Why the Occupy Movement Skipped Silicon Valley

An anonymous reader writes "Eric Schmidt says what we all suspected: Silicon Valley has largely been immune to the Great Recession. He said, 'Occupy Wall Street isn’t really something that comes up in daily discussion, because their issues are not our daily reality. We live in a bubble, and I don’t mean a tech bubble or a valuation bubble. I mean a bubble as in our own little world.... Companies can’t hire people fast enough. Young people can work hard and make a fortune. Homes hold their value.'"

Comments

Valued by Results

[djl4570]

Silicon Valley and other islands of technology define their economic model by success in the marketplace, not by the manipulations of ivy league finance wizards.

Re:Valued by Results

[bmo]

Silicon Valley and other islands of technology define their economic model by success in the marketplace, not by the manipulations of ivy league finance wizards.

That is until the so-called finance wizards cast their jaundiced eye at your little cozy world.

The bean counters will come, eventually and a price will be put on everything and the value stripped.

Ignore them at your peril.

--
BMO

Re:Valued by Results

[DeadlyBattleRobot]

This is a quote out of
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/25-7

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

        The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act â" the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

        No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

        When I saw this list â" and especially the last agenda item â" the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

Re:Valued by Results

[eldavojohn]

Agreed. Companies that don't need political protection to survive, don't need favors from politicians, nor seek value by political manipulation of the marketplace don't need to be Occupied.

I couldn't disagree more. Political manipulation of the marketplace? How about political manipulation to shift the burden of paying taxes onto the individual instead of the corporation? Like lobbying congress to keep tax loopholes in place? And if Google doesn't need to lobby politicians then why give them money?

Now can someone tell me about the Occupy movement's actual goals and desired outcomes? It seems to me that without an end in mind, this movement could be corrupted and taken over by celebs just like the Tea Party.

Well, as I've posted before, I'd imagine economic justice. To specifically address my point above about tax dodging, I feel that our taxpaying dollars present these companies with one of the best and safest environments in the world to run a business. From police forces to firefighters to the highway infrastructure to educating your customers in the public schools. The reason you might think that all those things are going to shit is -- as I see it -- companies reap the benefits from them and then shift revenue through Ireland or The Netherlands to avoid paying for them! There's something specific you can fix. Right now it's you and me picking up the slack in income and sales tax!

Re:Valued by Results

[Attila Dimedici]

You know the best way to get the money out of politics? Get the politics out of money.

Re:Valued by Results

[Yvanhoe]

Ignore them at your peril.

We don(t ignore them, but the tech world and the bean-counting world have been in a state of cold war for decades. They won't manage to stealthily come into our ranks, we prefer to create software to replace them rather than hire their kin.

Re:Valued by Results

[Anonymous Coward]

When will self-absorbed jackasses like yourself stop "signing" your name at the end of your statement when everyone can PLAINLY see the same user name, which is at the top of your statement?

Re:Valued by Results

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing it wrong.

--
AC

Re:Valued by Results

[joocemann]

Youve got to be pretty naive, even in said bubble, to think the problems OWS addresses dont impact the lives of every single one of us.

Re:Valued by Results

[Alomex]

The bean counters will come, eventually and a price will be put on everything and the value stripped.

It's called an MBA degree. The focus used to be in how to bring efficiencies to an ongoing concern, it has slowly and subtly switched to stripping valuation from brands. It goes like this:

1) buy or get hired by a company that has a hard won reputation of quality
2) work huge financial incentives into your contract if profits double
3) cut quality by 50%, prices by 20%.
4) initially sales skyrocket due to lower prices
5) collect handsome bonus
6) work golden parachute into contract
7) brand collapses as people realize quality is no longer there
8) get fired, collect additional $50 million severance package

Welcome to XXI century American capitalism. This will appear in her epitaph.

Re:Valued by Results

[scamper_22]

While mainly true, let's not pretend there's much in silicon that can be replicated.

It is your typical isolated exported oriented bubble. Not everyone can be an exporter. Just like not everyone can be like Germany and export high-end manufactured goods. Not everyone can be like Norway or Saudi exporting oil.

It's also not a large employment model. There's only going to be so many innovative Search companies, OS, smart phones, chip set makers...

And that only works as long as the population is small. Heck, the amazing wealth in silicon valley can't even bring prosperity to a single US state. Much less a large nation.

In the grand scheme of things, Silicon Valley might be great for the advancement of technology and small groups of people, but it does virtually nothing for the economic condition of a large nation.

The more I grow up, the more I see Silicon Valley as a really good coping mechanism for a heroin addict. A nation addicted to needing more and more growth to cover a lifestyle it can't afford. And it has reached a point it can't obtain the next high.

Re:Valued by Results

[MtViewGuy]

Funny you mention these three because the Tea Party movement warned about this earlier, and one Sarah Palin specifically cited this problem in her criticism of "crony capitalism" on a speech she made back in September 2011. The fact that Solyndra collapsed right at the time of her speech made her assertions even MORE potent.

In short, I'd like to see these changes to our financial system:

1. Require real liquidity backing for all investments--that includes hedge funds, derivatives, and so on.
2. Increase the minimum margin requirement rate for futures trading to 20%, with a 35 to 40% rate for strategic important items like petroleum products, certain foodstuffs, certain industrial metals and precious metals.
3. Reimpose the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and give investment banks 18 months to separate out banking and investment operations.
4. Require that anyone who enters government service to put into a "blind and deaf" trust any holdings (stocks and bonds) of any private company held at the time they enter government service or require that the stock and/or bond holdings be sold off.

Implement these four changes and I think we'll bring stability back to the equities market in about 18-24 months.

Re:Valued by Results

[Attila Dimedici]

It may be a simple way to put it, but is "get the money out of politics" any more insightful of an actual course of action? My point was that if the government would stop regulating every aspect of our lives, corporations would face more competition from small businesses and would find less value in spending money on politicians than in some other use for that money. Government regulation always increases the disadvantage small companies (especially one or two person operations) have when it comes to competing with large companies, yet large companies are almost always the ones guilty of the action that causes people to call for government regulation. So, here is the pattern, large company does something unethical/dangerous, people call for government regulations on that industry, small companies face greater obstacles to compete with large company, large company makes even more money, rinse and repeat.

Re:Valued by Results

[Oswald]

This is so true and so rarely discussed. Adam Smith--so beloved of talking-head capitalists--thought publicly held corporations were a terrible idea, but somehow that part of the message never comes up on CNBC when they're discussing the invisible hand. P.J.O'Rourke wrote a book about Smith's Wealth of Nations and even called the old man out for his error--too early. Turns out, the raping of great companies through the blindness of their absentee owners is just one of those disasters that takes a while to play out, like democracies voting themselves into bankruptcy. I'd say we're making good progress toward collapse on both fronts now, though.

Re:Valued by Results

[houstonbofh]

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process.

No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act â" the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

The funny thing is that most Tea Party people are also for all of that. It is in the politicians interest to keep us divided, however. If the public ever wakes up and realizes that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street want the same thing, the party in Washington is OVER.

Re:Valued by Results

[Penguinisto]

Question: Who gets to determine who "deserves" what? I can just as easily say that no one needs or deserves to have more than two children, or to marry once in their lifetimes, or to own one car at a time, or to own one computer at a time in any personal household... IMHO, maybe you ought to shy away from the subjective when making demands of government. It's bad enough that they've been taxing tobacco and alcohol to push specific moral agendas (most of which hits the poor harder than anyone) - let's not start pushing more of it, mm'kay?

IMHO, if they'd simply ditch all tax loopholes, tax all human and corporate entities with incomes above $75k/yr a flat 30%? You'd have perfect tax 'fairness'. 'course, no one wants to do that - and I do mean no one. The middle class wants their mortgage and EIC credits, the rich want their loopholes, corporations want theirs, etc...

Re:Valued by Results

[larkost]

It may well be that many of those who call themselves Tea Part members may believe that. It might even be that oranizers at the local level belive that. But it is quite clear that the organizors at the state and national levels, and the elected politicians who are beholden to those people, have no interest in that sort of thing at all. In fact they have consistently rejected anything like those ideas in legislation.

Of course part of this disconect is that there is so much marketing going on by people paid by large groups (the Koch bothers come imedialy to mind, but they are far from the only ones) who can afford to buy saturation advertising with carefully crafted emotional messages that stop any rational debate and obscure/obliterate any real thinking. The-powers-that-be in the (large scale) Tea Party are absolutely against at least part of the message you feel is comming from the Tea Party rank-and-file. And I really do fear that in order to have any real chance as a orgainzation the Occupy movement will wind up in the same situation.

Re:Valued by Results

[Yobgod Ababua]

I'm sure he was wrong about something, but he was right about so much more.

The "free" in "free market", incidently, primarily refers to "freedom from monopolistic rents and tariffs", NOT "freedom for companies to do as they wish".

Brilliant.

And then there was truth

[alphatel]

Homes over a million hold their value
Companies can't offshore fast enough
Young people can work hard and be fooled into thinking that they will make a fortune.

Re:And then there was truth

[Surt]

Homes over a million? That's almost all of them around here.
Offshoring? So oughts. All the modern tech companies in the valley have realized that to build competitive apps you do it with manpower here.
Young people making money? Well, you do have to be lucky or smart in your startup choice, but facebook is about to mint another batch of over a thousand young millionaires to help keep those house prices propped up.
   

Re:And then there was truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Homes in the bay area are holding their value for one simple reason at this point...a coordinated effort on the part of the Chinese government to purchase real estate in San Francisco. Anyone who's tried buying a house in SF in the past 2-3 years is likely familiar with the situation of having a bid rejected because an all-cash offer for over asking was made by an overseas buyer. The real estate agent I spoke with indicated that every one of these bids that she's seen has come from a single, state-owned, Chinese bank. This alone has propped up housing demand and forced other buyers to look elsewhere in the area.

The conspiracy nut in me would be very wary of hiring Chinese nationals who've just purchased homes in the area. We're all painfully aware of the wages that developers make over there (thus the outsourcing problem), so when they start outbidding locals for expensive homes and the money is coming from the Chinese government, you have to wonder whether they're part of their already-well-covered industrial espionage efforts.

Re:And then there was truth

[sydneyfong]

I don't reckon there is a state sponsored conspiracy to buy up real estate in San Fran. (occam's razor and all)

I'm living in Hong Kong, where "luxury" residents have been gobbled up by mainland Chinese buyers, in pretty much the same way (all-cash, at inflated prices). It has messed up the property market enough for there to be anti-capitalist sentiments here among the local population because they can't afford (in their lifetimes!!) to buy a home. The gossip is that it's become sort of "fashionable" among the rich Chinese to "invest" in overseas properties, perhaps particularly in places with relatively high Chinese populations...

Sometimes it's for emigration purposes. And China is having its own housing bubble right now, so real estate speculators there are looking abroad for new markets to play with.

(Of course it isn't fun to be trumped by the army of mysterious Chinese buyers even if it isn't necessarily a Chinese government conspiracy, but just in case you're interested to know.)

Precisely.

[unity100]

That's what i have been telling my colleagues (all of them are in i.t., or i.t. companies) whenever the issues occupy wall street is raising came up. Almost all of them have been saying 'i have worked "hard" and made myself. everyone can' - because they are living in a bubble. Their skill set and aptitude, matches the time period they are living in. We are living in an era where skills/inclinations that i.t. requires are in high demand, and therefore we are in luck. Had we lived in an earlier era, we would be hard pressed to make a living.

And no - dont ever fall into the pit of thinking that 'because i am smart, i could make it' -> it does not work that way. Talent/inclination works differently than 'smart'. Cognitive powers does not have direct relevance to the inclinations you have - there are a lot of smart people, scientists too, who find i.t. work quite stressing, irritating and unbearable. and vice versa.

So we are lucky. if we had been born back in 15th century, we would be shining a feudal lord's shoes maybe. with all our smarts, but without anything on that time and age to support our particular talents.

Same the situation with majority of people - things that were in huge demand 50 years ago, are not in demand today. Things were inconceivable 50 years ago, are in demand today. But, dont err in thinking that 'adaptation is necessary' -> it is always this way - in a society with ills of capitalism, there is always huge demand for a very little percentage of talents, and the demand for the rest is never enough to feed the population.

And in this environment, those who 'made it' because they were lucky tend to think that they made it because of their 'talents'. Nay. you were lucky to hit your mother's womb in the perfect time.

It is utterly stupid to live in bubbles, devoid of perception of reality, and then to apply one's own bubble to reality, and be content with it. middle class today (which is a pathetic 10% in usa as of this moment btw) does that. and they are no different in position than the clerks, guards who did the feudal lord's bidding back in middle ages, for slightly elevated comforts.

It IS a bubble

[GeneralTurgidson]

These people don't understand that their cushy lives and jobs depend on a strong US economy. Even if you aren't seeing the effects of it yet, it will still impact you eventually through soaring costs. We're all in it together.

oh, not true!

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm one of the unemployed (older and seasoned, yet not able to find interviews or jobs in my field). to folks like me, we are *very* much in tune with the occupy movement. we're not at work being flooded with 'work harder, harder; longer, longer!' messages. we're not caught up IN the bubble, we're outside the bubble. we see what its like on both sides.

you don't.

that's what makes all the difference. I've been employed for about 3 decades (in the software field) and I've paid more dues than eric, in my time. he's attained a more powerful position but he knows far less about life than me - of that, I'm very sure. I can tell. anyone my age and with just my simple travels, can.

I'm currently 'over there' in the not-working group (or should I say, not-employed; I'm actually working quite a lot, in fact). I don't think it will stay that way for a long time, but I've been here longer than I thought. its a bit scary and I can see the corporate greed that is caustic to employees. everyone is there 'at the pleasure of the king', pretty much. I see that. the occupy guys see that.

maybe he really does get it but he also realizes that people at his level have to sing the same song. its possible. hard to tell if he believes his own bullshit or not. some do, some don't.

at any rate, many of the folks I know (techies who are also out of work and mostly of middle age or higher) are *strongly* aware and in support of the occupy movement. I'm right smack in the middle of silicon valley, not even very far from the google campus. I remember when it was the SGI campus, too (and I worked at SGI back in those days; before there was a google). I feel I have a good handle on the bay area and silicon valley. and I can say, he's full of shit.

"occupy" *should* really hit home with bay area workers. especially the knowledge-based workers; ones that can so easily be replaced and outsourced. the fact that we are not unionized and that we are a 'commodity' puts us at extreme risk of being fired for any reason and at any time. you've seen the downsizing in front of your own eyes. you can't deny that, can you? are *all* those guys really poor performers? do you believe that?

Re:oh, not true!

[TheLink]

you've seen the downsizing in front of your own eyes. you can't deny that, can you? are *all* those guys really poor performers? do you believe that?

I often see companies announce a global X% trimming in headcount. And they don't appear to care who gets the chop. This happens in all sectors, and seems ridiculous to me.

For example: someone I know works in a multinational corp, when Global HQ said "cut X%" his department was affected, even though his department was profitable, and surpassed targets. And so it was either him or his colleague that was to go. In the end his colleague got the chop. But what's most ridiculous is there was still a lot of work for the profitable department! So he ended up overworked. I told him he should have volunteered to take the severance package (since he was single, his colleague was married with commitments, there was more than enough work, he needed a break, he was supposedly better at the job, so I figured maybe he would be asked to come back later ;) ).

Analogy: to me this is like sacking one of two chefs in a very busy profitable restaurant, just because HQ isn't doing well. And the busy profitable restaurant suffers as a result, customers get poorer service. Isn't this a stupid thing to do? What motivation is there for people to do well then? You get sacked because HQ or someone else screws up. Not your team or even your branch.

I can understand sacking the chef if the chef sucks (he may not have been the best but he didn't suck), the restaurant is losing money (it wasn't), the business is going to nosedive (nobody there thought that was going to happen, and it didn't).

I can understand it if HQ says: trim X% of all the departments/branches that aren't profitable or didn't meet the targets or "service levels", those that are profitable can maintain headcount and those who are doing very well can increase headcount. This sort of beancounter logic I can understand. It motivates people to meet the requirements. Whereas if I were a manager in a "trim X%, no matter what" organization, I'd be tempted to hire cheap extras just to use as "cannonfodder" whenever cuts are required.

Simple answer...

[pla]

Silicon Valley has done well through the recession for three obvious reasons:

1) They actually produce something that the rest of the world wants. We seem to have forgotten, as a culture, that someone has to actually make things; a service economy only works if you have someone to serve... Which leads into:

2) The bankers, the realtors, the assorted "middle men" of Silicon Valley provide actual services to those bringing in the money. They haven't (yet) replaced the doers as Silicon Valley's raison d'etre. The world needs bankers - The bankers just need to remember that real people need them to provide real money so they can buy real things, rather than bundling together unicorn farts and leprechaun gold and hoping to get-rich-quick selling it as an "investment" to morons who only see dollar signs.

3) No slackers allowed - The usual parasites in any community get about as much sympathy from geeks as they would from Hitler. 'Nuff said.

Re:Simple answer...

[MtViewGuy]

The same applies for the Seattle, WA metroplex: Amazon.com, Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks are doing quite well financially, and as such the unemployment rate in the Seattle area is not that bad.

Indeed, I see the following areas booming over the next decade:

San Francisco Bay Area
Seattle, WA metroplex
Minneapolis-St. Paul metroplex
Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex
Austin, TX
The "Research Triangle" of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, NC

These areas are on the cutting edge of technology, biotechnology and increasingly "green" technology research.

yes

[unity100]

and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?

now, if you redefine hard work to be 'making others work and taking the fruits of labor to 90% percentage', then it becomes possible. but then again, in the last 50 years that has also been circumvented - those who are owning the means are making a tiny minority (mostly from middle class) work for them to make others work for them, and reaping the profits. in short, we send our sons, daughters to business colleges to get high degrees and be high level managers, even executives to make all the people work for the sake of a minority owner percentage. no different than the peasants sending their sons to be lord's soldiers, or tax collectors.

Re:yes

[pjbgravely]

In my line of work, ( not silicon valley) , I have a saying"

"It's not what you know or what you do, it's who you know and who you do, to get ahead."

Re:yes

[deKernel]

Actually I think you are wrong. I as well as my friends have all worked hard and we are very happy. We are happy because we don't define our lives by our jobs and how much money we have, but by our families and friends. I find it funny that you seem to define happiness by the very people you hate. You define happiness by money for which is the sole apparent motivation of the people you think cause all of your problems in life.

Here is a suggestion, don't give those "evil" people the power of "happiness" in your life. I would explain more, but I wanna go have a nice snow ball fight with my kids....see how that works.

Re:yes

[next_ghost]

and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?

Sure they did. The only catch is that all of that hard work was done by lots of other people.

Re:yes

[Ethanol-fueled]

Here is a suggestion, don't give those "evil" people the power of "happiness" in your life. I would explain more, but I wanna go have a nice snow ball fight with my kids....see how that works.

A good support system(friends, siblings, parents, spouses) is definitely key to surviving corporate bullshit. The problem is that, when you have kids, your corporate overlords actually gain more leverage to squeeze more work and longer hours out of you. At this point in time, I recommend that non-wealthy Americans who are considering having kids wait until the pendulum swings back toward the common worker's favor or move into a country with those conditions.

Furthermore, every parent is publicly obligated to say, "parenthood changed my life and was the best thing to happen to me, etc," their faces a twisted rigor of faux-cheer. Privately, every parent I know has told me that, "they fucked up," or that having kids "ruined their lives." The fact is that kids strain relationships/marriages and drain monetary resources.

I initiated and am leading a successful coup to overthrow my dickhead boss, who is an utterly incompetent unqualified bully railroaded into his position because he was personal buddy-buddies with his immediate supervisor. Thanks to my actions(including 2 full-page psychoanalytic letters to HR explaining his bad behavior), others were encourage to complain and consultants were brought in to see what's really going on. He's now on his way out, and the cronyist VP who hired him has egg all over his face(the extremely poor performance of my boss is actually costing the company sales!). Now I'm the folk hero of my department. I would not have been able to initiate that turn of events had I been afraid of being laid off(and, by extension, supporting my kids).
But what if they just ignore the consultant's findings and lay me off for being a malcontent? No problemo, I have enough savings and unemployment reserves to live comfortably and bullshit-free for a little while. They wouldn't dare fire me because I pre-emptively lodged complaints, and they wouldn't dare give the appearance of retaliation.

Re:yes

[DrEldarion]

and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?

A few, actually. The pattern with them, though, is that they're all older (60+) and have been with the companies for a loooooong time.

I think the difference is that many companies in the past would promote from within, and the best workers would rise to the top. Nowadays, this seems to not be the case - workers who do well are kept in their positions and the top level is hired from the outside.

Yeah, Saruman is coming for your Shire

[Anonymous Coward]

hide your hobbitses

Re:Define the problem

[IANAAC]

... because their issues are not our daily reality.

Whatever their issues were. Engineers are good at defining and solving problems. "Occupy" failed to define a problem.

I just wasted mod points to simply reply:

Maybe Engineers aren't such good listeners, then. The problem has CLEARLY been defined, and by many people.

Re:oh, not true!||| Me Too

[DeadlyBattleRobot]

I'm over 60 and still working in software. My trick is to never leave home, never let them meet me face to face - the opposite of what you did. I work as a contractor by telecommute, etc. Never bring up the issue of your age. Find an excellent sales person with an existing customer base to come up with ideas and projects, that's been a very good way to go. This is a very interesting time to be in software.

Re:Define the problem

[jamesl]

Don't just wave your arms, give me a definition.

The beancounters are there. Facebook is 50 billion

[Colin Smith]

Goldman Sachs have already made their money selling Facebook funds. Then comes the IPO with shooting star valuations for the upper management & VCs. Then the plunge to earth for the bag holders.

More typically known as pump & dump. This is what Silicon Valley is all about.

Re:A Minor Alteration

[JerkBoB]

Google (and the rest of the tech giants) have been dodging taxes and I hope that when those Oakland OWS demonstrations spill over into Mountain View that the police don't have enough tax money to keep drenching the protesters.

I won't argue that there isn't something wrong with the fact that those businesses paid so little in taxes, but I do wonder why your ire seems to be directed at the businesses themselves, rather than the dysfunctional government which allows the loopholes. If what they did is legal, then why wouldn't they take advantage of the loopholes to preserve value for themselves and their shareholders? When you do your taxes, do you take all of the deductions available to you, or do you take some sort of moral high road out of patriotic duty? I'm annoyed that my net worth isn't enough to let me play the same games. Hoping that the US tax system will become fair is useless. What most folks don't recognize is that making adjustments to the tax code is a powerful tool for Congress-critters to reward or punish friends and foes. Probably more powerful than earmarks, because it's subtle.

They don't have those problems AT THE MOMENT

[originalhack]

they will

Young people (most of Google's employees) think they are indestructible.

I daresay that I am in better financial shape than 80% of Mr Schmidt's employees including those my age and I fully expect to keep innovating and being paid well for it until I am in my 60s and due to retire.

I cannot be certain that I will be OK financially at that point.

* Medicare may be a shadow if what it was
* The social security I paid into on the majority of my income for the last several decades (while the "investor class" paid on little of their income) may be gone
* The major corporations that committed to a pension may have shoveled the liability onto a disposable successor
* Medical insurance may become unattainable
* I could get disabled by the negligent act of a corporation with little or no compensation (Tort "reform") and get wiped out financially

It is time to realize that us 99%-ers are really in this together even if most of us are too busy working to join the protests.

What's sad

[publiclurker]

is that you might actually be naive enough to believe that load of crap. The regulations are there because morally bankrupt people and the companies who are run by them have no qualms about poisoning and even killing you if it helps their bottom line. your impotent little small businesses don't even enter into the equation. Assuming tat they aren't also interested in lining their own pockets at your expense in order to some day be one of the big guys.