Will Silicon Valley turn into Detroit?(baglady.dreamhosters.com) |
Will Silicon Valley turn into Detroit?(baglady.dreamhosters.com) |
I know they were using the term as a metaphor, but SV people have their head in the clouds. Startups go there because the VCs are there, but the VCs are going under. They made bad investments in a lot of Web 2.0 companies with little value to the world. The cost of starting up is lower so entrepreneurs need less of their money and are demanding higher valuations. VCs don't call the shots as much anymore, so, at least internet, companies are starting up in other places.
But more to the point, as indicated in another article here about the higher ed bubble, we don't need to be investing more money in higher education. There's plenty of room to educate more people in the engineering, mathematics, and practical sciences in the United States. What we need to do is shift our culture from one emphasizing popularity and entertainment to one of value and productivity.
Spend more money helping, guiding, and encouraging the best and the brightest, and start leaving some children behind. It sounds callous, but we have to do it. We have to think about our future and the achievers and the motivated students who want to learn need a place to do it. This needs to happen way before higher education. It needs to start in kindergarten.
Stop the federal subsidies for sports stadiums and start buying books and computers for our schools. Stop buying gyms and helmets and football fields and start buying chemistry sets, magnets and tesla coils!
We have to refocus our culture into one that sees benefits of productivity, intelligence, and rationality instead of entertainment, gluttony, and waste.
That being said, I really wish I could build a time machine and transport myself to Silicon Valley circa 1999. Felt as though it was the center of the universe, a place where you could become a mogul overnight, and where anything was just a Series A away from becoming reality. Yeah, it was totally ridiculous, but I find ridiculous things to be quite enjoyable.
Not that we couldn't use better government priorities. Also, per guidelines, better link would have been to TFA:
SV is a port area located next to a bay. Detroit is a port city located next to a river. How is SV's topography better than Detroit's?
Interesting choice of date. 100 years ago SF was rebuilding from the giant earthquake that had leveled most of the city three years before.
So, yeah, Detroit's got certain topographical advantages. People just can't remember that, because essentially none of the current residents of the Bay Area were living there in 1906, and human memory is short. But there may come a day when you remember. It'll be one day after one third of the buildings fall down and the water taps stop working.
And now for the public service announcement: If you live in the Bay Area, stockpile some drinking water and bolt your shelves to the wall!
Actually, the opposite is true, and hilliness is not the only factor in play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/future
There are two things wrong with that. First, Loma Prieta was not the big one. It was a moderately big one, certainly destructive to some parts of the Bay Area, but nowhere near the size of the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. [...] The new report also says that the next one will most likely strike farther north than Loma Prieta, somewhere between San Jose and Santa Rosa on either side of the Bay. The epicenter of the October 1989 quake was in a sparsely populated area. The next one, according to the study, will likely be centered in a more populated area.
This is where I live now, and the economy isn't that bad:
http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.htm...
Did you not just post several messages claiming the opposite?
SV has some things going for it [...] topography, that Detroit will never have. [...] The highest point in the entire state of Michigan is lower than the hills west of SV.
Flat places are boring. Hills are nice. There are lots of sports where having some hills is more or less necessary. Who likes to go hiking in the corn fields? Grapes for wine are best grown on hills. Thus, SV (and California in general, outside of the valley) is better.
Subjective? Entirely.
But probably true for more people than those who absolutely love monotonous flat places. In terms of voting with their feet, SV beats the rust belt "hands down". If someone simply doesn't care about having some hills or mountains, than perhaps that's not an advantage for them in SV. But the climate is still quite nice, as well as access to the ocean, for some people.
I actually wouldn't want to go back there, but it's got a lot of attractive things.