Dr. Chris Benner is the Dorothy E. Everett Chair in Global Information and Social Entrepreneurship and a Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
In the midst of the growing public animosity towards Silicon Valley–based technology firms—the so-called techlash—it is easy to forget that Silicon Valley was once seen as the harbinger of a new information economy, built on dynamism, innovation, and a meritocratic labour market that would help spread prosperity around the globe. During the 1990s internet boom for example, Seattle-based Microsoft or older technology firms like IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation (remember them?) were seen as hierarchical and market-dominating, while Silicon Valley–based firms were seen as nimble, progressive, and world-changing. World-changing in a good way, such as organizing all the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful—Google’s mission statement at its founding in 1998.
The reality of course, even in the 1990s, was not quite as rosy as the popular image. Many tech firms paid their service workers (janitors, cafeteria workers, and security guards) poverty wages,while providing free food, on-site gyms, and foosball tables to their prized employees. The number of contract employees in the industry exploded—presaging many of the challenges of gig workers today. The arrogance of tech leaders at the time, and their sense that they somehow operate outside the rules, is well-captured in a comment that Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems (remember them?), made in 1999: “You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.”
Beyond the Techlash: Silicon Valley and structures of inequality
Illustration by: Sophie Berg
Dr. Chris Benner is the Dorothy E. Everett Chair in Global Information and Social Entrepreneurship and a Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
In the midst of the growing public animosity towards Silicon Valley–based technology firms—the so-called techlash—it is easy to forget that Silicon Valley was once seen as the harbinger of a new information economy, built on dynamism, innovation, and a meritocratic labour market that would help spread prosperity around the globe. During the 1990s internet boom for example, Seattle-based Microsoft or older technology firms like IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation (remember them?) were seen as hierarchical and market-dominating, while Silicon Valley–based firms were seen as nimble, progressive, and world-changing. World-changing in a good way, such as organizing all the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful—Google’s mission statement at its founding in 1998.
The reality of course, even in the 1990s, was not quite as rosy as the popular image. Many tech firms paid their service workers (janitors, cafeteria workers, and security guards) poverty wages,while providing free food, on-site gyms, and foosball tables to their prized employees. The number of contract employees in the industry exploded—presaging many of the challenges of gig workers today. The arrogance of tech leaders at the time, and their sense that they somehow operate outside the rules, is well-captured in a comment that Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems (remember them?), made in 1999: “You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.”
Share
But in today’s rush to vilify tech companies and their leadership, we run the risk of missing the more important deeper issue: there are structural features of an information economy that tend towards inequality and concentration of market power. If we do not address these broader structural problems, we might discover that in trying to break up Facebook or Alphabet, we end up with a new boss that is the same as the old boss.
Inequality and insecurity
Over the past 20 years, the Silicon Valley labour market has been characterized by stagnating wages for many, growing inequality, and continued insecurity (though there are also signs that California’s minimum wage laws, alongside related state and local policies empowering lower-wage workers, have helped provide some wage protection for the very bottom of the income distribution).
In a report released last fall by the Everett Program and Working Partnerships USA, we highlight a few key indicators of these problems in the US:
Structural causes of an inequitable economy
The inability of Silicon Valley to provide broad-based prosperity, despite more than 40 years of dynamic technology-led growth, is a clear sign of deep structural flaws in links between economic growth and people’s livelihoods. The fundamental characteristics of markets in which information and knowledge are key sources of business competitiveness themselves create inequality, volatility, and insecurity. These include:
These features are not the result of market failures, but rather the expected and predicted result of competitive market dynamics in Silicon Valley’s information economy, and as such, will require significant intervention to resolve if we are to prioritize public interest.
Strategies for moving forward
In order to deal with these structural problems, there are certainly things we can do to improve labour market outcomes for those workers left behind. We can grow and retain more middle-income jobs, including through investment in infrastructure, education, and health care. We can raise incomes and career opportunities in low-wage jobs, by raising the minimum wage and investing in training and occupational upgrading programs. We can strengthen connections between high-wage industries and the rest of the labour market, developing responsible contracting policies and empowering workers by promoting sectoral bargaining structures.
However, we also need to pursue policies and strategies for stabilizing people’s livelihoods outside of their labour income. This is important, in part, to help minimize the traumatic experience of unemployment and technological displacement, as well as to ensure that individuals who are not in the labour force (such as seniors, students, full-time parents/caregivers, or people with disabilities that prevent them from working) can sustain a decent standard of living. It is also important to acknowledge and compensate people for their unpaid contributions to overall economic growth.
Here it is useful to recapture the notion of a social wage. Practically this means expanding the public provision of services such as education, affordable housing, subsidized food, and health care, which can lower the costs of basic expenditures for low- and middle-income people and families. It could also include supporting diverse sources of income, for example, for people who are not in the paid labour force as well as for workers facing more frequent periods of unemployment driven by a rapidly changing economy. This would mean expanding unemployment benefits, universal savings accounts, and exploring universal income programs.
Beyond the practical solutions, concepts like a social wage are important to recognize and reward the collective contributions we make to innovation and economic prosperity. The success of the information economy is only partially rooted in the breakthrough innovations of dynamic tech companies. The information economy is also driven by our shared public investment in basic science and technology development, which has played a key role in many of the discoveries that have literally changed the world. The Google search engine was originally developed as part of a grant from the National Science Foundation and nearly all the technologies found in the iPhone are rooted in major public-sector support, including the military’s investment in cellular technology and the U.S. Department of Energy’s development of lithium-ion batteries. The information economy is also partially driven by all our common contributions to network-based platforms in the form of data and tracking of our activities, which help build value in companies like Facebook, Twitter, Uber, and Lyft, as well as train the algorithms that lead to new innovations. Expanding the social wage is an appropriate way for acknowledging this collective contribution and would help create a more inclusive as well as more innovative economy.
For media enquiries, please contact Nina Rafeek Dow, Marketing + Communications Specialist at the Brookfield Institute for Innovation + Entrepreneurship.
Share