How Silicon Valley Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

An anonymous reader writes: Lots of places want to be 'the next Silicon Valley.' But the Valley's top historian looks back (even talks to Steve Jobs about his respect for the past!) to explain why SV is unique. While there are threats to continued dominance, she thinks it's just too hard for another region to challenge SV's supremacy.

Comments

How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will....

[TWX]

How Switzerland Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

How Japan Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

How England Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

How Rome Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule


Nothing involving active processes, continued development, and people is permanent. Its longevity is always dictated by its continued management and the ability to keep pushing without growing complacent such that disruptive technologies or hungry competitors don't surpass it or make it irrelevant.

Remeber

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicon Valley was kick-started by federal dollars.

Remember that you fuckers every time you fire American workers for H1-bs and then accuse them of having entitlement issues. And remember it again assholes when you say shit like "you could be in India" so be thankful for your refrigerator.

The only people with entitlement issues are the SV "entrepreneurs" and VCs.

Re:Remeber

[minstrelmike]

People who have money tend to feel entitled to it.

That's because they buy into the Libertarian myth that they made their money themselves.
Daniel Boone couldn't build his own rifle from rocks and sticks, because he didn't have the time nor the skills and Bill Gates could not get rich in Yemen or Somalia simply because the market wasn't big enough, regardless of whether it was steady enough and supported by laws and regulations and trust-worthy money.

Business folks refuse to recognize the need for a government and a market, thinking those things just happen naturally. Even today, the conservative voters and their politicians (get cause-effect correct if you're defining a problem) still want to fix the Bush-recession by raising interest rates even tho most economists recognize the lack of recovery is because of a depressed market and not because of a depressed ability to borrow money. There is no reason to expand a factory if you cannot sell what's already being produced.

The top tax rate in the US during the 1950s was 90%. That meant businesses paid their top employees a lot more (instead of giving _all_ the money to the CEO) and the government had enough money to build the interstate highway system (what is that worth for marketing) and fly to the moon. Then we decided rich people needed to keep "their" money and gradually for most of the people in America (more than half), life started to trend downhill.

We're all in this together. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. And this isn't a plea for communism which many conservatives scream at folks who aren't on board with them 1000%. We already know communism doesn't work in groups larger than about 280 or so (but it works fantastically well for a nuclear family. We also know unfettered Capitalism that puts all the money into the rich folks hands without investing in infrastructure will destroy the society. You can see this in any kingdom that didn't invest in bridges or roads or put the collected tax money back in the hands of the people somehow.
Adam Smith (1776) didn't push for complete economic freedom, just for competition within a well-regulated marketplace. Of course, he was writing to kings, most of whom had an interest in keeping their country runnning for mutiple generations.

That doesn't seem to be a true statement about voters nowadays.

Re:Remeber

[circletimessquare]

i see it as a similar conceit to anti-vaxxers

anyone who grew up when it was common for children to die at a young age due to common diseases would vaccinate wholeheartedly. but, distant those horrors, the effort necessary to maintain the status quo of healthy children becomes all you see: vaccinations, sticking needles in children, strange concotions i don't understand...

likewise, you have these similar fools who see the benefits of a regulated marketplace, but only see the onerous regulations, and not the horrors of what an unregulated marketplace is really like. so they react to the regulations as if they are the actual evil, just like anti-vaxxers

anyone who survived (broke) one of the many banking panics of the 1800s would claim the FDIC the greatest godsend. but, now that we don't have runs on banks, we just have this "evil" "world domination" "freedom destroying" scheme called the FDIC: morons think the FDIC is the actual evil

it's a conceit of lack of experience, lack of education, no awareness of history, prideful ignorance

How adorable...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The place where everyone goes to 'disrupt' things has assured us that business will continue as usual.

Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke)

[Qbertino]

Personally, I'd bet on Detroit for future economic ascendance- at least for the U.S. Rent ist dirt cheap and there's a distinct artsy/berlinish vibe to the people rebuilding Detroit right now - lot's of creativity and pragmatism ... For the western hemisphere in total Berlin is a good bet. Abundance of talent and creativity and a digital culture that is one abstraction level away from hardware (which will be built entirely by robots in just a few years from now anyway) plus a culture that emphasises a post-scarcity economy.

On a global perspective we westerners shouldn't delude ourselves. Far-east asia and india and perhaps the arab nations (after the terror has calmed down and the people are clamoring for an age of reason again) is probably where the parties at in 2-3 decades from now. India is the youngest country in the world. We'll all be pensioners when they'll just be warming up. 1.3 billion fairly well educated people in their best years ought to pack some economic and innovation punch.

I expect the valley and bay area to turn into something of a modern day Paris meets Amsterdam - which it basically is already. A tourist attraction and real-estate investment haven for the super-rich.

My 2 cents.

Re:Why would anyone start there?

[hwstar]

Maybe you should have looked after your employees better, and paid them well enough to ensure they'd stick around. Companies that depend on locking in employees with non-competes are bad actors in my view.

Re:Why would anyone start there?

[SvnLyrBrto]

> What made silicon valley was what Texas or North
> Dakota is today. Cheap land, cheap employees,
> friendly government, no one leaving for another
> startup.

You couldn't be more wrong. People leaving for another startup is EXACTLY what made Silicon Valley.

Pretty much all of the Intel founders met at and left Fairchild Semiconductors to form their own company. Fairchild itself was the result of people leaving Schockley Labs. Jobs and Woz worked at Atari and Hewlett-Packard before founding Apple. Palm came from ex-Apple employees. AMD also came from Fairchild employees. The cofounders of Nvidia jumped ship from AMD and Sun. YouTube was founded by ex-PayPal employees. And all that's just off the top of my head.

Smart people meeting smart people, having an idea, and having the freedom to leave their employer to implement that idea, is the vert heart of innovation. The fact that you tout non-compete shackles as a good thing *does* mark you as an "anti employee asshole". You labeled yourself in your very first sentence. It also proves that you just don't get what makes for an environment that generates companies that are not only innovative, but fantastic to work for.