Slashdot Mirror


Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust

An anonymous reader writes "Fortune's David Kirkpatrick interviews scores of valley execs who have stopped worrying continued innovating. He writes: 'The underlying tech boom that began the bubble actually has never stopped. It just stopped paying off. Says Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, the company that has emerged as the head of the new class: "If anything, the rate of innovation in technology has increased in the past couple of years. But that doesn't necessarily make it a good business. The beneficiaries are the end users." Agrees Rob Carter, the CIO of FedEx: "The sound we heard wasn't the bubble bursting; it was the big bang."'"

16 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. couldnt last 4ever by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the bust was bound to happen. what goes up must come down, and the faster it goes up, the faster it seems to come down. but at the same time, there was no danger of the technology disapearing. its not like i'm typing away on a typewriter, or a pen and paper, or a rock and chizel. the bust was just economical evolution, shaking off the weak and wasteful companies that wouldnt have made it very far. fp

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
    1. Re:couldnt last 4ever by the-build-chicken · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember reading an article back in 1998 in (I think) fortune magazine...it talked about the sustainability of the dotcom economy...they said that, it would continue to go crazy, until early into 2000, when there would be lots of industry shake outs, lots of ppl loosing jobs etc, which would continue till 2005, and by 2005 the industry would settle down into a stable industry of development, mainly populated by the a hand full of companies that actually made their cash in the boom and didn't waste it...with little new development (or startups) entering the market...wow, they were kinda right on the money huh?

    2. Re:couldnt last 4ever by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I take great exception to your laying much of the blame for the bubble on all those individual investors (I prefer to call them gamblers), which I assume you are doing when you say "largely the fault of the unreasonably [...] optimistic investors".

      Those investors certainly relied upon a financial information system for their optimism. But more and more this system turned to outright fraud in order to continue to pull investment money (from whatever source, large and small, centralized and diffused) out past any barrier of hesitation or consideration.

      A good book has been recently released called "Buy, Lie and Sell High" (available here, here and here), which more than emphasizes this point. There is also enough information out on various news services about the too-cozy relationships between investment banks, regulators and institutional investors. The bubble was a period of burning investment capital like is was so much cord wood ... and there were many financial professionals who threw morals, guidelines and law books to the wind in order to fan the flames.

      To sum up: The yokel doing the the day-trading I could chalk up to simple stupidity ... but the professionals behind the financial information system operated in full knowledge of the fraud.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  2. CEO/CIO versus the grunt laborer at the bottom by reporter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The grunt workers, who bore the brunt of the layoffs, at the bottom of the company hierarchy are likely to have a far different perspective of the bust than the million-dollar-salaried CEO of Google and the million-dollar-salaried CIO of FedEX. The bust can come and go, yet the CEO and the CIO shall live well.

    By contrast, the grunt workers, of whom most are Americans, will need to scramble for the next job. In this climate, the next job does not appear for more than a year. When a potential job does arise, the grunt worker will need to fend off droves of H-1B workers.

    But then all that big-bang innovation will make up for the months of unemployment ....

    1. Re:CEO/CIO versus the grunt laborer at the bottom by Cutriss · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People with H1-B visa's are not your problem. I know too many people that got some dinky tech degree from ITT Tech, got paid great money during the Boom, and now bitch and moan about H1-B workers taking their jobs. Its capitalism at is best!

      And quite to the contrary, I know too many people that got some dinky BS from a university in India or Malaysia or China, and they couldn't code Hello World to save their life.

      That is what disgusts me about H1-B visas. It's easy enough for an American employer to check an American's credentials, since many universities have a 1-800 number you can call to verify degrees, but when dealing with foreigners, they can outright lie on their resumes, and the PHBs will think it's "too much trouble" to try and contact the university in question to verify this. Language barrier, cultural barrier, hell, it could even be that they just don't want to waste money making a long-distance call.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    2. Re:CEO/CIO versus the grunt laborer at the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That guy that wants to put in a 40 hour week and dosent build / hone there skills dosent belong in this business period.

      So here's a married man, with two kids, trips to little league and ballet practice, active in the community, likes to travel, and volunteers at his church. This guy doesn't belong in the business?

      And then we have a 21-year-old, fresh out of college, no kids, no relationship, lives on taco bell and mountain dew, works 70 hours a week on code. He does belong in this business?

      Are you familiar with the term "drag coefficient" with a slightly revised definition? An alternative definition is: "having a life." The article I just linked to was written in 1999, but it's nice to see the attitude is alive and well in 2003.

    3. Re:CEO/CIO versus the grunt laborer at the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More importantly how many people do you know that got into the tech industry in the boom and have no real ability there.

      Not true. They often have one ability that "true geeks" lack: social and marketing skills. They are often favored because of this. They speak the same language as the boss (even if that language is sometimes BS). Raw tech is either not appreciated, or easier to move overseas. IOW, the less people want or need to interact with you face-to-face, the easier it is to farm your job off to India or China for $2/hr. This is the big catch-22 that us nerds now face. The boss will not know whether or not you know how to normalize a database, but he/she will know when you irritate or bore them. It is a people game out there more than a tech game.

    4. Re:CEO/CIO versus the grunt laborer at the bottom by esanbock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The H-1B program is a corporate subsidy. Government is artificially driving up the supply while doing nothing to change demand. You don't have to be a genius to see that this isn't a free market. The only people that believe H-1B is anything other than a subsidy is either here on an H-1B visa or is the ITAA. By the way, Milton Friedman, the premier free-market economist of our time has stated that H-1B is a government subsidy.

  3. Unemployment Rate by reporter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The unemployment rate for the overall economy is about 6%. The unemployment rate for engineers is around 7%. The unemployment rate in Silicon Valley is around 8%.

    So, yes, the engineering grunts are having a hard time. Read "Will code for food" by C|Net. The CEO of Google and the CIO of FedEx are living incredibly well on their million-dollar salaries, but the grunt American engineer is not doing well at all. There's mortgage payments, clothes for the kids, insurance bills, etc. The high-tech sector of the overall American economy is going through its worst recession in almost 3 decades.

    No. We don't need any more H-1B workers.

  4. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, I am not bitter that the job I just took is far beneath my skill level and pays less than half of what I am used to making. At least I can work from home at my new job. This allows me time to work on my own company. God willing, I will never be at the mercy of accountants again. Long live the geek!

  5. Re:I love... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    its called finding the silver lining in the cloud.

    My industry (very not related to tech) has been down 30% a year for a few years. We have grown in excess of 40% per year during this time. We found a way to grow in turbulent times. This doesn't make us bad, or the fact that we did hogwash. It means we are playing the game smarter.

    The top 25% and the top 1% are generally there for a reason. I don't begrudge anyone who is more successful than I am, and would rather emulate them than bitch. That may be why we succeed where other just complain.

    No one wants to interview an unsuccessful person. Failing is easy, just complain and don't try. Kicking ass in this economy is hard, and worth looking at.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  6. Re:Great time to be a startup company? by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    They only make their money by pumping in money into startup companies likely to succeed.
    Actually, some of them make their money by pumping money into startups whether they have any merit or not, helping to generate a lot of buzz, then gutting the company when they figure the momentum has run out. Some of the happiest entrepeneurs I've spoken to keep that way precisely because they stayed the hell away from V.C. money and funded their companies in other ways.
    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  7. Re: Little People by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always believed Heinlien had it right - you know that the economy is in danger when too many of the 'little people' get directly involved.

    Sure, you have some issues with economic power being concentrated in a few institutions, but I'd rather have 1K investment houses than 10M sheep using online trading.

    I've seen a tech office where every manager had an online trading program running in the background so he could make trades based on the latest Nortel ticker news. Of course, all the other sheep watched the same ticker, and made the same decision - making uninformed decisions based on other sheep's uninformed decisions was a recipe for disaster.

  8. What small business owners have known forever. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Too many folks have become accustomed to the myth that huge multinational corporations have a God-given right to eternal, perpetually increasing profits and market share. This view is wrong because:
    • The market is finite.
    • At some point, someone will come up with a better equation (to selling), displacing the current market leader.
    • Arrogance in a large corporation, in conjunction with utter greed, two negative virtues that have a tendency to come to those in power, will cause the downfall of even the most powerful entity.
    One day, people will figure out the sorry fact that what goes up must come down.

    Some corporations in silicon valley have figured out what small business owners have always known and used to their advantage: In a time of economic bust, one of two things happen:

    1. You go miserably out of business.
    2. You innovate so that when things turn around, you have a head start against the competition.
    Don't worry, though... They'll forget this lesson long before the next economic downturn.
  9. Re:I love... by crazyphilman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rich people (and rich people wannabes) always say that wealth is created by hard work, and benefits the best people (i.e. those who work hard). But really, all they're doing is slapping each other on the back and cheering "rah, rah for me, I'm rich and I deserve it!" Right. Like their rich family and friends had nothing to do with it -- like joe sixpack down the street gets the same investment advice and opportunities as the son of a banker. Suuuuuurre.

    Poor, working, and middle class people, who work MUCH harder than any rich man, know that the game is really about a) who you know, b) being in the right place at the right time, and c) dumb, stupid luck. Rich people make other rich people richer, ok? If you're not in the club, you're on the outside looking in.

    Even if you're a "self-made man" you're likely to be on the lower levels of wealth in America. You don't see too many people zipping up to the "top 25% or 1%" just by hard work, pal. Out of 256 million people in this country, there are very few who've done that. Probably only a few hundred, total. Most of us just have joe jobs, man. We work harder than any rich guy, but we get paid bupkiss, IF that is, we don't get laid off.

    Save it. Just keep it to yourself. It's a pile of dung, and it stinketh.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  10. Re:the evidence is against you by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to the IRS, the top 25% make over $55,225 for the calander year 2000.

    The top 10% of taxpayers are people who make $92,144 or more for the calander year 2000.

    The top 5% of taxpayers? To qualify, you have to make $128,336

    Now, to be in the top 1% of all taxpayers, you must make $313,469, a pretty good jump. Thats a difficult club to join. Once again, all for the calander year 2000.

    Surprised? Its all at the IRS website. Why do people think that you have to make a million bucks to be in the top 25%, or even top 1%? That should tell you how BAD most people are doing, very often by their own bad choices. You probably work hard, and are in the top 25% easily, but just did not know it. Most hard working people who get laid off find good work again, the cream always rises to the top.

    The middle class IS the top 25% of income tax payers.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!