4 ms·
The truth is that the VCs have created absolutely none, zero of the wealth in Silicon Valley. All of the wealth was created by the workers who built these comp
by CleanedStar 13y ago
The truth is that the VCs have created absolutely none, zero of the wealth in Silicon Valley. All of the wealth was created by the workers who built these companies. If there is anyone other than workers at these companies who create wealth nowadays, it is the users. The users of Facebook are creating the content of Facebook for free. The people working on Facebook are the ones who create the platform allowing them to do this. You can say the same with Google and web content. Google found a way to take the decentralized web, with contentual links thought of by humans, and centralize it in one place. People thinking how to contextually connect millions of web pages do the work, and Google crawls and amalgamates that.
And as is said here, and is true, it costs almost nothing in capital costs to start a startup nowadays, create an app, get a cloud presence etc. Wages are the main cost. The people doing the work create the wealth, either paid (infrastructure) or even unpaid (free content, free contextual links etc.)
jwz is someone who "hit the jackpot" with his options, yet even he saw up close what happens ( http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-sell-a-con http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se... ). I would quote the relevant part of his blog post here, but all nine paragraphs could be quoted, really.
The main point is, the programmers create the wealth making the platform, and perhaps the people working for free uploading content like pictures, or getting their web sites crawled. The money goes to the VCs, and a little bit of it to the CEO and top execs. Even those that hit the jackpot at a Netscape don't really hit the jackpot. And these are the programmers who slept under their desks and made the killer product. What about the guy in the Midwest?
Organized labor allowed an equitable distribution of wealth. VCs are leeching off the US government, the universities of China and India, the high tech workers here etc. How is some heir putting his millions in some fund creating wealth? We create the wealth. The heir is a leech. Like the kids in the "Born Rich" documentary.
New technology can mean less hours for workers, more pay for workers etc. Instead it goes to the aristocracy.
Modes of production change and so does the organization of labor. Workers in Ancient Rome went on strike, and I remember the strike waves in the US in the 1970s. Things change over the millenia, but these notions labor will stop organizing circa now are silly. It hasn't stopped after all these millenia. We are the programmers, system/network/database admins etc. creating this wealth of all the people in the world, and as jwz points out, even when we hit the jackpot we get screwed. Production is changing but there will be a revival of organization, education and then agitation. What happened before in history will happen again. It's to the oligarchs advantage to tell us all these millenia of struggle have finally stopped in the past few years. It hasn't. And we are the ones in the most key positions to do something. I will quote one sentence from that link. "When a VC tells you what's good for you, check your wallet, then count your fingers"
- tptacek 13y agoIf the wealth generated by the workers in Silicon Valley required capital as an input, for instance to pay Silicon Valley workers (who are among the highest compensated in the world), or to build the world's largest data centers, or to maintain millions of dollars of inventory for the COGS of hardware projects, then it's not accurate or even particularly meaningful to point out that investors haven't created value.
- ryguytilidie 13y agoI don't think the OP doesn't understand this, I think hes simply arguing that the person putting up the money to do amazing things should get less of a return than the person DOING amazing things. Unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.
- kkowalczyk 13y agoUnfortunately how? Amazing person doing amazing things has an option to not take the money and have 100% of the upside of his amazingness. What people seem to forget is that it's about risk. VC investing is high risk. For every 10 investments, 1 is wildly profitable and the other 9 are failures or low returns. For that reason the ROI for that 1 out of 10 success cannot be "fair" by your metric - VC has to make enough to cover the 9 losses and some profit. What the amazing person gets from the deal is knowing that even in the likely 90% case of failure, he won't sink in debt to fund his work.
- legutierr 13y agoVenture capital investing is not the only method by which to mitigate the risks inherent to innovation. The university system, via tenure and grants, does a good job of facilitating innovation by mitigating the risks that individual researchers take--even when big capital expenditures are required. Other systems can be envisioned: for instance, a basic income or a negative income tax would remove much of the risk that individual programmers, inventors and tinkerers face when trying to pursue their visions.
- deleted 13y ago