Hacker News Reader

Comment by warkdarrior | Hacker News Reader

A lot of these kinds of articles about Bell Labs and other industrial labs with big scientific results read like cargo-culting to me: "if contemporary companies would copy their culture/planning/freedom, scientific breakthroughs are sure to follow."

Maybe Bell Labs was lucky to be the right place and right time for a lot of briliant people.

View on HN

> Maybe Bell Labs was lucky to be the right place and right time for a lot of briliant people.

High corporate profit taxes lead to lots of innovation because what else are you gonna do with all that money? Give it to the govt? No no, better pay a bunch of super smart people to just do stuff, maybe they’ll find something.

Everything else is downstream of that

https://slate.com/business/2012/07/xerox-parc-and-bell-labs-...

Stock buy backs

Stock buy backs should not be possible within 1 years of a layoff, and should be a taxable expense if a layoff occurs within one year after a buyback.

I also think dividends should not be taxed by corporations, and only taxed as ordinary income by stock holders.

I’ve been told I’m a crazy socialist.

Wait, so you're saying that layoffs are or are not a means of freeing up cash for stock buybacks?

How else are they supposed to raise the stock price without actually improving the business in any way?

If they just want to do financial engineering and not actually produce something maybe they are in the wrong business?

Exactly. This is why lower corporate taxes hurt the country. Badly.

With high corporate tax rates companies are incentivized to invest in tax deductible expenses like: research, employee training and retention benefits, building factories, etc.

Higher taxes are good for the country. Lower taxes are only good for wealthy individuals, and only in the short term.

The vast majority of these golden years of innovation had corporate tax rates at a fraction of the years following.

Maybe your claim is the opposite of the evidence.

Perhaps you could be specific and actually name the years you consider "the vast majority of these golden years" ?

Yglesias' argument isn't really valid. He'd identified that companys weren't operating to pay dividends and faced high profit taxes. Fair enough. But there are an infinite number of reasons not to do anything. I could equally observe that companies weren't being operated to bridge the psychic gap between the mundane and the divine and that has equal logical power.

That sort of topic requires an active argument of the form "this is why they did that". IE, identifying how Bell's owners and operators were profiting from the work. It probably wasn't by running skunkworks and research labs.

And, carthago delenda est, the big change in the US has been the transition to a service economy and financialisation. Since research isn't likely to help that sort of economy but is in an industrial economy this change seems like an obvious candidate for why it got rolled back. Doing research while trying to be a cutting edge producer makes sense.

‘Sic transit’ is probably the Latin tag you want here.

> service economy and financialisation ... research isn't likely to help

Yet Bell Labs was jointly owned by AT&T, which provided telephone service, and Western Electric, which made the equipment used by AT&T to provide telephone service.

Progressives are in an eternal battle with the right-wing since they never rise to advocating for socialism, only for smartypants arguments for why rich people and entities should still exist but with the government nibbling at a larger percent of their wealth and income.

I do wonder how much the corporate culture of the time - of hiring people for life - affected Bell Labs, and the mindset of today prevents Bell Labs from being replicable. In particular, the mindset of employees needing to swap employers to get ahead, and of employers not wanting to train up employees when they could instead hire someone already trained for the position.

(I know it's more than just a "mindset" and is driven by real, rational financial incentives, but nonetheless it's a cultural phenomenon.)

Even if you set up Bell2 Labs, the people you're hiring are still the standard 21st century STEM workers/academics.

Perhaps Bell2 Labs would do better if set up in Japan?

Modern STEM workforce churn is actively causing damage. The “switch or stagnate” mindset makes it hard to hold on to a problem when you’re constantly thinking about switching jobs just to get a promotion or avoid a layoff.

Also, companies would rather spend money on acquisitions than retention, and that choice keeps reinforcing the cycle.

I think that the article is useful because it corrects a number of things commonly said about Bell Labs that just weren't correct. They didn't just hire a bunch of geniuses and let them do whatever they wanted.

> Maybe Bell Labs was lucky to be the right place and right time for a lot of briliant people.

They also hired literally thousands upon thousands of researchers.

I think it’s more of “if they didn’t do it then somebody else would have,” the outcome from Bell was inevitable regardless of the name.

Consider that fusion power is an inevitability, but you don’t know who’s name will be associated with it, nor the correct stock to invest in prior to their success.

Hindsight is always 20/20, remember?

Your own brand of idealism (the maybe) is that this success was about finding a bag of “brilliant people” by happenstance. Which is great man history in another guise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com