Silicon Valley to millennials: Drop dead

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Carbocation1

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
692
Reaction score
322
This article reminded me of the doom and gloom on this forum (crnas, mcsleepy, tele-anesthesia, etc)... I don't think us millennials will even come close to having the same amount of opportunities as our predecessors.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/opinions/wheeler-silicon-valley-jobs/index.html

(CNN)We have no problem taking Wall Street executives to task for decisions that leave American families financially devastated, yet we give Silicon Valley billionaires a pass when they do the same thing. America needs to realize that instead of creating jobs, Silicon Valley is erasing them, leaving millennials financially stranded before their careers can get off the ground.

Silicon Valley is tossing millennials aside like yesterday's laptop.

The commonly held belief is that with hard work and a good education, a young person in America can get a good job. But despite falling unemployment, college grads age 22 to 27 are stuck in low-paying jobs that don't even require a college degree. The percentage of young people languishing in low-skill, low-paying jobs is 44%, a 20-year high.

Only 36% of college grads have jobs that pay at least $45,000, a sharp decline from the 1990s, after adjusting for inflation. Perhaps most depressingly, the percentage of young people making below $25,000 has topped 20%, worse than in 1990. In other words, those with a bachelor's diploma were better off before the digital revolution.

If this comes as a surprise, that's because images from popular culture push the idea that young college graduates are shrugging off bad employment prospects with their do-it-yourself attitude. In our collective imagination, millennials are saying, "No jobs? That's OK — I'll create my own!" And then they solve their own problems by heading to Silicon Valley with little more than an iPhone and an idea to create the next hip app that supposedly will turn them into overnight millionaires.

A fictional example of this new breed of young idealistic entrepreneur would be Mike Bean, founder of Internet behemoth Gryzzl on the show "Parks and Recreation." Played by Blake Anderson, Bean might best be described as "barefoot and pregnant with ideas." The bumbling entrepreneur conquers the world practically by accident, armed only with his digital savvy, a can-do spirit, and a penchant for invading users' privacy. You get the idea that his success came easily.

Privacy concerns aside, the Mike Beans of America are just about as rare as the Mark Zuckerbergs. In fact, the percentage of people under 30 who own private businesses has reached a 24-year low. Garages across the country are not exactly humming with millennials launching tech startups.

But wait — won't the digital economy eventually lead to better jobs? After a period of adjustment, won't things get better? Unfortunately that's not the path we're on. One of the biggest misconceptions about the digital economy is that for every middle-class job rendered obsolete by technology, there's a new, equally good (or better) job created by Silicon Valley.

But exactly the opposite is happening. The digital economy is vaporizing the good jobs and replacing them with two kinds of jobs: minimum wage jobs (think Amazon warehouse employees) and so-called "sharing-economy jobs" (think Uber drivers).

The sharing-economy jobs are even worse than minimum wage jobs because they offer no stability or protections for workers. Sharing economy jobs aren't really jobs at all; they're freelance gigs.

Sure, Silicon Valley doesn't owe America jobs. But something is wrong with the picture of a handful of tech billionaires overseeing a kingdom of falling wages, decreased worker protection and zero job security.

This "winner-take-all" digital economy is not sustainable. People on both sides of the political spectrum are worried. Liberal luminary Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton, calls the sharing economy the "share-the-scraps" economy. Speaking of tech companies that utilize on-demand labor, such as Uber, Instacart and Taskrabbit, he says, "The big money goes to the corporations that own the software. The scraps go to the on-demand workers."

Meanwhile, conservative columnist Ross Douthat fears a dystopian future in which "a rich, technologically proficient society will no longer offer meaningful occupation to many people of ordinary talents."

Put simply, Silicon Valley's utopia is the rest of America's dystopia. And those who are punished more than anyone else are recent college graduates, whose lifetime earning potentialhas already suffered an irreversible setback.

And if you think your own job is safe, think again. New research predicts that nearly half of all jobs are susceptible to automation over the next two decades. This is a giant leap backward, but it's deceptively described as technological "progress." As anyone who's talked to an automated system on the phone lately can attest, "automated" usually means "worse."

What can be done? How can we fight this slide back toward the Middle Ages? If we take no action, we're headed toward a kind of digital world feudalism where there are a handful of kings, a lot of peasants and no middle class.

There's no easy fix, but we can do three things immediately. First, we can stop glorifying tech titans and start talking openly about Silicon Valley's questionable tactics and its real job creation record (i.e., just follow the numbers). Second, we can encourage more lawsuits against the abusive practices of "sharing-economy" powerhouses. Third, we can elect leaders who are vocal about holding Silicon Valley accountable for their power over the entire American workforce, including white-collar employees.

The fictional Gryzzl's tagline borrows some millennial slang: "Wouldn't it be tight if everyone was chill to each other?" Indeed it would. And if we want a better future for millennials and the generations after them, we need to challenge the prevailing Silicon Valley ethos before it's too late.
 
It's interesting that every generation thinks they have it worse than any generation that came before them. I don't think there's ever been a better time to live, or a better time to be a young person. Both my millennial niece and nephew have found fulfilling, well compensated careers. One of them in Silicon Valley of all places. And I'm optimistic for my own teenage daughter.
 
New research predicts that nearly half of all jobs are susceptible to automation over the next two decades. This is a giant leap backward, but it's deceptively described as technological "progress." As anyone who's talked to an automated system on the phone lately can attest, "automated" usually means "worse."

Sounds like a buggy-whip maker bitching about automobiles.
 
Sounds like a buggy-whip maker bitching about automobiles.

The difference this time is that we have a lot of buggy whip makers being displaced- with a lateral move after being displaced much harder.
Low skill living wage jobs are hard to find. As are middle skill good paying jobs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will be a difficult transition period but eventually we'll be living in a society so technologically advanced that all our material needs and desires will be meet with minimal human labor or capital. As a result goods and services will be either free/nearly free to own, or at least available for free access. The only limitations placed on us are the natural limits from living on a planet with finite raw resources.

Indeed, the richest people today will be considered poor in this future.
 
It will be a difficult transition period but eventually we'll be living in a society so technologically advanced that all our material needs and desires will be meet with minimal human labor or capital. As a result goods and services will be either free/nearly free to own, or at least available for free access. The only limitations placed on us are the natural limits from living on a planet with finite raw resources.

Indeed, the richest people today will be considered poor in this future.

Yeah, right. Just like nuclear power promised "electricity too cheap to meter".
 
Yeah, right. Just like nuclear power promised "electricity too cheap to meter".

No. I mean ubiquitous open source 3d printing that will free physical goods the same way the internet effected digital goods. I mean the way automation will continue to displace human labor for cheaper, more efficient, smart machines. These events that are occurring now, and coupled with the rise in AI, will take the average humans quality of life to new highs. The only governor on our activity will be physical laws and limited resources. You don't have to think back that far to see how far we've come towards this existence.

The implications of the future we're headed towards shouldn't be ignored because they necessitate major societal changes. Check out the Zeitgeist Movement, or interviews with Peter Joseph, if you're interested.
 
No. I mean ubiquitous open source 3d printing that will free physical goods the same way the internet effected digital goods. I mean the way automation will continue to displace human labor for cheaper, more efficient, smart machines. These events that are occurring now, and coupled with the rise in AI, will take the average humans quality of life to new highs. The only governor on our activity will be physical laws and limited resources. You don't have to think back that far to see how far we've come towards this existence.

The implications of the future we're headed towards shouldn't be ignored because they necessitate major societal changes. Check out the Zeitgeist Movement, or interviews with Peter Joseph, if you're interested.

Bit of a difference between people transferring a digital file from a CD to a computer, to another computer via the internet, and people making usable copies of machines originally produced via a vast array of production processes and using a wide variety of materials, through depositing bits of low-grade plastic with a 3d equivalent of an inkjet printer.

Yes, automation will displace a lot of human labor. And what will become of the workers? Contrary to popular belief, they don't actually retrain as app designers. Many stay chronically unemployed since there is now no work for someone with their skills and training - which means they will likely disagree about their quality of life being "taken ... to new highs."
 
Bit of a difference between people transferring a digital file from a CD to a computer, to another computer via the internet, and people making usable copies of machines originally produced via a vast array of production processes and using a wide variety of materials, through depositing bits of low-grade plastic with a 3d equivalent of an inkjet printer.

Yes, automation will displace a lot of human labor. And what will become of the workers? Contrary to popular belief, they don't actually retrain as app designers. Many stay chronically unemployed since there is now no work for someone with their skills and training - which means they will likely disagree about their quality of life being "taken ... to new highs."

Your last paragraph is exactly what I was alluding to by suggesting major societal changes will be necessary and a tough transition period.
Also, 3d printing technology is extremely incipient yet it is making huge waves already; medical prosthetics, rapid prototyping, manufacturing, entire homes, firearms etc. There is no indication that 3d printing will be limited to plastics or that they will be costly. Indeed, many 3d printer models have been made by DIY engineers that are almost entirely self assembling. It is entirely disruptive to physical goods from design to manufacturing to purchase point.
 
Last edited:
Well

everything being automated goes well in line with the birth rate decreasing, I guess.

I dunno
 
Your last paragraph is exactly what I was alluding to by suggesting major societal changes will be necessary and a tough transition period.
Also, 3d printing technology is extremely incipient yet it is making huge waves already; medical prosthetics, rapid prototyping, manufacturing, entire homes, firearms etc. There is no indication that 3d printing will be limited to plastics or that they will be costly. Indeed, many 3d printer models have been made by DIY engineers that are almost entirely self assembling. It is entirely disruptive to physical goods from design to manufacturing to purchase point.

Let's look at a simple item, a coffeemaker. At a bare minimum, a plug-in coffeemaker needs a heating element, a cord, and some sort of vessel to boil water. This won't make anything you would want to drink, quality-wise, but it could produce something at least barely recognizable as "coffee." There is no realistic way around using metal wire for the conductors, something flexible and insulating to shield the user from said conductors, something metallic, thick, and insulated from the liquids to serve as a heating element, and of course something to hold all of this. How are you going to print this economically?
 
The only thing that will stop the rich from taking everything while the peasants starve is the threat/risk of the peasants rising up and executing the rich. Maybe everyone will share in the abundance produced by automation in a Marxist utopia, but not if the police and the army protect the rich well enough for them to keep it all for themselves.
 
Your last paragraph is exactly what I was alluding to by suggesting major societal changes will be necessary and a tough transition period.
Also, 3d printing technology is extremely incipient yet it is making huge waves already; medical prosthetics, rapid prototyping, manufacturing, entire homes, firearms etc. There is no indication that 3d printing will be limited to plastics or that they will be costly. Indeed, many 3d printer models have been made by DIY engineers that are almost entirely self assembling. It is entirely disruptive to physical goods from design to manufacturing to purchase point.

That seems to be overly optimistic/overreaching for the foreseeable future. The tendency is that things get more complicated to that point that they outstrip the pace of homebrew production. Plus, there will always be certain trade secrets and proprietary technology to maintain scarcity. E.g, you are not going to copy intel's 14 nm lithography process at home with your home tools. Also, whereas, I could, in theory build a "modern" computer from off the shelf parts in the 1980s, now everything is so miniaturized and has tiny surface mount components that it would be prohibitively difficult (pretty much impossible) to even solder something that matches a modern computer together at home.

Additionally, lots of stuff that isn't really scarce or expensive, is made to be so by marketing and perception (see the entire fashion industry or pretty much any product that Apple makes).

Plus, you can't exactly 3D print a house or the land that it's built on.

All these guys who claim that the world is going to change 180 degrees are just trying to make a name for themselves.

As it has always been throughout recorded history, having wealth and controlling resources will continue to be better than non having wealth and not controlling resources.
 
Let's look at a simple item, a coffeemaker. At a bare minimum, a plug-in coffeemaker needs a heating element, a cord, and some sort of vessel to boil water. This won't make anything you would want to drink, quality-wise, but it could produce something at least barely recognizable as "coffee." There is no realistic way around using metal wire for the conductors, something flexible and insulating to shield the user from said conductors, something metallic, thick, and insulated from the liquids to serve as a heating element, and of course something to hold all of this. How are you going to print this economically?
Another good example that complements the arguments I made above.

A coffemaker is still pretty simple. I could make one, in theory. However, even being adept at stuff like that, even if I could quickly 3D print a casing, it would still take me at minimum an hour to research and implement a basic design and then put together all the inner guts (probably a bit more time than that). Just my time alone is many times more valuable (not to mention the one-off component costs) than the $50 I could spend for a decent mass produced coffeemaker... economies of scale win out.
 
Lots to respond to.

Why would you have to design the 3d printed object schematic when you could download the a design from online for free? There are already thousands of designs for many items that have been made by the maker community. Wiki is a testament to the interest in providing content/value for free and its quality is quickly approaching that of professionally developed encyclopedia. Even when I'm running stats I use R as a language which is open source rather than a closed system.

A company in China has already 3d printed 10 homes. An interest is growing in printing, or manufacturing, a large printer that can be erected and print the whole house.

There is no limitation to the materials that 3d printers can use. There are printers that do print using metal. There is absolutely no indication that a 3d printer could not utilize multiple materials at once, at a scale smaller than current manufacturing tech, to construct very sophisticated objects. For example, the housing company is working on printing a home that is completely wired, plumbed, etc. on completion. In this vein you may not have to put anything together by printing separate components as the printer would be printing the object as a whole, internal and external utilizing whatever materials were needed.

Marketing? No thanks. I'll print mine at home, at cost, for myself using superior designs devoid of planned obsolescence. I don't know if it will change the world 180 degrees but it is absolutely disruptive. This is great news because, like the internet has done with information, automation, material sciences, and 3d printing are going to flatten the inequality present in our world by elevating many out of destitute.

http://3dprinting.com/materials/

Metal, glass, graphene, plastic, organic compounds, etc.
 
Last edited:
Wiki is a testament to the interest in providing content/value for free and its quality is quickly approaching that of professionally developed encyclopedia.

I think Wikipedia may be a better example for the other side of that debate. Eh, who cares whether they get every fact right if you're trying to settle a debate about when a band's 3rd CD came out - but if someone goofs up a design that could catch fire or explode, that's kinda more serious.

Even when I'm running stats I use R as a language which is open source rather than a closed system.

Open source is great for software. But contrary to what the Knowledge Economy(tm) people want you to think, most of life is not software.

A company in China has already 3d printed 10 homes. An interest is growing in printing, or manufacturing, a large printer that can be erected and print the whole house.

Do I even dare to ask what material they printed them from?

There is no limitation to the materials that 3d printers can use.

In a theoretical lab sense, no. In the sense of what is actually cost-effective and practical, sure, there is. Some materials burn instead of melting. Some materials melt at a very, very high temperature and will cause other materials to combust or melt out of shape if printed onto them. Say you need metal and plastic. What are you going to do, 'print' molten steel onto the plastic?

Marketing? No thanks. I'll print mine at home, at cost, for myself using superior designs devoid of planned obsolescence. I don't know if it will change the world 180 degrees but it is absolutely disruptive.

No, what's absolutely disruptive is rejecting the idea that we have to own the newest technology. If you want something devoid of planned obsolesence, just look in the rearview mirror...
 
Your last paragraph is exactly what I was alluding to by suggesting major societal changes will be necessary and a tough transition period.
Also, 3d printing technology is extremely incipient yet it is making huge waves already; medical prosthetics, rapid prototyping, manufacturing, entire homes, firearms etc. There is no indication that 3d printing will be limited to plastics or that they will be costly. Indeed, many 3d printer models have been made by DIY engineers that are almost entirely self assembling. It is entirely disruptive to physical goods from design to manufacturing to purchase point.

You are so full of shi.t that it makes me sick. The fact that you don't realize it is even worse.
 
You are so full of shi.t that it makes me sick. The fact that you don't realize it is even worse.

Do tell?

If you look back you'll see that I stated "The implications of the future we're headed towards shouldn't be ignored because they necessitate major societal changes".

When you have a commerce system built on currency-in exchange-for-goods but the primary method for most people to obtain currency is automated away, and the cost to bring goods to market approaches free while also circumventing the traditional supply chain, why do you think there will not be a need for major societal changes? It's a system at odds with itself.

3d printing is an increase in cost efficiency relative to many manufacturing processes. Especially once you consider fuel, packaging, and capital necessary to transport. One is also freed to design products that are more capable from an engineering perspective (complex microstructures, single piece objects, etc.) because they're not limited by traditional manufacturing methods.

In the not so distant future each person will be able to print their own jet...


 
Last edited:
Top