Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Tech Sector Is Leaving the Rest of the US Economy In Its Dust (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the speed-racer dept.

Yesterday afternoon, the S&P 500 closed at a record high, and is up over $1.5 trillion since the start of 2017. "And the companies doing the most to drive that rally are all tech firms," reports The Verge. "Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft make up a whopping 37 percent of the total gains." From the report: All of these companies saw their share prices touch record highs in recent months. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the U.S. economy, which grew at a rate of less than 1 percent during the first three months of this year. That divide is the culmination of a long-term trend, according to a recent report featured in The Wall Street Journal: "In digital industries -- technology, communications, media, software, finance and professional services -- productivity grew 2.7% annually over the past 15 years...The slowdown is concentrated in physical industries -- health care, transportation, education, manufacturing, retail -- where productivity grew a mere 0.7% annually over the same period." There is no industry where these players aren't competing. Music, movies, shipping, delivery, transportation, energy -- the list goes on and on. As these companies continue to scale, the network effects bolstering their business are strengthening. Facebook and Google accounted for over three-quarters of the growth in the digital advertising industry in 2016, leaving the rest to be divided among small fry like Twitter, Snapchat, and the entire American media industry. Meanwhile Apple and Alphabet have achieved a virtual duopoly on mobile operating systems, with only a tiny sliver of consumers choosing an alternative for their smartphones and tablets.

92 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm going to cash out my stock options and ESPP as soon as they vested. Tax penalties be damned. I'd rather lose 20% of the value to taxes than 80% of the value to a crash.

    1. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it's different this time!!

    2. Re: Bubble by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      someone with a half of a brain.

    3. Re:Bubble by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat (okay, Alphabet does a bit w/ the Pixel). And it's just as easy for them to offshore work as it is to hire within the US, since most software jobs now are remote jobs that can be done on 'the cloud'.

      You could try shorting Snap, Inc stocks: those are definitely overvalued, and given that their main selling point is that kids love them, kids can just as easily do to them what they did to MySpace. But I thought that the value you'd lose to taxes would be more like 27% or thereabouts.

    4. Re:Bubble by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It is at least reassuring that most people here have no problems identifying The Return of Dotcom for what it is...

    5. Re:Bubble by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's different every time, but it's always the same.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re: Bubble by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those types of jobs are in fact coming back, for good reasons - Apple wants somewhere closer to home to make more things so they can contribute leaks.

      Apple may be at the forefront but MOST manufacturing is going to go local in the next decade or so.

      How can it come back? Greatly increased use of automation means you don't have to hire nearly so many expensive U.S. workers, so automation actually makes more locally sourced manufacture more desirable again.

      There will not be as many jobs, sure, but they will be there and they will be better than what came before.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:Bubble by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. The party's gonna last forever, see? President Coolidge said so!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You didn't list Amazon, so you're clearly a moron.

    9. Re:Bubble by Beau1080p · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here, Beau, a few links.

      HOUSING BUBBLE REPLACED BY STUDENT, AUTO LOAN BUBBLES
      Dollar Slumps To 6-Month Lows As Stocks Do Something They Haven't Done Since 1969

      ...and so forth...

      --Beau

    10. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume you are saying so for political reasons? Perhaps you are merely repeating a mantra espoused by a certain ideological subset?

      Do you work in manufacturing? I doubt it. I do as a welder. No problems finding work. In fact, certain manufacturing companies in my city are expanding their production. One is set to become the second largest employer in the state once they are at full production capacity. That is currently projected in about 1 year.

      But keep on repeating your mantra. It's just another reason among many why working class non politically affiliated independents such as myself are keeping away from the "democratic" party with a 10 ft pole.

    11. Re:Bubble by ranton · · Score: 1

      Then you're an idiot. What makes you think it's going to pop right now or even any time in the next 10 years?

      How can you possibly say he is an idiot without knowing any details about his ESPP? If for instance he bought $1000 in stock which had an immediate value of $1100 because the stock went up during the purchase period, then he is only going to be taxed on the $100 in gains. Lets assume the 28% tax bracket, so he pays $28 in taxes instead of $15. It would only take 1.2% drop in stock value to wipe out the savings from waiting until his gains are considered long term capital gains.

      Obviously I just made those numbers up, but they illustrate that if you think your company's stock is overvalued it is certainly not stupid to sell it even as a short term capital gain. It might not be the right move, but it is hardly stupid.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    12. Re:Bubble by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It sounds better in French.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re: Bubble by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't be so keen to see these jobs coming back. If unskilled jobs come back, it only means that the income situation is completely FUBAR in the US, because it means that wages in the US can compete with wages in a Chinese sweatshop.

      And you don't believe that working conditions in the US would be any better than in a Chinese sweatshop if you can compete with it on salaries.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Bubble by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why? We already have a TV buffoon playing a president, do you need one from Hollywood to complement it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "No, they're not.", is your argument? Do you work in manufacturing? I do. Guess what, things are ramping up like crazy. The media is lying to you. Tables and graphs can be made to prove anything. Meanwhile, a ridiculous number of factories are gearing up to start production in the next two years.

      There are many investor sellouts who have extensively invested in overseas production and they have entire fortunes to lose. These are the assholes who think getting you to repeat that manufacturing is not coming back will actually prevent it from doing so. Guess what assholes, you've already lost! You are fucked and we hope you put guns in your mouths.

    16. Re: Bubble by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Now matter how much you automate, you'll require some labour - if only to feed the dog - and it'll still be cheaper in China.

      On top of that land is probably cheaper, and being able to chuck mercury in rivers and pump out smoke at will adds another cost saving.

      It comes down to whether that's enough to overcome the cost of shipping.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Bubble by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Remember 2001. This is just the next stock market bubble. It will pop. just like the last one did.

      The 2001 dot com bust had everyone and their grandmother investing in tech stocks. The only people who are losing money these days in tech startups are venture capitalists and they can afford to lose a shirt or two from playing the game.

      We are overdue for a recession after eight years of growth under Obama. Since Hillary lost the election, it won't be the Hillary Recession.

    18. Re: Bubble by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Manufacturing local isn't what makes manufacturing good for an economy.

      It is the lots of middle class jobs that manufacturing employs. If you pay 10,000 people decent wages. Then you have. 10,000 people or more buying things, going to the movies, eating out etc. If you can do the same manufacturing output with just 2,000 people and robots the economy then can only have 2,000 people going out, etc.

      Which is greater for the economy? 10,000 people or 2,000 people spending money.

      What is going to happen to the other 8,000+ people? They have to find new work. What will end up is that they will work for small companies that pay less. So the boost to the economy is smaller,. However small companies are going to make a come back. Leaner and able to compete with less overhead, and manufacturing and distribution that could rival a company ten times their size but 20 years ago.

      Such a diversafied economy will be more resistant and adaptable to swings in econmic changes as o email company going down won't wipe out entire regions. This is what happened to Detroit and Michigan. CR manufacturing changes wiped out the region.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Bubble by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, dumping and extra 5-6 Trillion during the Obama years in deficit dollars into the economy will tend to heat it up a bit. However, not all of that was Obama's doing. It started under Bush with "surpluses as far as the eye could see" back before 9/11....that turned out not be extremely far. Bush managed to add only about 4 Trillion to the debt, so Obama beat him fair and square. Bush decided the country needed big tax cuts instead of sending the surpluses off to retire the debt. It is hard to buy votes by retiring debt. So the economy from Bush through Obama was illusory, it was merely a sugar high and not a new normal.

      When the bailouts started at the End-O-Bush, Obama kept them up. Mind you he probably saved the country from collapse but then he and Congress should have taken their foot off the gas. However, they figured they'd be diselected if they didn't keep Americans on the sugar high to which they helped addict them.

      To make matters worse, Obama and Republican dolts in Congress decided to keep the Bush tax cuts rather than let them expire, thus increasing the debt more. It was irresponsible.

      So now we have boneheads in Congress and the Administration promising more tax cuts. The preceding ones weren't fixing the ailing economy like they figured so let's have some more of the damn things. Them rich people and companies will surely start hiring more if we give them more money...and the debt will ride ever higher...especially now that the Me Generation is becoming the Blue Haired Generation and demanding their cut of the pie. The pols' rational: well, if we get the GDP increasing at 3-4%, then there'll be lots of money. Errr...and if I get my pink unicorn, I'll be rich charging people to ride it.

      Now government has backed itself into a corner. They cannot keep up with the demographics and with Bozo in the White House, there will be no nice lovely young immigrants to work for the Blue Hairs' social security and medicare. The Blue Haired will scream "We wuz robbed!!" when their checks get cut down to size.

      Oh, and the SS Trust Fund? In a sense, it doesn't exist. It is merely an accounting gimmick. SS is a pay as you go system. When the payers don't have enough to pay, you go hungry. So no sneaky thinking you'll be able to cash in if you live long enough. You won't.

    20. Re: Bubble by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So the welders are robots and somehow that's bringing welding jobs back...

    21. Re: Bubble by PPalmgren · · Score: 3

      Microelectronics have more than just labor cost blocking their resurgence in the US, so automation is only part of the solution. The biggest issue is the location of the resources used for manufacturing. Unless Apple decides to spend its cash hoard on vertical integration and starts mining and producing the components in the US, they aren't going to save any money producing here. The components will still need to be shipped from China where they're produced, near the resource mines which avoid environmental regulation and cost significantly less than domestic.

    22. Re: Bubble by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Land is cheaper in the US. Lower population and fewer deserts than China means land is more available. If the feed the robot jobs need a good technical education US workers can compete as the US education system is better. Shipping on the other hand is becoming cheaper. With more and more solar and EVs the demand for oil is going down so bunker fuel is getting cheaper. Only way to increase shipping costs is to reduce the US military footprint. Once the US is not keeping the peace on the high seas, piracy will increase the cost of shipping. So we can bring manufacturing jobs back but at the cost of military jobs.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    23. Re:Bubble by hlavac · · Score: 1

      Those from Hollywood are good at it :)

    24. Re: Bubble by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      I am certain that Apple does not expect to save a dime with local manufacturing, and knows it will cost them more than a few dimes in the short run. What they hope to achieve is the saving of time in development feedback loops, and getting to final product to the most valuable market sooner. That will make Apple more profitable, even if it will not save them money per se.

      Once you get past the business of running scared that a competitor will steal your customers by charging a few pennies less, you will notice that some of your products would be more profitable if only you could get the latest and greatest models into the hands of customers sooner. Fast to market not only is kinder to your capital costs, but makes you more responsive and effective at iterating your product to compete for future customers. Apple, as a company that own the most profitable swath of a very valuable luxury market, can win big by not pinching pennies, if done judiciously. Apple is hardly the only company that has noticed that a little more cost is acceptable if you can shrink the time scale of your product life cycle, and thus can compete more effectively for the more profitable premium markets.

    25. Re:Bubble by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Surface, Microsoft Xbox, etc. They also make products that could be manufactured in the U.S.A. like Apple. But they don't, because it's cheaper in Taiwan/China.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    26. Re: Bubble by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And hopefully those guns and bullets will be proudly made in the U.S.A.!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    27. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can tell you've never set a foot in a factory. Even the most advanced industrial factories that use robotic welding machines employ dozens of manual welders for every machine. So yes, actually.

    28. Re:Bubble by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does have quite a bit of hardware.

      http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox...
      https://www.microsoft.com/acce...
      https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...

      Facebook also own Occulus.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    29. Re:Bubble by constComment · · Score: 1

      A related question is which of these companies is actually increasing the productivity of Americans. Several such as Facebook and Microsoft have simply achieved a monopoly position in their sector; this accounts for much of their success and employment growth. For society to benefit in the long term, worker productivity across the board needs to rise.

      This is why the mantra that the tech industry means everything to the economy is bunk. Its purpose is to justify more visa programs. The real opportunity in tech is to apply technology across the economy increasing the efficiency of mom and pop workers everywhere.

    30. Re:Bubble by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I am a simple mind of simple tastes, I can't complain about the current president sitcom. Every week a new blunder and hilarious cover up, it's like Spin City never got canceled but instead got more budget and was pumped from NYC mayor to US prez.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re: Bubble by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Well. . . .

      Considering that a ShitStorm with China is a real possibility in the near future over their " pile up dirt in the ocean, declare it sovereign territory and threaten anyone who comes near it " game, if all of your manufacturing is done in China, guess what happens when said ShitStorm becomes a reality ?

      If ALL of your products are manufactured by what may be your future enemy, you're in a lot of trouble once they cease making your products for you.

    32. Re: Bubble by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Those types of jobs are in fact coming back, for good reasons - Apple wants somewhere closer to home to make more things so they can contribute leaks.

      Apple may be at the forefront but MOST manufacturing is going to go local in the next decade or so.

      How can it come back? Greatly increased use of automation means you don't have to hire nearly so many expensive U.S. workers, so automation actually makes more locally sourced manufacture more desirable again.

      There will not be as many jobs, sure, but they will be there and they will be better than what came before.

      Production is coming back. The jobs, they aren't. A very important distinction that goes over the hoi polloi's collective heads.

    33. Re: Bubble by Zephyn · · Score: 1

      At least they'll be losing their jobs to American robots.

    34. Re: Bubble by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, dozens instead of hundreds.

    35. Re:Bubble by randomlygeneratename · · Score: 1

      What's your opinion on Nvidia? I guess they use Taiwan to manufacture their products, not sure if that has any chance of being changed to USA. I only bring them up because their products enable basically all of the machine learning revolution that has come around lately (as well as graphics too), and seems like a legit company with a legit product and contribution... hopefully not part of the 'bubble'. (Then again, many of its customers may be in the 'bubble', so there's that.)

    36. Re:Bubble by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's the government spending that does the most damage.
      Drop medicare and health spending, unemployment and labor department, housing and community development, transportation, federal education spending, food and agriculture. Those comprise 40% to 60% of the federal budget, and they're almost all completely unconstitutional - i.e. illegal.

      How much better would your life be if your federal taxes were halved?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    37. Re: Bubble by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The components will still need to be shipped from China where they're produced, near the resource mines which avoid environmental regulation and cost significantly less than domestic.

      Last time I saw information on this, the components were actually produced in Taiwan, Japan, and Korea and the shipped to China for assemblage. Some raw materials also came from China, but overall, all three of those countries ended up each getting more of the percentage of manufacturing costs than China. So, what we're really talking about here is moving component fabrication back to the us. This was from The Economist breakdown of where all the cost of Apple products were going, but it was from a few years ago. If you have newer info, could you please post it?

    38. Re:Bubble by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      How much better would your life be if your federal taxes were halved?

      You forgot Social Security and Medicare, which will consume 2/3 of the federal budget in 2030. Taxes will have to go way up to pay for everything else.

    39. Re:Bubble by euroq · · Score: 1

      > Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat

      You are implying that the only real jobs and value are through physical manufacturing as opposed to service work. In fact, services are obviously very valuable.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  2. Digital advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Digital advertising isn't an industry.

    At best it is a digital parasite.

    1. Re:Digital advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you would stop clicking on the spam mail promising to increase your penis size by taking a pill, a pump, or a secret diet then they'd stop. I blame you for all the crappy digital spam.

    2. Re:Digital advertising by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      We should be fine as long as the advertisers never realize that no one has any actual money.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Digital advertising by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Parasites have a long standing history, reaching back millennia and still going strong.

      Of course, in nature every organism tries to combat them, fight back and do its best to eliminate them rather than embracing them and lauding them for living on their expense...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Digital advertising by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I have money. The problem here is more that I intend to keep it rather than throwing it at the parasites.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Digital advertising by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I have money. But, of course, I work in government IT. :P

    6. Re:Digital advertising by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's my money, stolen at gunpoint by jackbooted goons. Give it back or I'll shoot you.

      What a coincidence! I was robbed by jackbooted goons as well. Those Russians are everywhere.

    7. Re:Digital advertising by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Does the government know that you are wasting their time by commenting on /. during business hours.

      As long as I get my numbers in for each day, no one cares what I do in between tasks. My numbers are usually in the top three out of the department.

    8. Re:Digital advertising by kisrael · · Score: 1

      We all carry a thriving microbiome in our gut. Relationships that begin parasitical can become symbiotic.

      The thing is, people tend not to pay for digital content. With Microtransactions, people had no idea how their usage might add up (think the first iPhone coming out ONLY with unlimited data plans - that cleared one of the hurdles that left WAP stumbling) or there would be privacy concerns, especially how porn was a big mover of the web.

      Subscriptions are tough too, there are too many possibilities to try, leaving out others, and again, unclear how it might build up.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  3. Obsession With The New by mentil · · Score: 1

    USA culture is obsessed with the 'new'. In fact, 'new' and 'free' are the two most-liked words in the English language (in the USA.) It should be no surprise that consumer spending behavior would gravitate towards what's novel, which necessarily (eventually) requires new technology. An increasing proportion of our entire economy is being automated, with widespread predictions that eventually, our ENTIRE supply-side economy will be automated. This automation requires, again, new technology. Therefore, tech companies are displacing older companies; you thought you wanted X good or service, but it turns out that new tech makes X irrelevant (cars vs. buggy whips), or Y alternative (electric cars vs. ICE) so cheap it's preferable to what you were planning on using.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Obsession With The New by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And until the not so recent past, that was a pretty sensible attitude. New was better, and free was actually free. Yes, TANSTAAFL does apply, but I do remember people who would host parties for the only reason that they enjoyed being party hosts and invite friends over. Without any actual ulterior motifs.

      And new did actually mean better. Think back the last 100 years and you'll see that every generation of something that came out was in some way better than its predecessor. Faster. More reliable. Safer. More convenient.

      Only recently this has changed dramatically. Newer technology isn't really better than its predecessor. Actually, again and again we had to learn that newer generations of something took things away from us. Cars get harder and harder to repair yourself with every generation having more and more technical bullshit baked into its vital parts (I'm not talking about passenger entertainment, I'm talking about operation). Phones are actually losing features instead of gaining some (with the headphone jack only being the tip of the ice berg).

      And you don't want me to compare Windows 10 to ANY of its predecessors, including ME...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Obsession With The New by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cars get harder and harder to repair yourself with every generation having more and more technical bullshit baked into its vital parts

      But they also become more reliable, and EVs have the potential to be substantially more reliable because they feature the simplicity that you are valuing so highly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Obsession With The New by houghi · · Score: 2

      Yes cars are harder to repair than before. You know how many I repaired before? Less than 1. They also became more relaiable. I needed to change my oil less because of all this.They became ore fuel efficient and safer.
      And you can still repair cars if you want. There are plenty of ways if you are willing. It just included electronics.

      For the majority of people what newer means is cheaper, not better. I can buy a 50+" TV for 500EUR fullHD. Compare that to the TV I could repair myself. Paid 4 months wages when they came out.

      So yes, please think back 100 years what was available then for the public and what is now.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Obsession With The New by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As manufacturing quality gets shoddier in the pursuit of profit margins newer stuff becomes less durable and reliable. Brands of jeans that used to be hard-wearing are now getting torn in less than a year of the same usage.

      Yeah, but we were talking about cars, which are much more reliable than they have ever been.

      Most of the other parts of a typical car (bearings, suspension, power steering, climate control, stereo, etc) are hardly any different or less complex in a Tesla. However they continue to become more complicated electronically rather than mechanically so really they're no easier to fix when something goes wrong. A bad wire connection somewhere doesn't make a tell-tale sound that would clue in an experienced mechanic to the issue

      No. It generates a fault code with a description like "OPEN OR SHORT TO GROUND" or "OPEN OR SHORT TO POSITIVE", literally. You get a good idea of where to look, and even which wire is the problem. Of course, this is how it works when all this stuff is communicating on some kind of OBD-II bus, whether that's CAN or not. If it's a proprietary bus, there may or may not be that kind of fault detection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Obsession With The New by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Really? You can somehow get me the required software to even find out what's wrong with my Kia's engine? Let alone repair it and reset the check engine light?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Obsession With The New by houghi · · Score: 1

      I could not find out what is wrong with it, no matter what. I would not be able to do it if I had a complete Kia Engineering team with me.

      Resetting the check engine light? No problem: ODBII scanners are widely available. Diagnostics tools are available for free, cheap and expansive.
      Google just gave me this link as part of a search.
      This is an expensive option. Just for fun I once bought a Bluetooth OBDII scanner, installed a free app and could see so much that I have no idea what I was seeing. (That is meaningless as I just know not to mix the fuel and the water.)

      The fact that _I_ do not know what the output means does not mean that that knowledge is not available.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. This isn't surprising by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The #1 cost of most things are the raw materials needed to product followed by the labor (and their benefits). Tech needs almost nothing to produce since it includes software and even then needs a fraction of the employees of most sectors. Tech has amazing ROI because you just plain don't need to invest very much.

    The trouble is that a lot of tech is either useless (Twitter) or evil (Uber).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This isn't surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you're like my employer that throws more programmers at a problem. Can't cook fast enough? Put more cooks in the kitchen, that'll speed things up.

    2. Re:This isn't surprising by rosshalz · · Score: 1

      The #1 cost of most things are the raw materials needed to product followed by the labor (and their benefits). Tech needs almost nothing to produce since it includes software and even then needs a fraction of the employees of most sectors. Tech has amazing ROI because you just plain don't need to invest very much.

      The trouble is that a lot of tech is either useless (Twitter) or evil (Uber).

      whoa whoa... twitter is both useless AND evil (on an average)

    3. Re:This isn't surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not Surprising?!?!?????

      I'll tell you what's surprising.....

      These tech companies are all being successful due to two very simple reasons...

      1) Selling you stupid bleeding edge shit you don't really *need*.

      2) Selling your soul out to the devil via datamining your ass 24x365 live in realtime via all microphone video chat gps purchases habits photos *including* the last time you jacked off to Britney Spears. They buy, sell, and have it *ALL*, your entire LIFE on their backend. Ruling over and engineering you is a total greenfield.

      AND YOU FUCKING IDIOTS FUCKING GAVE IT TO THEM, ALL OF IT, WITHOUT SO MUCH AS ASKING FOR A PENNY OF THE PROFIT AND EVERLASTING CONTROL THEY NOW HAVE OVER YOU.

      Fucking idiots.

    4. Re: This isn't surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of my bosses wanted a particular problem "fixed now!!!" The issue at it's roots was poor business practices by management, but of course management never sees it that way and must be the fault of a SINGLE human IT guy.

      Apparently he didn't like it when I told him that there wasn't anything that could be done to speed it up resolution, and that he just needed to wait until it was done and that I couldn't defy laws of physics. He then felt like I must have been just making up bullshit like I'd intentionally self inflict more stress upon myself when entire business operations had ceased.

      He then offered to bring in 3rd party consultants to "help" with a problem where the work was single threaded and couldn't be divided, but I could only explain it for him. I couldn't also understand it for this incompetent dipshits.

      I finally told him that giving me 9 females won't make 1 baby in a month, then walked away. The consultants at some ungodly hourly rate just sat around doing absolutely fuck nothing and confirmed the same damn thing I said, while I continued to single handedly fixed the effect of the problem, which took about 2 weeks. It would have been fixed sooner if not distracted by the consultants and their idiotic questions.

      I no longer support that business. Yes it deserves to die, and I hope it burns in hell!

    5. Re:This isn't surprising by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tech needs almost nothing to produce since it includes software

      Uhm... what? You do know that increased demand for tech has caused the demand for raw materials involved in making tech, such as rare-earth minerals, to skyrocket?

      Take, for instance, one of the world’s fastest-improving technologies: silicon-based semiconductors. Over the last few decades, technological improvements in the efficiency of semiconductors have greatly reduced the amount of material needed to make a single transistor. As a result, today’s smartphones, tablets, and computers are far more powerful and compact than computers built in the 1970s.
      Nonetheless, the researchers find that consumers’ demand for silicon has outpaced the rate of its technological change, and that the world’s consumption of silicon has grown by 345 percent over the last four decades. As others have found, by 2005, there were more transistors used than printed text characters.
      “Despite how fast technology is racing, there’s actually more silicon used today, because we now just put more stuff on, like movies, and photos, and things we couldn’t even think of 20 years ago,” says Christopher Magee, a professor of the practice of engineering systems in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.
      “So we’re still using a little more material all the time.”
      The researchers found similar trends in 56 other materials, goods, and services, from basic resources such as aluminum and formaldehyde to hardware and energy technologies such as hard disk drives, transistors, wind energy, and photovoltaics. In all cases, they found no evidence of dematerialization, or an overall reduction in their use, despite technological improvements to their performance.
      “There is a techno-optimist’s position that says technological change will fix the environment,” Magee observes. “This says, probably not.” - -

      “[Technology] will get us to a sustainable world — it has to,” says J. Doyne Farmer, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the research. “I say this not only because we need it, but because there is only so much we can suck out of the Earth, and eventually we will be forced into a sustainable world, one way or another. The question is whether we can do that without great pain. Magee’s paper shows that we need to expect more pain than some of us thought.”

      Chips don't grow on trees. This is a classic case of the Jevon's paradox which has been noticed since the very beginning of industrialization: as you increase the efficiency of a technology, whether it's coal plants, internal combustion engines or microchips, the demand for said technology goes up.

      We have a limited amount of raw-materials in the ground and the extraction of the remaining resources will grow increasingly difficult and expensive with time, which means recycling of old electronics more efficiently is the only sustainable option in the long run. Same goes for plastics: we currently dump billions of dollars worth of plastic to dumps and the oceans but as the cost of oil keeps rising and plastics become more expensive, we should start to see the market turn towards a greener economy not because they care about the environment but because picking floating plastic out of the sea and reprocessing it will at one point (hopefully soon) become more cost-efficient than making new plastics out of a perishing resource.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    6. Re:This isn't surprising by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Baby taking 9 months? Try more women.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:This isn't surprising by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If your boss is at least a halfway decent mathematician, you might be able to explain it this way: When you have already n programmers in your crew, adding another one adds only about 1/n workforce to the pool. The rest is wasted on coordination and training.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: This isn't surprising by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Old German proverb: The knave thinks (others are) the way he is. Now take a wild guess why your manager thought you were bullshitting him when you told him it will take the time it will take.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:This isn't surprising by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      We're able to produce flint axeheads far more efficiently than we could in the Neolithic. Therefore the demand for flint axeheads is vastly greater.

      You obviously did not understand the paradox. We've made great improvements in cutting technology. Axes have been replaced by powertools and harvesters far more efficient than any axe type in cutting down wood, but simultanously the demand for wood has increased massively since the Neolithic.

      The point is not that new, more efficient technologies don't surpass the old, but that these new technologies, despite being superior in efficiency do not reduce the overall demand for the raw materials they're used to process.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    10. Re:This isn't surprising by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  5. Re:in its dust? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    All those companies are software companies.
    Magic smoke is a hardware thing
    I don't think they would intentionally execute the HCF instruction

  6. What idiot... by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    conflates the "stock market" with "the economy"????

    Oh, right: journalists. I'd be unhappy as hell if my kids became lawyers, but kill the one that becomes a journalist.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:What idiot... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Good point. It would be worth comparing gross revenues of various sectors of the economy and see the long term trends. I would bet that tech would weigh in quite well, especially when growth trends are considered. But the stock price is really the wrong place to look.

    2. Re:What idiot... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can add politicians to that pile. A lot of the stupidity in the legislative response to the 2007 crisis was a direct result of confusing the stock market with the economy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:What idiot... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Good point. It would be worth comparing gross revenues of various sectors of the economy and see the long term trends. I would bet that tech would weigh in quite well, especially when growth trends are considered. But the stock price is really the wrong place to look.

      I looked at BEA numbers and found that the "Information-communications-technology-producing industries" grew by 3.05% between 2015 and 2016, while all industries grew by 1.62%. So "tech", very broadly and loosely defined, grew nearly twice as much as the rest.

      However, it's also much smaller. Goods-producing industries generated $8T in 2016, services industries almost $20T, while tech was less than $2T.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:What idiot... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      conflates the "stock market" with "the economy"????

      Oh, right: journalists. I'd be unhappy as hell if my kids became lawyers, but kill the one that becomes a journalist.

      That connection was especially amusing when there was reporting about China's new stockmarket which may as well have been a casino - booms and busts every day with only the house winning in the long term.

    5. Re:What idiot... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Yes the article compares share growth of tech sector with economic growth of the rest which is nonsense. That said, It's been said that the stock market leads the overall economy in terms of trends by about 6 months. I don't know if it's true. But the productivity part is probably relevant: 2.7% for the tech industry and 0.7% in things that are more important. That's not a good sign.

  7. Not quite by s.petry · · Score: 1

    While I agree that the first 2 are of no value, Apple and Google make tangible useful products. As someone else in the topic states, there is a duopoly on mobile phones between the two. They both make products for the desktop and mobile which dig into the long held MS monopoly.

    That is not to say they don't have crap too, but definitely not a Facebook or Twitter. If those two companies stopped receiving free advertising from people, competing products would put them out of business.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  8. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Daniel Bell. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books, New York, NY.

    1. Re:The Coming of Post-Industrial Society by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's too big to fit in this comment space. Please send me a stamped, self-addressed envelope and I will return you a copy.

    2. Re:The Coming of Post-Industrial Society by clovis · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's too big to fit in this comment space. Please send me a stamped, self-addressed envelope and I will return you a copy.

      What's a envelope, and should I stamp on it bare-footed or with boots?

  9. It'd be a mercy killing by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    even when I was a kid they knew they were doomed. We met with people to talk about their work in high school and the Journalists all told me to steer clear of their profession. It would help if we didn't let one guy (R Murdoch) buy up 90% of the news papers so he could push his agenda through them. I mean, what's even the point of buying a news paper when it's nothing but the usual pro-corporate blather. Muck racking is what made journalism worth paying for. Not that the powers that be would let that fly...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It'd be a mercy killing by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Murdoch doesn't own The Guardian.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  10. What is tech? Baby don't hurt me... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that industry could grow quickly AND slowly at the same time.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  11. Bubble? by thogard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason those stocks are increasing is that millions of people have their 401K investing in "tech stocks" The people who manage some of those get a billion a week that they are obligated to invest before the next billion shows up next week. The result is the tech stocks are over valued and the price keeps going up as the game continues.

    This gets worse when they go to prove their investment works. Say they bought a billion in shares in GOOG 5 years ago at $300. They can sell them this week for $950 or so they make a 2.16 billion profit which they can keep for weeks since it was a result of a sale of stock. Next week they dump another billion into GOOG stock at say $1000 and they other 3.16 billion from last weeks sale may go to something else like IBM and MSFT just after the investment firm reports wonderful profits.

    There is a class of investment in the UK that is limited to something like 60 tech companies and there are retirement funds that are limited to those 60.

    The high speed computer traders know this and have been gaming the system for decades.

    1. Re:Bubble? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason those stocks are increasing is that millions of people have their 401K investing in "tech stocks"

      All evidence suggests that you're completely wrong. Tech stocks are soaring because tech revenues and profits are soaring, not because their prices are being artificially bid up.

      If your argument were correct, we should expect to see crazy P/E ratios in those tech stocks, as they're bid way up ahead of earnings growth. The three you mentioned, GOOG, IBM and MSFT have P/E ratios of around 30, 12 and 30, respectively. The GOOG and MSFT numbers are slightly higher than is normal, but seem totally justifiable given that the companies both still have excellent growth prospects (rational stock prices should represent the net present value of future income). Now, if you want to look at an inflated P/E, AMZN is about 180... but that's only because AMZN chooses to keep its profits low, reinvesting instead to increase shareholder value a different way. Everyone knows that Bezos could decide to flip a switch and start generating profits an order of magnitude larger, instantly dropping his P/E to 18, where AAPL's is.

      P/E is just one measure. You can do the same analysis on several others, and you'll find exactly the same thing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Bubble? by euroq · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  12. Bubble by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Remember 2001. This is just the next stock market bubble. It will pop. just like the last one did.

    The symptoms are the same, too. Crazy startups (especially in Silicon Valley), getting $millions in funding, and yet anyone looking from a distance can see that they have zero chance of ever making money. Stupidly high market values for companies making thumping losses every quarter. For whatever reason, it all turns into a lottery: this little startups hoping some big boy like Google or Apple will buy them out. Even stupider: the big companies keep doing exactly that.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  13. Re:The H1B Sector by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Except for creimer our very own resident troll billionaire who earns $55B+ despite being a stupid lazy fat American slob. So you see it's not true there are no tech jobs for Americans. There is one token tech job for one token American and that job is filled by the big fat ass of creimer.

    My ebooks are available at Amazon and Smashwords. You can also visit me at my author website, personal blog, YouTube and Twitter.

  14. Tech Monopolies and Mega-corps. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "The Tech Sector Is Leaving the Rest of the US Economy In Its Dust"

    Uh, more like The Tech Monopolies and Mega-corps are leaving Everyone In Its Dust.

    These tech giants are crushing even other tech companies.

    And of course let's not forget about the political strings they've pulled to stay on top. I wonder how well the "Tech Sector Five" would have performed had they been forced to play more by the damn rules and actually do things like pay taxes, and not hide 99% of their revenue in some fucking tax haven somewhere.

  15. Not by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wages have been stagnant for almost 10 years even for the A players and unicorns.

    There are slightly higher paying jobs (5-10%) you could take but they require twice as much work if not more. Not worth it especially if you have a family. We're still due for a correction because of the recession like everyone else.

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:Not by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile Apple sits on 250 Billion in cash.. For christ sake give people a raise.

      Yes and others because the money is offshore and they refuse to bring it back into the United States to reinvest because of the 39.6% corporate tax rate.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  16. Some jobs are by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Not as many but jobs ARE coming back. You also forget all of the jobs around keeping a factor running independent of the production that are good as well.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Some jobs are by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Not as many but jobs ARE coming back. You also forget all of the jobs around keeping a factor running independent of the production that are good as well.

      Still, we are just talking a fraction of the jobs that used to exist. Moreover, the "newer" jobs are outside the reach of those who originally lost their jobs (due to skill mismatches.)

      It's not a situation where "100 people loose their jobs, but 20 get them back". It's "100 people lose their jobs, and 20 new jobs are opened and filled mostly with people."

      Whether we blame the original 100 for not having the skills, that's another conversation. I'm partly in the "people should build their skills continuously" mindset, but I don't throw people under the bus either.

  17. Stock Market != Economy by CountStGermain · · Score: 1

    While market valuation may a gauge of the economic health/activity, it is not the economy.

    --
    Count St. Germain