They probably also didn't ask about details on regulation. Techies heard "regulation" and thought Uber/Airbnb, not runoff wastewater, asbestos, and formaldehyde (which is what many other people would think of when hearing "regulation"). I'd guess techies are similar to other liberals in wanting these other things regulated. They just don't want tech to be regulated.
The article itself tells you what definitions they used. In the context of regulation and redistribution, they mean this:
> the government should [not] tightly regulate business, and should [not] tax the wealthy to fund social programs
My default would be "should not" and "should," respectively, which is where most tech founders fell, and puts me in the minority in the other four categories.
We can argue about tax rates and deductions until we're both blue in the face but most people agree that the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes, as a general rule. And "tightly" has a distinctively negative connotation to me. I think something should be legal and unregulated until there is some evidence that it needs to be either regulated or outright illegal. Business, generally, should not be tightly regulated, except in rare instances (healthcare, yes; banking, probably; insurance, probably).
FWIW, in France, those who embrace critical theory (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/) in that fashion are branded radical/far-left (Frederic Lordon, Nuit Debout, Le Monde Diplomatique etc.).
Far left no 80% of sv employees would be described as centre right (probably more socially liberal) in uk terms a wet one nation tory which is what pres Obama is.
If sv is so far left why do no sv companies have Union recognition?
Far left is those that support Assad and think that stalin was right aka "Tankies".
That's probably right, but in some areas SV politics seems much more left-leaning and extreme than anything seen in Europe: Diversity, Gender-identity nonsense and third wave feminism (things like making "meritocracy" a borderline fireable offense).
I guess it's not as simple and one-dimensional as one would like it to be ;)
I think it's important to appropriate contextualize things like "left" and "right." Most importantly, why are we comparing Silicon Valley to Europe? They're completely different political climates, in different countries. Comparing political ideologies between two countries is a fool's errand more often than not.
Within the context of American politics, San Francisco (and SV to a lesser extent) is one of the most liberal places in the country, probably top 5 and certainly top 10. Even within the context of the California politics specifically (itself the 3rd or 4th most liberal state), it's center left.
Trying to frame San Francisco as anything right of center is ridiculous unless you're comparing it only to things like Communism and Socialism.
Edit: And let's not forget than most people want to frame themselves as either center left or center right. Very rarely will someone proudly say they are far left or far right, regardless of context.
It has nothing to do with American exceptionalism, it's about appropriate context. I don't see anything useful coming out of trying to force San Francisco residents and London residents onto the same political spectrum. They're two entirely different spectrums, and "left" and "right" mean different things.
According to this study, you agree with "libertarian philosophy" if you agree with the following statement
> I would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.
What a joke. Of course, it turns out that technology entrepreneurs are not really libertarians when you ask it like that. What if they asked individuals whether they agree or disagree with the following statement:
> I believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world.
What we think of as "true libertarian" is, I guess, right-libertarian. There is, therefore, also left-libertarian, which is probably a more appropriate classification.
What strikes me as incredible is that 44% of Democrats agreed with the original statement. I'm not an American, but isn't that totally incompatible with the party's ideals?
EDIT: The fact that the vast majority of them agreed with the two options that are for redistribution of wealth kind of confirm that, in my opinion.
I would say that our two party system is why this seems so strange to foreigners. Americans with nuanced opinions must shoehorn themselves into Republican or Democrat to participate in our democracy. This often means compromising on your ideals to have your voice heard on whatever issue is most important to you at the time.
The chart in the fine article shows the "technology founders" are about half as libertarian as the general Democrat and nearly twice as likely to support redistribution - but hey, let's not call that or them far left.
Watch what people do, not what they say. Technology founders are either capitalists already or aspiring capitalists. In theory they support redistribution as long as it doesn't come out of their pockets or equity. You can't call them far left on the economical scale. That makes that label meaningless which it is anyways. Americans should stop agonizing about what's left or right, Democrat or Republican and start thinking about issues. There are tons of problems this country has that can't be explained or solved by labeling them left or right. When I came to this country I thought it's a pragmatic country that gets things done but now I wonder it's just a bunch delusional ideologues based on the public conversation.
> Over all, the study showed that tech entrepreneurs are very liberal — among some of the most left-leaning Democrats you can find. They are overwhelmingly in favor of economic policies that redistribute wealth, including higher taxes on rich people and lots of social services for the poor, including universal health care. Their outlook is cosmopolitan and globalist — they support free trade and more open immigration, and they score low on measures of "racial resentment."
> On most culture-war issues, they are unrepentantly liberal. They oppose restrictions on abortion, favor gay rights, support gun control and oppose the death penalty.
> ...The study found one area where tech entrepreneurs strongly deviate from Democratic orthodoxy and are closer to most Republicans: They are deeply suspicious of the government’s efforts to regulate business, especially when it comes to labor. They said that it was too difficult for companies to fire people, and that the government should make it easier to do so. They also hope to see the influence of both private and public-sector unions decline.
In addition to the usual copyedit tweaks, headlines are the thing that editors are more likely to go in and make more attention-grabbing, even if they become less neutrally factual in the process. This isn't really anything new although of course historically it was done before the issue actually went to press.
I wonder if it's even really about the editing process. It seems possible to me that they intentionally start with a more provocative headline to get more early traction for an article, and then switch to the more neutral title as an article gains views. I could even imagine it being A/B tested early to see which headline will get them the most shares.
The author could propose a list of a few possible headlines, say 10, each more or less urging/click-baity/informative. Then let an algorithm choose the most click-baity headline as visitors click on the headlines in ads or in Google news (using AB tests or multi-arn bandit algorithms).
I don't know if any news site does this yet, but it could explain the increase of click-baity or uninformative headlines in Google news.
OP here. I was hesitant about the title, and I actually originally posted something less inflammatory (didn't say "far left"). But then I figured I'd directly copy the NYT title, so I wouldn't be accused of editorializing. As we've seen with A/B tested headlines, there is no way to escape this.
If they side with moneyed corporate interests and management against labor then they aren't left wing.
The lack of an actual labor party in this country is a disaster, and is underpinning the wildly unpredictable and regressive nature of our current politics.
Just want to say-- I will never come back to this site if it devolves into the political bull shit of reddit. If you folks want to reddit-ize HN, go for it, but be ready to reap what you sow.
Mostly virtue signaling. The piece finally address labor at the very last graphic: most entrepreneurs think labor unions should have less influence. The NYT painting this as “far-left” is a sign of how far to the right the US has come.
At first blush, sounds like these folks are generally liberal as a result of their upbringing and higher education, and then they run into a spot in entrepreneurship where liberal ideology restricts business growth (ideologically to the benefit of the consumer). Reconciling high ideals with how they might restrict your business is always a struggle. Some may use those ideals to their advantage, some may embrace the cognitive dissonance, some may turn on their ideals altogether.
Now this is an interesting study. In some ways it reflects the shift that happened in France lately, where the new president is doing pretty much that: increasing taxes on capital and decreasing regulations for businesses while being very liberal regarding social matters.
I also suspect that in silicon valley there is a difference between the 30+ age group and the 30-. It's a shame they didn't make that data available but it sounds to me that younger people are more libertarian than people in their 30s.
If HN's signalling is anything to go off with respect to political leanings, SV is mostly libertarian with a dash of social democracy to rein in the big players. This is hardly what anyone outside of an entrenched centrist news media institution would consider "far left."
Totally agree. I actually left "far" out of the original title when I posted on HN, because I didn't remember it being there - and because after having read the article I didn't get that impression. Granted, I live in CA, so perhaps my definition of "far left" is different than others, but I can see that others here seem to share my sense that this was exaggeration on the part of the NYT.
This isn't a study, it's a survey. Of course they're all going to say they're as far left as they can possibly be. Saying anything else will make them a target of the unhinged left wing nutbag brigade.
64 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] thread> The tech elite’s mix of views is unique; no other group in the survey favored both greater wealth redistribution and laxer regulation.
> the government should [not] tightly regulate business, and should [not] tax the wealthy to fund social programs
My default would be "should not" and "should," respectively, which is where most tech founders fell, and puts me in the minority in the other four categories.
We can argue about tax rates and deductions until we're both blue in the face but most people agree that the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes, as a general rule. And "tightly" has a distinctively negative connotation to me. I think something should be legal and unregulated until there is some evidence that it needs to be either regulated or outright illegal. Business, generally, should not be tightly regulated, except in rare instances (healthcare, yes; banking, probably; insurance, probably).
If sv is so far left why do no sv companies have Union recognition?
Far left is those that support Assad and think that stalin was right aka "Tankies".
I guess it's not as simple and one-dimensional as one would like it to be ;)
Within the context of American politics, San Francisco (and SV to a lesser extent) is one of the most liberal places in the country, probably top 5 and certainly top 10. Even within the context of the California politics specifically (itself the 3rd or 4th most liberal state), it's center left.
Trying to frame San Francisco as anything right of center is ridiculous unless you're comparing it only to things like Communism and Socialism.
Edit: And let's not forget than most people want to frame themselves as either center left or center right. Very rarely will someone proudly say they are far left or far right, regardless of context.
> I would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.
What a joke. Of course, it turns out that technology entrepreneurs are not really libertarians when you ask it like that. What if they asked individuals whether they agree or disagree with the following statement:
> I believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world.
Would they get a different response?
EDIT: The fact that the vast majority of them agreed with the two options that are for redistribution of wealth kind of confirm that, in my opinion.
[0] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/street-artist-sabos-fa...
> On most culture-war issues, they are unrepentantly liberal. They oppose restrictions on abortion, favor gay rights, support gun control and oppose the death penalty.
> ...The study found one area where tech entrepreneurs strongly deviate from Democratic orthodoxy and are closer to most Republicans: They are deeply suspicious of the government’s efforts to regulate business, especially when it comes to labor. They said that it was too difficult for companies to fire people, and that the government should make it easier to do so. They also hope to see the influence of both private and public-sector unions decline.
> economic policies that redistribute wealth
> universal health care
> support gun control
Is that what a libertarian is to you?
What on Earth is "Far Left"? Surely Silicon Valley's politics are nowhere near Marxist or anarchist.
EDIT: apologies, you obviously didn't change it.
The NYT changes headlines constantly, it's actually sort of fascinating to watch in real time, which you can do by following this automated Twitter account: https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/905407322658402304
Completely changes the dynamic of the accusation above.
It seems NYT follows the "post now, edit later" approach
The author could propose a list of a few possible headlines, say 10, each more or less urging/click-baity/informative. Then let an algorithm choose the most click-baity headline as visitors click on the headlines in ads or in Google news (using AB tests or multi-arn bandit algorithms).
I don't know if any news site does this yet, but it could explain the increase of click-baity or uninformative headlines in Google news.
Replace Marxist "bourgeoisie" rhetoric with "white males" and you have the ideology of Silicon Valley.
The lack of an actual labor party in this country is a disaster, and is underpinning the wildly unpredictable and regressive nature of our current politics.
For reference, a far-left party is the ML party of Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_(M...
That doesn't remind me of Elon Musk for some reason...
I also suspect that in silicon valley there is a difference between the 30+ age group and the 30-. It's a shame they didn't make that data available but it sounds to me that younger people are more libertarian than people in their 30s.
I think you'll find after reading the article that the term has been misinterpreted in order to follow a story arc.