Sunday assorted links


This is slightly off topic but is relevant to #3.

One of the hypes that relates to #3 was Richard Florida's concept of a "creative" class. I put this in quotes because what Florida defined as creativity was not the technological innovation that normal people defined as creativity. For example, the guy in Phoenix who invents a new kind of semiconductor technology or the lady who invented CRISPR gene therapy actually do not meet Richard Florida's definition of creativity. Florida's definition of creativity meant only the frivolous latte-sipping artsy stuff that you see in the West coast cities. I think one of the problems of the Bay Area is that too many people there actually took Richard Florida's ideas seriously.

And this is slightly off-topic but related to #5.

Everybody should check out anthropologist John D. Kelly's short, readable book on international baseball titled The American Game: Capitalism, Decolonization, World Domination, and Baseball. It's not as left-wing trashy as it sounds!

Kelly is an anthropologist at the University of Chicago, whose departments still have some academic standards. Here is the link.

one must conform to the hole digger. as sketchy as he may be.

I think everything posted was actually very logical. But,
what about this? suppose you were to write a awesome title?
I am not suggesting your information isn't solid,
however what if you added a post title that makes people
desire more? I mean Sunday assorted links - Marginal REVOLUTION
is kinda vanilla. You should peek at Yahoo's home page and see how they create news headlines to grab people
to open the links. You might add a related video or a related picture or two to grab readers interested about
everything've got to say. In my opinion, it would bring
your posts a little bit more interesting.

Its fine to mock the latte swillers but its not like they didn't contribute anything. Yoga pants, spinning classes, meditation apps, on demand food delivery etc are all trends that you could have picked up if you lived there and turned into mega businesses. Also, the lady who invented CRISPR did so at Berkeley, the most left wing city in the most left wing state.

Socrates didn't even write anything down.

I've been reading articles about how it's ridiculous that Silicon Valley dominates tech start ups for the last 35 years and that soon Austin or Seattle or Denver or Boulder or or Salt Lake City or Santa Fe or wherever will be the New Silicon Valley. All that's changed is that 35 years ago, the articles used to say that it's ridiculous that Silicon Valley and Route 128 dominate tech startups. Over time, Silicon Valley crushed Route 128 and now barely anybody remembers that there used to be a second SV and now there is only one SV.

Route 128 went the route of Wall Street and military research. In other words, instead of creating something for themselves, they supported pre-existing institutions. Entrenching the entrenched. This keeps incumbents and their old ideas around longer than if they created a strong, dynamic entrepreneurial base like SV did. The other issue is finance. East Coast money is much, much more conservative than West Coast money. Stricter terms, more formalities, not as entrepreneur friendly, more focus on short term profits, and they only work with graduates from top schools. In the wild West, they laugh at business plans, think about making a profit 10 years later and the top tech companies were founded by dropouts. To me only Seattle and New York have the raw ingredients to be SV 2.0.

"instead of creating something for themselves, they supported pre-existing institutions. Entrenching the entrenched. This keeps incumbents and their old ideas around longer than if they created a strong, dynamic entrepreneurial base like SV did".

I think that the author's main point in #3 was that the startup scene in SV is trending strongly towards "suppo[ing] pre-existing institutions" and "entrenching the entrenched," while "creat[ing] a strong, dynamic entrepreneurial base" is something that SV did, and doesn't do so much anymore. Not that there are not plenty of startups. But those startups are increasingly about meshing well with the FAANGs, not replacing them.

My expectation is that in the next decade to two, we're not going to end up with multiple SVs, but rather none at all. Not that the big tech companies will be gone from the bay area, but that they'll be staid and mature and the startup culture will be a shadow of its former self. How many 'next big things' in a row have failed to take off (personal assistants, smart watches, VR googles, 3D printers, drones, 3D televisions). They're not all failures, but sales and impact have been far below expectations. Does anybody expect Tim Cook *ever* to get up on stage and reveal 'one more thing' that will amaze as Jobs used to? And look to add autonomous vehicles in a couple of years. Next recession auto companies start scaling back investment (if not before). Also Tesla -- thrashing and appears ready to go tits-up (or at least be acquired at a bargain price) in the not distant future (unsold Model 3s sitting on lots being recharged with diesel generators, no successors to the model S or X under development, stores being closed, layoffs). Uber and Lyft are heading for IPOs but still losing boatloads of money. It's not clear that their business model works without VC subsidies (as was the case with MoviePass). And FaceBook? America's most hated company.

«Florida defined as members of the creative class, those who are employed in occupations that are, to a significant extent, associated with “the creation of meaningful new forms.” Florida rejected the option of defining the creative class in
terms of human capital (i.e., college graduation), pointing out that not all college graduates work in creative occupations, and many who are employed in creative occupations never attended college or dropped out prior to graduation. Members of the creative class, though, do tend to be college graduates.

Most members of the creative class are not “super-creative.” Florida sub-divided the creative class into a super-creative core that includes those whose work constitutes “directly creative activity,” creative professionals, and others whose work is constituted by a significant creative component. Members of the super-creative core include those classified by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics, in their Occupational Employment Survey) as working in “Computer and mathematical occupations,” Architecture and engineering occupations,” “Life, physical, and social science occupations,” “Education, training, and library occupations, and “Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations”). Artists are classified under the BLS category “Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations,” and Florida therefore classifies them as part of the creative class’s super creative core. Creative professionals are defined as those classified by the BLS as working in “Management occupations,” “Business and financial operationsoccupations,” “Legal occupations,” “Health care practitioners and technical occupations,” and “High-end sales and sales Management”) (2012, p. 401). Florida, furthermore, maintains that there are others whose work, at least to some extent, involves the creation of “meaningful new forms” (e.g. shopkeepers, chefs, creatively oriented factory workers), and should thus be thought of as part of the
creative class (see Florida 2002, p. 10).2 Florida has estimated that the creative class comprises roughly 33% of the US workforce, while the traditional working class (e.g., most factory and construction workers) comprises roughly 20% and the service class (e.g., retail store clerks, house cleaners, security guards) comprises roughly 47% (Florida 2012, see pp. 44–48).»

Reading the passage above, it seems that the problem with Florida is exactly the opposite of Abelard Lindsey is saying: not of only counting "frivolous latte-sipping artsy stuff" as creative, but of counting almost everyone above the traditional blue-collar working class as "creative" (including probably the proverbial "men in the grey suits" of the 1950s, if they were alive today).

3. What happens when an aggressive VP, working in X industry in California, visit alternative state with his wife, and his wife sees that in alternative state she can live in a McMansion. In California, high flying VP can only afford a crappy bungalow in Pasadena. Ultimately, salaries are paid by the firm`s customers. Paying more means the customers must be willing to pay more for the product or service, just so the execs can live in California...really...

These execs are Tech Bros that aren't beholden to wives and enjoy the rich bachelor lifestyle. Warm California is the place to be.

"These execs are Tech Bros that aren't beholden to wives and enjoy the rich bachelor lifestyle. "

Well, to do what "tech bros" do in their free time (probably playing on-line games or looking to 3-D virtual reality pornography) perhaps any place do.

#3 - written by an envious New Yorker. Silicon Valley has a lock on tech the same way LA has a lock on the movie business. End of story.

The movie business was bought out mostly by the Chinese

Exactly. Red China controls America's media thereby it controls America's youth, which means it controls America's future. I doubt a wall will stop that invasion.

Pfft there are tons of startups in the Austin corridor of Texas. Re LA's lock on movies: do you know what Bollywood is?

Austin has a lock on smug liberalism in Texas.

Did Texas do away with worker noncompetes? That's a big reason why California is tops for technical work.

"the same way LA has a lock on the movie business"

Visited Atlanta lately? It's quite a marvel.

In fact, proportion of USA total venture capital going to Bay Area firms has and is continuing to increase. Worldwide is another story: China.

Easy, they buy both houses. When are the contrarians going to swing to the position that the only thing stopping massive upzoning and a home building boom are old people and they'll be gone eventually. If it's a race between start ups being too expensive and some big buildings going up in the towns around San Fran whose to say which one happens first?

You become an "old person" at 37 when you spend five times your annual income on a house where you can raise your kids safely and send them to a good public school, and somebody wants to build high rises (with mandated "affordable" i.e. subsidized) units down the street. These problems are too complicated to be reduced to a sentence bashing NIMBYs.

Seems more and more likely the the California housing affordability crisis will be solved by convergence; the majority of other major US metros will mostly catch up in price.

Rich wife might prefer a shack in heaven than a mansion in hell.

2. What fun. I've had young birds follow me as I try to get far enough away for my long lens to focus on them. I think the minimum focus distance is 15 feet. I'd take a few steps back and they would hop to the next tree closer.

4. Interesting. We'll see if they can pull it off. Google is building systems where the communication and networking functions of social media can be bought and walled off. But they lack the open forum of Facebook. Apple offering privacy is the driver here, but Apple gets their revenue streams from private transactions.

3. Everything that is wrong about California #8755. One of these days someone will be right about this.

#3 Let ia be blunt. The so-called tech industry in America is just a con. There was a time when Americans used to build things (now Red China does it and threatens the world). Now Americans are expected to make a living by sellingbeach other apps and bitcoins. It is ridiculous. It is a time to curb banks and the so'called tech industry and invest in infrastructure and real technology to make America's economy health again.

I think the same. Linux never came from California, it came from all over. Moore's Law has wide, non-California effects, and much of that comes from China these days. Software is done everywhere.

California has California pacific shoreline, that is its one big advantage. Silicon Valley has the bay to add on. A generation of venture capital accumulated and was managed from the area. But they are swamped by venture capital everywhere, especially in fintech, which is hot, funding and local fintech agglomorations appearing everywhere.

Exactly. It is time to kick complacency and act.

Paulie Krugman, mate this is serious
we need to you start printing money
its the health care costs!
we will be back tomorrow

What's Silicon's Valley problem? Experimentation. Sure, feed a gazelle a pinecone. And another. Another. But feed a gazelle a glass of water? That's like a gorilla watching a man carrying an aquarium on his shoulder. What's the difference between increase and growth? Well, whats the difference between soup and clam chowder? "For by ending my life [family]...thine until death." But the incredulity of "mine own desire....goodbye then."

"Because in that time (I'm glad)"--canopy
This terrain to that end,
Virgil, too, … of a devoted son.

?? not getting it

Feel free to curb yourself and invest your own money in 'real' technology.

So that is it: one brave man, a man alone must stand before the tide of lemmings like a modern-day Tank Man.
O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason !

here is some casino fortune cookie wisdom:

A solemn foot
In a Pond
Without a sock

Brazil GDP: $2T
California GDP: $2.7T

Brazil Population: 210M
California Population: 39M

Thiago has never even set foot in Brazil, so don't waste your time.

I have set both feet in Brazil. I was born and raised in Brazil as well as have lived my entire life, except for a few months, in Brazil.

The PPP statists are much less impressive. The point is, if America wants to prosper and not become a Red Chinese colony, Americans want build things again, not sell one another apps and reverse swaps.

3. Good riddance: "According to Social Capital’s 2018 letter, almost 40% of VC money goes to advertising on the largest search, social, and e-commerce channels. Those channels have adapted to a world where they’re the best place to scale because they have the biggest audience, which means there’s more money for them in optimizing their revenue capture. Thus, ads get better-targeted, ad loads rise over time, more content moves into the walled garden, and it becomes progressively harder not to pay an economically efficient (read: very high) ad price." That's the end of the link on peak California. Read: Tech has been an illusion, it's simply advertising adapted to a digital world. Get over it.

Phones = Illusion. Just because they have changed our culture and posture forever doesn't mean they have real impacts on our lives, because they are "Tech"

3. Young people discover that the future is really hard to predict and nobody knows what the best place to be is right now. Maybe it is still SF, but probably not.

I'm no economic geographer, I don't know if California's problems are terminal. But to me this forecast falls into the category of "It may eventually be right, but it will take so long to be right, the forecast becomes just a random guess." Momentum matters so very much. Look how long it took Detroit to fall, and how long to even start to recover (I live in Cleveland, so I get to throw a few stones). Habit matters so much. People thought the congestion in LA was impossible decades ago, it's gotten worse, and we live with it. Factors not captured in economics matter so much. Warm weather, once a person gets used to it, is hard to abandon. Political preferences persist: imagine a die-hard California Democrat, seeking some other warm-weather state, trying to deal with Texas? (I guess I have to exclude Austin.) As Tyler has pointed out himself, often, Americans just don't move much any more. I don't see why most Californians would read good sound economic reasoning like this, and then actually act on it. It's like the Dilbert cartoon: "How can I win a debate on social media?" "No one knows: it's never happened." IMHO (PS: as for housing in SV being unaffordable for young software engineers, I would love someone to study what percentage of them are partially bankrolled by their parents, still living back in inexpensive Omaha. I am not sure a lot of them are really bearing the whole burden of high rent. And note that SF is the metro area with the lowest % of the population being children: if you and your spouse cannot afford the larger space you need once you have kids, one option is to move to Texas, sure: but another option is to NOT HAVE THE CHILD. I don't think the SF real estate market is yet fully stressed. IMHO.)

You would help your cause if you had shorter posts and referenced your point with @#3, and posted under the first person to discuss this topic, above. Nobody is going to read your rant, which BTW seems like mood affiliation to me. The only people here allowed long posts are me and Rayward. I'm in the 1% and have an IQ of at least 120. Rayward is (was?) a high-powered lawyer. Who are you?

You forgot to mention your Filipino wife half your age.

President Captain Bolsonaro is 0.6 his age.

I'll attmpt 2 mke my psts shrtr

Having been at one time a high powered lawyer has not prevented rayward from a blowhard troll with little sense.

This is legit, and didn't strike me as a rant.

For what it's worth I could live with a better nature to people ratio, but the family likes it here. I just hiked in the Santa Monicas this morning, so it's not bad for me either.

Los Angeles - Long Beach - Santa Ana Statistical Area.

That doesn't pin me down too much.

Yep. I'll add that the article failed to account for the supply of innovative, entrepreneurial, non-complacent people: a top research university or two. Grad students can live cheap and work for cheap, reducing though not eliminating the problems caused by high housing costs. More importantly an ongoing ecosystem of bright young people moving into the area is pretty much a necessity.

So Wichita ain't going to cut it, no matter how low they cut taxes or the cost of living. Even Seattle and Austin are at a bit of a disadvantage; they've got a good university but not a great one. Portland OR even more so, because the state made the mistake of locating the flagship university hours away in Eugene. (Oregon Health & Science University however is located in Portland, if an Oregon university ever has Nobel-winning research done on its campus it'll probably be at OHSU.)

Seattle is bursting at the seams without having a great university. San Diego has become the biotech capital of the country with just a near-great university.

"Seattle is bursting at the seams without having a great university. "

Which shows how small and how much of an also-ran it is compared to the Bay Area and for that matter NY and Boston.

That is, even with Amazon and Microsoft, and the city's traffic approaching So Calif levels of congestion, it's still just a pipsqueak compared to the big cities and their engines of growth.

And San Diego's only a bit higher than Seattle in that ranking.

Portland doesn't even appear on that map, too small and too few dollars presumably.

Places such as Portland and Seattle have nice little thriving tech communities, but even with their advantages of pleasant location and being the home of Microsoft and Amazon, they're decades away from being able to out-compete the top cities, if ever.

It takes more than just great universities of course, but those universities are an important ingredient. Having only a UW or UT means that like Seattle and Austin, a city's fated for the second tier. Portland, lacking even that, is fated for the third tier.

So we're all better off if the smartest and most ambitious people in the country don't have any children?

No one can get cucked like me!

I bet I can!!!

you's a bad mother --- shut yo mouth

#3 seems kind of bitter and entitled, spouting unfavourable prophecies of doom at the people (everyone from the homeless to landlords to the city government) who he believes will get their just deserts for ruining his Californian dream.

Seems particularly funny that he believes that NIMBYs are landlord-hippy conspiracy and not the likes of "This would mean that we would have uneducated people living in Cupertino"

It's simple math. California has too much debt. People are leaving because they realize it kinda sucks.

There's a giant flaw in his argument believing that people will just pack up and move. If there's one thing to be learned since Trump's election is that people want opportunity to come to them and not the other way around. We are a complacent species.

1. Is it ADHD that's creative, or is it the treatment for ADHD (amphetamines) that's creative?

The treatment is zombifying

3. This is fine, but it's not really about states. It's about cities. Or perhaps more formally, Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

A comparison of San Francisco to Austin doesn't have much to do with Temecula or El Paso.

5. Heres my guess: this correlates to the time period when owning a team shifted from being a rich man’s hobby to becoming a rich man’s investment

#5 - I found this piece on baseball very badly written. All that it's saying is that sports team owners have become complacent, and if they almost make the playoffs and/or have 'rabid fans' who support them through thick and thin, and get league TV sharing revenue, they have no incentive to field a winning team. Well know and says nothing new, as the article was confusing and didn't clear state this thesis, just suggested it. Terrible writing, but today talented writers are not reporters anyway.

yeah but I still get pissed that owners figured out all they need is to make a pennant run every decade or so and then they can keep making money while canibalizing the team

2 nice!
paulie krugman
we need you to print more money!

That 'Big Tech' article is like saying "Why do we need a fence at the top of the cliff? We haven't needed one so far!"

I expect it to be followed by an article in ten years complaining about how expensive ambulances at the bottom of the cliff have become, and that the government should have taken earlier, more efficient action...

1. Will all studies now have a speculative tag in parenthesis?

#5) The author seems to make much of the fact that many teams' payrolls are far from the luxury tax limit. But, doesn't that just mean that the luxury tax is non-binding on many teams? A binding luxury tax is what would be anti-competitive: a luxury tax limit so low that most teams bump against it, turning it into an effective salary cap. A large dispersion of team payrolls, where small and mid market teams' payrolls are much less than large market teams', is what one gets with a very high luxury tax threshold or no luxury tax (infinitely high threshold).

If there are any forces working against (on-field) competition, it must come from teams achieving financial success without baseball success. But, that would mean that baseball skills really weren't that financially valuable and, in any event, that would cut against on-field competition even without a luxury tax or salary cap.

Yes, good players are valuable; once every five to ten years. That seems enough to drive ticket and jersey sales and TV viewership for a quite a while.

1. seems like classic correlation not causation.

Instead of starting with adhd and looking inwards, they should be starting with creative mental skill sets and working outwards. Further, already the boundaries between adhd, aspergers, and other cognitive peculiarities are starting to break down.

Is creativity additive or or lack of it subtractive? It's quite possible that something about development actually stunts or builds walls around creative skills sets, leaving people trained not to color outside the lines. One major criticism of licensed cross-marketed toys (i.e. any toy that dericed from a movie) is that it already comes with a fixed story line. You can actually see kids stopped inventing their own stories as they instead adopt the story that is given to them.

As an unapologetic outside the box thinker professionally (not to mention discussion board poster), I am well used to all the defensiveness, rationalization gyrations, bullying, and even rage people put out when asked to think of a different narrative than the one they have latched onto. It is as if a different narrative concept threatens them personally.

As an unapologetic outside the box thinker professionally (not to mention discussion board poster),

Waal, we often don't see ourselves as others do.

lol Yeah I walked into that one.

Nevertheless, ITRW, which one are you? Are you the "we've always done it that way" guy?

Although by no means an absolute rule, it is a fairly wide majority of the workplace creatives I encounter who are more progressive politically. On the other hand, the ones who drag down meeting after meeting arguing defending their little boxes or trying to bully everyone tend to be quite often the conservatives in the room.

Weren’t you the dude that said free speech is only a concern of the Klu Klux Klan ?

“It is as if a different narrative concept threatens them personally.”

The lack of self awareness is rapidly descending into self parody.

#4/3 Breaking up Big Tech. Talk about taking statements literally and beyond all reason. Elizabeth Warren is not suggesting that Apple sell a phone unable to download apps because you need an app store app to get to an app store app. Whatever you think of her politics or ethics, she is no dummy.

All the companies in question use essential monopolies in one area to create economic deserts in neighboring areas, to diminish the possibility of competition. Gmail was free not because of advertising, but to keep new email companies from becoming profitable and eventually moving into search. And so on. Of course they should be broken up.

>Whatever you think of her politics or ethics, she is no dummy.

Really? A woman who would spend her whole professional life faking Native Ancestry, and expecting never to get caught despite being whiter than Barack Obama's mother, is "no dummy"?

This is just an "ethical" question, totally separate from having a brain?

Sure thing, Spanky.

So you don't think I should be able to choose between free, advertising-supported E-mail and paid E-mail? Gmail would not survive without Google using the information it collects.

By the way, I pay for E-mail. The company I pay, a little Seattle-area outfit that used to be called Micro-Soft, doesn't seem unhappy with the arrangement and neither am I.

I am correct in interpreting #3 to be arguing that investors in SV are focusing their time and money on startups that will either be acquired by one of the FAANGs or in businesses that are essentially complements to those companies? That is what I thought was the argument that I found most convincing about SV having peaked. The problem being that things are too expensive and no longer focused on the next thing, such that it is likelier that the next really big company (and industry cluster) around startups is likelier to occur in a different metro. Though I was a little disappointed that the person didn’t consider that the next big metro for tech might be in a different country. It strikes me that the commercial applications of surveillance and the social credit score might be quite big, and it is likelier that companies in China will be the world leaders in that.

From a GWAS standpoint ADHD is just a neuropathology, someone who got hit with a higher mutagenic load than someone without it. Could it be similar to left-handednes?

As a group left handers have a slightly lower IQ than right handers ... Something went wrong with their handedness, so there a likelihood that other things went wrong. On average they enter less cognitive careers, so society thinks they are more creative.

Where's the basis ADHD has anything to do with mutation load?

From #5:

"The growth of local cable TV deals meant ticket sales mattered less to a team’s bottom line, which meant that the day-to-day product mattered less, too. And the sale to Disney of BAMTech, MLB’s streaming-media arm, generated enormous piles of money for the owners that lay beyond the reach of the players. The league and its owners retained a minority stake in BAMTech, which is now central to Disney’s effort at creating a streaming competitor to Netflix and Amazon. There will assuredly be more piles of money."

Will there? I think that there's a good case to be made that the most recent rounds of absurd local TV deals with RSNs are a relic of the past and are unlikely to occur in the near-long term.

Revenue in pro sports is built on carriage fees, which means cable subscribers who never turn the dial to ESPN or an RSN are subsidizing the costs for everyone else.

Comments for this post are closed