<p>
[quote]
Yes, Silicon Valley is like Pittsburgh of the late 1800's. Like Pittsburgh, most of its jobs (high-tech in one case, steel production in the other) will eventually go overseas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know that your statement is entirely meaningful. The truth is, most of today's jobs of ANY kind will eventually either go overseas or (even more likely) disappear entirely. After all, 150 years ago, at least half of all Americans worked as farmers. Now, barely 2% are. At one point in time, millions of people in the world used to work as blacksmiths, cattle drivers, chimney sweeps, weavers, cowboys, and jobs like that. How many people in the world, especially in the developed world, hold jobs like that today? </p>
<p>Look, every single job that exists today will either disappear or go overseas (and then probably eventually disappear). That's a fact. Hence, while I agree that the high-tech jobs in Silicon Valley as we know them will disappear, that's not relevant. The real question is what will replace those jobs. </p>
<p>As a case in point, Boston and Cambridge Mass used to be large manufacturing centers. Cambridge especially was basically an industrial town, filled with factories, smokestacks, warehouses, power plants, and so forth. In fact, that's a big reason why MIT was first located in Boston and then Cambridge - in order to be close to the large industrial production capacity around town. Keep in mind that for the first few decades in its life, MIT was basically a trade school and engineering was seen largely as a means to improve manufacturing processes. You can still come and see much of that old industrial infrastructure in Cambridge - much of it is now rusting away and abandoned, and some of it has been either reclaimed and turned into housing or demolished to create science parks. Boston/Cambridge is no longer a major manufacturing center. MIT couldn't save it. But of course MIT didn't want to save it - preferring to instead stoke high-tech firms. That's what Stanford did too. </p>
<p>But of course what is high-tech today will be ho-hum tomorrow. Like I said, all jobs that exist today will eventually disappear. The question is not how to save those jobs but to figure out what it gets replaced with. In the case of MIT and Cambridge, many of those industrial centers got replaced with nothing at all and thus became major slums. In fact, that's a big reason why the Central Square area is still pretty sketchy and crime-ridden. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I must say I'm really suprised by that Forbes link. I might be wrong, but I only thought that Yang and Filo were millionaires, and I've been told this by several Yahoo employees. I'll reserve judgement about that one
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yang and Filo are billionaires. You can check it with the SEC's EDGAR database that reports on the holdings of major stockholders. As of May, 2005, Yang held over 50 million shares of Yahoo (since Yahoo closed at about $33 today, and presuming he hasn't sold any stock in the last 7 months, his holdings would have a market value of over $1.5 billion), and Filo holds over 80 million shares (market value of $2.4 billion). Of course that doesn't include any cash, real estate, or other investments that these guys hold. I think the EDGAR database is pretty unimpeachable unless you want to accuse these guys of committing securities fraud by submitting false information to the SEC.</p>
<p><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/67/3519.html%5B/url%5D">http://biz.yahoo.com/t/67/3519.html</a>
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/04/364.html%5B/url%5D">http://biz.yahoo.com/t/04/364.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
As for Yahoo's high market value in 2000, the three Stanford founders were no longer an important part of the company back then, even if they did have some lofty titles
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who exactly is this mysterious '3rd' founder? I am not aware of Yahoo having more than 2 founders. </p>
<p>And besides, even if they weren't important parts of the company anymore, an assertion that I would hotly dispute, who cares? Yang and Filo got rich. The whole point of starting a business is to get rich. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, just because they have similar market caps doesn't mean Semel hasn't done a hell of a lot for the company. May 2001 was only the beginning of the huge recession, and for Yahoo! to come out virtually unscathed from all of that was incredible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that Semel hasn't done anything. Indeed he has been an important part of Yahoo's success. But the point is, the 2 founders have done important things too. Think of it this way. Even in the depths of the downturn, the company was always profitable. The company has NEVER lost money. Lest you think this is a trivial point, I would argue that there are plenty of companies that wouldn't mind not losing money. For example, GM lost $8.5 billion in fiscal 2005. The airlines have lost billions and billions of dollars in the last few years and many of them are in bankruptcy. In contrast, at least the team of Filo, Yang, and Semel (and yes, they are a team) built a company that has never reported a loss.</p>