←back to thread

Chinese Workers Abandon Silicon Valley for Riches Back Home

(www.bloomberg.com)
219 points thisisit | 3 comments | 11 Jan 18 16:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.615s | source
Show context
asabjorn ◴[11 Jan 18 19:41 UTC] No.16127096[source]▶
I am a Norwegian in Silicon Valley that have spent most of my career with Chinese colleagues, both in academia and industry, and my anecdata seem to indicate that my highly talented China-born colleagues are sadly leaving because;

- China has great opportunities for riches

- Getting a US VISA is hard and painful when you come from a populous country like China or India

- My China-born colleagues seem to in general be more conservative, and Silicon Valley has become violently intolerant of anyone that holds an opinion different than the predominant view

Only the first reason is somewhat objective, while the two others cause stress in their daily life as their ability to provide can at any time be removed due to what is perceived as arbitrary reasons. Everything being equal, many of them have told me they would prefer the less crowded Silicon Valley.

replies(5): >>16127234 #>>16127351 #>>16127565 #>>16127741 #>>16137338 #
drb91 ◴[11 Jan 18 20:10 UTC] No.16127351[source]▶
> My China-born colleagues seem to in general be more conservative, and Silicon Valley has become violently intolerant of anyone that holds an opinion different than the predominant view

What exactly does this mean? Are they evangelical baptists, libertarians, reactionaries, nationalist, homophobic, misogynist, racist, anti-atheist, pro family-values, pro corporation, skeptical of global warming, pro fossil fuel energy, war hawks, or something else altogether? It's really quite difficult to interpret your statement as anything meaningful without clarification, and there are ten thousand different ways to be "conservative".

And to be clear, "conservative" is anything but a dirty word or something I'm trying to critique here--just a context-sensitive one. It could be a pejorative or a value.

Otherwise it doesn't add much to the conversation--it is itself a reactionary statement.

replies(11): >>16127387 #>>16127388 #>>16127437 #>>16127581 #>>16127714 #>>16127828 #>>16127890 #>>16127896 #>>16127905 #>>16127997 #>>16131274 #
surfmike ◴[11 Jan 18 21:11 UTC] No.16127896[source]▶
I think your comment and painting people as "reactionary" proves the point of the parent.
replies(1): >>16128398 #
1. drb91 ◴[11 Jan 18 21:59 UTC] No.16128398[source]▶
It is reactionary because it is not meaningful; it is just a reaction.
replies(1): >>16128579 #
2. surfmike ◴[11 Jan 18 22:20 UTC] No.16128579[source]▶
Reactionary is a label thrown at people who do not agree with a particular progressive idea and might have different ideas. People don't generally describe themselves as reactionary; instead it's a way for people to denigrate a particular opinion.
replies(1): >>16129033 #
3. drb91 ◴[11 Jan 18 23:22 UTC] No.16129033[source]▶
> Reactionary is a label thrown at people who do not agree with a particular progressive idea and might have different ideas

I disagree; it's a word for people who disagree with an idea because it is different, often because it's an easy way to manipulate people or gain favor. One could call the Amish reactionary, but you'd be ignoring an entire philosophy, culture, and context.