4 ms·
Detroit's problem was not that the companies there were direct competitors, it was that all of them were producing automobiles. When American automobile product
by mcguire 6y ago
Detroit's problem was not that the companies there were direct competitors, it was that all of them were producing automobiles. When American automobile production moved elsewhere and took a large number of well-paying jobs with it, the bottom fell out of the city's economy.
What do you expect to happen to San Francisco if it loses its "tech mecca" status? Will the financial sector or the tourism sector supply enough high-paying jobs to make up the difference, or will the money drying up cascade down through the service industries?
- Kalium 6y agoI can see I have been unclear. Detroit's problem was that automotive production was and is a single sector. This is not true of "tech", as shown by a random sampling of companies being in wildly different economic sectors. I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day.
- curryst 6y agoTech is not a single sector, but it is a single method of doing things. In the same sense that factories exist in more than a single sector, but it largely disappeared at the same time with offshoring. If, hypothetically, all the issues with having development teams cheap parts of the world went away, that would impact almost all of tech. It hasn't happened yet, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
- Kalium 6y agoHonestly, that would be amazing. It would enable a golden age of technological development. I think it's just a bit more far-fetched a near-term future than a single economic sector leaving a particular area, and not really directly comparable to Detroit's story.
- viklove 6y ago> I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day. Unrelated, but I've always found it interesting how people try to avoid appearing like they're actually invested in the conversation they're having and the effect the results have on them. "I'm not here to exchange ideas and make my understanding of the world better, no, I'm just here to improve my communication skills and I want you to know that!" I understand the need for self-preservation, but going to this length of lying to yourself and observers to defend your ego is amusing in my opinion.
- Kalium 6y agoI use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say that since I've clarified so helpfully, they agree with me without impugning their previous position. The latter allows no such latitude.
- mcguire 6y agoAs an aside, I understand your argument. I simply disagree.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- viklove 6y ago> but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything It also shows that you have no humility and can't accept that you might be wrong. That's what I'm trying to say. > It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". You can't even imagine a situation where the other party in the discussion understands your perspective but simply disagrees? > It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. Start with yourself.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]