More tech companies join anti-Trump battle, but why did some pay for his inauguration? More tech companies have added their names to the legal brief against President Trump's immigration ban, but some big names – including Amazon, Google and Microsoft – are facing accusations of rampant hypocrisy for funding his inauguration. On a special webpage created by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to …
A partial transcript of The Donald's early meeting with tech CEOs has emerged. This line might throw some light on why the tech leaders came out smiling:
"So it's agreed, then. You'll give me what money you can spare to make me look good, and whenever you decide to build anything or employ anyone in the USA over the next four years you'll give me credit. In return, I'll implement my immigration policies in such a haphazard and random way that they'll never stand up in court. All you have to do is challenge them, they'll be tied up for years and have no net effect. Do we have a deal?"
(Note: this is not true. The above quote is crude satire and obviously fabricated, although equally obviously it really does reflect what's going on. But please feel free, Democrats, to "leak" it, and Republicans, to blog about how Democrats are making up news.)
I expect that if you looked, you'd find many of these companies also contributed to Clinton's campaign. It's called hedging your bets. No matter who wins, you can point out you "supported" them in their run for office and now reasonably expect some quid pro quo.
Now that Trump is doing something that may affect their lucrative H1B visa program, one of several different ways Silly Valley bosses use to keep tech salaries depressed for U.S workers, they're suddenly up in arms against Trump because they see it costing them lots of additional $ in salaries, quite possibly more than any political favors they were hoping to gain from the new regime. Please don't try to convince me that any of this opposition to Trump from Silly Valley has much of anything to do with whether Trump is morally right or wrong about immigration. As far as those people are concerned, it's all about the bottom line and always will be, and they've demonstrated by their past actions that they are quite happy to sacrifice others' well being to benefit that bottom line, no matter how many billions they already have in the bank.
"one of several different ways Silly Valley bosses use to keep tech salaries depressed for U.S workers"
Smells like an angry load of bullshit you got there. I am a US Tech Worker and I've never been charging as much as I am now. And I plan to raise my rates even further! When you have actual, valuable skills, no idiot managers, or so-called "silly" policies effect me or my ilk in any way what so ever. Try being valuable sometime. You might like it. But I do see your point, lower level workers are going to get the shaft. Tough luck.
You know how I zoomed past those other mid-level morons? I am not afraid to build any new server or service, and I can build them from 1st party docs and scratch. Not from searching Google for clues from people who are not really that good. Learning == Earning. I've met so many fucknuts who "won't touch that thing because I don't know it and fear the responsibility of ownership." Or the classic; "they don't pay me extra for that."
"I am a US Tech Worker and I've never been charging as much as I am now.."
I recently posted, in another thread, my opinion on people who equate profit, especially at the expense of workers and others, with success. I think the maxim I suggested applies here.
Profit is not the sole measure of worth, yankee.
Companies are not people.Their duty is to maximise their profitability, as they are responsible to their stockholders. If they thought greasing the political wheels with donations would help their company, they would and probably should. But of course they also have to look at how public opinion affects their profitability. Tricky balancing act.
"The Billionaire 1% don't have ethics."
No shit, Sherlock. We have one of those assholes pretending to be our leader over here! The Plutocracy of the United States is still going strong. Call them Democrabs, or Repubicans, they are the same enemy of the people, funneling billions of dollars through K Street in DC to keep it that way. Bribery == Lobbying.
Blowhard is against using immigrants to displace American workers whether they are illegal or legal. So if your business model and massive profits rely on using immigrants as defacto indentured servants you are going to be upset at Blowhard. He is threatening them where it really hurts - the wallet.
Now on the flip side, the lack of indentured servants artificially depressing US wages might give more jobs and money to Americans. This might be better for the economy overall because people who have money and confidence will spend money. Also, many of the 1% fail to grasp that their long term profits are based on people being able to afford their products and services. No income means no profits.
"However on or about the time we did misplace a large canvas bag of used unmarked bills somewhere in Washington..."
Does anyone besides petty thugs or cheap spies even do that anymore?
I thought these days it was more a transfer or bitcoins from one anonymous wallet to another.
And contribute to both sides. Probably because technology companies viewed Clinton more favorably in the first place, and many expected her to win, they had donated to her campaign and probably not so much to Trump's. Donating to the inauguration is a way of making up for that. Probably they wouldn't have donated as much to Clinton's if she'd won, since they'd already curried the necessary favor.
While corporations will complain about stuff that hurts their business, most try to remain apolitical other than that. I think you'll find most back both horses in a typical election (say Obama vs Romney 4 years ago) without any reservation.
"Donating to the inauguration"
I find that quite puzzling to some extent, especially people having to buy a ticket to be allowed to attend. Surely this is a "state occasion" and therefore a federal expense to "put on a show" and anyone who wants to go should be allowed to. Ok, maybe for management or crowd control it might need to be ticketed, but they ought to be free on application, not a cost to people attending.
Is just capitalism at work? Or people with loud voices claiming their tax dollars ought not to be wasted on someone they didn't vote for?
And once again, one of Big John's alternate facts can be easily disputed with less than 5 seconds of searching on Google.
Or you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I expect there is a lot of gritted teeth amongst a fair number of US CEO's at the moment.
They know that they will have to go along with the 'great dictator' otherwise they'll feel his wrath on Twitter and that won't do their stock price any good at all.
I'm struggling with that idea too, plus, what's this money being spent on? I'd expect the biggest item is security, and you won't want to leave that to "sponsorship". Putting seats out for the VIPs and the bunting doesn't take much, and I'd expect the contracts for the food stands and portaloos to be done well before the election date.
Isn't it "H1-B visa system that tech companies rely on for *cheaper workers*"
I would believe them when they don't discriminate people based on from the come from to pay lower wages. It's ugly just like discrimination based on gender, race and religion.
But after all, these are the same companies that built a cartel to pay tech people less - so no surprise they also root for someone like Trump secretly.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark USA.
Never mind Corporate America funding the Inauguration, given The Donald's clearly expressed determination to drain the swamp of American politics in Washington why was he accepting donations in the first place, thus allowing the swamp to be topped up? Or will he claim "that he didn't know"?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
