Silicon Valley Information Technology Workers (excludes hardware, e.g. Apple, Intel, financial software which would total 387,000): 49,900 Los Angeles Informat

Silicon Valley Information Technology Workers (excludes hardware, e.g. Apple, Intel, financial software which would total 387,000): 49,900 Los Angeles Information Technology Workers (excludes hardware, financial software which would total 758,000): 106,100 Despite having a smaller pool of talent, Silicon Valley tech workers’ companies are able to produce 1% of the GDP of the United States or $174 billion annually. I don't understand this analysis. 1) why exclude a large portion of the Silicon Valley workforce - because their hardware/financial jobs aren't "startup-y" enough? 2) Where does this GDP/earnings estimate come from, and if it is for SV companies as a whole, isn't it likely to include a whole heck of a lot of employees at these companies that do not work in SV? Apple, Google, etc employ lots of people across the globe. In most Silicon Valley Startups, coders know SQL, a major scripting language as well as HTML and CSS. However MySpace had positions solely for just HTML/CSS, a trend that harkened back to the 90s when web pages were manually created. What is the point being made here? That MySpace was not as advanced because some of their job listings did not include SQL? Or because they have some job listings for front-end web work? It takes a huge jump in logic to assume that a job listing for "HTML/CSS" means web pages are "manually created". And since when is an entire city defined by a single company's job listings? This entire post is full of shoddy analysis and conjecture. I don't understand people that think you can sum up all of the people within a given geographic area with a few words ("scared", "not taking advantage of innovations in automation").