search" in order to dominate other markets?
I believe Silicon Valley firms such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are monopolies that have, for instance, caused consumer harm and unfairly driven competitors out of business.
Where are Amazon's competitors? Why are Apple's prices still so high? Hasn't Google leveraged its monopoly position in "search" in order to dominate other markets?
25
I worked for a silicon valley tech firm in the 80s and 90s. While silicon valley was already well known then, the Internet was just becoming the www and none of the companies you mention existed. (Amazon isn't anywhere silicon valley.) I don't see either Apple or Amazon as monopolies, both have strong competition. Apple maintains high prices by foolish people who are either insecure when it comes to technology, or who want the caché that some people attach to the name. They don't make anything important that can't be had elsewhere, often better.
1
Apple has plenty of cheaper competitors in both smartphones and laptop markets.
Every tech company in Silicon Valley has extreme security at its borders to keep those they don't feel belong away from the free goodies they provide to those who are part of their tribe. I can't just walk into Google, for example, and have a salad. Yet these same titans think it's perfectly fine for undocumented workers to lower wages for carpenters, electricians and others with trade skills.
Every tech company will come out strongly against slavery, yet be fine with their own indentured servants (H1B's) who have to work for them 16 hours a day or leave the country or, worse, those slaving in the factories making their products.
I guess those who create products where it takes 16 steps to turn on a light switch are just too "disruptive" to have the same rules as the rest of us.
Every tech company will come out strongly against slavery, yet be fine with their own indentured servants (H1B's) who have to work for them 16 hours a day or leave the country or, worse, those slaving in the factories making their products.
I guess those who create products where it takes 16 steps to turn on a light switch are just too "disruptive" to have the same rules as the rest of us.
17
False equivalence and the description of H1B workers is way off base. They are generally treated just like any other workers.
1
Of course you can't just walk into Google and have a salad. Google paid for it. Do you just walk into some random stranger's house and have a salad?
1
History has shown that, over time, regulation has been good for business. It levels the playing field, so that companies who want to operate in a sustainable, ethical manner can fairly compete with those with fewer scruples and driven solely by quarterly profit reports instead of a long-term strategy. These young tech lions should study history - it was ultimately good for business to end child labor, establish a two-day weekend, and have uniform health and safety standards.
Every time the government passes a regulation, business owners sound the doomsday alarm, and every time they're wrong. It turned out to be good for bars and restaurants to ban smoking. It turned out to be good to pay auto workers enough so they could afford to buy a car. It turned out to be good to make seat belts mandatory. If the airline industry hadn't successfully lobbied against mandatory locks on cockpit doors, 9/11 would never have happened. And we see how well the unregulated zoning on the Houston floodplains turned out.
Economic systems are man-made and therefore imperfect. Capitalism, socialism, doesn't matter; if left unregulated either one leads to tyranny. The purpose of government is to regulate - to tweak these systems so they can effectively create equal opportunity for all who put in an honest day's work and follow the rules designed so that no one gets exploited or dies from unsafe workplace conditions or an unsafe product.
This has all been proven. Why is it still being questioned?
Every time the government passes a regulation, business owners sound the doomsday alarm, and every time they're wrong. It turned out to be good for bars and restaurants to ban smoking. It turned out to be good to pay auto workers enough so they could afford to buy a car. It turned out to be good to make seat belts mandatory. If the airline industry hadn't successfully lobbied against mandatory locks on cockpit doors, 9/11 would never have happened. And we see how well the unregulated zoning on the Houston floodplains turned out.
Economic systems are man-made and therefore imperfect. Capitalism, socialism, doesn't matter; if left unregulated either one leads to tyranny. The purpose of government is to regulate - to tweak these systems so they can effectively create equal opportunity for all who put in an honest day's work and follow the rules designed so that no one gets exploited or dies from unsafe workplace conditions or an unsafe product.
This has all been proven. Why is it still being questioned?
28
Hmmmm. Making up history to justify the conclusion desired! If I were to allow myself to follow this new system of thinking I would conclude eliminating your right to vote is the solution.
Economically speaking, the tech elite are strongly in favor of the societal responsibilities of individuals, such as higher taxes on the wealthy (themselves) and supporting redistribution to decrease income inequality. But as soon as a liberal responsibility is perceived to hurt their bottom line and company growth potential: regulations, anti-price gouging (surge pricing), workers right to organize - suddenly they oppose these liberal values. They essentially want their companies to be able to operate without restrictions while they, as individuals, recognize selective responsibilities to their greater country and helping the less fortunate (as opposed to conservatives who do everything possible to protect entrenched wealth).
14
This survey provides valuable info, but some of it is excessively broad, as other commenters noted. The tech industry thrives in an unregulated labor market, providing lavish benefits and perks that keep employees at work for ridiculous hours. But ask these tech execs what they think of environmental regulations, and I suspect they'd be strongly in favor. And the description of "libertarian" would apply to few Americans (look at how pro-government Houston has become, all of a sudden), even though I suspect many tech execs trend in its general direction.
The real take-away, one we shouldn't be surprised at, is that tech execs don't neatly fall into either party's prescribed orthodoxies. Sounds like many of our citizens.
The real take-away, one we shouldn't be surprised at, is that tech execs don't neatly fall into either party's prescribed orthodoxies. Sounds like many of our citizens.
2
The silicon valley elite are, like the Democrats, liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. Ever since Bill Clinton veered the party to the right, this has basically been the Democrats electoral strategy.
Since then they've elected two disappointing presidents who were center-right in the economy, and they've lost both chambers of congress.
They need to become the party of working people again - or continue their journey into irrelevance.
Since then they've elected two disappointing presidents who were center-right in the economy, and they've lost both chambers of congress.
They need to become the party of working people again - or continue their journey into irrelevance.
47
couldn't agree more Ed.
1
Most tech entrepreneurs (I am one) have a very practical view of regulation shaped by what they have to go through to start their company and help it succeed. One of my workers, a PhD, for whom we'd paid the government thousands of dollars for permission to recruit and hire, was carted off to a Southern prison to serve time in an orange jump suit while waiting for the government to correct a mistake in its immigration process (wrong mailing address). Trying to do business nationally means filing 50 separate registration documents, tax returns, employment reports, etc. in addition to Federal requirements. It is very true that regulations are enacted with the best of intentions, to protect public safety and the environment and to preserve fairness. But these regulations inevitably protect the status quo rather than encourage innovation, and most innovators, particularly small startups, are ill-equipped to deal with them. We need to create more regulatory safe harbors for innovation, such as the exemption from motor vehicle laws that California has enacted to support the driverless car industry.
20
Follow the money. The more they make then it's no problem giving some of it away but they really hate not getting the credit for the HUGE earnings and bonuses and payouts and buyouts and all the action and I'll do what I want. A little conscience and lot of arrogance.
17
An interesting companion piece to the Upshot article on the janitors at Kodak and Apple. It's great that "tech luminaries" are enlightened about transgender rights and immigration policy. Really, it is. But it would be nice if they could spare some compassion for labor. But unlike professing their social values, that would disrupt stock valuation.
57
I'm not clear on what purpose a labor union serves for today's tech and various industries. Growing up when unions were on the decline, I remember more stories about unions who crippled cities metro, fire, and education systems with strikes and exuberant retirement packages. As a minority in this country and being able to work in "technology" without a prestigious college degree while receiving great health benefits and sufficiently paid, my biggest day-to-day concern is making sure that the people I work with who are underperformers can be re-evaluated quickly without fear of a larger union protecting an underperformer. I do understand that I am lucky to be a part of a company that pays me well, provides great healthcare coverage including accidents and paternity leave, and values me.
3
Although I am impressed by the thoroughness of the survey I suspect that "regulation" was implicitly defined too broadly so that it did not distinguish between impeding creativity and prohibiting child labor.
23
Back in the early 2000s, there was a young man named Blake Ross who wasn't allowed to intern at Netscape because he wasn't 16 yet. The following year, he finally managed to get the internship he was looking for, and was instrumental in creating the Firefox web browser. In his case, the child labor laws were in fact impeding creativity, due to their use of arbitrary age cutoffs.
2
The tech elite need to walk the walk when it comes to income inequality and social ethics.
The venture capital system is a rigged game that enables the already rich—and a few lucky founders that pitch their new garbage app "idea"—to get richer. These folks buy third, fourth, and fifth houses while everyone else watches the illusion of a modest single home slip away. Meanwhile Google and Facebook march on in their monopolistic ways.
I have always marveled at technology, and been thrilled by it's most beneficial applications. I enjoy exchanging ideas with open-minded, multi-disciplinary, and socially empathetic technologists. (Though these days they are increasingly rare.) I support their efforts to solve the world's real problems. But let's face it, the Internet is a mess—often a brain- and inspiration-draining wasteland.
And as this study suggests, self-interest—that runs in many cases to runaway greed—is the real motivation for many in the tech set. They need to get real about whether they intend to put a jet and that fourth house in Aspen before their fellow man and a peaceful, productive, flourishing, forward-moving civilization. How much money, how much control is enough for these people?
The venture capital system is a rigged game that enables the already rich—and a few lucky founders that pitch their new garbage app "idea"—to get richer. These folks buy third, fourth, and fifth houses while everyone else watches the illusion of a modest single home slip away. Meanwhile Google and Facebook march on in their monopolistic ways.
I have always marveled at technology, and been thrilled by it's most beneficial applications. I enjoy exchanging ideas with open-minded, multi-disciplinary, and socially empathetic technologists. (Though these days they are increasingly rare.) I support their efforts to solve the world's real problems. But let's face it, the Internet is a mess—often a brain- and inspiration-draining wasteland.
And as this study suggests, self-interest—that runs in many cases to runaway greed—is the real motivation for many in the tech set. They need to get real about whether they intend to put a jet and that fourth house in Aspen before their fellow man and a peaceful, productive, flourishing, forward-moving civilization. How much money, how much control is enough for these people?
31
Too young, and greedy, and lacking in consequential vision, to realize that rules make it fair, and safe, for everyone.
27
In summary, Republican donors like to have a dynasty with dictatorship in his or her mind while Democratic donors a country of laws except his or her own privilege. As to the members of both parties, they don't count because their views are shown with no obvious distinction.
This is sadly unsurprising when one considers that many of the businesses in this industry exist on the exploitation of labor in the "gig" economy. Many workers are considered "independent contractors" instead of employees, which allows these businesses to skirt wage and labor laws. Of course Silicon Valley will be anti-union and anti-regulation. They wouldn't be remotely as profitable if they had to abide by unions and regulations, and treat their workers as actual employees (which they are).
It's very laudable that these individuals agree with many progressive social and economic issues. But if their growing political and economic power makes stable employment a struggle against powerful interests, how helpful is it?
It's very laudable that these individuals agree with many progressive social and economic issues. But if their growing political and economic power makes stable employment a struggle against powerful interests, how helpful is it?
18
They are not liberal. Support for unions is vital to move this country away from oligarchy and back towards a healthy liberal democracy. These Silicon Valley techheads are virulently anti-worker as any vicious Republicon CEO.
66
I am a member of SEIU, and they are horrible. They take my money and give themselves fat bonuses with union dues I am forced to pay. Meanwhile, they spend most of their resources protecting lazy and incompetent workers from getting fired.
1
This poll isn't surprising at all. On cultural issues, Silicon Valley is an (imperfect) meritocracy, made up of stark individualists. It's executives are vulnerable to the same unconscious biases as everyone else, but otherwise reject discrimination and religion-based-morality as archaic. On regulation, Silicon Valley has total faith in the notion that technological innovations ultimately make the world a better place, and disdain government regulations that slow the process of creative destruction. On redistribution, Silicon Valley is keenly aware of their industry's ability to cause massive economic dislocation. Since the dislocation is accepted as inevitable, Silicon Valley thinks the best policy is to for government to take what it needs to manage whatever transition is necessary, but otherwise get out of the way.
18
A lot of this sentiment may be specifically related to Obama's new overtime regulations, which many of my usually liberal co-workers consider a bridge too far. Perhaps the minimal salary level for enforcing overtime pay needed to be raised, but doubling it overnight was very disruptive. At our organization, in order to comply with the new regs, they had to institute a whole new timekeeping system wherein, instead of simply submitting weekly timesheets, employees now have to clock in and out online every time. People who thought they were professionals feel like they've been demoted to hourly employees. Pretty much everyone agrees it is more trouble than it's worth. Some employees may in the short run get paid a bit more, but market forces will adjust salaries eventually reflect the actual value of their work. In the long run they will make the same wages, but they'll be spending more time keeping track of their hours and less time actually working.
3
Will people please, please, please STOP saying how "liberal" the techies are. Being liberal isn't about eating kale and taking your dog to work, or spouting PC platitudes. It's about supporting public - not charter - schools, paying your fair share of taxes, supporting labor's right to organize (which, to be fair, this article does point out), hiring anyone who is not young, white, male and and middle class...you can be a corporate jerk in a Tesla just as much as you can in a Buick. Don't be fooled by style.
109
I think everyone supports paying their fair share in taxes, even conservatives. There is a just a disagreement about what "fair share" means. Personally, I think "fair share" should never be above 25% effective rate. That seems fair to me, with anything above that being unfair. But that's my opinion. I think what you meant to say is that being liberal means believing in using the tax code as a weapon to flatten income equality. That I oppose and so do most Americans.
7
Bingo! Comment of the day!
6
No, she didn't say "to say is that being liberal means believing in using the tax code as a weapon to flatten income equality". She meant that liberals are trying to prevent the conservative rich Republicans from using the tax code (since Regan the scammer) as a weapon to ensure the rich get rich, the poor get poorer. Inequality IS THE PRODUCT OF CONSERVATIVES, built into the tax code for aristocratic impact.
2
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450549/silicon-valley-liberals-ign...