Slashdot Mirror


How Does a Poor Economy Affect Tech Innovation?

sshuber writes "It's no secret that the US and other parts of the world are currently having some economic problems. How is this affecting new technologies under development? With the large numbers of layoffs, are we seeing projects, such as things under R&D, that are being axed? Are companies playing it safe and sticking with what they know sells in lieu of pushing the envelope? Finally, how is this affecting the open source community, either positively or negatively?" A lot of open source work happens with the backing or at least the sufferance of corporations. Do laid-off tech workers contribute fewer cycles to open source projects, or more?

18 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Is It Really A Poor Economy? by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a lot of foreboding potential out there, and a lot of big numbers have been lost on the market...but the numbers just don't seem to support that poor of an economy.

    Yet, at least.

    Nonetheless, everyone keeps talking like the world is in the depths of a worldwide recession.

    1. Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, when you (the top 5%) can't afford your second SUV for your family it usually means the rest of the world is hurting badly. I think even rural America sees things differently than you.

      Aside from tremors, China is doing fantastic. India is much the same. Europe is doing pretty much the same. Russia is recovering nicely from their economic doldrums.

      I would guess that there are far fewer people worldwide living in poverty today than there were 10, or even 5, years ago, despite some speculative food price run-ups.

      However, disparity of wealth distribution isn't even the point in contention (no one disputes that it is a real problem). This submission is quite clearly playing upon the current "the economy is in the gutter" meme, but it just isn't supported by the numbers. Things aren't great, and there's some bouncing atop a potential recession, but it's actually remarkably robust given some of the inputs over the past couple of years, which many expected to yield much worse conditions.
    2. Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Informative

      If by rural America you mean farmers, they are doing fantastic right now. They can either get paid to not grow stuff, grow wheat and sell it for food at record high prices, or grow corn and sell it at record high prices and get the ethanol subsidy from the gov.

      I agree that the economy is pretty poor right now, but it's not the farmers who are currently suffering :)

    3. Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy? by Talderas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like how people are saying the drop in housing prices is a terrible thing. It's immediately bad for those people wanting to sell houses, but it's a fantastic opportunity for people like me who live in apartments and may want to invest in a house.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy? by homer_s · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, disparity of wealth distribution isn't even the point in contention (no one disputes that it is a real problem).

      Why would that be a problem? I'm from India. There is greater gap between the rich and poor now than there was in the 1980s. But, everyone is richer than we were in the 1980s.

      In the 80s in India, the situation was comparable to a rich guy having $10 and a poor guy having $9 and now, it is as if the rich guy has $1000 and the poor guy has $90. Clearly, in the second scenario, the "gap between rich and poor" is higher, but is it the worse scenario among the two I've presented?

    5. Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Stop all this "organic" and "natural" treehuggery. Because that's all it is. Well, that and money grubbing on the part of the people selling you that overpriced stuff.

      "Organic" means almost nothing in the USA thanks to the influence of the USDA, and "Natural" means less than nothing.

      However, you are sadly mistaken about the basic realities of farming...

      "Organic" and "natural" crops cannot even remotely compete in terms of volume of perfectly safe, edible food with the genetically modified, pest free varieties.

      The following things are true:

      1. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as agriculture which was not "organic", because we did not turn petroleum into fertilizer or, for that matter, pesticide.
      2. The use of shallow tilling of soil, especially when done with heavy machinery, creates hardpan.
      3. The use of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers (as well as other artificially-sourced pesticides etc) harms soil diversity. Good soil is over 60% organic material (ideally, over 80%!) and can be 20% or more living matter. The chemicals with which you are so enamored harm beneficial insects, the worms which we depend on to create soil (they are also defeated by our tilling practices) as well as nematodes and mycelium.

      Enough facts, I don't want to confuse anyone with them. Let's get back to the battle. Again, a hundred years ago it was all "organic" farming. Therefore "organic" itself doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're fertilizing only with poop and the like you can still be horribly harmful to the environment by simply allowing topsoil to wash into rivers. Or, for that matter, by tilling it and leaving it uncovered, which allows it not just to wash away, but even to blow away. This results in harm to air quality and thus to our ability to breathe - living in agricultural areas is no fun. I am living in Lake Country now; I was living in Marysville last. Here it's vineyards, and you can find them south (Napa) or west (Hopland) where various items are sprayed on the plants - and into the air, where we get to breathe them. That shit sets off my asthma every time, so I really don't want to hear about how "safe" your inorganic farming is.

      Now, let us discuss the issue of sustainability in more depth. "organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. ... Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization." This is amazingly empty-headed cheerleading bullshit. In fact, organic farming restores mineral balances through fertilization, but in conventional farming techniques (those of the so-called "Green Revolution") instead of correctly amending the soil with those things which it requires, and allowing natural forces to fix those nutrients and make them available to your crops (these "natural forces" are also called "other plants" or, by the ignorant, "weeds") we spray ready sources of the food into the soil and feed the plants. Feeding the soil is a basic tenet of true (i.e. nothing to do with the USDA) organic gardening, but I understand that there is always a temptation to simply ignore facts in the pursuit of a good argument.

      It just so happens that in my yard there is an organic garden which produces food crops at an extremely economical rate. It is based on compost, poop (steer, llama, seabird, bat, and chicken shit) and the usual range of organic soil amendments including alfalfa meal, blood meal, bone meal, feather meal, seaweed meal and so on. Those with an eye for detail will note that much of this is actually recycled refuse from animal processing and the like - I'm no space cadet from Vega. The soil is better this year than it was the year before - it's been obvious for months because the cover crop (mustard) was about four times taller this year in spite of similar (if anything, less ideal) conditions otherwise.

      Now, let me address the issue of

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Depends... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When gas was 99c/gallon, people weren't all that interested in new fuel technology. Now with oil going up and up, I expect we'll finally start seeing some real break throughs in alternative energy research.

    OSS should also benefit from a slower economy. Why pay MS 100k for MSSQL licensing when I can get postgres?

    Innovation won't stop and will continue to happen. It just might be in different areas.

    1. Re:Depends... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I'd like to believe you, the train-wreck of Vista was supposed to usher in the year of the Linux desktop...

      Look around you, Linux adoption is higher then ever. Ubuntu has made Linux easy, Dell has Linux installed on normal PCs (along with some other computer makers), the gPC is many times sold out at Wal-Mart, the eeePC with Linux is quite popular, and the use of Linux-based tablets such as the N800 is on the increase. Never before could you get Linux so easily, it still isn't as common to walk into a large retailer and find computers pre-installed with Linux but if you spend 5 minutes hunting around, Linux is easy to find.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. Depends on how long the downturn lasts by daveywest · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Consider the small telecommunications company I work for. Our big projects are years in the making -- like trenching a fiber optic line across 3 states through a mountain range. You can't just put that on hold for 2-3 years.

    We're cutting back on extravagances. I'll probably wait one more year for the new computer I was supposed to get last month.

    An economic downturn will kill an already unhealthy company, but a good employer with a stable balance sheet knows how to weather the storm.

  4. Acamedic enrollment by gehrehmee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been pointed out recently to me (at least here in Alberta, Canada), that university enrollment drops when the economy's strong, and picks up when the economy slows. There's at least a couple factors here. One, when the economy's not doing great, a university campus is a relatively secure place to be while you wait out a temporary drought. Secondly, while the economy's doing good, it's generally easy to get a well-paying job, which presents a stronger competition vs the academic route. On that note, the economy's looking pretty rosy up here right now, so we're definitely looking for potential students at the University of Alberta's Computing Science department!

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  5. workers by lupis42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would expect at least some laid off workers to do some open source work just to keep their skillset current.

  6. Large numbers of layoffs? by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have there really been large numbers of layoffs in the tech industries? I thought many tech companies, particularly those with large overseas businesses, were doing pretty well. See IBM for example.

    This whole question reeks of someone wanting the Slashdot community to do their research for them, starting with some pretty questionable assumptions. Maybe the answer to this question is better served by looking at how past recessions hit the tech industry and their innovation output.

  7. necessity the mother of invention by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We're having economic troubles because people are dumb - not because something has actually happened.

    "oh woe is me, the housing market is collapsing!" no its not. Now's a great time to buy. In fact this is really the sort of situation that benefits people in their mid-late 20s. Real Estate values were inflated before. Now those people can more easily afford to buy houses.

    now, back on topic... if there is any sort of actual shift taking place, it is not likely to be the big corps that want to try and ring every last drop out of "business as usual" who will benefit.

    If people perceive times to be tough and getting worse, with regards to the environment, energy "crisis," etc - then the people who can move in and offer solutions to those problems are going to win. They're going to attract the money from the people that have it to get the stuff to market.

    I'd like to think that in the next 5-10 years we're going to see a lot more people interested in home power generation -- solar and/or wind, appliances that use less power, etc.

    We're also going to see people and companies wanting solutions which provide maximum advantage for minimum cost. That means we'll see a lot more open, standards-based solutions to problems. We're likely to see more foss solutions to software problems, open hardware solutions to hardware problems, etc.

    Likewise, if programmers are now no longer employed by megacorp a, they'll likely have a few more hours a day to contribute to foss projects -- or start smaller ventures based on foss solutions to some of the more pressing problems of our day, and into the future.

    or maybe i'm just high

    1. Re:necessity the mother of invention by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A few banks did some stupid things which should have been illegal and sold bad debts (mortgages to people who obviously couldn't afford them) to investors.

      One they started getting fallout from being retards, more investors jumped ship. A lot of those people dumped money into oil and other comodities, running the price up -- creating another bubble to burst. Of course, even at ~4.00 a gallon, it's still cheaper than 1 venti green tea frap at starbucks, which even with a b&n discount card at the one in the store costs 4.37. Gas is 3.97 here, so if I buy 8 fraps to get the same volume, it costs me $3.20 more, which is a lot closer to a second gallon of gas than it is to another stupid frap. Gas is over 80% cheaper by volume than Starbucks is.

      The Federal Reserve then kept lowering interest rates to "encourage growth" (because for some reason anything less than "growth" (and even then, the growth has to be at least thiiiiiiiiis big to count....) counts as "recession" these days), but that just created inflation and discouraged foreign capital investment, lowering the dollar's value.

      If I were Congress or the President, I'd make trading petrol futures a capital offense. Margin trading would be earn you public floggings. Frankly, what I might do to the federal reserve board would probably have gotten me kicked out of the SS for inhumane treatment, I hate them so much for crimes of stupidity.

    2. Re:necessity the mother of invention by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Commodities are irritating to a lot of economists, especially in times like these. It's the big finance equivalent of hiding your money under your mattress.

      Lowering rates is weird; there is the risk of inflation, but frankly, the real lowering of the value of the dollar is our national debt, and the fed is really for trying to manage our economy by controlling lending rates.

      Gas is relatively cheap; we're paying now effectively what europe has been paying for decades. In the long run, it's still enough to drive the adoption of alternatives, and that's beneficial for our economy.

      We're the best placed in the world to come up with a good, marketable fuel solution, simply because most other countries have artificially screwed with their fuel demand. China and India are subsidising cheap gas to fire their economies; this prohibits the adoption of a solution, because economics don't favor one. On the other side, Europe's historically high fuel taxes have already pushed them to adopt fuel efficient cars and public transit...They're not going to feel the pinch like we will.

      Interesting times.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  8. Heh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what you're saying is, either it will effect tech or it won't? You must be an economist.

    The first thing you want to do when you're belt tightening is cut jobs; employees are huge overhead. But how do you cut jobs when the work still has to be done?

    Answer? Automation. If you can't automate, you'll outsource, and outsourcing itself often requires new technology.

    When the bubble popped, a lot of tech people took it in the shorts, and since that's the last big economic wobble, it's the one everyone is thinking about. But in reality there is no guarantee that a downturn will be bad for tech, or tech industries...It depends on what sectors experience the lowest growth. (Sadly, I do economics too.)

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  9. Holy fucking Cthulu, Batman! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Large numbers of layoffs What the fuck are you talking about? April 2007 unemployment: 4.73M, March 2008 unemployment: 4.49M, April 2008 unemployment: 4.68M

    What large numbers of layoffs?
    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  10. Re:Food? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I did a lot more, last time I was unemployed.

    Partly it's because you can put, "Programmer for (insert OSS project here)" as your current occupation, rather than "sitting on the couch, watching the phone" and partly because the best way to put food on the table is to do some work, and the easiest sort of work to get is freelance work.

    When you're freelance, you can't afford the licensing for the nice proprietary stuff. You can't afford to scratch build huge webapps. You absolutely have to jump on the OSS bandwagon, just because it's what you can afford.

    And when the OSS app you're deploying turns out to lack some feature that's critical to your sale...You code it. Or you jump on the lists, and beg someone else to code it. Or you incorporate some other OSS project to provide that functionality, etc.

    I made more when I was out of work than I do now, but I didn't get to post on Slashdot as much. It's all about how you decide to spend that time.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.