"But I think it is useful to put this in perspective as a phenomenon in a subsector of a subsector of the economy, rather than a trend in the economy as a whole."
Maybe also useful to ask, "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" If yes, what is it.
If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest.
It's not surprising that "famous tech companies" are "famous" given that they are in the practice of surveilling and intermediating communications between remote computer networks for a large segment of the population. The opportunities for self-promotion and/or manipulating the flow of information to prioritise their own interests are neverending.
Yeah it definitely is not surprising that this little niche punches above its weight in the public psyche. But it's good to try to remind oneself of the difference between perception and reality from time to time.
I agree those are useful questions. These are just, like, my opinion man, but here's what I think the answers are:
> "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?"
No, I really don't think there is, more so than usual for its size. I do agree that it affects perception and sentiment a lot more than its size would suggest, but I don't think it has notably broad systemic ripples throughout the national economy. I think sectors like housing or trucking or energy and some subsectors of those do have these magnified effects throughout the economy, but I don't think this "famous tech company" subsector does.
I think it definitely does impact the SF bay area economy though, and the whole California economy to a lesser extent. But even those relatively big economies are small relative to the whole US economy.
> If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest.
I guess there are two questions here, the first being: Is the "famous tech companies" subsector in a downward spiral? I don't think it is. I think what we saw in "tech" from the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2023 was normal cyclicality, it was a moderate downturn that is already in the early stages of recovery. These cycles are happening constantly all across the economy. A healthy economy is not one where every sector is healthy, it is one where sectors are not all unhealthy simultaneously. It is expected and normal for some to be up while the others are down and then later for others to be up while those previously up are down. We were one of the down ones, and now we look poised to again be one of the up ones.
The second question is: Assuming "tech" is in a downward spiral, what does that suggest? Again, it is normal for once-leading sectors to no longer be so. What does it mean that the railroad sector is not dominant like it was at the end of the 19th century? It doesn't mean anything. What does it mean that phone companies aren't growing like they were in the middle of the 20th century? Not much. There will always be once-hot industries reaching a steady state and new industries, or new iterations of old industries, on the rise.
Maybe also useful to ask, "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" If yes, what is it.
If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest.
It's not surprising that "famous tech companies" are "famous" given that they are in the practice of surveilling and intermediating communications between remote computer networks for a large segment of the population. The opportunities for self-promotion and/or manipulating the flow of information to prioritise their own interests are neverending.