6 ms·

I don’t think anybody questions the fact that the “elite” (i.e the wealthy) are conservative. The 1% generally are. But the rest of the population of Silicon Va

I don’t think anybody questions the fact that the “elite” (i.e the wealthy) are conservative. The 1% generally are. But the rest of the population of Silicon Valley generally aren’t.

scythe 8y ago
>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  Stanford students are generally wealthy to begin with. Do it for all CS majors and I’ll be more interested.
- deburo 8y ago
  Okay but thats probably the most popular stance anyway
- zorga 8y ago
  > liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
    - zorga 8y ago
      > That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. No it isn't, and in the era of social justice warriors, it's relevance is on the rise.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      The word libertarian has been wrongfully stolen by capitalist, yes. Same with a term like anarcho-capitalism, which has nothing to do with anarchism, an ideology which is always staunchly anti-capitalist.
  - lake99 8y ago
    You have it backwards. Liberal economics means fewer regulations, less federal planning, etc. In their more "socialist" phases, China and India had the government in control of a lot of manufacturing, trade, etc. After their economies were liberalized, private companies had a greater say in their own affairs (they got "liberated"). In India, the government started selling off its factories to private owners under a liberal economic regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
    - verbify 8y ago
      While I agree with you in the main, many economic liberals would still support government intervention to stop oligopolies, monopolies or monopsonies. They support free markets and individual choice, not just privatisation or corporatisation for the sake of it.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Funnily enough, that person does not have it backwards. It's the _article_ and the terminology it uses from the USA that have it backwards. This is revealed by the fact that the article claims that Silicon Valley's elite are both "staunchly conservative on regulation" and have "anti-regulatory zeal". So you're actually agreeing vigorously with the guy to whom you're responding.
      - lake99 8y ago
        Definitely not agreeing with GP. Progressives are not economic liberals. But you're right, the article has it backwards too. The phrase "staunchly conservative on regulation" seems to have a special meaning in the US that's not applicable elsewhere. In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values.
        zorga 8y ago
        > Progressives are not economic liberals. They are under the American meaning of the word liberal, you just don't understand what liberal means in America. You are agreeing with me whether you understand it or not. What you mean by liberal, we call conservative or "classical liberal". Liberal here doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world. > In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values. That's not what it means here.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  Believe it or not, many people who work in SV didn’t go to Stanford.
- jcims 8y ago
  So basically closet libertarians? Too bad the party is so weird and dysfunctional (and subject to a first-past-the-post voting system in the US), it could have a lot of support.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  And I see no problem with that. Why would being liberal mean to support extreme leftist regulatory policy here? Why would we consider, letting those government officials, who may not have the expertise understanding the subject at hand, in this case technology, dictate how business should run and put harness on it, as part of the package of being liberal?
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    Corporations have proven these past hundreds of years that they are completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. And yet people continue to go “no we should let them poison the earth for their profit! We should allow them to underpay people and let society pick up the difference! We should allow them to pay politicians to make rules that benefit them! Because rules are bad!”. It’s baffling.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. So have many governments. Even well intentioned regulations have unintended side effects.
    - oh-kumudo 8y ago
      > remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good You really couldn't find a worse time to defend the government caring about morality or greater good under current administration.
fzeroracer 8y ago
While I haven't worked in SV yet, my experience across the tech sector has been somewhat similar. Developers tend to be socially liberal in a few areas but strongly conservative when it comes to issues of regulation, taxation and so forth. A lot of that is I believe because they tend to come from upper-middle class families or relatively more stable upbringings. It can make discussing some of the various social issues difficult because they've been in a well-insulated bubble most of their life and they're not as familiar with the depths of extreme poverty or working class families as I am.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  I don’t know how to write this without being too defensive, but the place where you think other peoples’ opinions come from seems incorrect and is borderline insulting, mainly bringing them down to prop yourself up. Maybe it’s not your intent.
  - jhowell 8y ago
    What's insulting about saying someone from a middle class background (presumably in the United States) is "not as familiar with the depths of extreme poverty or working class families as I am." To me, this sounds like a shared opinion based on personal experience.
    - isoskeles 8y ago
      It was said in a different direction. People who hold political opinion X must be from this background because they don’t understand the issue like I do. I’m from a working class background and arrived at a different conclusion in my own experience. But I get lumped in with people raised upper middle class just because I couldn’t possibly have such opinions. Granted, this is why I try not to be defensive about it: who I am doesn’t really matter (nor should it for anyone else) when we’re discussing ideas.
      - throwaway2048 8y ago
        I don't think there is much dispute that developers tend to come from upper middle class families, which is exactly what the parent said. He didn't say they must come from there.
beaner 8y ago
Maybe they should. Is this actually true or just an assumption? It seems like for every Koch there is a Soros.
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  Quit spreading right wing propaganda and talking points here. Hacker News isn’t for political discussion and you’re just making a false equivalency and repeating Fox News lines (college students all think the same!) The right wing donors like Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson far outspend the left and have organizations like ALEC to which there is no left wing equivalent. Data is here so you don’t have to make shit up: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/richest-billionaires-are-top-political-spenders/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/richest-billionaire... >According to Open Secrets, Republicans had a larger share of the billionaires -- and their contributions to outside spending groups -- in the 2012 election cycle. Among the top 100 donors in the Open Secrets list, 33 were billionaires, and of those, 14 gave primarily to liberal groups while 19 gave to conservative groups. >In addition, the top 100 donors of 2012 gave 41 percent of all the money collected by outside spending groups, and of their donations, 71 percent went to conservative groups. From: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23... Another relevant source: https://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothing-really-compares-to-the-koch-brothers-political-empire/ https://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothing-really-compares-to... You can read Dark Money by Jane Meyer if you are actually interested in this.

I don’t think anybody questions the fact that the “elite” (i.e the wealthy) are conservative. The 1% generally are. But the rest of the population of Silicon Valley generally aren’t.

scythe 8y ago

>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
Stanford students are generally wealthy to begin with. Do it for all CS majors and I’ll be more interested.
deburo 8y ago
Okay but thats probably the most popular stance anyway
zorga 8y ago
> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
- dnautics 8y ago
  That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
  - zorga 8y ago
    > That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. No it isn't, and in the era of social justice warriors, it's relevance is on the rise.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    The word libertarian has been wrongfully stolen by capitalist, yes. Same with a term like anarcho-capitalism, which has nothing to do with anarchism, an ideology which is always staunchly anti-capitalist.
- lake99 8y ago
  You have it backwards. Liberal economics means fewer regulations, less federal planning, etc. In their more "socialist" phases, China and India had the government in control of a lot of manufacturing, trade, etc. After their economies were liberalized, private companies had a greater say in their own affairs (they got "liberated"). In India, the government started selling off its factories to private owners under a liberal economic regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
  - verbify 8y ago
    While I agree with you in the main, many economic liberals would still support government intervention to stop oligopolies, monopolies or monopsonies. They support free markets and individual choice, not just privatisation or corporatisation for the sake of it.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Funnily enough, that person does not have it backwards. It's the _article_ and the terminology it uses from the USA that have it backwards. This is revealed by the fact that the article claims that Silicon Valley's elite are both "staunchly conservative on regulation" and have "anti-regulatory zeal". So you're actually agreeing vigorously with the guy to whom you're responding.
    - lake99 8y ago
      Definitely not agreeing with GP. Progressives are not economic liberals. But you're right, the article has it backwards too. The phrase "staunchly conservative on regulation" seems to have a special meaning in the US that's not applicable elsewhere. In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values.
      - zorga 8y ago
        > Progressives are not economic liberals. They are under the American meaning of the word liberal, you just don't understand what liberal means in America. You are agreeing with me whether you understand it or not. What you mean by liberal, we call conservative or "classical liberal". Liberal here doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world. > In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values. That's not what it means here.
isoskeles 8y ago
Believe it or not, many people who work in SV didn’t go to Stanford.
jcims 8y ago
So basically closet libertarians? Too bad the party is so weird and dysfunctional (and subject to a first-past-the-post voting system in the US), it could have a lot of support.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
And I see no problem with that. Why would being liberal mean to support extreme leftist regulatory policy here? Why would we consider, letting those government officials, who may not have the expertise understanding the subject at hand, in this case technology, dictate how business should run and put harness on it, as part of the package of being liberal?
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Corporations have proven these past hundreds of years that they are completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. And yet people continue to go “no we should let them poison the earth for their profit! We should allow them to underpay people and let society pick up the difference! We should allow them to pay politicians to make rules that benefit them! Because rules are bad!”. It’s baffling.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. So have many governments. Even well intentioned regulations have unintended side effects.
  - oh-kumudo 8y ago
    > remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good You really couldn't find a worse time to defend the government caring about morality or greater good under current administration.

fzeroracer 8y ago

While I haven't worked in SV yet, my experience across the tech sector has been somewhat similar. Developers tend to be socially liberal in a few areas but strongly conservative when it comes to issues of regulation, taxation and so forth. A lot of that is I believe because they tend to come from upper-middle class families or relatively more stable upbringings. It can make discussing some of the various social issues difficult because they've been in a well-insulated bubble most of their life and they're not as familiar with the depths of extreme poverty or working class families as I am.

isoskeles 8y ago
I don’t know how to write this without being too defensive, but the place where you think other peoples’ opinions come from seems incorrect and is borderline insulting, mainly bringing them down to prop yourself up. Maybe it’s not your intent.
- jhowell 8y ago
  What's insulting about saying someone from a middle class background (presumably in the United States) is "not as familiar with the depths of extreme poverty or working class families as I am." To me, this sounds like a shared opinion based on personal experience.
  - isoskeles 8y ago
    It was said in a different direction. People who hold political opinion X must be from this background because they don’t understand the issue like I do. I’m from a working class background and arrived at a different conclusion in my own experience. But I get lumped in with people raised upper middle class just because I couldn’t possibly have such opinions. Granted, this is why I try not to be defensive about it: who I am doesn’t really matter (nor should it for anyone else) when we’re discussing ideas.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      I don't think there is much dispute that developers tend to come from upper middle class families, which is exactly what the parent said. He didn't say they must come from there.

beaner 8y ago

Maybe they should. Is this actually true or just an assumption? It seems like for every Koch there is a Soros.

diogenescynic 8y ago
Quit spreading right wing propaganda and talking points here. Hacker News isn’t for political discussion and you’re just making a false equivalency and repeating Fox News lines (college students all think the same!) The right wing donors like Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson far outspend the left and have organizations like ALEC to which there is no left wing equivalent. Data is here so you don’t have to make shit up: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/richest-billionaires-are-top-political-spenders/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/richest-billionaire... >According to Open Secrets, Republicans had a larger share of the billionaires -- and their contributions to outside spending groups -- in the 2012 election cycle. Among the top 100 donors in the Open Secrets list, 33 were billionaires, and of those, 14 gave primarily to liberal groups while 19 gave to conservative groups. >In addition, the top 100 donors of 2012 gave 41 percent of all the money collected by outside spending groups, and of their donations, 71 percent went to conservative groups. From: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23... Another relevant source: https://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothing-really-compares-to-the-koch-brothers-political-empire/ https://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothing-really-compares-to... You can read Dark Money by Jane Meyer if you are actually interested in this.