Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday April 20 2015, @12:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-where-the-jobs-are dept.

It was Ben Bernanke who pointed out that economics isn't really all that much good at predicting the next recession (and the long-standing joke is that economists have predicted 11 out of the past three), but it is pretty good at working out why the world is the way it is.

Which brings us to the cutting edge of modern economic research and an explanation of why the tech bit of the tech industry is so hugely concentrated in Silicon Valley, and also why the nerds get paid so damn much.

Our starting point is, as always when looking at the structure of firms and industries, Ronald Coase and his paper Theory of the Firm ( http://lib.cufe.edu.cn/upload_files/other/4_20140516101548_13%20Coase.pdf ). Essentially, he asked why do we have firms? The answer being that sometimes it is more efficient to do so than to have a network of contractors dealing with each other.

Critical mass there is obviously akin to clustering. But they are taking it a stage further, in that they're not arguing that it's just more convenient or efficient, as in clustering, but that there's got to be some minimum amount for it all to work at all.

No economist is going to go around shouting that his model solves everything: economists have a name for people that do that and it's “non-economists”.

A model explains only those aspects of reality that the model was set up to explore. So the mapping of any one model over reality is never going to be one to one.

We do think that this model, where knowledge is a combination of good and also where the asset is really the knowledge holders themselves, explains some aspects of why the top end of the tech business is so concentrated in Silicon Valley and also why people get paid so blindingly much.

But nobody is arrogant enough to suggest that it explains all behaviour in the industry, nor that it even explains all about the clustering and the incomes. Only that it shines a light on some of it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/19/so_why_is_tech_all_in_silicon_valley/

[Related]: http://antidismal.blogspot.cz/2015/04/modelling-science-as-contribution-good-2.html

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 20 2015, @05:01PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday April 20 2015, @05:01PM (#173188) Homepage

    So Why Exactly does Almost ALL Tech Live in Silicon Valley?

    Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be called Silicon Valley.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:25PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:25PM (#173740) Journal

    Or because William Shockleys mother lived in Palo Alto, California and her son decided to start his company nearby. Then accidentally started the corporate forking tradition. Which just snowballed together with military contracts.

    Want to break SV monopoly? provide the same circumstances somewhere else and seed it.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 22 2015, @07:48AM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday April 22 2015, @07:48AM (#173873) Homepage

      provide the same circumstances somewhere else

      That seems an awful lot to ask of Mrs Shockley.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk