GeoffL, many of the salient points can be found in those two books above. Much more has been written about this though. Governments have been trying to recreate (mostly unsuccessfully) Silicon Valley for years. Rather than trust the narrative that I or anyone else would construct, I would urge people to read the thoughts of many academics and tech cluster pioneers reflecting on the construction of new clusters in these two books.
If you don't have the time to do that, then have a go at this http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5212374_'Old_Economy'_Inputs_for_'New_Economy'_Outcomes_Cluster_Formation_in_the_New_Silicon_Valleys/file/5046352157de8a1b7c.pdf written by some of the same authors. That is very palatable for all. A little bit old but the arguments are likely still very relevant. I hope some people do actually read this. I'd love to see some more informed debate. It's pretty widely accepted in research spheres that a causal precondition for the success of the tech clusters of India, Ireland and Taiwan was the underemployed highly skilled tech base. In the case of Silicon Valley in the 1960s and Cambridge, UK, it was the presence of a University focused on commercialisation of technology. Berlin, while not yet having proven itself as an engine outside of the Rocket model, is largely being fueled by the cheap rent and amazingly cool place to live despite tech salaries there having been very low. Perhaps the new era of outsourcing might change these dynamics. That's not real clear to me. The opportunity cost of talented tech people leaving their job in a high salary environment is unchanged. Perhaps what we need is an oversupply of MBAs who know how to outsource! For anyone who wants to buy me lunch (ok ok, a juice is sufficient) I would be happy to distribute paper copies of select chapters and papers and give my own detailed take on these matters. Peter On Thursday, 15 May 2014 11:04:51 UTC+10, Geoff Langdale wrote: > > How about you briefly summarize the relevant points that you think make > your argument? If you had some "actual real research" that's germane to my > point you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong. I'm genuinely interested > to hear what the argument is for pushing high-tech skills salaries > downwards; a naive viewpoint (unburdened by the research that you cite but > do not explain) would be "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". > > I would guess that you'd claim that the fact that SV salaries are high is > moot, in that they are continuing a successful cluster rather than trying > to start one. I'm just not sure where our *high quality *tech talent is > mean to come from in a low-salary world and what stops it from departing > either these shores or the field entirely. > > > On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:27 UTC+10, Peter Davison wrote: >> >> Hey Geoff, wondering if you have ever read Building High Tech Clusters >> (Bresnahan et al) or maybe From Underdogs to Tigers (Arora, Gambardella)? >> There is a chapter in the first one by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore of >> Intel which you might find interesting given your background and >> experiences. >> >> It's not like all of the points you raise in your post have been thought >> about and considered by hundreds of other really smart people working on >> this for decades or anything! (Hey I actually kind of enjoy this whole >> sarcasm thing. It's a hell of a lot less stressful than doing any actual >> real research on the topic.). >> >> One of the key historical lessons is starting a cluster is qualitatively >> different from continuing a successful cluster. >> >> Enjoy the reading ;) >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:21:18 UTC+10, Geoff Langdale wrote: >>> >>> Maybe when they're cashing out, we can ask them whether they would agree >>> that what Australia's tech sector really needs is lower salaries, like >>> Peter seems to think. >>> >>> By now everyone knows the story of Atlassian - how two talented MBA >>> students from UNSW hired cheap overseas technical labor to build an idea >>> they had from their business school professor. I shudder to think what >>> would have happened if Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar had been lured into >>> computer science ("tech skills") by the amazingly high salaries that >>> Australians pay to individual tech contributors; so much higher than what >>> their peers in banking, finance or law scrape by on. >>> >>> I await with some excitement the "low-salary tech skill" startup >>> ecosystem. I think once our salaries get down to the low levels seen in >>> Silicon Valley, we can really start to accomplish things. I simply can't >>> wait to tell a whole generation of future tech co-founders that amazing >>> opportunities await them in this new world just as soon as their skills are >>> valued even lower than they are now. I'm sure that their excitement over >>> the fact that they will be able to scale their businesses by hiring a bunch >>> of $40K new grads like themselves will be almost unbounded. The conveyor >>> belts taking tech talent to SF and into finance will go into reverse, and a >>> New Dawn of startups will appear in Sydney. >>> >>> Sarcasm aside, there are problems with the talent pool in Sydney - there >>> are (or have been historically) too many different lucrative things pulling >>> talented tech people away from the startup world (Google Sydney, up until >>> recently Silverbrook, the financials, emigration, etc). I am still not >>> convinced that pumping a great big supply of cheap labour into the tech >>> world is going to be much of a fix for what ails startups. >>> >>> Also: I'm aware that not all start-ups require innovation on the *tech >>> *side, >>> and that if your innovations are elsewhere - i.e. in the business model - >>> you might be quite happy to have a big supply of $A30-40K p/a new graduate >>> chimpanzees pounding on your code. If y'all think you can get by on just >>> these type of startups, feel free to chirp about the low-wage tech future, >>> but don't turn around and analogize to Google, Atlassian, etc. - or any >>> other startup that either was a pure tech startup or needed a hell of a lot >>> of first-rate tech innovation to find its feet. >>> >>> Geoff. >>> >>> On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 21:41:07 UTC+10, Rayn Ong wrote: >>>> >>>> In response to Peter's point about Aussie unicorn, not exactly an exit >>>> but a good start. >>>> >>>> Like the company’s previous funding from Accel Partners in 2010, >>>> *Atlassian’s >>>>> employees will cash out of some shares* at a valuation of $3.3 >>>>> billion, according to a person familiar with the transaction. In the >>>>> tender >>>>> offer, T. Rowe Price and Dragoneer Investment Capital will purchase up to >>>>> $150 million from existing shareholders. >>>>> >>>> >>>> via >>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/08/atlassian-valued-at-3-3-billion-selling-business-software-sans-salespeople/ >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with @pc0's point about transparency, and I agree with Geoff >>>> M's point about founders being time poor. Checks and balances are >>>> important >>>> and discussion thread like this is very healthy, it certainly helps me see >>>> the big picture more clearly. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more Forum rules 1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself. 2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
