Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Social Networks The Almighty Buck Science

How the Social Tech Bubble Is Different 388

theodp writes "Tech bubbles happen, writes BW's Ashlee Vance, but we usually gain from the innovation left behind. But this one — driven by social networking — could leave us empty-handed. Math whiz Jeff Hammerbacher provides a good case study. One year out of Harvard, 23-year-old Hammerbacher arrived at Facebook, was given the lofty title of research scientist and put to work analyzing how people used the social networking service. Over the next two years, Hammerbacher assembled a team that built a new class of analytical technology, one which translated insights into people's relationships, tendencies, and desires into precision advertising and higher sales. But something gnawed at him. Hammerbacher looked around Silicon Valley at companies like his own, Google, and Twitter, and saw his peers wasting their talents. 'The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads,' he says. 'That sucks.' Silicon Valley historian Christophe Lecuyer agrees: 'It's clear that the new industry that is building around Internet advertising and these other services doesn't create that many jobs. The loss of manufacturing and design know-how is truly worrisome.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the Social Tech Bubble Is Different

Comments Filter:
  • Re:well no shit. (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @04:43PM (#35850102)

    To follow up, here's the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc [youtube.com]

    --
    BMO

  • by aaaaaaargh! ( 1150173 ) on Monday April 18, 2011 @05:34AM (#35853492)

    According to the Center for American Progress (a rather ironical name), the income of the bottom 50% of all Americans has increased by 6% from 1979 to 2007. During the same period the income of the top 1% of all Americans has increased by 229%.

    Similarly, according to Cornell's CSI, in 2004 the net assets of the median household in the U.S. equaled approximately $82,000, which is an inflation-adjusted increase of 79% since 1962. Meanwhile, the net assets of the top 1% of the richest households in the US increased to $15 million in 2004 (a 263% increase since 1962).

    The bottomline is: Only a small percentage of Americans lives in abundance in comparison to 50 years ago. The rest seems to be a little bit better off than they used to be, but in any case the gap between normal and low incomes and the insanely rich has become incredibly huge.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...