"VCs" aren't responsible at all, as far as I can tell, for the Google/Apple/et-al wage-fixing that cost the trust of engineers. That shouldn't be pinned on them, and it certainly shouldn't be pinned on Paul Graham.
What VCs do that is wrong is that they've created a culture of co-funding and collusion-- a feudal reputation economy-- which thwarts independence in decision making and generates a small set of big winners before startups can start hiring and get to the market. Comparing notes on who they like and who they don't is sleazy and creates an in-crowd that is mostly incompetent, but it's not illegal, and it's a subtle-enough offense that average engineers (who probably have little interest in being founders, anyway) dislike them.
As for why they do this, it comes from the fact that building a good portfolio, though technically their job, is a game at which feedback cycles are slow. You might have a strategy that is going to make 40% annual returns (on average) each year, but if macroeconomic events take you down over 3 years, you don't get to prove yourself. So, the VCs have (justifiably) learned that their career benefit is maximized not by building the best portfolio, but by having association (even if the percentage they end up with is tiny) with the very-rare "home runs" that happen every 5 years or so. That requires them to spread information around and create the culture of co-funding, much like an academic department where 20 names get on a paper when 2 researchers did most of the work.
It's not that we "don't trust" the technology elite. We know what their economic interests are and we trust them to pursue them. And that's fine, if this pursuit involves openly advocating what is best for them and what they believe is best for us and for the country. What's not morally OK is lying to the government about a "talent shortage". If they want to come out and say, "our economic interests favor <X>, and here's why we think our interests are aligned with yours", I'd be fine with that. Just don't fucking lie. Immigration is a complex topic and there's no simple answer. "Talent shortage" is a lie, and the ethical status of claiming one exists actually is black-and-white: it's fucking wrong. There's no talent shortage when it's this hard for women, or minorities, or people over 40, or people who spent their careers outside of California, to get themselves taken seriously in tech.
The problem with FWD.us is that they're using their wealth to get access to government officials, and then lying to them, with the intention of bringing economic changes that may or may not harm us, but we've been left out of the discussion.
You really shouldn't use any opportunity to bring on your usual thesis - VCs collude to fund only startups created by "connected" founders - when it is so out of topic.
What VCs do that is wrong is that they've created a culture of co-funding and collusion-- a feudal reputation economy-- which thwarts independence in decision making and generates a small set of big winners before startups can start hiring and get to the market. Comparing notes on who they like and who they don't is sleazy and creates an in-crowd that is mostly incompetent, but it's not illegal, and it's a subtle-enough offense that average engineers (who probably have little interest in being founders, anyway) dislike them.
As for why they do this, it comes from the fact that building a good portfolio, though technically their job, is a game at which feedback cycles are slow. You might have a strategy that is going to make 40% annual returns (on average) each year, but if macroeconomic events take you down over 3 years, you don't get to prove yourself. So, the VCs have (justifiably) learned that their career benefit is maximized not by building the best portfolio, but by having association (even if the percentage they end up with is tiny) with the very-rare "home runs" that happen every 5 years or so. That requires them to spread information around and create the culture of co-funding, much like an academic department where 20 names get on a paper when 2 researchers did most of the work.
It's not that we "don't trust" the technology elite. We know what their economic interests are and we trust them to pursue them. And that's fine, if this pursuit involves openly advocating what is best for them and what they believe is best for us and for the country. What's not morally OK is lying to the government about a "talent shortage". If they want to come out and say, "our economic interests favor <X>, and here's why we think our interests are aligned with yours", I'd be fine with that. Just don't fucking lie. Immigration is a complex topic and there's no simple answer. "Talent shortage" is a lie, and the ethical status of claiming one exists actually is black-and-white: it's fucking wrong. There's no talent shortage when it's this hard for women, or minorities, or people over 40, or people who spent their careers outside of California, to get themselves taken seriously in tech.
The problem with FWD.us is that they're using their wealth to get access to government officials, and then lying to them, with the intention of bringing economic changes that may or may not harm us, but we've been left out of the discussion.