Yesterday I attended a colloquium at the Executive Club of Chicago on prospects for technology (“Tech Outlook”) in Chicago. The rousing and energetic opening statement was by Howard Tullman of 1871, Chicago’s “Technology and Entrepeneurship Center”.
I guess I’m a dissenter. I don’t think anyone else in the room noticed that on one of his slides there was a list of “disrupters” none of which was making any money. I can only suppose that it’s easier to disrupt an industry than it is to make money doing it.
My hypothesis from the astronomical stock valuations we’re seeing these days is that there is far too much money chasing far too little opportunity.
I wish the panel had spent less time speculating whether Amazon would pick Chicago for its second headquarters or not. As I said to the chap sitting next to me, “It’s an honor just to be nominated.” The panel was divided in opinion. My general view is that when Amazon does, ultimately, announce its decision, it will give us a better idea of how Amazon sees its future. If it picks something in the neighborhood of Washington, DC, it will suggest that Amazon sees its future as being a government client, much like Tesla.
Sadly, I still have no better idea of the prospects for technology in Chicago over the next year, five years, or longer horizon than I did when I walked in.
What were your expectations? I generally have very low expectations at any meeting I used to go to that claimed to be emphasizing new technology. Mostly variations of current stuff that is more expensive, a lot of unusable software, a bit of stuff that will never be usable, and only rarely something I think would actually help us. The “looking forward” talks always sound sort of good, but are always vague with vaguer promises. Now, I just have one of our young guys go to one of these meetings every 3 or 4 years. Jus tin case.
Steve
I’ve been to other E-Club Colloquia that were better.
The vast majority of Amazons American customers reside east of the Mississippi. This so-called second headquarters will almost certainly become Amazon’s only headquarters, especially if the loons in California go ahead with their plans to increase state corporate taxes to offset the federal reductions. That, by the way, will also kill off Silicon Valley.
Where Amazon’s customers live also deletes any site west of the Mississippi and argues well for some mid-sized city like Indianapolis, Columbus, Nashville, etc. Congestion at O’Hare and Atlanta would argue against those cities.
I don’t know who was on the list, but it’s the very nature of new ventures – sometimes “disrupters” – to be cash eaters. That’s why they are equity financed. (Or, heh, subsidized Elon Musk ventures). Even after a public offering many disappear into the dust bin of history. Think Pets.com. That’s not at odds with the valid observation that there is too much money chasing returns.
Or, alternatively, as that great financial commentator, Pitt, observed: “Based on the strength of that pilot some go on to become TV shows. Others become nothing.”
I would remind people of one of Parkinson’s Laws: you can mark the beginning of the decline of any large organization from the building of a grand new headquarters.
Amazon’s present HQ is in Seattle but your argument applies nonetheless—Seattle and Washington State are doing the same things. Silicon Valley isn’t the development mecca it is just because of the benign climate. Stanford University and boatloads of defense spending have buoyed it along the way. In particular, Litton’s WWII defense contracts are probably the foundation of Silicon Valley. That Shockley, inventor of the transistor, moved there in the 50s was basically just an accident but that’s the reason Silicon Valley is located where it is.